Sitting of 6 December 1932

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Doncaster Area Drainage Bill,
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 1st day of December, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Doncaster Area Drainage Bill.

SELECTION.
Sir Henry Cautley, Captain Crook-shank, Mr. Edwards, Colonel. Gretton, Mr. Frederick Hall, Mr. Lambert, Lieut.-Colonel MacAndrew, Mr. William Nicholson, Mr. David Reid, Sir Samuel Roberts and Major Sir Murdoch McKenzie Wood nominated Members of the Committee of Selection.—[Sir Frederick Thomson.]

PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES ACT, 1930 (SCHEMES).
Ordered,
"That all Bills for confirming schemes under Section one of the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, presented during the present Session shall be set down for consideration each day in a separate list after the Private Business, or, if Bills for confirming Provisional Orders or Certificates are set down for consideration, then after those Bills, and arranged in the same order as that prescribed by the Standing Orders for Private Bills."
Ordered,
"That every Bill to confirm such a scheme which involves, or in respect of which there has been promised, a grant from any Government Department shall, on presentation to the House, have bound with it a printed statement in the form of a Financial Memorandum showing the amount of such grant."
Ordered,
"That Motions and Orders of the Day relating to Bills confirming schemes under the said Section one shall, when opposed, be dealt with in conformity with the procedure which regulates the transaction of Private Business."
Ordered,
"That on the Third Reading of any such Bill the applicants for each scheme included in the Bill shall be charged a fee of £15."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

BEER DUTY.
Mr. CLARRY: I beg leave to present a petition from the citizens of Newport. The petitioners are grievously affected by the excessive taxation on beer, and respectfully urge upon this Honourable House the necessity of an immediate and substantial reduction in this taxation. The petition is signed by more than 2,000 taxpayers in the borough of Newport.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  COAL INDUSTRY.

    MINE DISASTERS (RELIEF FUNDS).
    Mr. PARKINSONasked the Secretary for Mines whether any steps have been taken by the Government to secure the consent of the trustees of the various mine disaster funds for all the balances to be put together into one national fund for the purposes of relief in mine disasters; what is the result of his inquiries; and, if not favourable, is the Government prepared to legislate in order to accomplish this object.
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): No, Sir. I am not taking steps to deal with the question of balances. I am by no means certain that a large national fund would be better, especially from the point of view of the beneficiaries. My interest has been concentrated on the question of surpluses and the hon. Member will see from the reply I gave on the 16th November to the hon. Member for North Salford (Mr. J. P. Morris) that there is no case for considering legislation in respect of these.
    Mr. PARKINSON: Would it not be better to gather the whole of the surpluses into one common fund? I do not

    1403
    know how many surpluses there are, but there are quite a number of them. What steps can be taken to see that they are brought together to be used in one common fund?
    Mr. BROWN: My hon. Friend will find the facts set forth in an answer which was given on 16th November, of which I will send him a copy. He will realise that if there were any general legislation it could not be confined to relief funds for colliery disasters. There are arguments both for and against central funds as against local funds.
    Mr. LUNN: Will the hon. Gentleman have the return as to these colliery disasters funds which was prepared in 1925 brought up to date, so that we may know what money there is to-day in these funds?
    Mr. BROWN: In answering that question on 16th November, I pointed out that that return was obtained only by the courtesy of those concerned, and that we made inquiries about five or six relief funds since and that the position showed little change; and therefore I do not think it is necessary to take the steps suggested.

    QUOTA SYSTEM.
    Mr. DICKIEasked the Secretary for Mines if his attention has been called to the fact that the quota system, and the methods of administration thereof, are causing dissatisfaction and leading to the loss of orders in the North-Eastern coal exporting area; and whether he will consider the immediate amendment of the Act in its application to the export section of the mining industry, so as to give greater freedom to coal owners and exporters in their efforts to secure business in the markets of the world?
    Mr. E. BROWN: I am aware that there has been criticism of the operation of the quota system in Northumberland, but I understand that an additional allocation for the remainder of this quarter has been granted to the district by the Central Council. No representations have been made to me, on behalf of the coal industry as a whole, to amend the system in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. DICKIE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor promised in
    1404
    June, I think it was, an inquiry into this matter, and can he tell us whether any steps have been taken to redeem that promise?
    Mr. BROWN: I am not aware of that promise. I am aware that he was awaiting representations from the owners, who were charged with the working of the Act, as to what action should be taken to make the operation of Part 1 more effective, and I am still awaiting those representations.
    Mr. MARTIN: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there have been any direct representations to the Board of Trade apart from those through the usual channels; and whether the representations have been on the score of the fixed price rather than the quota?
    Mr. BROWN: There have been quite a number of points put to me on all sides of this question. There are many sides to it, as the hon. Member knows. Of course, until the Central Council, which is charged by Statute with the operation of the Act, makes- up its mind as to what it wants to recommend, I shall receive no recommendation s from the industry as a whole.

    EXPORT TRADE (FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND DOMINIONS).
    Mr. LUNNasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the amount of import duty on bituminous coal from Great Britain into Germany, the United States of America, Argentina, and the Netherlands?
    Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): United Kingdom coal is now free of import duty in each of the four countries mentioned.
    Mr. LUNNasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the amount of import duty levied on bituminous coal from Great Britain into Canada and also into South Africa; and whether any additional preference was secured for British coal at the Ottawa Conference?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The import duties levied on United Kingdom bituminous coal in Canada and the Union of South Africa, are 35 cents and 3s. per short ton respectively. Under the Trade Agreement with Canada, an additional preference of 10 cents per ton was

    1405
    accorded to anthracite coal from this country, in which class of coal the majority of our trade with Canada is done, but there was no increase in the preference on bituminous coal. There are practically no imports of coal into South Africa, and no tariff preference for coal was provided for in the Agreement with the Union.
    Mr. LUNN: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House how it is possible to sell British coal to British Dominions when conditions are so much against us?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: In anthracite coal, which forms the greatest proportion of our trade with Canada, we secured an actual preference, which is much more valuable than the free entry that is the position in other countries.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    AUSTRALIA (GOVERNMENT PURCHASES).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, as a consequence of the Ottawa Agreements, the Australian Government proposes to remove the premium of 20 per cent. in favour of Australian-made goods at present imposed when government purchases are made?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the DOMINIONS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The United Kingdom-Australian Trade Agreement contains no provision relating to this matter.
    Mr. MANDER: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this specific point was actually considered during the negotiations at Ottawa?
    Mr. THOMAS: No.

    PATENTS (RENEWAL FEES).
    Major PROCTERasked the President of the Board of Trade by what statutory authority the Comptroller-General of Patents has issued rules concerning the payment of renewal fees in respect to the 15th and 16th years in the life of a patent?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin)The rules prescribing payment of renewal fees in respect of the 15th and 16th years of a patent were made by the Board of
    1406
    Trade with the approval of the Treasury on the 25th February, 1920, under the authority conferred by Section 65 of the Patents and Designs Act, 1907. These fees have been continued by new rules made on the 25th October, 1932, by the Board of Trade with the approval of the Treasury under the same statutory authority.

    UNITED STATES.
    Sir JOHN WARDLAW - MILNEasked the President of the Board of Trade, if he will give the figures of the imports from and exports to the United States of America for the last 10 months in comparison with the last 10 month; of each of the previous two years, differentiating between raw materials and manufactured goods?
    Dr. BURGIN: I regret that the desired information is not available. Separate particulars of our trade in raw materials and manufactured goods with individual countries are compiled in respect of calendar years only.
    Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: Cannot my hon. Friend supply me, through the medium of the OFFICIAL REPORT, with the latest figures available? These figures are of great importance at the present time?
    Dr. BURGIN: I have the figures for the first nine months of 1930, 1931, and 1932, and perhaps I might supply them privately in the first place.
    Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House if there is not a very large trade balance in manufactured goods in favour of the United States
    Dr. BURGINI could not do that without notice.
    Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Do the figures differentiate between goods which are manufactured in the United States, assembled in Canada, and sent here as British Imperial goods, and those marked with the country of origin?
    Dr. BURGIN: I think not.

    WOOLLEN AND WORSTED GOODS (IMPORTS,AUSTRALIA).
    Mr. MALLALIEUasked the President of the Board of Trade if there has been any change in the Australian tariff

    1407
    since the conclusion of the Ottawa Agreements for the benefit of the woollen and worsted industries in this country?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Yes, Sir. The customs duties on United Kingdom woollen piece-goods, yarns and tops have been reduced. In addition, increased margins of preference are now enjoyed by various other classes of woollen and worsted goods. Full details of these changes have been published in the issues of the Board of Trade Journal for 8th September and 6th and 20th October.
    Mr. MALLALIEU: Is it not a fact that the only redemptions that have taken place are of temporary duties imposed by Mr. Scullin during the financial crisis in Australia?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I think that my hon. Friend is misinformed.
    Mr. MALLALIEUasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that woollen cloth made and invoiced in the Colne Valley at 2s. 6d. per yard costs 6s. 2d. per yard landed in Australia; and what proportion of the difference in price is due to customs and other duties payable on importation?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: In the absence of full particulars I am unable to check the figures quoted by the hon. Member. The Australian import duty on ordinary woollen piece-goods from the United Kingdom is ls. per square yard, plus 30 per cent. ad valorem, and in addition there is a primage duty of 10 per cent. ad valorem.

    IMPORT DUTIES.
    Mr. MANDERasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to implement the pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Dominion lead producers would not be allowed to exploit the British market as the result of the imposition of a duty on foreign lead?
    Dr. BURGIN: A meeting has been held at the Board of Trade of representatives of producers and consumers of lead, to discuss the situation arising out of the Ottawa Agreements. The draft of an agreement, which includes a provision in regard to price, is now under consideration.
    Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the results of the discussions will be published?
    Dr. BURGIN: I have no doubt that an opportunity will be taken, as was the case with the copper agreement, to make the agreement public when it has been signed.
    Mr. JOELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the decision of the customs and excise authorities that duty amounting to £30,000 must be paid on a collection of modern diamond jewellery which it is desired to bring over to London from Paris for an exhibition and that such sum is not returnable when the jewellery is sent back to Paris after being shown; and whether, in view of the fact that such exhibition should be of benefit to the diamond industry of the Empire, he will arrange for the decision to be reconsidered?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): My attention has been drawn to the case referred to by my hon. Friend. Customs duty at the rate of 30 per cent. ad valorem would be chargeable on the importation of jewellery in question under the provisions of the Import Duties Act, 1932, and the Additional Import Duties (No. 1) Order, 1932, and in the absence of a drawback under the Second Schedule to the Act, there is no provision in the law whereby the duty may be repaid on the exportation of the jewellery.
    Mr. JOEL: In view of the probability of a similar situation arising on future occasions, will my right hon. Friend inquire into the possibility of treating goods brought into the country for exhibition purposes as though they are in bond?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Obviously, a good many considerations will arise, and in any case legislation would be required.
    Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: Do pictures coming into the country pay duty and get no drawback, and, if so, why?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Because it is the law.
    Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will my right hon. Friend change the law?
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer considered the possibility of making the place of exhibition a constructive warehouse for the duration of the exhibition, which is permitted under the Import Duties Act?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, I have considered that, but I do not think it is practicable.

    SWEDEN.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Trade what representations the Government have made to Sweden with regard to making concessions to this country in respect of coal and textiles?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I presume the hon. Member is referring to the present tariff negotiations with Sweden. I cannot undertake to give details of the requests which have been made to the Swedish Government in this connection, but I can assure the hon. Member that the interests of coal and textile industries have not been overlooked.
    Mr. DAVIES: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman when he will be able to make a statement on the results of the negotiations?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I appreciate the hon. Member's desire to know the result of tariff negotiations, but I am not in a position to say.

    MEAT IMPORT RESTRICTIONS.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in his negotiations with respect to restrictions on the importation of meat from South American countries, any regard was paid to the fact that meat is the main export of those countries and that the Governments of those countries have certain responsibilities; if so, whether those Governments were taken into consultation; and whether their submissions were accepted or rejected?
    Dr. BURGIN: His Majesty's Government fully appreciate the interests of the meat exporting countries of South America in this matter, which is still under discussion with certain of the Governments concerned.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether, when the voluntary scheme was entered into, prior to that date, the Government
    1410
    negotiated in any way with the Governments of the exporting countries?
    Dr. BURGIN: The answer is in the affirmative.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will reply to the latter part of the question? Were those submissions of the exporting countries accepted or rejected, or was it the case that the whole of the arrangements were made ultimately through the importers of beef, and not through the Governments of the exporting countries?
    Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Gentleman, by his question, refers to a great many South American countries. With some of those countries, there were no negotiations at all; it follows that in those cases there were none with the Governments. In those cases where negotiations are proceeding at this time, matters, with certain of the Governments concerned, are still under discussion.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand from that reply that the ordinary diplomatic channels were made use of during those negotiations?
    Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Member is to understand that the Embassies of the countries concerned are in close touch with the Government Departments which are conducting negotiations.
    Mr. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that since the introduction of the meat quota importers' profits have risen at the expense of the producer; that the price per stone of eight pounds at Smithfield market on 1st November was 3s. 5d., but is now 4s., whereas the price to the producer in Buenos Aires on 1st November was 13.0 centavos, and has fallen to 12.5 centavos; whether the price to the producer of the Dominions has risen or fallen since the introduction of the quota; and whether he proposes to take action to ensure that any benefit from the operation of the quota shall accrue to the producer?
    Dr. BURGIN: I am aware that an improvement in wholesale meat prices has taken place since the introduction of the scheme for restricting imports. I have no recent official information as regards prices paid to producers in South America or the Dominions. I under

    1411
    stand, however, that prices paid to producers in the Argentine have definitely increased since the restrictions came into force, and that the figures quoted by the hon. Member do not reflect the prices of chilling cattle. As regards the Dominions, I am informed that, in Australia, so far as mutton and lamb are concerned, the increase of prices on Smithfield has been reflected in the prices paid to producers, whilst there has been some increase in the price of beef. The New Zealand season is just now opening, and I understand that, so far as can be seen, prices paid to producers are in conformity with London prices.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, if a question is put upon the Order Paper, he will be able to give us any comparable prices for two different periods from the Argentine and from some of the Dominions?
    Dr. BURGIN: I will endeavour to give what information I can.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Is it not the duty of the Government to make its first work the benefiting of the home producer rather than the foreign producer

    CANADIAN TARIFF BOARD.
    Mr. CURRYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is intended that British manufacturers shall have the right of direct access to the Canadian Tariff Board, set up in pursuance of the Ottawa Agreements, or whether their representations would have to be made through His Majesty's Government in Great Britain?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Under Article 15 of the recent Trade Agreement, United Kingdom producers will be entitled to full rights of audience before the Tariff Board when, following a request by the United Kingdom Government to the Canadian Government, it is reviewing existing protective duties in accordance with the principle set out in Article 11 of the Agreement.
    Mr. YOUNGasked the President of the Board of Trade if the Canadian Tariff Board has yet been constituted in accordance with the terms of the Ottawa Agreements; and, if so, whether it is yet open to the representations of British manufacturers?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The Tariff Board has not yet been appointed, but I understand that His Majesty's Government in Canada are taking the necessary steps to this end.
    Mr. MANDER (for Mr. YOUNG)asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of Mr. Bennett that the Canadian Government did not consider itself bound to accept the Tariff Board decisions; and whether, in view of Articles 13 and 14 of the Ottawa Agreements, His Majesty's Government will make the appropriate representations
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Curry), of which I am sending him a copy.

    DENMARK (BRITISH DELEGATION).
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is in a position to indicate what progress has been made by the British trade delegation to Denmark?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The reports of the iron and steel delegation and of the coal delegation to Denmark have not yet been received. I understand that the spirit of the discussions which took place in Copenhagen was highly satisfactory, and it is hoped that benefit will result.
    Mr. ALAN TODD: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say when the reports are likely to be received?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I expect them soon.

    MOTOR INDUSTRY (TAXATION).
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that the aggregate taxation on motor vehicles in this country as the result of the present taxation on petrol and licences is three times as much as the taxation upon motor vehicles in the United States of America; and whether, in view of the fact that any tax on fuel or transport must lower the capacity of British industry to compete in world markets, he will consider the advisability of reducing the petrol and registration tax at the earliest possible opportunity?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am prepared to accept my hon. and gallant Friend's statement as to the facts in the first part of his question; but I obviously cannot deal with the considerations referred to in the second part of the question within the limits of a Parliamentary answer, nor can I anticipate Budget decisions.

    STOCK EXCHANGE RESTRICTIONS.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can yet hold out any hope of the immediate removal of the embargo on the issues of fresh capital or the conversion of existing issues?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The embargo on issues of fresh capital applies only to issues on foreign account, and to optional conversions where a public issue or underwriting is involved. I fear that I can add nothing to the answer which I gave on the 15th November to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis). I think it will be generally appreciated that the present is not an opportune moment for making any change in the existing arrangements.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: How much longer will the right hon. Gentleman find it necessary to continue bolstering up the price of gilt-edged securities?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not accept the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion. The question as to when any changes may be made must obviously depend on the circumstances and conditions that exist.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: If that is not the object, what is the object?
    Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Has my right hon. Friend any information that reputable undertakings are suffering from a shortage of new capital which will justify him in immediately removing the embargo
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether my hon. Friend refers to foreign issues.
    Sir A. M. SAMUEL: No, home issues.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I am not aware of that fact.

    IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade when he
    1414
    hopes to publish a White Paper showing the details of the increased preference accorded to United Kingdom goods in Empire countries as a consequence of the Ottawa Agreements?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The concessions secured for United Kingdom goods under the Ottawa Agreements are set out in Command Paper 4174. The details of the changes made from time to time in the tariffs of Overseas Empire countries in order to give effect to the Agreements are published in the Board of Trade Journal as they are made. In these circumstances my right hon. Friend does not as at present advised contemplate the issue of a White Paper.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say when full details of the Australian changes will be available?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Not without notice.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    FOREIGN WORKERS (ENTRY PERMITS).
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the President of the Board of Trade, (1) if he will say for what reason he advised the refusal of permits for the admission, for 12 months only, of two German workmen to instruct British workers in the use of machinery which a German firm proposed to establish at Slough for the manufacture of glass tubes, in view of the fact that the products of this firm in Germany have been imported by prominent British wholesale houses for upwards of 30 years and that one of these houses expressed in writing its intention to continue its orders to the German firm, whether it established a factory in Slough or not; and whether, in view of the effect of this refusal on employment at Slough and since it tends to establish a monopoly to the detriment of the British consumer, he will reconsider his decision;
    (2) how many applications for permits of entry for foreign workers for limited periods with the object of instructing British workers in particular processes have been refused on the advice of the Board of Trade?
    Dr. BURGIN: The views of the Board of Trade on any industrial considerations that arise with regard to applications for permits to employ alien labour are avail

    1415
    able to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour whenever he requires them, but I cannot, of course, say to what extent, if at all, his decision in a particular case to grant or to refuse permits may have been based upon those views or upon other considerations. With regard to the second question, I would refer to the reply which was given yesterday to the hon. Member for West Derby (Sir J. Sandeman Allen). Applications for the employment of alien labour have to be decided by the Minister of Labour, and any question regarding them should be addressed to him.
    Sir A. KNOX: Will the hon. Gentleman not allow that the refusal by the Ministry of Labour was on the advice of the Board of Trade, and does he realise that owing to this refusal 30 men and women in my constituency are now idle who would otherwise be employed; and that by taking these dictatorial powers the Board of Trade tend to set up a monopoly in this country and prevent reasonable competition?
    Dr. BURGIN: I think my hon. and gallant Friend must not assume that the decision was based on advice tendered by the Board of Trade. As to the second part of his supplementary question, the information in the possession of the President of the Board of Trade shows no likelihood of any monopoly in glass tubes and tubing.
    Sir A. KNOX: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question at the first opportunity.

    POOR LAW RELIEF (WAGE CONTRIBUTIONS).
    Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Minister of Health whether he will give particulars of arrangements, made under the auspices of his Department, between boards of guardians and rural district councils under which persons suffering from unemployment have been engaged in road work on a payment from the guardians to the councils on an agreed scale towards the wages of the men concerned; and whether these arrangements have been extended or curtailed?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend is informed that, before the boards of
    1416
    guardians were abolished, there were arrangements in 12 unions for contributions by boards of guardians towards the wages of men who, having applied for relief, were given employment on roads by rural district councils. Under the Local Government Act of 1929 the county councils have become the highway authorities in rural areas, and the arrangements with rural district councils have, therefore, ceased.
    Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it not the case that, in the 12 instances which the hon. Gentleman has quoted, the arrangement worked satisfactorily and gave employment to a number of men; and cannot the Minister of Health arrange with the county councils who have now taken the place of the boards of guardians to continue and extend the system?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The general policy is contrary to the policy laid down by my right hon. Friend.
    Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: If, in fact, the system did give employment, cannot the Minister reconsider his policy?
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not the fact that for many years past, since 1886, acting on the circular issued by the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, local authorities have again and again been invited to do this exact thing by the predecessors of the present Minister of Health; and why cannot it be done now?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: That may be so, but there are obvious objections and the question of the subsidising of wages is involved, which cannot be debated now. For these and other reasons, the present policy of my right hon. Friend is against such a course.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to read over again the circular issued by the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain on that subject, and the numberless circulars issued by other Ministers of Health and presidents of the Local Government Board?
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is it not the case that certain county councils are now considering this matter especially with a view to helping agricultural labourers who are out of work; and are we to understand that the Minister of Health is going to oppose such proposals

  COPYRIGHT ACT, 1911 (TRINITYCOLLEGE, DUBLIN).
  Captain HUNTERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether His Majesty's Government will be prepared, in view of the present position of the Irish Free State, to consider the desirability of amending Section 15 (2) of the Copyright Act, 1911, so that publishers should no longer be under obligation to deliver copies to the library of Trinity College, Dublin?
  Dr. BURGIN:I see no sufficient reason at present to take steps to modify the statutory requirement to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, especially having regard to the reciprocal obligations under which publishers in the Free State supply copies to institutions in this country.
  Captain HUNTER: Is my hon. Friend aware of the very heavy obligation which this is on British publishers in view of the heavy duty payable on imports of foreign publications into the Irish Free State?
  Dr. BURGIN: Yes, I am aware of that fact.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    15TH/19TH HUSSARS.
    Lieut.-Colonel APPLINasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the amalgamation of the 15th King's Hussars with the 19th Royal Hussars and the disappearance of the latter regiment from the Army List involves the reduction of the cavalry by one regiment on mobilisation; and, if so, whether the sanction of Parliament will be obtained for such reduction?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The recent change in title of the 15th/19th Hussars does not involve any reduction on mobilisation; and the second part of the question therefore does not arise.
    Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman how a regiment which has disappeared from the Army List can be resurrected afterwards? Where will it be shown in the Army List?
    Mr. COOPER: That question does not arise out of the question.

    REMOUNTS.
    Colonel CLIFTON BROWNasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, since the imposition of the special duties upon horses exported to this country from the Irish Free State, the War Office has obtained the bulk of its supplies of remounts within Great Britain; and, if so, whether the standard of the remounts now being purchased is equally good and the cost no greater?
    Mr. COOPER: Since the imposition of the special duties, 330 remounts have been purchased, of which 198 have been obtained in Great Britain and the remainder in Northern Ireland. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

    MARRIED QUARTERS, ST. JOHN'S WOOD.
    Captain CUNNINGHAM - REIDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the War Department owns any freehold or leasehold property in such parts of Queen's Terrace, N.W.8, or elsewhere in the vicinity of the Royal Artilllery Barracks, St. John's Wood, as arc from time to time occupied by troops; if so, at what date and for what purposes such property was acquired; and if it is intended to form part of any rebuilding scheme in connection with the Artillery Barracks?
    Mr. COOPER: Number 8 to number 26, Queen's Terrace, St. John's Wood, are held by the Department on long lease, and were acquired in 1919 for use as married quarters. The question of the reconstruction of this property is under consideration.

  CONVICTION AND SENTENCE, SHETTLESTON.
  Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that Bartholomew Slowey, of Shettleston, was sentenced on 19th November to 30 days' imprisonment for stealing two cwts. of coal from a refuse dump and whether, seeing that this man had been out of work for three years and had eight children, one of whom was ill with pneumonia at the time, he will reconsider this case with a view to remission of the sentence?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The answer to the first part of the question

  1419
  is in the affirmative. I have made inquiry and find that Slowey pleaded guilty, the dump in question being a colliery refuse bing. Numerous complaints have been made to the police regarding thefts of coal from this bing, and this is Slowey's fifth conviction since May, 1930, for stealing coal. In the circumstances, and in view of Slowey's repeated offences, I do not feel justified in advising any interference with the sentence. I may add that Slowey was in receipt of parish relief amounting, for his household, to 35s. per week, and that his imprisonment will not deprive his family of their right to relief.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Secretary of State for Scotland aware that, while it is true that Slowey had 35s. a week, he had a wife and eight children, and that, as stated in the question, he had a child lying ill with pneumonia when he stole two bags of coal? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman again to consider this case, with a view to remitting the sentence and allowing the man to go to his wife and children?
  Sir G. COLLINS: I may mention to the hon. Member that I took all those facts into consideration before drafting my reply this morning, and, in view of the four previous convictions, I feel that the course of justice in this case cannot be overruled by us.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Secretary of State for Scotland aware that the charges which have been brought previously against this man were for stealing coal to keep his children warm during this inclement weather?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Haydn Jones.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Owing to the unsatisfactory reply, I will raise this business to-night.

  TITHE RENTCHARGE, WALES.
  Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the annual amount of tithe received by the Welsh Church Commissioners from each of the Welsh dioceses, who collect such tithe in each diocese, and the amount of commission paid each collector?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): As the answer to the question is somewhat long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  The areas of the different Agencies for the collection of the Tithe Rentcharge payable to the Welsh Church Commissioners do not strictly correspond with those of the dioceses.
  Messrs. David & David, of Cardiff, collect the tithe rentcharge for the whole of the dioceses of Llandaff and Monmouth and part of Swansea, and Brecon, amounting to approximately £58,600 commuted value. They are paid 5 per cent. on moneys actually collected by them, with an additional 1½ per cent. in respect of tithe rentcharge arising out of Urban areas.
  Messrs. James Thomas & Son, of Haverfordwest, collect the tithe rent-charges of the whole of the diocese of St. Davids, together with a part of the diocese of Swansea and Brecon, amounting to approximately £48,200 commuted value, and are paid a commission of 5 per cent. on the amounts collected.
  Messrs. Cleaver & Son, of St. Asaph, collect the tithe rentcharge of the greater part of the diocese of St. Asaph and a small part of the diocese of Bangor, amounting to approximately £62,400 commuted value, and are paid a commission of 4 per cent. on moneys collected.
  Messrs. Boscawen & Richmond, of Wrexham, collect the tithe rentcharge of the greater part of the diocese of Bangor and a small part of the diocese of St. Asaph, amounting approximately to £36,800 commuted value. They are paid a commission of 4 per cent. on the amounts actually collected.
  Messrs. Cleaver & Son and Messrs. Boscawen & Richmond are paid 4 per cent. only, as all work in connection with rates and taxes on tithe rentcharge in North Wales is done in the Commissioners' Head Office.

  TOTE CLUBS.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Home Secretary if he is now in a position

  1421
  to make any statement with regard to the problems arising from the recent growth of tote clubs throughout the country?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply given to questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Streatham (Sir W. Lane Mitchell) and Dudley (Mr. Joel) on the 24th November last.
  Mr. DAVIES: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when it may be possible to make some announcement on this very simple issue, and to give some information as to his decision?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a case pending. I think it very probable that a decision in that case may be reached this week, or, at any rate, at an early date.

  POST OFFICE.

    RADIOTELEGRAMS (SURCHARGE).
    Mr. TURTONasked the Post-master-General if he is aware that, since the suspension of the Gold Standard by Great Britain, a surcharge of 30 per cent. has been charged on radiotelegrams sent from a British ship to a Colonial ship and on all radiotelegrams sent from British ships to Colonial stations; and whether he will take the necessary steps to secure the abolition of this surcharge in all cases where in the Colony or Dominion involved the Gold Standard is suspended?
    The POSTMASTER-GENIERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): The accounus for radio-telegrams exchanged between ships registered in the United Kingdom and the ships and coast stations of the Dominions and Colonies are settled on a gold basis. The authorised surcharge is intended to enable the ships to meet this requirement, and is subject to variation. In present circumstances it would hardly be possible to include all the Dominions and Colonies in a special scheme for settlement in sterling instead of gold; and, as any change would result in a loss of revenue, the balance of advantage seems to rest at present with the existing uniform arrangement.

    POST OFFICE BOARD.
    Mr. ALAN TODD (for Mr. HALLCAINE)asked the Postmaster-General whether any persons have yet been
    1422
    appointed to the Board of Post Office Directors other than permanent officials of the Department; and, if not, when it is intended to make such appointments?
    Sir K. WOOD: As I have already stated, the Government have accepted the unanimous recommendation of Lord Bridgeman's Committee that there should be established a Post Office Board representative of the various Post Office functions. As a, preliminary step, discussions are now taking place with the Treasury as to the financial relationship of the Post Office to the Exchequer upon which the financial duties of the Board will depend.

    COMMISSIONERS OF ASSIZE.
    Mr. LINDSAYasked the Attorney-General upon how many days since 1st October, 1931, to the latest convenient date, commissioners of assize have sat upon all circuits, and the total cost, including travelling, subsistence, etc.?
    The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): During the year from the 1st October, 1931, to the 30th September, 1932, Commissioners of Assize have spent 98 days on circuit. This figure includes some days on which there was no actual sitting, but I have not been able to ascertain the exact number in the time available. The total cost was £1,240 9s. 5d.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: Has my right hon. and learned Friend yet considered the question of the appointment of two more judges
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That is not a question upon which it would be proper for me to express an opinion. I have previously promised to report to the Lord Chancellor questions that have been addressed to me regarding it.
    Mr. TURTON: Do these figures include the King's Counsel on circuit who are asked to take the position of Commissioner temporarily?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No, Sir,
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Arising from the words in the last part of the question:
    "including travelling, subsistence, etc.,"
    I would like to know if these gentlemen are on the means test? It is as right that they should be on the means test as it is that the unemployed should be.

    KING'S BENCH DIVISION.
    Mr. LINDSAYasked the Attorney-General the number of cases (excluding appeals to the divisional court) awaiting trial in the King's Bench Division at the beginning of the Michaelmas terms, 1931 and 1932, and at the latest convenient date, respectively?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The figures for which the hon. Member asks are 1,291 at Michaelmas, 1931; 1,212 at Michaelmas, 1932; and 991 on the 4th December, 1932.

    POLAND AND LITHUANIA.
    Captain CUNNINGHAM-REIDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Polish Lithuanian frontier is at present closed; and whether the Government is prepared to make such representations as may bring this matter before the League of Nations under the provisions of the Covenant of the League dealing with disputes between nations?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir; the matter has occupied the attention of the League on several occasions; but I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by raising it afresh at Geneva at the present moment. Certain British interests, however, having recently represented to His Majesty's Government that their business was hindered by the interruption of river traffic between Poland and Lithuania, His Majesty's Ambassador at Warsaw and His Majesty's Minister at Riga were instructed to inquire of the Polish and Lithuanian Governments respectively whether they would be willing to agree to the resumption of this traffic on certain terms. The Lithuanian Government are understood to be favourable in principle; and I am at present awaiting a report from Warsaw.
    Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: Arising out of the first part of the answer, does not the Minister agree that the closing of frontiers indicates a dispute between nations; and, arising out of the second part, is the House to understand that Articles 12 to 17 of the Covenant of the League are now a dead letter?
    Mr. EDEN: I could not agree to the second part of my hon. and gallant
    1424
    Friend's supplementary question. As to the first part, I do not think I could reply as to the effect of the closing of frontiers on international relations in answer to a question put without notice.

    BOLIVIA AND PARAGUAY.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position in Chaco with regard to the dispute between Bolivia and Paraguay?
    Mr. EDEN: I understand that direct negotiations between Bolivia and Paraguay have been opened in Washington under the auspices of the Commission of Neutrals. Meanwhile hostilities have not been interrupted, and on the 25th November last the Council of the League of Nations addressed an appeal to the two Governments to put an immediate stop to them, and to give the necessary facilities to the Military Commission which on the 22nd September the Commission of Neutrals had suggested should be despatched to observe the execution of their proposal for the suspension of hostilities. At the same time the Council notified the Commission of Neutrals of its action and suggested that the proposed Military Commission should be constituted immediately and should proceed at once to carry out its duties. I have no information of the manner in which these communications were received either by the Governments of Bolivia and Paraguay or by the Commission of Neutrals.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
    Mr. DAVID ADAMSasked the Minister of Health if he is able to state the number of women married, single, or widowed, respectively, insured under the National Health Insurance Acts for each of the preceding five years?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The number of married women insured under the National Health Insurance Acts is only obtained for the purposes of the valuation of the assets and liabilities of approved societies. At the time of the Second Valuation (1922–1923) there were 4,844,014 women in normal insurance, of whom 928,126 were married, and 3,915,888 were spinsters or widows. For the Third Valuation (1927–1929) the corresponding figures were 1,132,244 married women, and 4,294,877 spinsters or widows.

    GOVERNMENT WORKS (CANADIAN TIMBER).
    Mr. BOSSOMasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will issue instructions that in future the soft wood used in building contracts entered into by his Department shall be Canadian, and that the standard Canadian sizes of such timber shall be accepted in place of the corresponding but slightly larger European sizes?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I am advised that there will shortly be available in this country Canadian soft woods which can be regarded as adequate substitutes for the European soft woods normally used at present for carpentry and internal joinery for building purposes. I am also advised that there is no technical objection to the standard Canadian sizes in which this timber will be imported, being used in place of the corresponding, but slightly larger, European sizes. I am, accordingly, giving instructions that, in all major building contracts for which my Department obtains tenders after May, 1933, it shall be specified that the soft wood used for carpentry and internal joinery (except in a certain number of cases where a special finish is required) shall be from Canadian or other approved Empire sources, and that where Canadian wood is used the standard Canadian sizes will be accepted.
    Mr. D. GRENFELL: Is the Department nullifying the effect of these good intentions by slowing down building?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Not at all.
    Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Is the decision of the right hon. Gentleman to be regardless of the cost of the timber?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, this is a specific act of Imperial preference.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: Regardless of cost?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I must have notice of that question.
    Mr. REMERM: While appreciating the answer to the full, will the right hon. Gentleman be careful to see that the concession that he has given will be confined to British Columbian timber and will not include East Canadian timber?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Certainly not. It will be open to all Canadian or Empire timbers generally, including homegrown.
    Mr. REMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman confine the concession to timber of the strength that is necessary? That is not the case with Eastern Canadian timber.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am not satisfied with that. I am advised that not only in British Columbia but in other parts of the Empire the wood is sufficiently good.
    Mr. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the price of the soft Canadian timber?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The question of price always comes in, but I have provided that, in the major work carried out by my Department, tenders will be on the basis that Empire timber shall be used.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: Are we to understand that the cost is not taken into account?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: If the cost were raised unreasonably against my Department by this concession, the concession would have to be considered, but I want to be quite clear that cost is not going to be the only consideration.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give the House any figures showing the quantity of Canadian timber that he will be able to use in substitution for Northern European timber Is he aware that only a very small proportion of the Canadian product will be suitable?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The right hon. Gentleman knows that hitherto there have not been visible and available sufficient Canadian supplies to make this concession with safety, and that is why it has not been done hitherto, but now I have been advised that sufficient Canadian supplies are forthcoming. Accordingly, I am introducing this into the Department.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS (PROCEDURE).
    Captain CUNNINGHAM - REIDasked the Prime Minister if he proposes to take any steps to bring into force the recommendations contained in, the report of the Select Committee on-Procedure?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): I have been asked to reply. At the moment my right hon. Friend is unable to make any statement on this matter.
    Mr. DENMAN: Would the Government have any objection to allowing the Estimates Committee to consider questions of policy?
    Captain MARGESSON: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question on the Paper.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    GOLD STANDARD.
    Mr. WHYTEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, before any decision to return to the Gold Standard is taken, the House will have an opportunity of debating the question; and if reasonable notice will be given in order to ensure that business houses making forward contracts will not be penalised?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would suggest to my hon. Friend that it is altogether premature to enter into the topics which he has raised at the present time.

    LIQUOR TAXES.
    Mr. CHALMERSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the total revenue from liquor taxes in 1931 and in 1932, for the last convenient period, was yielded by clubs and their sales?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. CHALMERSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the total revenue of the country was yielded by the taxation of liquor in 1931 and in 1932 during the latest convenient period?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If what my hon. Friend has in mind is the proportion of liquor taxation to Budget revenue, the percentages for the first seven months of the years 1931 and 1932 are 19.62 in each case. If he means the proportion of liquor taxation to tax revenue, the figures are 24.35 and 23.21.
    Mr. CHALMERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman, when considering his next Budget, take some steps to diminish the excessive taxation of one single industry?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot anticipate the Budget statement.

    FRENCH WAR DEBT.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the French Government have indicated any intention as to the payment of the instalment of their debt to us due next March?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It was arranged at the Lausanne Conference that payment of the War debts due to this country should be suspended until the coming into force of the Lausanne Agreement or until it has been decided not to ratify that Agreement. At the present stage, therefore, no question arises as regards payment of the next instalment due on the French War Debt to this country.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that we have no claim upon the French Government for the money that they owe us, and that the Lausanne Agreement still stands, in spite of the fact that we have to pay America?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must appreciate that the question is at present in suspense. It is awaiting one or other of the two contingencies that I have mentioned, either that the Lausanne Agreement can be ratified or that a decision is reached that it will not be ratified.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see to it that we do not sacrifice our rights.

    NATIONAL DEBT.
    Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total figure of the National Debt at 31st March, 1932; and what debts other than those due to war are included, with the approximate amounts thereof?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The total of the deadweight National Debt on the 31st March, 1932, was £7,434,000,000. Owing to the various operations for the repayment and conversion of debt which have taken place from time to time, it would be impossible to say how much of the present net total is due to causes other than war.

    UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).
    Captain P. MACDONALD(by Private Notice) asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that two members of the British Parliament have been invited to express the views of Great Britain with regard to the debts question before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Government; whether the evidence to be given by these individuals will in any respect be of an official nature; and, if not, whether he will take the necessary steps to inform the United States Government of this fact, and of the consequential undesirability of the evidence being heard?
    Mr. EDEN: I presume that the hon. and gallant Member refers to reports which appeared in the daily Press of the 5th December. According to the information I have received, these reports were inaccurate and the last two parts of the question do not therefore arise. I take this opportunity, however, of making it clear that no Member of either House of Parliament has been authorised by His Majesty's Government to discuss with the Foreign Affairs Committee of the United States Senate, the question of the payments due from His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to the Government of the United States in respect of war debts.

  STATIONERY OFFICE PUBLICA TIONS.
  Captain HUNTERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that prospectuses advertising books, unofficial in character, are being distributed to the public by His Majesty's Stationery Office, Shepherdess Walk, City Road, N.1, through the post as official documents without being stamped; and whether he will take steps to see that the Stationery Office do not engage in any way in general publishing business?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: All books published by the Stationery Office are official publications and the prospectuses which it issues refer only to its own publications. The second part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

  MERCANTILE MARINE (CREWS).
  Mr. LOGANasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of lascars employed in the mercantile marine, and the amount paid into the special fund for seamen during the years 1930 and 1931?
  Dr. BURGIN: The number of lascars, British subjects and foreigners, employed on the 31st March, 1930, and the 26th April, 1931, in sea-trading vessels registered at ports in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands, was 52,682 and 49,125 respectively. The amount paid into the special fund for seamen, known as the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund, was £86,154 in 1930, and £73,703 in 1931.
  Mr. LOGAN: Is it not a fact that the 101,807 who are called Britishers are not really living in England, and, in view of our home troubles, is it not possible to make some arrangement with the Board of Trade so that 101,807 of our own British people may be employed?
  Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Member had better put the question on the Paper. Quite a number of these lascars are British subjects.
  Mr. LOGANasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of non-British subjects employed in the mercantile marine; and whether any action is being taken to ensure that British crews are employed on British ships?
  Dr. BURGIN: The number of seamen employed in British ships is ascertained only at a date when a census of seamen is taken, and the latest information available relates to 26th April, 1931. On that date the number of foreign seamen, other than lascars, employed in sea-trading vessels registered at ports in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands was 11,204, representing 8.6 per cent. of the total number of seamen employed. The number of lascars who were not of British nationality is not known. I am not aware of any further action that can usefully be taken to ensure that British crews are employed on British ships.
  Mr. LOGAN: In view of the unemployment among British sailors and the fact that in many of these cases the sailors

  1431
  are not British, cannot the Board of Trade make representations that British ships should ship British crews?
  Dr. BURGIN: The percentage of foreign seamen is steadily falling each year. In 1929 it was 8 per cent., in 1930 7.4 per cent., and in 1931 it was 6.6 per cent. I think that the point of the hon. Member is largely being met by the facts.
  Mr. LOGAN: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that in respect of this particular case Chinese crews are being shipped by British firms and that British crews are being discharged? I am interested simply and solely as representing a port, because I want to ensure a chance being given to British seamen of employment on British ships instead of their being on the rates.
  Dr. BURGIN: A number of the Chinese in question are also British subjects.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT.
  Mr. ROSBOTHAM (for Mr. POTTER)asked the Home Secretary whether, with a view to expediting the coming into operation of draft orders giving effect to the wishes of the electors of any particular district, as expressed by a poll, for the Sunday opening of cinemas, he will introduce amending legislation in connection with the Sunday Entertainments Act?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not aware that there has been any delay in seeking Parliamentary approval for the draft orders which have been submitted to me, and I see no reason for introducing amending legislation as suggested.

  TRADE BOARDS ACT (LINEN INDUSTRY).
  Mr. JOHN WALLACEasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the handicap to which the Scottish linen industry is being subjected in competition with Northern Ireland, on account of the fact that the flax and hemp trade board, which governs wages and labour conditions in the linen industry in Scotland, is not operative in Ireland; whether he is aware of the number of linen factories in Scotland which have recently closed down; and whether he will
  1432
  make inquiries as to the possibility of a temporary suspension of the flax and hemp trade board in Scotland?
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): I have no power of temporary suspension, and I can withdraw the Trade Boards Acts from the linen trade only upon evidence that conditions have been so altered as to render a trade board unnecessary. No such evidence has been submitted to me. I am aware of the depression prevailing in this trade, but I should point out that the question whether the level at which wages have been fixed is such as to constitute a handicap is a matter for the trade board; the matter is, I understand, to come before the board at a meeting on 15th December.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the effect of this question being put into operation would mean that the wages in Scotland would be lowered to the level of their competitors in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. SOMERSET: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Northern Ireland we have a trade board for the making-up section of the industry functioning quite satisfactorily to both employers and employés; and does not he think that the reason why so many factories in Scotland are closing, is that probably they are not as up to date as they are in Northern Ireland?
  Sir H. BETTERTON: The position with regard to Ireland is that this trade board was withdrawn, I understand, in 1922 by the Government of Northern Ireland. With regard to the question put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), I think that in the circumstances it would be better if he repeated it, or spoke to me after the 15th December when the meeting takes place. I have nothing whatever to do with the matter until the meeting has taken place.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not a fact that the main point of the question is that the trade board in Scotland is keeping wages up, while without a trade board in Northern Ireland wages are lower?
  Sir H. BETTERTON: I have no jurisdiction whatever over Northern Ireland, and I gather from the question that wages in Scotland are higher than in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. MAXTON: May we take it that it is not the policy of His Majesty's Government to lower wages in all parts of the Empire to the level of the lowest?
  Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes, Sir.
  Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Have not the wages boards simply prevented people very often from getting employment?

  WARREN HASTINGS (WEST-MINSTER HALL TABLET).
  Mr. CAMPBELL(by Private Notice) asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the fact that widespread celebrations are taking place today of the 200th anniversary of the birth of Warren Hastings, he is not of opinion that the time has come to amend the inscription on the tablet in the floor of Westminster Hall with a view to recording, in addition to the mere fact of Warren Hastings' trial, the fact of his acquittal?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am prepared to give favourable consideration to the proposal, with which I have some sympathy, on receiving details of the amendments proposed.
  Mr. McENTEE: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any request from Warren Hastings himself?
  Mr. DENMAN: Cannot we rely on the schools to provide this information?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think the present inscription merely records the fact of the trial and says nothing of its duration or its result. It is rather inadequate in view of the fact that a large number of schools read the inscriptions in Westminster Hall. Of the inscriptions this is the least informative in giving any historical facts.
  Mr. LOGAN: Before the right hon. Gentleman is inclined to spend any money in regard to this inscription, does he feel satisfied that on the impeachment of Warren Hastings the acquittal was justified?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The facts are on record. As regards the question of expense, I understand that there will be no charge on public funds whatever and that the cost of the alterations will be defrayed by generous donors.
  Mr. BURNETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to add to the inscription in connection with William Wallace?
  Mr. MAXTON: He was not acquitted.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Chamberlain,.]
The House divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 33.

Division No. 17.]

AYES.

[3.45 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Cranborne, Viscount

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds. W.)

Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

Crooke, J. Smedley

Applln, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

Campbell. Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)

Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

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

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Crossley, A. C.

Atholl, Duchess of

Carver, Major William H.

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Culverwell, Cyril Tom

Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

Castle Stewart, Earl

Curry, A. C.

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Davles, Edward C. (Montgomery)

Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)

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

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Bernays, Robert

Chalmers, John Rutherford

Dickie, John P.

Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Donner, P. W.

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Dower, Captain A. V. G.

Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

Christie, James Archibald

Drewe, Cedric

Blindell, James

Clarke, Frank

Duckworth. George A. V.

Bossom, A. C.

Clarry, Reginald George

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Boulton, W. W.

Clayton, Dr. George C.

Dunglass, Lord

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Colfox, Major William Philip

Eden, Robert Anthony

Broadbent, Colonel John

Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

Elliot, Major Rt. Hon, Walter E.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)

Conant, R. J. E.

Elmley. Viscount

Browne, Captain A. C.

Cook, Thomas A.

Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Cooper, A. Duff

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

Copeland, Ida

Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

Burnett, John George

Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

Fermoy, Lord

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

Ropner, Colonel L.

Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin

Llewellin, Major John J.

Rosbotham, S. T.

Fox, Sir Gifford

Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Fremantle, Sir Francis

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n)

Ruggies-Brise, Colonel E. A.

Fuller, Captain A. G.

Locker-Lampson, Com.O. (H'ndsw'th)

Runge, Norah Cecil

Ganzoni, Sir John

Mabane, William

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

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

Salmon, Major Isidore

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

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

Salt, Edward W.

Glossop, C. W. H.

McKie, John Hamilton

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

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

Goff, Sir Park

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Sandeman. Sir A. N. Stewart

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Magnay, Thomas

Scone, Lord

Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

Maitland, Adam

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Granville, Edgar

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Grimston, R. V.

Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

Slater, John

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

Martin, Thomas B.

Smith. Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

May how. Lieut.-Colonel John

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

Hamilton. Sir R.W.(Orkney & Z'tl'nd)

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Somerset. Thomas

Hanley, Dennis A.

Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Hartland, George A.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

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

Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

Stewart, William J.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

Stones, James

Heligers, Captain F. F. A.

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

Strauss, Edward A.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Muirhead, Major A. J.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

Nation. Brigadier-General J. J. H

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

Holdsworth, Herbert

Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

Tate, Mavis Constance

Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

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

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Hornby, Frank

North, Captain Edward T.

Thompson, Luke

Horobin, Ian M.

Ormsby-Gore. Rt. Hon. William G.A

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

Horsbrugh, Florence

Peake, Captain Osbert

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Pearson, William G.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

Percy, Lord Eustace

Turton, Robert Hugh

Hunter. Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Hurd, Sir Percy

Petherick, M.

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilstoni

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Iveagh, Countess of

Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

Potter, John

Wells. Sydney Richard

James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Jennings, Roland

Pybus, Percy John

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

Womersley, Walter James

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

Ker. J. Campbell

Ramsden, E.

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Kerr. Hamilton W.

Rathbone, Eleanor

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Rea, Walter Russell

Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Knight, Holford

Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

Knox, Sir Alfred

Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.

Law. Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

Remer, John R.

Lees-Jones, John

Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

NOES.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

Grithffis, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

McEntee, Valentine L.

Banfield, John William

Grundy, Thomas W.

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Batey, Joseph

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

Maxton, James

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

Hall. George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Parkinson, John Allen

Buchanan. George

Hicks, Ernest George

Price, Gabriel

Cape, Thomas

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

Thorne, William James

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Daggar, George

Kirkwood, David

Williams. Edward John (Ogmore)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Edwards, Charles

Logan, David Gilbert

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

Lunn. William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Gas Undertakings (Basic Prices),—That they have appointed a Committee consisting of Five Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons as a Joint Committee on Gas Undertakings (Basic Prices), and request the Commons to
1436
appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with the said Lords, and they propose that the Joint Committee do meet in Committee Room No. 4, House of Lords, on Tuesday next, at Eleven o'clock.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 5th December].
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

  LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.

    CLAUSE 21.—(Restriction on power of manufacture.)
    Mr. PARKINSON: I beg to move, in page 31, line 28, to leave out the words "omnibus bodies," and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "rolling stock, vehicles, appliances or apparatus."
    3.52 p.m.
    This Amendment is more restricted in character than the Amendment I moved yesterday. Under the Bill the board are compelled to purchase the repair shops of the London General Omnibus Company at Chiswick and subsidiary undertakings, but restricts them in the use which they can make of the repair shops they have to buy. It is unfair to the board to compel them to buy a particular part of a business and not permit them to put the part they have to buy into full operation. The number of omnibus bodies which they can manufacture under this Clause is not up to the full capacity of the works at Chiswick, which are quite up to date, and it also excludes the whole output of the works at Teddington. This restriction on the operations of the board was made at the request of omnibus bodies manufacturers. It was wrong. It has enabled them to compel the board to buy from private contractors omnibus bodies which the London General Omnibus Company and Messrs. Tilling were perfectly able to manufacture for themselves at their own works. There are one or two questions I want to put to the Government. Why is this restriction applied to the board? Is it in order to retard their usefulness? Is it in order to cripple their activities; to hold them back from carrying out to the full the great duties imposed upon them? Is there a conflict of private interests as against the interests of the community? I wan', to know whether the financial interests of a few are to be allowed to override the progress and the success of the board?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): It seems to me that the hon.
    1442
    Member is now dealing with a later Amendment on the Order Paper; and I should like to know whether that is the case. The Amendment before the Committee is to leave out the words "omnibus bodies" in order to ascertain whether the board shall he allowed to manufacture other articles; but his argument is more appropriate to a later Amendment.
    Mr. PARKINSON: I am moving the first Amendment, and I am only asking a few questions now in order to elicit information on particular points which will come up for discussion later. I was asking whether the financial interests of a few were to be allowed to override the interests of the board and to retard the progress and success of the scheme. In justice to the board they should be permitted to carry on these works up to their full capacity, just as they were at the time when the agreement was made with the late Minister of Labour. If that was the case progress would be made. Moreover, it is convenient to combine a repair shop with the manufacture of omnibus bodies. They are not separate operations; they run together, and help each other both in the matter of cost and efficiency. There is also the point of view of the workpeople concerned to be considered. The restriction in the Clause is to be regretted because it must mean a reduction in the number of people employed. Of course, the number of people who are thus put out of work will be calculated in the figures of unemployment, and I think this Committee will regret to see this morning that the number in that direction has increased to a very alarming extent. We ought not, therefore, to do anything to cause a further number to be added to the unemployed, and this does mean increasing the number of people out of work.
    Then the question arises whether these people should be made the victims of the motor-body manufacturers. I think that they ought not to be. It is possible, though it is not certain, that dismissed workmen may be compensated under the Bill. If that were so, it would be drawing upon public finance in order to satisfy the interests and the desires of the motor-body manufacturers. I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment, because I consider it necessary that the board should have the power for which we ask. I think that they ought to be

    1443
    given all the powers possible in the way of manufacture and running the workshops from the best utilitarian point of view to which the board can apply them. We are not asking for a great thing, but it is something which would be in conformity with the agreements which were made first of all.
    There is also the question of the reduction of staff employed at Chiswick. That must be regarded by every Member of the Committee, and particularly from the trade union point of view, because the London General Omnibus Company has always been understood to be one of the best employers in this kind of work, and if the Chiswick works have to be closed down, it will not only throw people on the Unemployment Fund, but will rob many people of what has always been regarded as a very good position for work. We feel that the board ought neither to be fettered nor over-ruled by the private interests in this matter. They ought to be given power to operate in the direction which they believe to be right, in order to meet their requirements in the great undertaking which they have in hand.
    4.4 p.m.
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): The effect of this Amendment, together with the Amendments which follow, would be to empower the board to continue to use any premises that were used before the date of the transfer by the undertakings to be transferred to the board for the manufacture of rolling stock, vehicles, appliances or apparatus which they require. To accept this Amendment would reverse the decision which the Committee arrived at on Clause 3. It would give the board, in fact, the power to manufacture anything which they liked to manufacture. The whole question as to the powers to be conferred upon the board with regard to manufacture formed the subject of considerable discussion before the Joint Committee by counsel representing the various interests concerned. We have carefully considered the matter, and we have come to the decision that generally the decision of the Joint Committee was a wise one.
    We discussed this matter at length yesterday on another Amendment, and I hope that the Committee will accept the decision that the board should not
    1444
    be allowed to embark upon great schemes of manufacture, and that we may pass to the next Amendment. The hon. Gentleman raised a question about chassis. Is he aware that at Chiswick there is no plant whatever for the purpose of manufacturing chassis, and for the board to embark upon a scheme for the manufacture of chassis when the country is provided with plant capable of manufacturing chassis would be an uneconomic proposition. The board will be in a position to buy its equipment at a fair and competitive price, and on these grounds I must ask the Committee to refuse the Amendment.
    Mr. PARKINSON: According to the evidence given before the Joint Committee last year, 1,600 bodies were made by the London General Omnibus Company at their own works.
    Mr. PYBUS: But this Amendment asks that the board shall be allowed to manufacture anything in any works. The Amendment proposes to leave out the words "omnibus bodies" and to insert the words "rolling stock, vehicles, appliances or apparatus," which means that, even if these things were not already made at Chiswick or any other works they could be made by the board and possibly plant would have to be installed. I am afraid that we cannot accept this Amendment.
    4.6 p.m.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Surely the hon. Gentleman does not expect Members on these benches to accept the very flimsy excuse just given. After all, this Amendment seeks only to secure the opportunity for the board to make use of various works which the Bill itself will compel them to take over. The Bill imposes this obligation upon the board. They must take over Chiswick, Tillings and certain other places, and all we ask is that, having compelled this board, representing the whole of the 8,000,000 travelling public of this great City, to take over those works, they should be permitted to use them to produce exclusively for their own use rolling stock, vehicles, appliances or apparatus which would be used in any part of their undertakings. Does the hon. Gentleman think that he can advance the argument that, merely because a separate company other than the board is in business for the purpose of making profit—for that is its primary object; ser

    1445
    vice is purely secondary—it is likely to produce more cheaply than this board, and does he imagine that that board of supermen are going to be so foolish as to commence the building of chassis, steam engines or engines for the Under- ground—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think I must point out to the Committee that the whole question of manufacture by the board was discussed and decided upon yesterday. If this Amendment were carried it would merely permit the board to manufacture certain articles specified in the Amendment in the case of a company taken over by the board which already manufactures them. We cannot go into the general question on this Amendment.
    Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: May I draw attention to the fact that in Clause 5 (4) the board have power to manufacture anything which their predecessors in title have power to manufacture, and therefore are not limited by Clause 3, because under Clause 5 they have also powers which are equally strong?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: They may be strong; I am not disputing what the hon. and learned Gentleman puts forward. I am only pointing out that the question of manufacture was dealt with yesterday. This is a very limited power where premises are taken over by the Board, and is a specific argument.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Further to that point of Order, Clause 21 definitely gives power to the board to manufacture a limited quantity of certain articles. While omnibus bodies remain part of the Clause, then the limitation is upon the number of omnibuses produced by the board. The Amendment suggests the elimination of the words "omnibus bodies," and the insertion of the words "rolling stock, vehicles, appliances or apparatus," but with the recognised restriction that they can only be produced in the works which are taken over by the board compulsorily as a result of the passing of this Bill. That I hope, will surmount the problem you were raising.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member has overlooked the words:
    "where immediately before the date of transfer any premises were being used for the purpose of manufacturing."
    1446
    That could only apply, if this Amendment were accepted, to cases where that was being done before the passing of this Bill. It is not a question of general manufacture.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: That was my very point. Clause 21 does permit the Board to manufacture a limited number of omnibus bodies. We suggest, therefore, that in the works which the board take over compulsorily the same limitation for the purposes of this Amendment shall apply to rolling stock, vehicles, appliance or apparatus, and, to that extent, I think this Amendment is quite in order. The hon. Gentleman opposite produced the argument—if it can be dignified by the word "argument "—that because an Amendment was decided yesterday, it ought to be sufficient to turn down our Amendment to-day. We are not satisfied that this great board, representing as it will 8,000,000 of the travelling public, ought to he compelled to purchase articles which they will ultimately use from companies who are in business, not to serve the board but to produce for themselves as much profit as they possibly can. If I may illustrate my view of this question, I can do so in regard to coal. We have seen colliery companies losing money, and workmen's wages reduced, because the price at which the coal was sold was uneconomic, but on further investigation we have discovered that the raw material has been sold to a subsidiary company which has obtained a profit thereby.
    We do not want a similar set of circumstances to obtain here, because of the higher price the board may be called upon to pay to outside companies for any of their rolling-stock. We think it is a fair proposition that, instead of limiting the board to the production of omnibus bodies on the five years average down to 1930, they ought to be permitted to produce any of the appliances which they are likely to use on the basis of the output for 1931. That, we think, would be a very fair proposition. It would give the board an opportunity not only to co-operate with the Government for experimental and research purposes, but it might conceivably help the Government towards the solution of that great mining problem by the utilisation, in the right direction, of the raw material, instead of being used as it is to-day. But if you restrict the board to a very small

    1447
    production of omnibus bodies, cutting out any possible chance there may be for the production of the chassis or anything they may use experimentally, they will be put at a disadvantage. They will be thrown holus bolus into the arms of profitmaking companies outside. From that point of view, we are wholly dissatisfied with the hon. Gentleman's reply, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen sitting on both sides of the Committee who have an interest in the travelling public in this great city will support the Amendment, and insist upon power being given to the board to produce the things which they will ultimately use.
    4.15 p.m.
    Sir BASIL PETO: A word or two in reply to the speech of the hon. Member who has just spoken would perhaps be hardly a waste of time. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) really touched on the whole question in a single phrase. He pointed out, by way of plea for the Amendment, that all these various kinds of apparatus would be produced, so far as they can be produced at Chiswick, exclusively for use by the railways and the omnibuses of the Board. The purpose of the Joint Committee was to leave the manufacture of all these different kinds of appliances, particularly chassis and anything to do with the Underground Railway and so forth, to private enterprise, because these private manufacturers do not manufacture exclusively for their own use, but by manufacturing all these different articles build up the trade of the country, and incidentally the export trade of the country as well. We do not want a great corporation of this kind to be able to manufacture everything they require exclusively for their own use, and to shut out from the general manufacturing industry of the country the whole of this great source of productive work. That is really the reason why the Amendment should be resisted.
    It is difficult to say anything in reply to the speech of the Mover of the Amendment because, as was pointed out by the Deputy-Chairman, the hon. Member dealt almost exclusively with three other Amendments on the Paper and not with that which he moved. I shall confine myself to the question whether it is desirable or not that not only omnibus bodies but everything else required by
    1448
    this great undertaking should be manufactured to the limit of the board's capacity. We ought to make some answer to the argument put forward by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment that if the Amendment and others are not accepted we shall be doing something which will cause further unemployment. I hold that that is not so. There is not a single chassis or Underground carriage or engine, nor even an omnibus body, that will not be manufactured in Chiswick and required by the undertaking, which will not be manufactured somewhere else. The only question is whether the whole shall be done by the undertaking itself or whether a considerable part, taking the rolling stock as a whole, Underground and overground, should be produced by private enterprise. I hold that there is likely to be more employment and not less if private enterprise is allowed to come in. If there is a man or two less, if there are 100 fewer employed at Chiwick next year or the year after in consequence of this Amendment not being passed, I hold that there will be that same number, and very likely more, employed by outside companies.
    The hon. Member for Don Valley sees in this matter nothing but a question of production for profit. Production for profit is the basis of the industry of the country, and therefore we have to accept it. Personally I think that that is the basis on which industry is likely to prosper. We do not want outside industries to be deprived of the opportunity of producing everything that is necessary, save for certain exceptions made in the Clause, for this transport undertaking. The transport undertaking of London has the finest vehicles in the world, and these will probably be regarded as the model. It will be of enormous advantage to our manufacturers to be able to say throughout the world that they manufacture the chassis and the machinery for the finest and the largest transport undertaking in any single area in the world. That will help them to sell similar goods in other parts of the country and elsewhere.
    4.21 p.m.
    Mr. MAITLAND: I think it is a fact that up to the present time the undertakings which are to be taken over by the board have not manufactured either rolling

    1449
    stock or chassis, and that is perhaps the best answer to the Mover of this Amendment. Experience has shown these undertakings, trading as individual concerns, that it is more profitable for them to purchase rolling stock from other concerns which are devoted entirely to that work. The Mover of the Amendment said that the Amendment implied more than it expressed. I think hon. Gentlemen of the Labour party are rather inclined to attempt too much. Under a scheme of this kind we would be putting an enormously difficult task on the board which is to take control. The co-ordination of London traffic in itself is an enormous task. If the arguments of the Mover of the Amendment were carried to their logical conclusion we should be saying that the board must have power not only to manufacture rolling stock, but power to manufacture any single article which it needed for the purpose of the transport business. That is the whole purpose of the Amendment. What the Mover of the Amendment had in his mind was not only the co-ordination of London transport, but a system under which this board was to have something in the nature of a huge monopoly on State lines, which was obviously to be the forerunner of a greater and wider scheme of nationalisation. That is a sort of thing to which Members of my party are strongly opposed.
    I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) that the arguments used about unemployment are futile. The Clause provides that such work as has been carried on for the five years up to December, 1930, shall continue to be carried on at Chiswick. There can be no possibility of any diminution in the number of men employed at Chiswick. So far as the private manufacturers of tramways and transport apparatus are concerned, I can say from my own knowledge that their works are modern and well equipped, and that they are in every way competent to carry on any work which this board may want them to do.
    4.23 p.m.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: In this matter I support the Minister with all enthusiasm. This Amendment has to be considered from two points of view. There is the purely business point of view, that in general it is obviously de-
    1450
    sirable that manufacturing should be carried on by the people whose business is manufacturing instead of being carried on as a side line by people whose business is transport. I should have thought, as the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) said yesterday, that the experience of the main line railways and the reaction on locomotive building in this country, were sufficient to show how very important it is not to hamper the general development of the manufacturing industry which is capable of supplying these vehicles to dozens of other companies in this country, and also in the hope of building up an even more important export trade than we enjoy at the present time. But hon. Gentlemen on the Labour benches are not concerned at all with business considerations. Their reasons are purely political. They are Socialists and they are entitled to be Socialists. I am not a Socialist. They move the Amendment because they think it will help forward their doctrine of Socialism, and they think that for this board to do something is more Socialistic than for an ordinary company to do it. They endorse our view that this Bill is more Socialistic than the Bill of 1928. I agree with regard to that. But that is no reason why we should adopt a wrong principle.
    The whole speech of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) was a denunciation of profit. He seems to be under the impression that there is some difference between producing for profit and producing for use. No. If you started business and produced things that no one used you would not make any profit. That is the simple answer. It is obvious that in the long run the most money is made by the man who renders the best service. That is why some barristers are paid more than others. Really the supporters of this Amendment have not brought forward a serious argument. This enterprise is intended to be profit-making, even though it is of a Socialistic character. The hon. Member for Don Valley is not proposing that the stockholders and the board are not to be paid interest.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going a long distance from the Amendment.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member for Don Valley raised the question of

    1451
    profit, and implied that if omnibuses were bought from an outside concern a profit would arise, but that if the omnibuses were made by the board there would be no profit. He assumed that the board would not make them efficiently.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: No.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: If that was not the assumption, the hon. Member was assuming something for which the Chair has already called me to order. If outside concerns can make the omnibuses cheaper the board can buy them.
    4.28 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: The Amendment seeks to give the Transport Board power to do that which was done by the undertaking which it is to take over, and to do nothing more. The last speaker has said that from a business point of view that is bad. Quite frankly I prefer the business experience of Lord Ashfield to that of the hon. Member. That eminent Noble Lord found that it was a good thing to do, to carry on these jobs which the undertaking has so far been carrying on, and that was why they put their money into it. I have never yet heard anyone accuse them of being inefficient in that matter. Therefore from a purely business point of view we have the proved fact of what is efficient, and that is to have these workshops and to do those things which so far
    have been done. I do not understand the arguments of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). Once we are to have a Transport Board I cannot understand why we should proceed to hamstring it by not enabling it to do all the things which private enterprise was allowed to do and in fact did. If one was going to launch a Transport Board for London one would do everything possible to give it every advantage that it could be given fairly. Those advantages would be coterminous with the past experience and the advantages which the undertaking that it is going to take over has had in the various lines of activity that it has pursued. That is why we think it unwise and unfair, when starting a board of this kind, to cut down those very activities which its predecessors found to be useful and profitable and good business. We ask that this board should be regarded as something which ought to succeed to the fullest extent, and which ought to be afforded every opportunity of success. We believe that by putting in this limitation the Government are seriously limiting the board's chances of success and we ask that the limitation ought to be taken out of the Bill.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 32.

    Division No. 18.]

    AYES.

    [4.31 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Culverwell, Cyrll Tom

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds W.)

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Curry, A. C.

    Applln, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

    Campbell. Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Carver, Major William H.

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Baillie, sir Adrian W. M.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

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

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Dickie, John P.

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Donner, P. W.

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Chalmers, John Rutherford

    Drewe, Cedric

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Duckworth. George A. V.

    Bernays, Robert

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Christie, James Archibald

    Dunglass, Lord

    Blindell, James

    Clarke, Frank

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    Boulton, W. W.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Elliet, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Elmley, Viscount

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Entwistle, Cyrll Fullard

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Fermoy, Lord

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin

    Buchan, John

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootie)

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Crossley, A. C.

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Burnett, John George

    Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Lister, Rt. Hon. sir Philip Cunliffe

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Rosbotham, S. T.

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

    Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn.G.(Wd.Gr'n)

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Rothschild, James A. de

    Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Goff, Sir Park

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

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Granville, Edgar

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Salmon, Major Isldore

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James l.

    Salt, Edward W.

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

    Magnay, Thomas

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Hamilton, sir George (Ilford)

    Maitland, Adam

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Scone, Lord

    Hammersley, Samuel S.

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Hartland, George A.

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kennlngt'n)

    Mayhew, Lieut-Colonel John

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

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

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Slater, John

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Smith. Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

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

    Headlam. Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Somerset, Thomas

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T, E.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur F.

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

    Southby, Commander Archibald R, J.

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Mulrhead, Major A. J.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

    Stones, James

    Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Hopkinson, Austin

    Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersl'ld)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Hornby, Frank

    North, Captain Edward T.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

    Horobin, Ian M.

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Pearson. William G.

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

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Penny, Sir George

    Thompson, Luke

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

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)

    Petherick, M.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Peto. Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Potter, John

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Jennings, Roland

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Pybus, Percy John

    Wells. Sydney Richard

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Ramsden, E.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Rankin, Robert

    Womersley, Walter James

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Knight, Holford

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Law. Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Lees-Jones, John

    Remer, John R.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and Lord Erskine.

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    NOES.

    Adams. D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Banfield, John William

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Batey, Joseph

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

    Maxton, James

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

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Buchanan, George

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Price, Gabriel

    Cape, Thomas

    John, William

    Thorne, William James

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

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

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Daggar, George

    Kirkwood, David

    Edwards, Charles

    Lansbury. Rt. Hon. George

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Mr. Groves and Mr. G Macdonald.

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Lunn, William

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

    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 31, line 32, to leave out from the word "undertaking," to the end of the Clause.
    This Amendment involves what is almost a repetition of the argument already submitted, its point being
    1454
    4.40 p.m.
    that the board ought not to be restricted in the production of omnibuses or omnibus bodies for their own use. The Amendment, however, excludes considerations as to engines and chassis and all apparatus of that kind and is concerned entirely with

    1455
    the question of omnibus bodies. The Clause in its present form would give the board power to manufacture omnibus bodies up to the average of the annual manufacture at the Chiswick works for the five years ended 1st January, 1931. We should like to know why the figures for the five years 1925 to 1930 have been taken for this purpose in preference to the figures of the output for 1931 or for the first six months of 1932. The basis proposed in the Clause we regard as very unfair particularly to those employés who have earned the right to a continuity of good, solid, secure work at reasonable wages, or adequate compensation.
    We think that the board should be permitted to produce the output for 1931 or for the first half of 1931, or, preferably, that they should be empowered—whether they exercise the power or not is quite another matter—to produce as many omnibus bodies as they feel disposed to produce. We do not consider that the limitation contained in this part of the Clause is one which ought to be imposed upon this great body. It is not as though they would be incapable of producing good bodies at economic prices. These works have proved, beyond peradventure, highly efficient and the fact that the board is in production at all will be a guarantee against exploitation by outside companies. Hon. Members who opposed the last Amendment have referred to those companies. So long as companies which are working on efficient lines and meeting the export demand, can supply to the board at a price less than it costs the board to produce the articles quite obviously the board will continue to buy from outside firms. But the very fact that they have the power to produce themselves to meet all their needs will in itself place a certain bargaining power in their hands.
    4.44 p.m.
    Mr. HAROLD MITCHELL: I wish to ask whether the Government cannot see their way to accept this Amendment. I hope that no Conservative Member will be disposed to take up a hostile attitude towards the Amendment merely because it has been moved by an hon. Gentleman opposite. We are not dealing here with the principle, as a whole, of manufacture by the board. That was disposed of yesterday. We are considering here a specific
    1456
    point in regard to the works at Chiswick which are to be taken over by the board. This works is one upon which the finance of the board depends, and unless the works and other portions of the undertaking can work successfully, it is obvious that the whole financial basis of the board may be imperilled, which would be a most serious thing. On these grounds, I would ask the Government if they cannot meet us at any rate in some respect, because if, as a result of works like this not producing to full capacity losses are incurred, then everybody, the Government included, will incur odium under the Bill.
    There is all the difference in the world between a factory producing only to part capacity and a factory running full time, and more particularly so in the London area, where site values are high and rates and taxes considerable. It is only by having the maximum amount of efficiency in any given works that you can hope to run to the best advantage. I cannot help feeling that when the financial arrangements were made between the London General Omnibus Company and the board, the company, when assessing the value of their works, must have considered their works at their present production value and not at their production value limited to an average of five years. It is obvious that if you take over a works which is restricted in output, it is not such a valuable asset. I should like to emphasise the fact that the works at Chiswick are not merely a repairing depot, but that they are in addition an important centre for manufacturing omnibus bodies. I think the lion. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) suggested yesterday that they were principally a repairing shop.
    I say that the five years' average hits these works particularly hard, because, as the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has just said, in recent years their output has been increased simply because the company have entirely reconstructed the works and made substantial alterations, which now make them the most efficient works of their kind in the whole country. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), who, I am sorry, is not here at the moment, suggested a short time ago that if any men were thrown out of employment, they might find work somewhere else. He even suggested that more

    1457
    people might be employed; but the important thing is that the board should be efficient, and surely if more people were employed as a result of restricting the work at Chiswick, that would only prove that the Chiswick works were more economical than the works of other undertakings. I feel that the present restrictions that are proposed do not meet the case and that the position of the workers in Chiswick may seriously be prejudiced by the five years' average. This is a matter which affects not merely the borough of Brentford and Chiswick, but other districts of Greater London, because many of the workers live in other districts.
    I would like to ask at this stage if the Minister could not give us some concession. I realise the difficulties, and that he does not think it desirable that the board should become a great manufacturing body, but I think it is a mistake to take over an asset, to pay in money or in stock for that asset, and then not to work it properly. I appeal to the Minister, as a business man, to look at it from the point of view of the efficient manufacture of omnibus bodies, and, having admitted the principle that omnibus bodies may be manufactured at these works, to allow them to work to their maximum capacity. In that way I believe the new Transport Board will be able to function more efficiently than by the method proposed in this Clause.
    4.50 p.m.
    Mr. J. JONES: I am very pleased to hear the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Mitchell) defending his own constituency, because the London General Omnibus Company happen to have their headquarters, from a manufacturing point of view, in that district. I represent a district which is going to be absorbed by the new Traffic Board, so far as our municipal transport services areconcerned. We have for years conducted the making of our own tramways, and, apart from the chassis, we have had the making of the bodies for the trams. As I understand it, if this Bill becomes law, our department will be closed down, or else it will be taken over. I know what will happen; it will be transferred, and the London General Omnibus Company, with Lord Ashfield at its head, and the other big people who have been running London traffic now sub rosa, will take complete control of all the London traffic
    1458
    arrangements, and our men will be discharged. There is not much hope for them, and I would like to ask why we cannot have a real authority in this matter, so that the men who are working in the outer parts of London may be in a better position.
    West Ham happens to be the orphan of the storm, the Cinderella of London traffic. We are the only traffic authority outside London proper that has control over its own roads and the making of its own vehicles. Leyton, East. Ham, Ilford, and the other outer areas are practically under the control of this new dominating factor. Where do we come in? Nowhere, because the name of West Ham stinks in the nostrils of hon. Members opposite and their associates. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] It is no good saying "Order." It is true, and I will vote against anything that is going to offend the people whom I represent. What hon. Members opposite want is the protection of private interests. It is going to be the creation of a monopoly, and I want to see a different kind of Bill.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now getting a very long way from the Amendment.
    Mr. JONES: Yes, Sir, I hope so. What are you going to do in the manufacturing part of this Bill? The London General Omnibus Company has, in connection with it, the Associated Equipment Company. Have any of those who are supporting this Bill informed us what is going to be the position of that company? To all intents and purposes, to those who do not know, it is an independent body, but, as a matter of fact, it is the manufacturing authority in connection with the Underground Railways and the London General Omnibus Company, and I can quite see why you are cutting manufacturing out of the Bill. You want this company to become a dominating factor in the provision of all the necessary equipment in connection with the new Traffic Bill. They are to be the competing force in connection with the supply of materials and bodies and all the other equipment required for the running of the traffic of London, and it will be a, safe investment for the gentlemen who are always on the main chance. Heads they win, and tails we lose, every time. I want some hon. Members to explain, if they know anything at all about

    1459
    it, what position this Associated Equipment Company will hold in connection with this Bill.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman should have raised that question on Clause 6.
    Mr. JONES: I do not care on what Clause I raise it, but I want the Minister to explain the matter. We in West Ham make our own bodies in connection with our own trams, but under this Bill we shall be absorbed. We shall have no control, and I suggest that we are entitled to ask what is the relationship of the local authorities to the new board in this connection. We are the only one left now. When the Bill becomes law we go West, and we have a right to ask where we stand in connection with the manufacture of our own rolling stock. Are we going to be told: "There is nothing doing. We will take you over and do what we like with you, and you are not going to have a means of protesting? "
    4.56 p.m.
    Mr. MOLSON: I should like to ask the Minister to accept this Amendment. The principle of economy which we all imagine will come out of this Bill is that you will do away with competition arid that it will be possible to run the whole of London's transport with a single eye to its efficiency and co-ordination. If you have a. plant for the production of bodies already in working order, I cannot see why there should be any idea of imposing a quota upon its production. It is already provided in the Clause, even if it is amended in this way, that the new concern is not to enter into competition in the market generally with other manufacturers, and I suggest that the Government might accept the Amendment in order to enable the works to be conducted as efficiently as possible.
    4.57 p.m.
    Captain NORTH: I feel that if we are to have this Bill, we ought to make it pay.To my mind, that is a central point about it. I do not approve of the board manufacturing anything, whether in Chiswick or elsewhere, but if we are to manufacture something, let us do it as cheaply and as economically as possible. Under this Clause you will take over this factory at Chiswick, and the moment you take it over you will limit its capacity, and that
    1460
    does not seem to he an economic proposition at all. If you are going to take over a factory—as I say, I do not think it is a good thing to do at all—for goodness sake make it pay. I feel that the Government would be well advised to reconsider their attitude on this point.
    4.58 p.m.
    Mr. REMER: I have only risen because I know exactly what happened with reference to this Amendment, which, I believe I am right in saying, was put into the Bill, after its Second Reading, by the Select Committee upstairs, and it was put in owing very largely to the representations which were made to that Committee by the National Vehicle Owners Association. That association, of which I happen to be an honorary member, placed the view before the Committee that it was unfair to take away from them the building of the bodies which they were at present making for various private undertakings in no way connected with the London General Omnibus Company. This limitation was put in by the Select Committee as a fair compromise to the objections which they raised.
    There was really not very much point in the argument used by the hon. Member for Brentford and 'Chiswick (Mr. Mitchell). The hon. Member told us that if the. London General Omnibus Company's works at Chiswick, which I know very well as thoroughly efficient and well managed, are limited to the number of bodies they are to turn out, it will acid to their cost. They will, however, know that they are to he allowed to manufacture approximately the same number of bodies that they have been manufacturing, so that they can arrange their overhead costs accordingly. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) stated that this will be a means of exploiting the board and will have the effect of raising costs. That is not so, for the reason that it is generally found that the prices of bodies in the ordinary body building shops is rather low in comparison with the larger concerns. There are so many body builders in the country that all the competition that is necessary will be available to keep the prices within reasonable limits. It may be information to the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) that the Associated Equipment Company do not build bodies but only

    1461
    chassis. They therefore do not come into the discussion of this part of the Bill in any respect. I hope that the Minister will resist the Amendment, because these words were put in the Bill by the Select Committee after bearing both sides on this difficult question and as a compromise between the various interests concerned.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask the Minister of Transport if, during his reply, he will give us the figures for each of the five years which are referred to in the latter part of the Clause?
    5.3 p.m.
    Captain STRICKLAND: I want to add my appeal to the Government not to give way on this Amendment. I do so for much the same reason as that given by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer). In this Committee, we are to a tremendous extent working in the dark. We have not had the advantage of the evidence that was given to the Joint Select Committee, but there can be no question as to the decision at which that Committee arrived. I believe that they were largely guided to that decision by the fact that there is such an area of capacity of production at Chiswick that, unless this limitation were put in, it might render nugatory the idea which the Joint Committee had in its mind, namely, to confine the manufacture at Chiswick to the average for the past five years. The capacity exists for increasing the buildings that stand on the land and the incorporation of fresh buildings on that land which might well come within the term "premises" which is contained in the Clause if there were no limitation. I want to emphasise that the main purpose of the Bill is not the production or the manufacture of vehicles but the co-ordination of London traffic. I feel strongly that one of the great weaknesses of the Bill is the introduction of these manufacturing powers to compete with other industries in the country. The compromise offered and accepted on the Joint Committee is one which, I think, taken broad and long, is extraordinarily fair. It maintains the work that has been done at Chiswick with regard to omnibuses at the average of five years. I urge the Government not to give way in view of the conclusion which the Joint Committee reached after careful consideration.
    5.5 p.m.
    Mr. PYBUS: I have listened with interest and sympathy to the arguments which have been put forward by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson), and other Members, but we cannot disguise from ourselves that the object of the Amendment is to remove the limitation of the number of omnibus bodies which may be manufactured by the board for its own purposes. This power is limited so that the number of omnibus bodies which may be manufactured by the board in any year shall not exceed the average of the number of bodies manufactured annually by the London General Omnibus Company at their Chiswick works during the five years preceding the 1st January, 1931, that is, the five years preceding the sitting of the Joint Committee. The matter was examined very carefully by the Joint Committee, which decided that these five years were fair in all the circumstances. We were informed by the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) that the Chiswick works would be very well employed under these conditions.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Will the Minister give the figures from 1926 to 1930 to show how the manufacture has increased at these premises?
    Mr. PYBUS: The average for the five years was 416 bodies a year, and the capacity is undoubtedly more than that.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Is not the average 100 a week now?
    Mr. PYBUS: I have seen no figures showing as much as 100 a week.
    Mr. MITCHELL: Will the hon. Gentleman give the figures for the last two years?
    Mr. PYBUS: I have not those figures
    now.
    5.8 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: In coming to the Committee to deal with the discussion on this Clause, the Minister might have taken the trouble to find out the figures of manufacture. The hon. Gentleman knew that the question to be debated was whether it was fair to put this type of limitation upon the manufacturers. We have no material about it, and it is im-

    1463
    possible for the Committee to discuss the matter when no information is provided on which to discuss it. The period taken is the five years prior to 1931. The first comment on that is that it does what has never yet been done in calculations with regard to any question of a quota or anything of that sort—it includes the year 1926, which was the year of the General Strike. That was a year in which every factory had an abnormally low output, and it has always been excluded from calculations for that very reason. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why in this case it is right and proper to include that year in the average of five years. Everybody realises that the figures for that year are abnormally low and are not fair figures on which to base any deductions. Why have the Government taken five years? For the purpose of acquiring these concerns, I understand, three years has been taken, but when it comes to the question of the amount of manufacture why go back five years? The answer is that the earliest years have the smallest production.
    If the Minister cannot give us the figures, let me give him figures which I have had put. before me. Whether they are accurate or not, I have not any idea. These show that the manufacture at the beginning of the period was something like seven bodies a week, and that at the end of the period it was more like 100 bodies a week. I am dealing not only with Chiswick, but with all the other manufacturing premises where bodies are manufactured—Tilling and so on, where a large number of men are engaged. What possible justification can there be for this limitation except that, as the Minister has said, the Joint Committee, when they were considering this matter over a year ago, came to this conclusion? What possible justification is there, if the Government are going to allow these people to manufacture at all, for cutting them down to a figure which is perhaps one-tenth of their possible production? It is wholly and obviously uneconomic. You might just as well take away the right to manufacture if you are only to give them a right which is uneconomic.
    The Government have admitted in the part of the Clause with which we have already dealt the principle under which they are to be allowed to continue to
    1464
    manufacture omnibus bodies, and I presume that they are to be permitted to do it because they make the best omnibus bodies in the world, and that that is a good reason why they should go on doing it. Nobody can guarantee that any private manufacturer can produce such extremely good bodies, because they are outstanding examples of body manufacture. Be that as it may, if these people are to be permitted to manufacture bodies, it is obviously wrong, from an uneconomic point of view, so to limit that production that the manufacturer cannot use the available factory space to its proper and full amount. There is no reason for doing it except pressure by private interests. We have heard the private interests of Coventry put for ward—
    Captain STRICKLAND: Hear, Hear !
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I know that the hon. and gallant Member is frank about it, and he has a brief for the Coventry manufacturers—
    Captain STRICKLAND: May I ask what the hon. and learned Gentleman means by "brief"?
    Sir S. CRIPPS: That the hon. and gallant Gentleman is putting forward a case for them.
    Captain STRICKLAND: What does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean by "brief"?
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I mean that the hon. and gallant Member is putting forward their case, which is the ordinary meaning of the term. [HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] I can assure hon. Members that it does not mean that you are paid to do it. To be briefed means that you put forward somebody else's case and not your own. That is the ordinary meaning of the expression. In the same way, the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Mitchell) put forward the interests of the employés of the Chiswick factory. We ought not to regard either of them. The proper attitude of this Committee is to find what is best for the efficiency of the London Transport Board, and there can be no possible doubt in anybody's mind about what is best for that. If the board is to manufacture omnibuses, and if you make it buy a large plant which is capable of a production of, say, 10, 20, 30 or 40 omnibuses a week, and then limit

    1465
    it to a production of only five, six or seven a week, it is obviously imposing inefficiency upon them. I am surprised that anybody can support it. I ask the Minister to consider this matter again, and, if he cannot give way altogether, to alter the five years so as to take out 1926, which must have been a bad year, or, on the other hand, to reduce the period of time so as to get an average which is nearer the true average of what the company can now manufacture.
    5.15 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): The hon. and learned Gentleman has rather 5.15 p.m. shifted his ground. The purpose of the Opposition Amendment was to leave out the whole of the last part of the Clause. If the Amendment had been designed to substitute two or three years for five we should have been armed with figures to enable us to discuss the merits of two or three years against five years, and I hope the Opposition will not regard it as any lack of interest or courtesy that we have not those figures at the moment. The hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested that the year 1926 ought to be left out of the calculation because it was the year of the General Strike. I can promise him that the figures will be considered to see if there is any substance in that point, and if that is found to be a wholly illusory year so far as working is concerned, the Minister will see whether some adjustment is possible on that ground.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: If 1926 was a bad year, surely that would apply to all the other companies as well as to this particular concern.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes, but we are not engaged in comparing other companies with this board. As I understand it, five years is regarded as a representative period, but if it is not so by reason of the fact that there was a complete sterilisation over a considerable part of 1926, I should think we might agree that that year may have to be reconsidered.
    5.16 pm.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: While we wish to express our gratitude to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the forward step he has taken, I would like to remind him that in moving the Amendment I did
    1466
    make reference to the peculiarity of a period ending January, 1931, and I said that I would take 1931 or the first six months of 1932. However, in view of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, we are quite willing to withdraw this Amendment, so as to enable the Minister to provide some alternative Amendment on the Report stage; but should anything not happen between now and the Report stage we should then press this Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 22.—(Restriction on power of board to establish garages.)
    5.18 p.m.
    Mr. HICKS: I beg to move, in page 31, line 42, to leave out paragraph (a).
    In moving this Amendment I admit that I have not enthusiastic hopes that the Minister will accept it, judging by the very cool reception which he has extended to many other good and practical suggestions from these benches, but I hope to advance reasons for the removal of this paragraph which may induce him to reconsider the position. The Clause deals particularly with the power of the board to establish garages. I should have thought that the very fact that the congestion of traffic in London has made it necessary to establish this board would have suggested the desirability of encouraging people who have to come into the inner area of London to use the traffic services of the board rather than bring their own cars into an already congested traffic centre. Everyone realises the enormous congestion of traffic in our streets. We have 20th century traffic with 19th century roads, and we ought to do everything we can to encourage motorists to leave their cars on the outskirts of London in preference to bringing them into the city.
    Unless this paragraph is deleted the board, I should imagine, will have a legitimate grievance. The concerns which are now being brought under the board would probably realise in the ordinary way that it would be a wise thing for them to establish similar garages to that which has been opened at the Morden Tube terminus, saying to motorists, "Come as far as this point on your

    1467
    journey to London, put up your cars at our garage and continue the journey by train; and while you are about your business we will render the services which ordinary common courtesy would suggest. If you have a puncture or any little repairs are needed, they can be carried out while you are in the city about your business." I am sure the Committee will be well advised to ask the Minister to remove this particular paragraph, because we think that it definitely limits what are the ordinary function of a traffic undertaking. The board ought to have the right to set up garages and encourage people to use them by being in a position to provide the ordinary garage facilities, because in my opinion that will help to bring passenger traffic to the board's undertakings.
    5.22 p.m.
    Mr. C. WI MAIMS: I was hoping we should have a reply from the Government, because I regard this as a purely Socialist Amendment, put forward in anticipation of other days. The effect of accepting the Amendment would be to enable the board to extend its work ad infinitum—selling petrol and doing anything they liked in connection with motor cars or anything else. They might probably set up aeroplanes. As things progress that is a possible development. I hope the Government will have nothing whatever to do with this Socialist Amendment. After what has been happening I was frightened the Government were going to allow this Amendment to be carried, but I now see that my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is going to reply to it, and I would tell him quite frankly that this cleverly-worded Amendment, innocent though it looks, is very, very far reaching in view of the powers the board will have. If their powers are to be extended in this way they will be in a position to kill a large number of small traders, and I hope the Government will resist the Amendment.
    5.24 p.m.
    Mr. PYBUS: The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) ought not to reproach me for not replying to the Amendment before. I was about to do so when I taw him rising, and thought it would be unfair to rob the House of one of the very few opportunities it has of hearing what he has to say.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The Chairman was on the point of putting the Amendment, and I only rose to stimulate the Minister to reply.
    Mr. PYBUS: I think the feeling of the Committee will be that with all the activities and all the responsibilities which the board will have to shoulder there is no necessity for them to carry on also the business of the ordinary garage proprietor. The Clause contains certain provisions which enable the board to carry on the Morden garage undertaking and other garages, which it will take over for a period of three years or for any less time in which they can dispose of them. A subsequent Amendment deals with the provision of shelter for cars, and when that comes up I hope to be able to make a satisfactory statement about it; but the proposal that the board should carry on the business of a, general garage proprietor selling petrol, oil, etc., is one to which we cannot agree.
    5.26 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: The Minister has not in the least met the point which was put forward in this Amendment, and we shall have to divide upon it. The question is whether the London Passenger Transport Board are to be allowed in future to create facilities in other places such as the combine created at Morden. A great many people who have considered the problem of London traffic look upon it as a wise and proper development that people should he able to come in from outlying districts in their ears, leave their cars at the station—not a mile or two away from it—and make use of the transport facilities of the board to get into the centre of the city. Apart from power to carry on the Morden undertaking—which is not, as I understand it, limited to three years, as the Minister said, but is in perpetuity—there is no power in the Bill far the board to set up any such garage, and we are anxious to know whether the Minister contemplates stopping future developments on the same lines in other parts of London. This particular Amendment does not deal with the supply of fuel and lubricants, which arises on the next Amendment. I would like the Minister to tell us definitely whether he contemplates that the London

    1469
    Passenger Transport Board will be able to provide storage for passengers' motor cars in the future, or whether the Government intend permanently to stop them from making any such provision?
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The 'Committee divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 37.

    Division No. 19.]

    AYES.

    [5.29 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.{Wd.Gr'n)

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Albery, Irving James

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Lymington, Viscount

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

    Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Applin. Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Apsley, Lord

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Fraser, Captain Ian

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

    Ballile, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Gibson, Charles Granvllie

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Seauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

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

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Magnay, Thomas

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Goff, Sir Perk

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Bernays, Robert

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Blindell, James

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus [C'mb'ri'd, N.)

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Bower, Lieut.-Com, Robert Tatton

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)

    Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)

    Hammerstey, Samuel S.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    North, Captain Edward T.

    Burnett, John George

    Harbord, Arthur

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

    Hartland, George A.

    Pearson, William G.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Penny, Sir George

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

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

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Petherick, M.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Heligers, Captain F. F. A.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Chalmers, John Rutherford

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

    Potter, John

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Hornby, Frank

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Christie, James Archibald

    Horobin, Ian M.

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Clarke, Frank

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Pybus, Percy John

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Colfox, Major William Philip

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

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Colville, Lieut-Colonel J.

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Ramsden, E.

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Hutchison, W. D. (Essex. Rom'fd)

    Rankin, Robert

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Cooke, Douglas

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    James, Wing Com. A. W. H.

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Jamleson, Douglas

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Crossley, A. C.

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Renter, John R.

    Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard

    Joel, Dudley J, Barnato

    Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Curry, A. C.

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Rosbotham, S. T.

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Dickie, John P.

    Knebworth, viscount

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Donner, P. W.

    Knight, Holford

    Salmon, Major Isidore

    Doran, Edward

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Salt, Edward W.

    Dower, Captain A. V. G,

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Drewe, Cedric

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Scone, Lord

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Lees-Jones, John

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Dunglass, Lord

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Shaw, captain William T. (Forfar)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Lowis, Oswald

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Elmley, Viscount

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

    Slater, John

    Emrys-Evans, P, V.

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Entwistle, Cyril Fultard

    Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

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

    Somerset, Thomas

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

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Thompson, Luke

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Womersley, Walter James

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Storey, Samuel

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Young, Rt. Hon. sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Sir Victor Warrender and Dr. Morris-Jones.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Banfield, John William

    Grenfell, David Ress (Glamorgan)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Batey, Joseph

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Maxtan, James

    Briant, Frank

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

    Milner, Major James

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

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Buchanan, George

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Price, Gabriel

    Cape, Thomas

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

    Thome, William James

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Kirkwood. David

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Daggar, George

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Edwards, Charles

    Lunn, William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

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

    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 32, line 4, at the end, to insert the words:
    "or except the business of providing an open or covered place where the private motor cars of passengers using the transport services of the board may stand."
    5.37 p.m.
    The purpose of this Amendment is really to round off paragraph (a). It will have the interesting effect that any parking place which the board may provide it will have to provide free of charge to the public.
    Mr. PYBUS: We propose to accept the Amendment.
    5.38 p.m.
    Mr. J. JONES: This means, then, that private motor cars can have free parking facilities, whereas other people who happen to have to pay fares, have to provide, as part of their fares, payment for the public parking place. Surely a railway station on the Underground is part of the cost of the running of the system, and the fare that the passenger pays covers the maintenance of the station that he happens to pass through or at which he gets on or off. Hon. Members, in their enthusiasm for public service, now say that the people who use private motor cars shall be provided with conveniences at the public expense without paying anything themselves.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me, if I may, to interrupt him. I think the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) was wrong in saying that parking places will be provided free. There is no doubt that a reasonable charge can be made from people who use the parking places.
    Mr. J. JONES: Why did he not say so then?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I interpreted my own words wrongly.
    Mr. J. JONES: If you say a wrong thing you should not try to make people believe that you are right. We stand for public service, which does not mean merely the provision of conveniences but, in addition, means that, when the cost has to be met, everybody pays his share.
    5.40 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: It was most unfortunate that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and the Minister could not have told us on the last Amendment that it was proposed to accept this Amendment. Had the Minister done so, we might have saved the time of the House over a division. It was so obviously the one point that we were insisting upon in our Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, in page 32, line 5, to leave out paragraph (b).

    1473
    5.41 p.m.
    This Amendment raises the question as to whether, in those cases where parking is allowed, people will be able to get what may be an essential for getting away. There often are cases when people run out of petrol, or run very short of petrol, when they arrive at such a place, and then the car stands all day. When they desire to go away at night, there may be no fuel. Obviously, there are matters like punctured tyres, and it will be a very great facility to have things mended while the owners are in London. I would ask the Minister whether some words can be put in to permit that the ordinary small conveniences desired by motorists might be performed when he is leaving his car for a day, especially in cases where there is no adjoining garage at which such facilities can be obtained. There may be places where a garage may be some considerable distance away. When Morden station was first opened, there was no garage anywhere near. It was more or less an isolated district out in the country. Since then, building has taken place, and garages are now fairly close. I want to ask the Minister whether words could be put in to permit what I have suggested being done for the convenience of the passenger.
    5.43 p.m.
    Mr. PYBUS: I admit that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) is ingenious, but the Government does not dissent from the view that the board should be precluded from engaging in the general business of supplying fuel, accessories and spare parts, and I cannot accept the Amendment.
    5.44 p.m.
    Mr. MACMILLAN: I do not understand on what public grounds the board should be precluded from providing the very small facilities proposed by the Mover of the Amendment. There is something to be said for them, and they would be a convenience for the people, especially in view of the fact that the Government have accepted the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). I ask the Minister to consider very seriously, in view of his acceptance of that Amendment, whether he can provide words by which that Amendment will be made really operative.
    5.45 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My hon. Friend hardly shows his characteristic logic in suggesting that, because the board are allowed to have a parking place for ears, they must as a necessary corollary be allowed to carry on a repair depot or put up a fuel pump. I should have thought that there was a, very clear line of demarcation between the two activities. At any rate, we do not propose to allow the board to go beyond the provision of parking places. Hon. Members do not think it at all unusual or inconvenient if, when they are allowed to leave their cars in a railway station yard while they go to London, they do not find a repair department provided by the railway for use while they are absent. If the board care to allow an oil pump to be set up in a parking place by some private undertaker, there is nothing to prevent them from renting the necessary space, just as the railway companies allow Messrs. Smith's bookstalls to be carried on on their platforms. We are not, however, prepared to allow the board to sell fuel or provide a repair depot, instead of leaving these matters to the ordinary people who carry on such businesses and pay the rates in the locality.
    5.47 p.m.
    Mr. MACMILLAN: I am very much obliged to the Attorney-General for his reply. If it is clear that the board will not be precluded from allowing a fuel-selling pump to be set up in their parking places, I think that that would meet the ordinary practical objection. The question is one of some importance, because we feel that from the railway companies' point of view the provision of parking places and facilities for people using the railways needs to be developed, both by the main line railways and generally, for the purpose of combining motor transport with railway transport, and, if the board are not precluded from arranging with private enterprise for the provision of these small facilities, I am satisfied. I was under the impression that the Sub-section would preclude what is really in the interests of the railways as well as of motor traffic.
    5.48 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Will the Attorney-General tell us if the hoard will have the power to let premises I did not appreciate that under the Bill they would have any such power.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I will look into that point, and will take care that they have the power.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendments made: In page 32, line 15, leave out the word "or."
    In line 17, after the word "which," insert the words "or part of which."
    In line 18, after the word "which," insert the words "or part of which."
    In line 22, at the end, add the words:
    "(iii) selling or otherwise disposing of vehicles which have been used for the purposes of their undertaking, or for the purpose of any working agreement made in pursuance of Section eighteen of this Act, or spare parts or equipment held by the board for use in connection with any such vehicle as aforesaid."—[Mr. Pybus.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the 'Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    5.50 p.m.
    Captain NORTH: Before we pass this Clause, I should like to make one or two observations on it. It seems to me that this is the most contradictory Clause in the Bill up to the present. It starts by saying that the board shall not do certain things. Then there is a departure, and we find words providing that nothing in the Section shall prevent the board from carrying on the Morden Station Garage, or from continuing to carry on the business of any other garage forming part of an undertaking which has been transferred to the board. It seems to me that these two parts of the Clause are completely contradictory. I should like the Minister to tell us something about the business of the Morden Station Garage, and I should also like to know whether it is intended at the end of three years to dispose of this garage. I understand that it is not. If there are any garages that come within this Clause, I think the Committee ought to be informed about them. Are the board to be allowed to do the things which are forbidden in the first part of the Clause? I should like to hear some explanation of these points from the Minister.
    5.52 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not think the Clause requires very much explanation. The first part prohibits the board from doing certain things, but it is a very customary device in the drafting
    1476
    of a Bill to add a proviso which excepts certain acts from the comprehensive prohibition contained in the earlier part of the Clause. The proviso to Clause 22 excepts the carrying on of the Morden Garage, which, as my hon. and gallant Friend correctly surmises, is not intended to be sold; it may be carried on by the board in perpetuity if they think fit. So far as regards the other garages, of which there is a considerable number, the board may only carry them on for three years, and after that time must dispose of them that is to say, after the expiry of the three years, there will be no power to carry on these garages. Obviously it is not desirable that the board should be forced to sell part of the undertaking which they have taken over at what one may call break-up or knock-out prices. The object of the period of three years is to allow of its being done with due regard to the market value of the garages which are disposed of.

    CLAUSE 23.—(Power to abandon tramway systems.)
    Amendment made: In page 33, line 11, after the word "equipment," insert the words "or make good the surface of the road."—[Mr. Pybus.]

    CLAUSE 24.—(Supply of electricity by local authorities.)
    5.54 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 35, line 12, to leave out the words "arbitration under this Section", and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "an arbitrator to he agreed or, failing agreement, to be appointed by the Minister."
    This Amendment is almost a drafting Amendment. Its purpose is to clear up an ambiguity and to make it plain that the arbitration proposed is precisely of the same nature as that provided for in Sub-sectiotn (5) of the Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 35, line 24, leave out from the second word "supply" to the end of line 26.
    In page 36, line 7, leave out the word "sub-stations," and insert instead thereof the words "sub-station buildings."—[Mr. Pybus.]
    5.55 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 36, line 41, to leave out the words "until the said," and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "in respect of each item of that remaining plant until that item of."
    There is a provision in Sub-section (4, b, ii) of Clause 24 that the board are to pay to an authority from time to time money in respect of plant which cannot be used by the undertaking, that is to say, plant which has not been taken over by the board. The object of the Amendment is to make it plain that the payment by the hoard is not to be made in respect of plant which is not taken over until the very last item of the plant is taken over, but that there shall be a payment by the board only in respect of those parts of the plant which are not disposed of and which cannot be made use of by the undertaking.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 37, line 5, leave out the words "plant so remaining," and insert instead thereof the words "item of plant so remaining unsuitable for use."—[Mr. Pybus.]

    CLAUSE 25.—(Statutory charging powers of the Board.)
    5.57 p.m.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I beg to move, in page 37, line 36, after "1921," to insert the words "(except section forty-seven thereof)".
    This Amendment is for the purpose of securing the maintenance of the existing rules as to through rates. It is practically a drafting Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 37, line 42, leave out the words "and charges."
    In page 38, line 6, leave out from the word "charges" to the second word "of," in line 7, and insert instead there-
    1478
    of the words "applied to that company under Part III."—[Mr. Pybus.]
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 38, line 7, at the end, to add the words:
    "(3) As from the appointed day all provisions contained in any special or local Act, or in any Order having the force of an Act, with respect to the power of the Minister to revise the maximum fares and charges to be demanded by the tramway undertakings transferred to the board by this Act shall cease to have effect."
    This Amendment is proposed in order to avoid any possible conflict between the existing power of the Minister to revise the maximum fares on tramways and the new jurisdiction over fares set up by Clause 29 of the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 26.—(Road service fares and charges of the Board.)
    Amendment made: In page 38, line 23, leave out the words "and charges," and insert instead thereof the words "of the Board."—[Mr. Pybus.]
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 38, line 25, to leave out the words "London Traffic Area," and to insert instead thereof the words "special area."
    This Amendment is similar to the restrictive Amendment of which we had an example in the earlier part of the Bill. The special area is more restricted than the London Traffic Area. Outside the special area, the board's road services will be subject, as we explained yesterday, to the jurisdiction of the traffic commissioners, like everyone else.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 27.—(Fares in force on appointed day.)
    6.0 p.m.
    Sir KENYON VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I beg to move, in page 39, line 1, after the word "authority," to insert the words "or any person."
    The purpose of this Amendment is to give the right to any person to inspect the schedules and not to restrict that power to the local authorities.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The Amendment is an improvement to the Bill, and we accept it.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 28.—(Notification of alterations in fares and charges.)
    Amendment made: In page 39, line 5, leave out the words "and charges."—[Mr. Pybus.]
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I beg to move, in page 39, line 7, at the end, to add the words:
    "which shall include provisions for advertising any such alteration in a newspaper and inside all passenger vehicles to which the alteration relates and at the public offices of the undertaking concerned for a period of not less than twenty-eight days before the alteration comes into force."
    6.1 p.m.
    This is to ensure that the utmost reasonable warning shall be given of any intention on the part of the Transport Board of varying fares or altering facilities, so that those who are chiefly concerned, the passengers, shall have ample opportunity of knowing in advance what alterations it is proposed to make. We suggest that any alteration shall be announced not only in the newspapers but also in the place where the passenger is most likely to be able to observe it, that is to say, inside the vehicle to which the alteration may apply as well as at the public offices of the undertaking and so on. We seek to fix the reasonable period before the alteration comes into force at 28 days. I do not think I need further insist on the importance and the reasonable character of the Amendment and I trust that the Minister, now that he is in a conciliatory frame of mind, will accept it with the same pleasing graciousness that characterised the last.
    6.2 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The manner in which the board is to give public notice of reductions or increases of fares is to be prescribed in regulations to be laid down by the Minister. That was settled by the Joint Committee in agreement with the county council. The Clause applies to all fares on all railways, omnibus or tramway undertakings of the board. Obviously, the manner of giving
    1480
    notice would not be the same in all cases. For instance, it would be impossible to put up a notice in every railway carriage, whereas it might be possible and convenient to put it up in omnibuses. The further requirement suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend of publishing the details in the Press would be an extremely expensive form of amusement for the board, and it might have the effect of adding to the fares by adding to the 'charges which the board will have to meet. It seems to me that he is expecting the board to do too much in this way. I should like him to remember that railways and tramways are subject to statutory restriction of fares and that omnibuses operating in London are not at present restricted as to the fares they may charge, nor are any of the present operators required to give notice of alteration. In the circumstances, we cannot see why the board should be put to this great inconvenience and unnecessary expenditure, and I cannot accept the Amendment.
    6.4 p.m.
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I am obliged for the information, though I regret the substance of it. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me to point out that, since the Bill received the consideration of the Joint Committee, the activities of the Minister have been substantially curtailed, and I am not sure that it will be within the ambit of his functions to lay clown regulations as originally proposed. Secondly, may I remind him that, while omnibus proprietors now are not under obligation to give notice about their fares and are free to alter them, in the future. conditions will be quite different from what they are to-day. Passengers will be subjected to this monopoly, and it is for that reason that it is important that they should be warned, so that the operations of the Transport Board may receive proper public scrutiny. His attitude seems to be one of suppressing the truth so far as publicity as to what is to be done is concerned. This is really very regrettable. In the future there will be a, monopoly, whereas now the passenger can always go from one supplier of accommodation to another. My hon. and gallant Friend's point is a good one with regard to railway vehicles. It might be very difficult to post all these alterations

    1481
    in every railway compartment or in every railway vehicle, but in that case I should like him to have the notices exposed in the railway stations. I will not press the Amendment if be will promise to give it further consideration before Report.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: My hon. Friend will give due attention to what my hon. and gallant Friend has said.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 29.—(Revision of fares of the Board.)
    Amendments made: In page 39, line 9, leave out the words "(in this section referred to as the tribunal ')," and insert instead thereof the words:
    "(in this part of this Act referred to as ' the rates tribunal')."
    In line 13, leave out the words "and charges."
    In line 15, leave out the words "and charges."
    In line 19, leave out the words "or charges."
    In line 20, after the word "the," insert the word "rates."
    In line 22, leave out the words "and charges."
    In line 25, after the word "Act," insert the words:
    "or Order having the force of au Aot."
    In line 26, leave out the words "or charges."—[The Attorney-General.]
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 39, line 28, at the end, to insert the words:
    "and notwithstanding anything in any condition attached to a road-service licence granted under Section seventy-two of the Road Traffic Act, 1930."
    6.10 p.m.
    The only object of the Amendment is the necessary one of providing that an order by the rates tribunal shall override and supersede any condition imposed by the traffic commissioners on the issue of a road-service licence.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 39, line 30, leave out the words "and charges."
    In line 32, after the second word "the," insert the word "rates."
    In line 32, leave out the words "taken into consideration the question of," and insert instead thereof the words "considered an application for."
    In line 34, leave out the words "gave a decision," arid insert instead thereof the words "made an order."
    In line 35, leave out the words "or charges."
    In line 37, after the first word "the," insert the word "rates."
    In line 37, leave out the words "taken into consideration the question of," and insert instead thereof the words "considered an application for."
    In line 38, leave out the words "or charges."
    In line 39, leave out the words "gave a decision," and insert instead thereof the words "made an order."
    In line 41, leave out the words "a decision was given," and insert instead thereof the words "an order was made."
    In line 42, after the word "the," insert the word "rates."
    In page 40, line 5, leave out the word "decision," and insert instead thereof the word "order."
    In line 6, after the word "The," insert the word "rates."—[The Attorney-General.]
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 40, line 13, to leave out Sub-section (5).
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: This is an important Sub-section, because under it the tribunal, in determining an application, is to have regard to an adequate reserve fund.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This Sub-section appears in two places. It is in another place in exactly the same form.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I have an Amendment on the Paper, in page 40, line 16, at the end—
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment is not selected.

    CLAUSE 30.—(Representations by local authorities as to withdrawal, reduction of, or need for, services provided or to be provided by the board.)
    6.16 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 40, line 17, to leave out the words "make representations to the Minister," and to insert instead thereof the words" at any time apply to the rates tribunal."
    The purpose of this Amendment and subsequent Amendments to the Clause is to provide that the jurisdiction over facilities provided by the board which was conferred upon the Minister shall be left in the hands of the Railway Rates Tribunal. This gives effect to what the Minister foreshadowed in his White Paper which was issued in July. The view was then expressed that the Clause in its present form conferred excessive powers upon the Minister, and also that the jurisdiction over fares and other facilities should be vested in the same authority, since these matters are inextricably woven together. As the result of the Amendment, we propose that the jurisdiction over all such matters shall reside in the Railway Rates Tribunal. I think that in this way we have got over one of the main difficulties found in the Bill when it was read a Second time.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 40, line 20, leave out the words "in the area of the authority."
    In line 23, leave out the words "in that area," and insert instead thereof the words "affecting the area of the authority."
    In line 24, leave out Sub-section (2).
    In line 30, leave out from the beginning to the word "may," in line 32, and insert instead thereof the words "Where any such application is made, the rates tribunal."
    In line 32, leave out the words "he thinks," and insert instead thereof the words "they think."
    In line 37, leave out the word "he," and insert instead thereof the word "they."
    In page 40, line 40, leave out the words "Minister in considering whether he shall make an order," and insert instead thereof the words "rates tribunal in determining an application."
    In page 41, line 1, after the word "would," insert the words "in their opinion."—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlani.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    6.20 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I wish to ask the Minister two questions on the Clause. The local authority may 6.20 p.m. make representation to the Minister. If a large number of private persons are affected and they wish to make representation, to whom will they be able to make representation?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Not to the Railway Rates Tribunal.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: That is the first point. If the ordinary passenger is aggrieved by the decision he should be given the opportunity of going to some court of appeal. Is there any court of appeal? Can he go beyond this body if he feels aggrieved in any way? This is an important matter. I am not concerned so much with local authorities as they can look after themselves. I am anxious about private individuals, and we ought to know to whom they can appeal, if at all, and what is the right way of doing it.
    6.21 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I remember well 20 years ago that as members of a committee of the local ratepayers' association we used to devote nearly half our time to making proper and reasonable representations to the Underground railway companies with regard to facilities of all kinds, and with very successful results. We were always received with the utmost courtesy. It seems to me that we are making this a little too official. We are only going to give powers of representation to local authorities. It would be worth while for the Minister to consider between now and the Report stage whether he would not confer upon any organised responsible body of persons in any part of the London transport area, the right to make representations to the tribunal and have a status before it. I

    1485
    am not certain of the rights in respect of main line traffic, but my impression is that at the moment an individual trader in some circumstances has access to the Railway Rates Tribunal. The only experience I have had of the Railway Rates Tribunal was in a representative capacity. on behalf of a trade with which I was then connected. My recollection is that certain rights exist. We ought not to leave the matter only to local authorities. There may be conflicts of opinion, and it may be a matter which only concerns a particular part of a large area and the local authority may not think it of sufficient importance to take up the matter. Yet there may be some responsible body of local citizens in a position to put forward the case, and they ought to be given a status before the tribunal.
    6.23 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am glad to be able to inform my two hon. Friends that anybody can apply direct or request the London Traffic Advisory Committee to take up the matter. In any case, I think that any reasonable number of people could perfectly well bring influence to bear upon their local authorities. I am sure that that is the best way in which to bring it to the attention of the board.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: What is the position with regard to appeals from decisions of the board?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The hon. Member means from the Railway Rates Tribunal. There is only an appeal on matters of law, and I do not see how that can be altered. How could you suggest that there could be an appeal?
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: If there is a right of appeal in matters of law, that is all I require. As long as it is a certainty—I am not absolutely sure—I shall be satisfied.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: At the present time I doubt whether there is any appeal on matters of law. I wish to be frank in my answer. I think that my hon. Friend may rest satisfied that the Railway Rates Tribunal is a body which gives every satisfaction, and I do not think that he need worry on the subject.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: If there is not a right of appeal, the Minister apparently
    1486
    wishes it to be there. May we have an assurance that it will be put in on the Report stage?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): There seems to be a misapprehension about this matter. I do not think there is a right of appeal, which is specially excluded by the Seventh Schedule. But I am afraid that I cannot give an undertaking that the matter will be reconsidered.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May we have some means of knowing I May we have an assurance that in some way or other the House may be given definite information on the Report stage? It will be very difficult for a private Member to raise the question again. I realise that the matter is complicated, but we ought to know whether the local authority or the private individual has a right of appeal. It is most important.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Seventh Schedule. He will find at the bottom of page 133 the words:
    "no appeal shall lie from any decision of the tribunal under this Act."
    I cannot give any assurance that it is intended to alter that Schedule.

    CLAUSE 31.—(Co-ordination of services of board and amalgamated railway companies.)
    6.26 p.m.
    Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 42, line 12, to leave out from the word "Committee," to the word "as," in line 14, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "within twelve months from the appointed day or such longer period."
    The Joint Committee is charged with the duty of preparing a pooling scheme between the board and the amalgamated railway companies in accordance with the provisions of the Eighth Schedule of the Bill, submitting it to the board for their adoption and subsequently to the arbitration tribunal for confirmation. The purpose of the Amendment is to secure that a period of 12 months may be left far the preparation of the pooling scheme. The Bill as it left the Joint Committee contemplated only three months for the purpose, but we now consider that such

    1487
    a period is inadequate. The appointed day, by an Amendment to he moved later, in page 44, line 16,
    "means the earliest day fixed by, or under, this Act as the appointed day in relation to the transfer of any undertaking to the board."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 43, line 8, after the word "date," insert the words "not being earlier than the appointed day."
    In line 10, after the word "to," insert the words "or is to be deemed to have."
    In line 13, leave out the word "or," and insert instead thereof the word "and."
    In line 14, after the word "companies," insert the words "or between any of those companies."
    In line 25, leave out from the second word "the" to the word "may," in line 28, and insert instead thereof the words:
    "rates tribunal for their decision; and, where any matter is so referred, the rates tribunal."
    In line 32, leave out the word "he," and insert instead thereof the words "the rates tribunal."
    In line 34, leave out the word "Minister," and insert instead thereof the words:
    "rates tribunal in considering whether any order should be made under this section shall have regard to the desirability of the establishment and maintenance by the board of an adequate reserve fund, and."
    In line 35, leave out the words "under this Section."
    In line 35, after the word "would," insert the words "in their opinion."
    In line 40, leave out the words "or an application to Parliament for additional powers."—[Mr. Pybus.]
    Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 43, line 43, at the end, to insert the words:
    "or which would necessitate an application to Parliament for additional powers."
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I hope we may have an assurance from the Minister that in this matter we are not abdicating the powers of Parliament. The matter is highly technical and I must confess that I do not understand what is means, but it is
    1488
    the duty of Members of Parliament to see that Parliamentary powers are not being handed over to some outside body.
    Mr. PYBUS: The effect of this Amendment and the one that precedes it is quite simple. It is not appropriate to impose an order on a body which would necessitate their applying to Parliament for powers, even with their consent, since this might be deemed to anticipate the decision of Parliament in the matter.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: On this occasion you are instituting a board which is not only above all courts of appeal, but absolutely above Parliament. I am glad to have that admission by the Minister. We are setting up something which is above Parliament.
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I would like the Minister to amplify his explanation. The words in the Bill are:
    "or which would necessitate the raising of additional capital, or an application to Parliament for additional powers."
    6.31 p.m.
    Does the Amendment mean that no application to Parliament is necessary, or will be made I Is it the intention to relieve the Transport Board of the necessity of appealing to Parliament? If so, it means removing this particular authority still further from the power of Parliament, a position to which we have already drawn attention.
    Mr. PYBUS: I can assure the hon. Member that this will necessitate an application to Parliament for additional powers.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: But those are the very words you are proposing to leave out. You are leaving out the words:
    "or which would necessitate an application to Parliament for additional powers."
    Mr. PYBUS: If the hon. Member will look at the Amendment he will see that we propose to insert the words:
    "or which would necessitate an application to Parliament for additional powers."
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I think that I understand the position. The words are taken out in one place and re-inserted in another.
    Mr. PYBUS: That is so.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 44, line 16, at the end, add the words:
    "and the expression ' the appointed day ' means the earliest day fixed by, or under, this Act as the appointed day in relation to the transfer of any undertaking to the board."—[Mr. Pybus.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, a; amended, stand part of the Bill."
    6.33 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I think the importance of this Clause is such that it is worth a few minutes' debate. In this Clause we propose to bring into being the arrangement to co-ordinate all the services of the board and those of the main line railways within that part of their area which is defined as suburban traffic. I was not a Member of Parliament when this Bill was first introduced, at which time I understand that the main line railways were bitter opponents of it. They are now enthusiastic supporters, so enthusiastic that my hon. Friends who have any connection with them say not one word on the subject of this Bill because they do not by their contributions to the Debate wish to delay its passage into law. I wonder why what was hatred has now become love. In Sub-section (5) we are told that
    "a scheme (in this Act referred to as the pooling scheme ') is to be drawn up."
    They are given 12 months after the Act becomes law, in accordance with an Amendment which we have made this afternoon, before the scheme is to be drawn up. In the Eighth Schedule there is set forth rather complicated provisions —I find them complicated; I have read them several times to understand what they mean—under which the pooling scheme will be worked. I am not quite sure whether the pooling scheme which is to be drawn up under Sub-section (5) in accordance with the Eighth Schedule is a scheme the form of which is a mathematical certainty, that is, purely a question of accountancy, or whether to a certain extent it is a question of arrangement. My impression is that it is to some extent a matter of negotiation, or that it would be a matter of negotiation. I may be wrong. Perhaps we may have some information on the point. I do not think that it is a pure matter of accountancy, because there are too many doubtful items set forth to be taken into account
    1490
    in the Eighth Schedule to say that it is automatic.
    If I am right and there are negotiable elements in the Bill, and since we know that certain people who opposed the Bill are now favourable to it, I am speculating whether there has not been some anticipatory negotiations, some friendly understanding as to what form the pooling scheme is ultimately to take. Those of us who read Scripture have heard of the Pool of Siloam. The effect of dipping into the Pool of Siloam was to make people see better than they did before. I wonder to what extent the main line railway people have dipped into the pool, which has caused them to see better than they did in the past. I may be wrong in my assumption. I may be making suggestions without any foundation, but it would be most helpful to the Committee if we had some information on this subject, and it would be useful to have some information from those hon. Members who are in a position to supply it.
    When we were discussing Clause 6 we had a very interesting and lucid explanation from an hon. Member who told us, quite frankly and properly, that he was a director of the Associated Equipment Company. There is no reason why on this Clause we should not have some statement by an hon. Member who will tell us that he is a director of one of the main line railways. I should like to have a little more information than has so far been disclosed to the Committee or to the world outside.
    6.38 p.m.
    Mr. PYBUS: I think I can best answer the hon. Member by quoting the words which were spoken by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester (Mr. Fielden), who is a director of one of the main line railways, on the Second Reading of the Bill. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has said that the main line railways were bitterly opposed to the Bill and then, quite suddenly, overnight, and for some apparently disreputable reason, they became supporters of it.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I did not say disreputable.
    Mr. PYBUS: The inference was there. I will read a few words from the speech made by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester:

    1491
    "It must be admitted that these suburban traffics are an integral and important factor in the problem with which this Bill seeks to deal, and one which cannot be left out of consideration. The Minister recognises this fact, and makes it clear in the Bill that coordination of all forms of transport is to be aimed at, but the provisions which he has incorporated in the Bill with regard to the main line companies are incomplete and inadequate to ensure co-ordination between the services to be provided by the board and those to be provided by the main line companies. The companies consider that their line of action, to fulfil the duties that they are called upon to perform in regard to their shareholders and the interests of the travelling public, is that, if the Bill receives a Second Reading: the main line companies will endeavour to introduce Clauses designed to remedy this lack of co-ordination and to ensure that the main line companies shall be entitled to take their due part in the general scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1931; col. 116, Vol. 250.]
    I trust the hon. Member will accept the words that I have read, as an answer to the remarks that he has made.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The fact remains that the hon. Member for the Exchange Division (Mr. Fielden) did not like the Bill at that time, but changes have since been made which have altered his affections. I want to know what the financial effect of those changes is.
    6.41 p.m.
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: The Minister of Transport has drawn our attention to what was said by one hon. Member who is associated with one of the main line railways as a director. Will he pay attention to what was said by one of the hon. Member's colleagues on the board of the same railway, the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn)? If so, it might alter his opinion as to the favourable views expressed by railway directors on this Bill. While I accept the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester (Mr. Fielden), I only desire to point out that that opinion was not so universal or so generally accepted at the time as the Minister appears to believe.
    Clause 32 (Application of provisions relating to amalgamated railway companies) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 33.—(Charging powers of amalgamated railway companies.)
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 44, line 25, after "1921," to insert the words "(except Section forty-seven thereof)."
    This is an Amendment similar to the one that we have already passed, designed to keep in force the existing machinery as to through rates.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    6.43 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Does this Amendment mean that a railway will be able to charge a lower rate between stations within the area and to charge a higher rate for a longer journey outside the area? I live a long way off and I do not want the railways to be giving cheap fares to people who have to make a journey of only five or 10 miles, and then to put on a higher fare for those who live further away, and to whom it is an important matter. I want to protect the long-distance travelling public from having to pay higher fares in order to subsidise the short-distance travelling public.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: It means that if you run from stations A to Z on one railway and from stations Z to B on another railway the through fares shall maintain a level price for the same distance on both railways.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The level price can be maintained upwards or downwards. You are not going to subsidise the short-distance travelling at the expense of the long-distance travelling?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: No.

    CLAUSE 34.—(Revision of fares of amalgamated railway companies.)
    6.45 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 45, to leave out from the word "The" in line 1, to the word "may" in line 3, and to insert instead thereof the words "rates tribunal."
    All the Amendments to this Clause are drafting.
    Amendments agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 45, line 14, after the word "Act," insert the words "or order having the force of an Act."
    In line 19, after the second word "the," insert the word "rates."
    In line 20, leave out the words "taken into consideration the question of," and insert instead thereof the words "considered an application for."
    In line 21, leave out the words "gave a decision," and insert instead thereof the words "made an order."
    In line 24, after the word "the," insert the word "rates."
    In line 24, leave out the words "taken into consideration the question of," and insert instead thereof the words "considered an application for."
    In line 26, leave out the words "gave a decision," and insert instead thereof the words "made an order."
    In line 28, leave out the words "a decision was given," and insert instead thereof the words "an order was made."
    In line 28, after the second word "the," insert the word "rates."
    In line 34, leave out the word "decision," and insert instead thereof the word "order,"
    In line 35, after the word "The," insert the word "rates."
    In line 39, leave out Sub-section (5).—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]

    CLAUSE 35.—(Representations by local authorities as to withdrawal, reduction of, or need for services provided or to be provided by amalgamated railway companies.)
    6.40 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 46, line 1, to leave out the words "make representations to the Minister," and to insert instead thereof the words "at any time apply to the rates tribunal."
    This is a drafting Amendment.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Why is it that in this Clause it is apparently a local authority who may make representations to
    1494
    the rates tribunal, whereas in Clause 34 it is the Minister who is to have certain powers? Can the Parliamentary Secretary say where the Minister stops and where local authorities come in? In Clause 34 the Minister is still kept in, whereas in this Clause the Government propose to eliminate him. Why?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: In Subsection (3) of Clause 34 the Minister has merely to give a certificate that circumstances have changed in order to enable some action to be taken. In the Clause we have now reached, the Railway Rates Tribunal has to decide the alteration, in place of the Minister. In Clause 34 the Minister does nothing except certify a change of circumstances to enable a reconsideration of certain matters. There is a distinction. It would be difficult for the Railway Rates Tribunal to act.
    6.48 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: May I put a point to the Attorney-General in regard to the Railway Rates Tribunal? Under the Railways Act, 1921, the question of proper facilities is one for the Railway and Canal Commission. The Clause deals with the question of the withdrawal or not of any facility provided in connection with the suburban passenger services. Will it not be rather awkward for the Railway Rates Tribunal to deal with these matters as regards the suburban passenger services while the same facilities, a little further on, will be under the jurisdiction of the Railway and Canal Commission? It may mean that a train which runs out of one suburban area into another may be dealt with by the Railway Rates Tribunal and the Railway and Canal Commission. Would it not be much better to bring facilities within the ambit of the Railway Rates Tribunal? It is a question as to whether this duplication is any longer necessary. Would it not be better for one of them to have sole control of facilities?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Member for calling attention to the point. As far as the Railway and Canal Commission is concerned, it may be necessary—I cannot say more—to make an alteration to withdraw the matter from their jurisdiction, but as the hon. and learned Member has called attention to some in

    1495
    convenience which may result if we have two tribunals dealing with the same question I will look into it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    6.50 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 46, line 10, to leave out Sub-section (2).
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: After what the Attorney-General has just said, would it not be much better to leave in this Sub-section, as this would be the place where, on Report, any alteration could be made? I do not know the legal and technical side of the question, but I think it would be much better to leave it in. We have had a most valuable suggestion from the hon. and learned Member for Bristol, East (Sir S. Cripps) who has pointed out the queer position which may result, and I think it would be much better to leave Sub-section (2) in because we can then make the necessary Amendment on Report.
    6.51 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have not been able to check it but. I am told that this Sub-section is being put in in another part of the Bill.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Where? We must know where.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: In the proposed new Clause dealing with the transfer of the powers of the Railway and Canal Commission.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 46, leave out the words from the beginning of line 16 to the word "may," in line 18, and insert instead thereof the words:
    "Where any such application is made, the rates tribunal."
    In line 18, leave out the words "he thinks," and insert instead thereof the words "they think."
    In line 21, leave out the words "the services in question," and insert instead thereof the words:
    "such services subject to such conditions (including the provision of alternative facilities) as they may prescribe."
    In line 24, leave out the ward "Minister," and insert instead thereof the words "rates tribunal."
    In line 27, after the second word "or," insert the word "which."
    In line 28, leave out the word "or," and insert instead thereof the words:
    "by any of those companies save with the consent of the company concerned, or which would necessitate."—[Lieut.-Colonel Head-lam.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    6.54 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May I be allowed now to put a point to the Attorney General? He said that a, person taking a ticket might be under one administration during one period of the journey and under another administration at another period of the journey. It is the difficulty raised by the hon. and learned Member for Bristol, East (Sir S. Cripps) as I understood him—
    The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert): I think the hon. Member far Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) must have misunderstood the hon. and learned Member for Bristol, East (Sir S. Cripps). I do not find anything about two ticket rates in this Clause.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: It is a question that a traveller is partly under one system of administration and partly under another. However, I will not take it any further. I should like to know why only a local authority may make representations. I take the view that other people besides local authorities should have the power to make representations, and I assume that there are some adequate means by which private individuals may be able to make representations.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If the hon. Member will turn to one of the new Clauses, he will find a proposal to give persons concerned the right to make representations.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Is that in the proposed new Clause of the Government or in the new Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Fulham, East (Sir K. Vaughan-Morgan)? If the Government are going to accept that Amendment, it will be very helpful.
    Clause 36 (Transport fund), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 37.—(Power of board to borrow for capital purposes.)
    Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 48, line 26, at the end, to add the words:
    "() Where by virtue of the transfer to the board of the undertakings of the London Electric Railway Company, the Metropolitan District Railway Company, or the Central London Railway Company any cash or other liquid assets are transferred to the board being cash or assets representing any part of the additional moneys raised before the appointed day by any of the said companies by the issue of debenture stocks under the powers conferred by the London Electric, Metropolitan District, Central London, and City and South London Railway Companies Act, 1930, the board may, notwithstanding anything in this Act, apply that cash or those assets to the payment of interest on the transport stuck issued in substitution for those debenture stocks of those companies and charge the same to capital account in the like manner as those companies might have applied those moneys to the payment of interest on those debenture stocks, and have charged the same to capital account."
    6.57 p.m.
    I should like to explain that this is purely a formal Amendment. It arises in this way. The Act of 1930 authorises certain tube extensions in the Underground group, and they have the power to charge interest to capital on the stock raised during construction. This Amendment is to preserve that power to the new board.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    6.59 p.m.
    Mr. JAMES DUNCAN: Paragraph (a) of Sub-section (3), which sets out the amount of capital that the new board is allowed to raise, says that it is to be a sum equivalent to the additional money they require to raise, less the amount of capital they have already raised, and, in addition, a sum of £10,000,000. I am anxious to know whether the additional capital will be sufficient for the development of tubes, and for tramways, omnibuses and other means of transport in that area. I want to make sure that the capital available will be sufficient.
    Mr. PYBUS: Of course, if London transport advances at a speed which no one can anticipate, then it will be all to
    1498
    the good. Facilities will be greater than one would normally have expected. I have never heard it questioned that the borrowing powers at present possessed by the board, if the Bill becomes law, will not be adequate for the purpose.
    Mr. DUNCAN: Will he tell me if the actual sum in cash which is the answer to this paragraph (a) is a fixed sum?
    The CHAIRMAN: What is the Clause which the hon. Member is talking about?
    Mr. DUNCAN: Clause 37, page 48, line 6:
    "A sum equivalent to the additional moneys …"
    required to be raised. What is that in cash?
    7.2 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I think the point is fairly clear except in the print of the Bill which says:
    "A sum equivalent to the additional moneys."
    When you have made this calculation what is the sum which we will call "A"? Then you have Sub-section (b) and the sum "B." That Sub-section says:
    "The sum of ten million pounds."
    My hon. Friend understands this, and he says that £1,000,000 will develop a tube railway for a mile. That means that under paragraph (5) you will develop a tube railway by 10 miles. You have other sums in paragraph (a) under this Clause. We want to know whether there is means for great development. What is the sum of capital available under paragraph (a)? While I am about it, may I ask, if these sums are exhausted, they will have to borrow more, and will they have to come to the House for more?
    Mr. PYBUS: If the borrowing which is granted to the board under this Bill is exhausted, they will have to come to Parliament for further sums. With regard to the further point raised as to the amount of cash necessary under paragraph (a), it will depend upon the amount of cash awarded by the Arbitration Tribunal and whatever the sum is the borrowing powers are adequate for it.
    CLAUSE 38.—(Issue of transport stock.)
    Amendments made: In page 49, line 12, leave out the words "the principal moneys represented by the."
    In line 24, after the word "undertakings," insert the words "and of the Metropolitan undertaking."
    In line 29, after the word "Schedule," insert the words "and of Part I of the Fourth Schedule."
    In line 35, after the word "undertakings," insert the words "and the Metropolitan undertaking."
    In page 50, line 15, leave out from the word "only" to the word "in," in line 19, and insert instead thereof the words:
    "in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to this Act."
    In line 21, leave out the words "those companies" and insert instead thereof the words:
    "the London Electric Railway Company, the Central London Railway Company, and the City and South London Railway Company."—[Mr. Pybus.]
    Sir ALFRED BEIT: I beg to move, in page 51, line 15, to leave out the word "five" and to insert instead thereof the words "three and one-half."
    7.7 p.m.
    I move this Amendment principally to emphasise the rigid financial structure of the Bill, and I hope also to rectify that, if possible. The importance of this Clause is second only to the importance of Clause 1, and I very much hope that the Attorney-General, or the Minister, will give us a very full answer, according to its deserts. The intention of this Amendment is to affect certain alterations with regard to the "C" stock of the London Transport Board. I would like to make it clear that "C" stock is the junior of the three stocks. It should be, in common parlance, the equity of the business. The function of the equity is to act as a cushion in the ups and downs of the trade cycle. Actually the "C" stock, which is being given very nearly exclusively in exchange for existing ordinary stocks and shares under this Bill, virtually becomes a gilt-edged stock.
    I ask the Committee to look at its powers and privileges. In the first place, the "C" stock gets interest at 5 per cent. for the first two years and, after that, 5½ per cent., plus an extra eighth to a half of 1 per cent., according to the
    1500
    amount earned. This in itself is a very rigid arrangement indeed. This junior stock is only 21 per cent. of the total. It must earn 5½ per cent., and may earn 6 per cent., a margin far too narrow in my opinion. A further power attached to it is that, if the standard rate is not paid during two consecutive years, there is power to put in a receiver. In fact, on the application of holders of less than 2½ per cent. of the entire amount of "C" stock the whole ponderous machinery of receivership can be brought into action. Ordinary shareholders never have the right to put in a receiver like that. It never certainly was the case with the equity owners of the companies now being merged, or taken over. But I would like to know what it would benefit the holders of "C" stock if they did put in a receiver. It seems unlikely they would be able to manage the business better than the Transport Board; indeed, they might seriously prejudice the prospects of "A" and "B" stockholders, and any stock which, under this Act, becomes a trustee security should be treated with the respect due to such stock.
    I would like to know whether the Minister realises that if this great concern of £110,000,000 earns an average of 4½ per tent. on its total capital—which everybody will admit would be a pretty good achievement in times of depression —if it does that two years running a receiver could, nevertheless, be appointed. A further drawback is that the board must pay such dividends as it can in any one year. The payment may be less than the standard rate. If it cannot pay the standard rate, it may pay some smaller amount. The board's only redress is under Clause 3, Sub-section (4) under which, as the Committee will remember, it has the power to raise rates. Of course, anybody knows that that does not necessarily produce the desired result. You may raise rates, but you may not make up the standard income. If I may refer to the statement prepared by Sir William McLintock, I would like to say a word upon one of the small balances which some Members criticised the other day. That is not anything to find fault with, because the travelling public would have a greater case for reduction of fares. Turning to other aspects of the statement, I must say that it is based on a period

    1501
    of years which were rather good, and which showed good operative results. It does not make any allowance for a sinking fund. I do not think it makes any allowance for depreciation.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It does include that. I ascertained some days ago that, although the statement speaks only of maintenance and renewal of the undertaking, that in fact does what my hon. Friend wishes to do.
    Sir A. BEIT: I am much obliged to the Attorney-General. I repeat, of course, that the estimates of the statement are for fairly good operating results. Further, they allow for no sinking fund. I repeat that if a concern were to earn 4½ per cent. it could not pay the dividends required under this Bill. Secondly, in view of the depression in which we are at the present moment, it seems to me there will he no alternative for the board but to raise fares at once, directly this Bill comes into operation. In short, "C" stock is too good a security, and it is beyond the means of the board. If I may give an example, there is the case of the Metropolitan consolidated ordinary stock. We come to that in a minute. I know that a heavy price has been paid to get that concern to come into this. In exchange for their present stock which has paid 2½ per cent., and is valued at 62, they are to get £67, nominal, of "C" transport stock which is proposing to pay 5 per cent. They are increasing their value by exactly double.
    I think the remedy is to make provision, as I have done in my Amendment, allowing a higher maximum dividend in good times, in consideration of a lower minimum dividend. I propose, therefore, that the standard rate for the first two years should be reduced from 5 to 3½ per cent., and the subsequent rate from 5½ per cent. to 4 per cent. Further, there should be a provision, which is outlined in my fourth Amendment and subsequent Amendments, allowing for participation up to 3 per cent. out of the balance, referred to in Clause 45, after paying other interest. That would make the maximum 7 per cent. I have also put down an Amendment to page 51, line 20, to leave out the words "after the first two years," to provide that this participation, in the event of the next two years being good, should be immediate. Of course, it would naturally
    1502
    not be obligatory. I very much hope that the Minister will seriously consider these suggestions, because I do not otherwise see how, unless Sir William McLintock's estimates are realised, it will be possible for the board to meet its obligations. The "C" stock in any event will then be in the position, after two bad years, that it will be possible for shareholders to put, in a receiver, and that would have a most damaging effect on the prior "A" and "B" stocks.
    7.16 p.m.
    Mr. BRACKEN: I have on the Paper an Amendment which is not quite as comprehensive as that moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit). I am in entire agreement with everything that he has said. It seems to me fantastic far the Government to assume that this Combine can earn 5½ per cent. on the "C" stocks in perpetuity. The Minister who is conducting this Bill so agreeably was an eminent business man, and he knows perfectly well that during the last hundred years 10 to 20 years have been years of grave depression. The Government now submits in principle that this company must go on paying 5½ per cent., and that, if it does not for two consecutive years, 2½ per cent. of the "C" stockholders can rush in and get a receiver and manager appointed. There was never a more preposterous proposal put forward. Who is going to make the next few years prosperous? Who is to make sure that the next 10 or 20 years will be sufficiently prosperous to enable that dividend to be paid I Can a Government legislate for prosperity? It seems to me that the Government are taking on a very big question when they come to this House and want us to assume that for the next 10 or 20 years the country will be sufficiently prosperous for this company to pay per cent, on this "C" stock.
    Let me utter a word of warning. A few years ago in this House we committed ourselves to another Government devised Combine, Imperial and International Communications. The experience we have had of that company does not lead any of us to believe that, just because a Government Department devises a plan which will ensure that an industry can pay 51 per cent. for many years, the industry is going to do so. All the

    1503
    stockholders in Imperial Communications are groaning now, and shortly there will be a reconstruction of capital. Yet the Government to-day say, "Take it from us, we can ensure that for heaven knows how many years London will be sufficiently prosperous to enable this Combine to pay this 5½ per cent." This Bill may be a Socialist think it is —but whether it is a Socialist Bill or a Capitalist Bill, neither a Socialist administration nor a Capitalist administration can conduct a company if they are tied down to the rigid payment of 5½ per cent. in good times or bad, while 2½ per cent. of busybodies among the stockholders can put into jeopardy the whole of the capital in the concern.
    I hope that the Government will do something to meet the objections that have been put forward. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation I trust that the Amendment will be pressed to a Division. We are setting up, in effect, another preposterous Imperial Wireless Combine, and we shall inflict a grave loss on the investors of the country; we shall participate again in one of the melancholy capital reconstructions because of too optimistic plans of Ministers. I know that this is a Government of all the talents, but they cannot make this country prosperous for 20 or 30 years, as they seem. to think they can.
    7.20 p.m.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: I agree with the Amendment and with the lower rate of interest demanded, but I do not agree with the statement that it is probable this rate of interest will not be earned. I think the Combine is going to be in a remarkably strong position to earn what it likes. It can go to the Railway Rates Tribunal, and if it can show that two ends do not meet it can ask for an increase of fares. If bad times continue and passenger receipts fall, and the combine is not able to earn the dividend provided for in the Bill, it will be under an obligation to owners of the stock to go to the Railway Rates Tribunal and demand a general increase of fares. If we are to grant this big monopoly under this particular organisation; we have to see that the finances are sound, and not only in the interest of the stockholders. This Bill does not provide financial assistance; the Treasury is quite out of it, and so are
    1504
    the rates. The people who are going to provide the dividends are the travelling public. But the area is so large that there is not a citizen inside London or outside, within 25 miles of Charing Cross, who will not be dependent on this particular transport, and who will not have a contingent liability to pay the extra fares in order to find the 5½ per cent.
    It is true that we have had the advantage of Sir William McLintock's views. He stood in the witness-box under a severe fire of skilled cross-examination, and he stood it very well. But circumstances have changed. We are suffering from the economic blizzard so well described by the Prime Minister. The blizzard is bound to reach every department of life, transport just as much as industry. I think the Minister is taking a great responsibility on his shoulders if he allows this rate of interest to go unamended. It is true that very skilfully he has arranged no longer to be responsible to the House for the administration of the Bill. He disappears and we shall not be able to cross-examine him. At any rate he largely disappears and goes into the shadows. At this stage of the Bill the hon. Member for South East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit) has fulfilled a great obligation in moving his Amendment, and in the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the Government I shall follow him into the Division Lobby.
    Mr. ALBERY: My hon. Friend the Member for South-East St. Pancras (Sir A. Belt) has raised a matter of considerable interest. The hon. Member who has just spoken seems to take the view that the stock of this company is an absolute security, and that in any case the dividends will be paid, because if necessary the Combine will be able to raise fares. I do not know whether that view is correct. Obviously there must be two views about the matter; otherwise there would not be any justification for the reservation in the Bill about appointing a receiver. If the dividends are not earned the Clause provides for the appointment of a receiver by the holders of "C" stock. I agree entirely with the Mover of the Amendment that that cannot be done without jeopardising the rights of holders of "A" and "B" prior stock. Perhaps I am not right in using the word "jeopardising," but certainly it would damage the marketable value of

    1505
    their security. I hope that the learned Attorney-General will give us some detailed information as to what kind of action he expects the receiver to take. It is very important that we should understand what the receiver will be able to do. Is this right to put in a receiver merely a matter of form which is never expected under any conceivable circumstances to take place, or is there any chance that it may happen? If it is at all likely to happen I certainly think that this Clause needs reconsideration.
    7.25 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: There will certainly be no two opinions as to the importance of the question that has been raised, and I am sure the Committee would desire to express its appreciation to my hon. Friend the Member for South-East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit) who has raised it. He put his point with great clarity. But I think that the Committee will do well to consider whether or not the scheme in the Bill, so far as these rates of interest are concerned, is not a better one than that in my hon. Friend's proposals. In order to bring the matter before the Committee clearly it will be convenient to point out that the scheme provides for 5 per cent. interest for the first two years, 5½ per cent. after the first two years, then rising to 6 per cent. My hon. Friend proposes to substitute 3½ for 5 per cent., 4 per cent. for 5 per cent., and then he proposes to be optimistic and to increase the 6 per cent. to 7 per cent. I understand his criticism to be this—that we cannot expect this undertaking to earn, at any rate with a tolerable degree of certainty, as much as 5 per cent., still less 5½ per cent. after the first two years, and that if misfortune should prevent that rate of interest being paid a receiver can be put in upon the application of a few dissatisfied shareholders. As to the receiver it will be observed, in the first place, that it is not wholly a question of the decision of the shareholders. They will have to go to the Court and satisfy the Court that the appointment of a receiver and manager is an order which the Court ought to make. Therefore it is not an automatic going in of the receiver.
    Mr. ALBERY: Does it not in fact mean that the main point affecting the decision of the court will be that the company has defaulted on the agreed amount of interest?
    The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: Certainly, that would be a- very important, if not the main question for the court to consider. But the process is not quite automatic. Those who are familiar with the appointment of receivers in the Chancery Division will confirm my statement that if a small and negligible body of shareholders ask for the appointment of a receiver and manager, and if the rest of the shareholders are opposed to that course, the decision is still in the discretion of the court. The court is not bound to appoint a receiver if there are circumstances which do not make such appointment advisable in the interests of the shareholders as a whole. Here the main point in directing the decision of the court is the question whether a default has happened.
    Mr. BRACKEN: Does the Attorney-General realise that under this Bill a minority of 2½ per cent. of the shareholders can go to the court; and would not the court take into consideration the fact that a specific figure was put into the Act?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think so, but the fact that a certain proportion of the shareholders went to the court would not require the court to make an -order. An order would not be made merely because that proportion of shareholders had made an application. However, I do not wish by any means to over-stress my point. I recognise that, on the whole, it is safer to suppose that if default happens a receiver will be ordered to enter. But it is right to bear in mind that the protection of the undertaking is entrusted to the court and that the court is not in the position of having merely to act on the motion and at the volition of a body of shareholders. The court to some extent has discretion to do what is best in the interests of the undertaking, bearing in mind what the Act says as to the right of the court to order the entry of a receiver.
    In answer to this series of Amendments, I would remind my hon. Friends who put them forward and support them that if these proposals were to be adopted it would be necessary to re-open the whole of the provisional arrangements which have been made with the parties concerned. Those arrangements which I have termed provisional are, of

    1507
    course, subject to the approval of Parliament, but it must, I think, be agreed by the Committee that, if those arrangements have been made and if they are in the Bill with the consent and approval of the important bodies concerned, then there must be some merits in those proposals as contained in the Bill. These big undertakings and their directors have not agreed to this 5½ per cent. after the first two years and a maximum of 6 per cent. without believing that those are figures that can possibly be earned. Their interests are very much at stake. They are the people most vitally concerned. They are shareholders and they have given their approval to these proposals. It is not a question of parties making an agreement, subject to the approval of this Committee, when the parties making the agreement are not interested in the results of the agreement. The people most interested in seeing that the agreement put into the Bill is one which will work, are the undertakings which have been taken over and whose shareholders will receive the stock in question. I think that is a point which ought to confirm the Committee in the view—if the Committee is minded to take it—that the scheme of the Bill is sound and watertight.
    Some of my hon. Friends have expressed doubts as to whether, what they call the optimistic forecast of the Bill, will be realised. All I can say about that point is what I said a few days ago. I think the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) anticipated me in pointing out that Sir William McLintock has made a most exhaustive examination of the financial position. Nothing is easier than to foretell disaster. I am not in a position to foretell either disaster or success. I have not the qualifications, and I am bound to take the advice of other people. The question is whether I, as representing the Government, prefer the rather gloomy prognostications of my hon. Friends—who have not I venture to say gone into this matter with great care or in great detail—or the results of the very careful examination of the position made by Sir William McLintock. I am not suggesting that Sir William McLintock is infallible, but I think I would prefer the views of a man who has
    1508
    examined the subject in detail, through days and week of careful discussion, who has made a close examination of the figures, who has been cross-examined and exposed to all that ingenuity can suggest in the way of criticism. I prefer an authority of that sort to the authority of my hon. Friends who have spoken on this matter this afternoon.
    Why should we not take the authority of my hon. Friends who support these Amendments? They have not had the opportunities which Sir William McLintock had of going into these matters and that in itself is perhaps the very reason why we should not prefer their view. The hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) tried to frighten me by citing the experience of the Imperial cables and wireless amalgamation. There is nothing so deceptive, my hon. Friend must realise, as an analogy. I do not know the circumstances of the cables and wireless amalgamation but it seems a very long step to take to say that because the cables and wireless amalgamation was framed on an optimistic basis, therefore the scheme in this Bill must be too optimistic. That seems an extraordinary example of the non sequitur.
    Mr. BRACKEN: May I remind the Attorney-General that a Minister in this House in answer to criticisms on the Imperial Communications scheme said, just as he has said this evening that the Government had a most eminent chartered accountant in the City of London behind their proposal—a man of great responsibility. The Attorney-General says we must accept the authority of Sir William McLintock. In the City of London there are a number of accountants and other authorities, just as eminent as Sir William McLintock, and they all say, as the hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit) has said, that this Bill is so rigid that it will involve us in a calamity similar to that of the Imperial Communications Company.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think my hon. Friend is over-stating his case when he says that there are a number of eminent accountants in the city besides Sir William McLintock and that they all say that Sir William McLintock is wrong.
    Mr. BRACKEN: I referred to a number of accountants and I said that they were in agreement on this matter.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If my hon. Friend will allow me to put it in this way, what he suggests is that a certain number have prophesied disaster for this undertaking and all who have done so are in agreement that disaster will follow. He says that all the accountants who do not agree with Sir William McLintock prophesy disaster, and he prefers their view to that of Sir William McLintock.
    Mr. BRACKEN: Hear, hear.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: But I must riot be deterred from holding to my opinion. As regards the statements that were made about the Imperial cables and wireless amalgamation those prognostications may have been perfectly justified in that case, but what happened in that case is no argument for the view that the results of Sir William McLintock's examination in this case are wrong. It is quite right that my hon. Friends should be put upon the alert by the previous disaster but the next step which they take, that of saying that this scheme must be wrong because the other scheme was wrong, is not one which appeals to me. I could understand them if they said that there must be further examination of the finance of this undertaking but let them bear in mind that this Bill has been before a Select Committee and that it did not go through without opposition. There were pages of the names of counsel and the representatives of bodies opposing this Bill and there was nothing easier, during those proceedings, than to have produced one or more of these accountants so well known to my hon. Friend the Member for North Paddington, and to have proffered their evidence in order that they might point out wherein Sir William McLintock was wrong.
    Mr. BRACKEN: Are not the figures of Sir William McLintock based upon the years 1927, 1928 and 1929 and are they not, therefore, prosperity figures? That is one of the greatest charges that we make against the Bill.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That, of course, is an absolutely fair criticism so far as it goes, but we think that the years which we have taken are, on the
    1510
    whole, the most satisfactory for the purpose of estimating the prospects of this undertaking. I think my hon. Friend is wrong as to the years which have been taken and that they are, in fact, 1928, 1929 and 1930 and I think those are preferable to the later years for this purpose. We deliberately took those years—or Sir William McLintock did—for the purpose of avoiding 1931 which was not a representative year. I must leave the point with the Committee in this way. They must choose between two views, either the view of experts, as presented by Sir William McLintock or the view suggested by my hon. Friends. I am not aware of anybody who has gone into these accounts and who has been prepared to say that the views of Sir William McLintock are too optimistic. The only people who are prepared to say so are people like my hon. Friends who, doubtless, have great experience in business and are well qualified to form an opinion, but who have not had the opportunities or the facilities for making an exhaustive examination which were possible before the Select Committee. I must leave the Committee of the House to form their opinion as to which of these is the most trustworthy authority. The Mover of the Amendment seemed to think, however, that Sir William McLintock in one respect was not optimistic enough. The Mover of the Amendment wants to provide 7 per cent. instead of 6 per cent. as the maximum interest.
    Sir A. BEIT: Only in consideration of the reduction of the others.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not know how that helps my hon. Friend very much. You do not earn 7 per cent. by allowing 3½per cent. instead of 5 per cent. in the earlier years, inasmuch as the board has to distribute its earnings in paying the rates of interest required. But my hon. Friend apparently thinks that this stock is capable of earning 7 per cent. while we have put 6 per cent. as the maximum, and after the payment of 6 per cent. cent. there are sums placed to reserve. My hon. Friend cannot have it both ways. If he thinks that 7 per cent. is the possible earning of this stock after two years it surely does not lie in his mouth to say that we have been too optimistic in our estimate. I am sure he will not use the argument that he has put in the figure of 7 per cent.

    1511
    because it, does not matter what figure you put, in and that you might as well put in 10 per cent. He has suggested 7 per cent, because he thinks that it is a figure capable of being realised and quite likely to be realised. He speaks with great experience I am sure and he is familiar with finance and the fact that he has put down 7 per cent, as the possible earning confirms Sir William McLintock's estimate.
    This matter is now before the Committee and the Committee's decision depends first upon the view which they take as to the prospects of this undertaking. If they think that there is no passibility of Sir William McLintock's estimate being fulfilled they may say that the figure ought to be 3½ per cent, instead of 5 per cent. for the first two years and so on. If on the other hand they think that Sir William McLintock's advice is satisfactory, I take it they will see no reason for disturbing the agreements which have been made with the consent of the big undertakings chiefly affected by the success or otherwise of the scheme. Let it not be imagined that the Underground undertakings and the Metropolitan Railway and the other interests affected are going to accept a scheme which would mean, inevitably, the putting in of a receiver by the court. That seems too fantastic for anybody to suppose. These big undertakings may be wrong but they have formed the view which I have indicated.
    It occurs to me that there is a possibility of avoiding any such danger as my hon. Friends foresee, and I throw out this suggestion. I suggest it to the Committee as a proposal which we would gladly consider with a view to its incorporation in the Bill on the Report stage unless there is some objection to it in Committee, or unless some objection occurs to us on further examination of the question. That suggestion is that the entry of the receiver shall be conditional upon failure to pay, not 5 per cent., which is the interest that the stock is to earn if it can, but failure to pay 3½ per cent. for two years. That will not reduce the interest which is properly payable on the stock, which will remain at 5 per cent., but the failure will be to pay interest at the rate of 3½ per cent. in respect of the first two years. That will give a very
    1512
    good opportunity to this undertaking to get really going, to earn interest upon the large outlay of capital which has been made in recent years and has not yet fructified or come to full value. Without pledging myself at this moment that it will be possible to put this into the Bill, we will certainly consider it. I think it will meet the broad objections to the scheme of the Bill which my hon. Friend has made, and I hope the Committee, on that undertaking, will allow the Bill to stand in its present form and give us an opportunity of reconsidering the point.
    Mr. ALBERY: Will the learned Attorney-General say a word about what he thinks the steps would be which the receiver could take on being appointed I Does it really mean that he can put up the fares? If there is no restriction on the extent to which he can put them up, it is an absolute scandal, and there is no reason to put 6 per cent. if the fares can be put up without limit.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The receiver in this connection is the receiver in a statutory undertaking, and, therefore, he has no power to sell the undertaking. He is different from a receiver who goes in on behalf of debenture holders in an ordinary trading company, with liquid assets or with money to be collected. The receiver here will have no greater power to put up the fares than the board has under the Act. The receiver does not come in as a sort of Napoleon, who can do what he likes, irrespective of the Act of Parliament or of Parliament. He will have to do exactly what the Board would have to do if they were carrying on the undertaking, but he will do it as manager, not as receiver. His duties as receiver will be to see that the moneys receivable by the undertaking are properly dealt with for the benefit of the stockholders on whose behalf the receiver manages it.
    Sir A. BEIT: I thank the learned Attorney-General very much for what he has said, but I want to make quite sure about this compromise that he offers. Did he say that the receiver would not be put in unless the "C" stock were not to pay 3½ per cent. —
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: For the first two years.
    Sir A. BEIT: For any two consecutive years, or only for the first two?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If there is a failure to pay 3½ per cent. in the first two years. That was the suggestion that I made to the Committee. If the Committee thinks it does not go far enough, or requires modification, I have thrown out the suggestion for the consideration of the Committee, and I am quite prepared, if there are criticisms of it or suggestions on it, to have my proposal reconsidered, in the light of those criticisms. I am not throwing it out as to be taken or left, but merely to see whether the Committee can help us at all to devise a better plan than there is in the Bill at the present time, bearing in mind that we must qualify or restrict the alterations which we make in this Bill so as not to prevent the chances of agreement with the undertakings concerned being reduced to a minimum. I always have to bear that qualification in mind in any proposals that I make to the Committee.
    7.50 p.m.
    Sir A. REIT: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman very much, and I do not want to take advantage of his generosity, but I would like this concession to apply to any two consecutive years. It is most important that the first two years should have this privilege, but it is no less important that it should apply to other successive years. I am afraid that the learned Attorney-General rather sidetracked me with regard to his interpretation of my proposed maximum of 7 per cent. I do not by that proposal mean that I think the concern will earn 7 per cent. or that the "C" stock will be able to pay 7 per cent. It may be that through economies and so forth that would be ultimately payable, but it seems natural that if you tell the "C" stockholders that they must be prepared to take a less dividend as a minimum, you should offer them the chance of something more at the other end of the scale. I do not say that they will get it. I would be willing to leave it at 6 per cent., but it seems only justice that I should suggest its being raised to 7 per cent. from 6 per cent. The Attorney-General said we must choose between two views, between the view of pessimism and the view of optimism. I do not quite agree, and my suggestion does not ask him to do anything of the sort.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not think I put it in that way. I said,
    1514
    " Choose between two views." I did not say that one was the view of optimism and the other the view of pessimism.
    Sir A. BEIT: I rather inferred that that was what the Attorney-General meant, because we were talking about Sir William McLintock's figures as being rather optimistic, and I thought that when he said that we must choose between two views, he meant between the view of good times ahead and the view of bad times ahead. My original suggestion makes it unnecessary to come to any such choice, because if Sir William McLintock's figures are justified, or indeed, improved upon, so much the better. According to my Amendment, the statutory standard rate of dividend, and even more, would be paid. If, on the other hand, his figures are not reached, then, of course, under my suggestion there would be no need to apply to the High Court for a receiver to come in. The essence of my complaint was the rigidity of the stock as it stood, and that you had to take a definite view, as taken in that pro forma statement of Sir William McLintock's, and stick to it and exercise your powers as if you were not going to get your money in any other way.
    Finally, I feel very much—and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) supported me in this—that the position of the "A" and "B" stockholders cannot be lightly passed over. There is no doubt that a receiver and manager appointed by the "C" stockholders would have a very prejudicial effect upon them, and I have to think of all the trustees that we know of, who will buy millions of this stock as very suitable for their particular purpose. I think we must try to protect them against what I may call the ravages of the "C stockholders. Therefore, I feel that my Amendments were reasonable, but I am grateful to the learned Attorney-General for what he has said. If he can give us any assurance that on second thoughts there is no risk of his concession being removed, but that it will feature on the Report stage of the Bill, and that the 3½ per cent, will include any two consecutive years, I feel that the prospects before the London Passenger Transport Board will be a good deal better than they are under the Bill in its present form.
    7.55 p.m.
    Lord EUSTACE PERCY: While sharing the view of the Mover of the Amendment that we are very grateful to the learned Attorney-General for his conciliatory attitude, I am not sure that he quite realises the gravity of the issue that is being presented to this Committee. It is no good saying we must choose between the view of Sir William McLintook and the view of possibly less expert people. That is putting the onus of proof on the wrong side. I grant that we are none of us experts, but it does not need an expert to say that to guarantee a rate of interest on the ordinary shares of a company is a highly hazardous thing to do, and that to have ordinary shares which are in effect trustee stocks is to put a great strain upon even an enterprise with the most brilliant future possible. If you guarantee, at the present time, a rate of interest of 3½ per cent., you are at any rate presenting the public with a security which stands pretty high in the public regard. It does not need an expert to tell us that to do that is dangerous, nor does it need an expert to remember what has been the universal experience of every single attempt that this or any other Government has ever made to guarantee a standard rate of interest or a standard revenue. Is there a single hon. Member of this House who does not bitterly regret that we guaranteed the railways in 1921 a standard revenue based on past earnings? Yet we are doing precisely the same thing here, and that is the real danger of this Bill. You are in effect, by your receivership provisions, giving a statutory guarantee of a rate of interest.
    We all know that the receiver is never going to come in. How can you have a receiver called in to upset all this paraphernalia of the Appointing Trustees, and the supermen, throw them all out, and take over the control of the concern himself? Of course, that is never going to happen, because this monopoly will always have the power of preventing it happening. Short of utter and absolute disaster, it can always raise fares, and when the learned Attorney-General says, "You do not expect the responsible directors of these companies to be asking something for their shareholders which they do not think they can get," of course they think they can get it, be
    1516
    cause they are coming into a monopoly, and their earning power will be absolutely unlimited—a complete monopoly, a far greater monopoly than the main railways ever were under the Railways Act of 1921. Therefore, the serious decision presented to this Committee is: Is this House going to give a statutory guarantee of a rate of interest to prospective investors, with all the force and all the reputation of this House and of His Majesty's Government behind it? Are we going to start this new enterprise with practically a solemn guarantee of that kind, which would be regarded outside as a solemn guarantee, which we are not perfectly certain of being able to implement? To give such a guarantee, if it was done by a private concern, would be open to very serious criticism, and that we should put ourselves in that position is a very serious decision to take.
    Will the learned Attorney-General allow me to say that it seemed to me that the only forcible part of his argument was this: "We have come to an agreement, and we cannot afford to lose it." It is the old story. "We had to make a deal; we had to pay for getting an agreement, and this House must not upset that agreement." I fully appreciate the force of that, but is that the position in which this House is always to be placed when it is making a statutory amalgamation of this kind? We are exerting the sovereign power of this House and the Government to compel people to come into an amalgamation and to do certain things. If the Government are asking the House to take drastic sovereign action of that kind, how can they come to the House in the middle of the operation and say: "These particular people are too powerful and too good friends of ours, and have been too nice to us for you to be able to exercise your sovereign rights against them. We must do this by agreement or not at all." When we indulge in statutory amalgamations of coal mines and so on—we are going in for these statutory amalgamations in various directions on a considerable scale at the present day—are we always to be told: "You must not disturb this agreement; there are certain gentlemen in this country with whom we must agree "
    I only say this to point out to the Committee the great difficulty which we are in, I realise, of course, that the

    1517
    Government are in a great difficulty as the result of the past negotiations which have been spread over the last two or three years. The Attorney-General's concession may be the best he can do without disturbing these delicate agreements unless we are going to bring the Bill down crashing. Some hon. Members desire that, but I do not take that view. I am bound to say that the concession appears to be very inadequate, and even my hon. Friend's Amendment seems to be inadequate, because we are in fact guaranteeing a rate of interest at 3½ per cent. on the Ordinary shares, and I do not believe that we ought to do that. There is no justification for it. The only way out—and perhaps I may put it to the Attorney-General as a possible counter suggestion—appears to be to leave out the provision as to receivership altogether as my hon. Friend the Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) proposes to do in his Amendment. I do not know whether the provisions for a receivership are part of the deal with the companies concerned, but I can hardly think that those companies can insist on these statutory provisions for a receivership, amounting as they do practically to an authority to the new monopoly to put up fares to any extent that is necessary in order to pay 3½ per cent. on the Ordinary shares. I ask the Attorney-General and the Government to think over that counter suggestion seriously between now and the Report stage.
    8.4 p.m.
    Sir B. PETO: Hon. Members seem to regard the putting up of fares as the only means by which the board will be able to get an increased revenue. That is not so. As I understand it, the reason why the rate of 5 per cent. was settled for two years, with another half per cent. afterwards up to a maximum of 6 per cent., was that the opportunity of the board to effect economies would be immense but that they could not operate at once. They will have to start on the basis of the income that was earned before the monopoly was created; hence, the two years. In addition, the new development which is to be carried out will not at once begin to fructify, and therefore there will not be any increased earnings. I do not think that from that point of view it is in the least reasonable to suppose that Sir William McLintock's
    1518
    figures are wrong and that there is not a probability amounting practically to a certainty that that interest will be earned, although in London passenger transport there may have been a falling off last year as compared with the preceding years to the time when the Joint Committee sat. That aspect ought to be taken into account.
    There is this further point with regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) for a smaller initial rate of interest with a possible future compensating interest of 7 per cent. in later years. I understood the reason why the interest on the "C" stock was rigidly limited to a maximum of 6 per cent. was not that Sir William McLintock expected that no more than 6 per cent. could be earned, but that it was desirable that all real profit earnings should go to reserve for the development of the industry of passenger transport in the area. Therefore, the Committee should refuse any increase above 6 per cent. on that ground. It is true that the powers of the "C" stockholders to put in a receiver are very drastic, but I do not think they were part of the bargain but that they were put in by the Select Committee. The Attorney-General will no doubt be able to clear the point whether those powers formed any part of the bargain, but my own recollection is that they did not.
    Earl WINTERTON: We recognise the hon. Baronet's authority in these matters, and will he deal with this point: Is it not true that there is an estimated reduction, as well as can be computed, in the receipts of the company of £750,000 since Sir William McLintock drew up his figures?
    Sir B. PETO: I cannot answer that question because I do not know. Who estimated the figure and what authority there is for it I do not know. I only rose to point out the fact that the raising of fares is not the only source of revenue. There is a great difference between this body and companies operating in many cases unnecessary services which do no good but simply congest the streets and make it impossible to develop the Underground service in its most essential direction towards the East. I believe that the bulk of the future revenue under this scheme will be used as capital further to develop transport.
    8.9 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I wish to ask a question of the Attorney-General with regard to the interesting proposal that he made. What reaction will it have on Sub section (4) of Clause 3, under which it is
    "the duty of the board to conduct their undertaking in such manner, and to fix such fares and charges…as to secure that their revenues shall be sufficient to defray all the charges which are by this Act required to be defrayed out of the revenues of the board."
    Is 3½ per cent. now the sum which they are required to defray out of the revenues of the board, and, if so, are they entitled deliberately, without any breach of their duties, to conduct their undertaking on the assumption that they have done their duty if they have paid 3½ per cent.? It is an important point, and I hope that the Attorney-General will give it his consideration. He may not be able to reply now. He has been developing his suggestion while we have been discussing this matter, and naturally he cannot give such a prompt decision as he might do if we were dealing with an ordinary Government Measure.
    8.10 p.m.
    Mr. BRACKEN: I join my hon. Friends in thanking the Attorney-General for his concession. It was made in such an agreeable fashion that we did not perceive the minuteness of the concession he was giving us. At the same time, we do not want to press him on this point, because this is not the place to conduct those intricate negotiations which will be necessary before any substantial modification can be made in the provisions to which we object. I wondered whether the Attorney-General would consider accepting the Amendments which appear later in my name—In page 54, line 32, to leave out paragraph (b), and in page 55, line 1, to leave out paragraph (c). The omission of those paragraphs would not tie us down to any specific percentage as does the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for South-East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit). If the Attorney-General will reconstruct those two paragraphs before we come to the Report stage, we can suppress our desire to force this to a Division and obtain from the Government what we want more than anything else, namely, a general betterment of the Bill. There are aspects of this question which we cannot discuss
    1520
    now, but in his excellent argument my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) developed a point which none of us had developed up to that stage when he said that in effect we are giving a Government guarantee.
    Our line of criticism is that we are not so much giving that guarantee as jeopardising the property of the stockholders other than the "C stockholders. When you look into it, you see that it is a preposterous thing that 21 per cent. of the stockholders can practically end this enormous business. It is ludicrous. Suppose that a receiver is appointed as requested by these people. He comes in and displaces the board about which we have heard so much; all those eminent people, those men of big business, those chartered accountants and those traffic experts go away, and the little man with a black bag called a receiver comes in. It is preposterous, and I can tell from the Attorney-General's face that he is disturbed by the many points of criticism that have been raised. I know that he can impress on the Minister of Transport the desirability of recasting those two paragraphs and making sure that the right of appointing a receiver is not given to a mere 2½ per cent. of the stockholders, and that the rigid rates of interest are modified so that more elasticity will be imported to the Bill. Elasticity is essential in a great commercial combine such as we are setting up. I appeal to the Attorney-General to give us an assurance that he will accept these mild Amendments of mine or produce on the Report stage reforms which will entirely reconstruct the provisions to which such grave objections have been taken.
    8.14 p.m.
    Mr. ALBERY: I hope that the Attorney-General will further consider the position of the "C" stockholders. I do not think that he understands yet the point made by my hon. Friend with regard to the varying rates of interest. Nobody can desire that this concern should be put in the hands of a receiver. There must be ups and down in trade, even with a monopoly, and the whole point of the suggestion is that, if they are compelled to pay a smaller rate of interest before a receiver is appointed, it is only fair, when they arrive at a better period, that a higher rate should be paid to com-

    1521
    pensate for the period when a lower rate was forthcoming. There is one last point. So far as I know, the bargain which was struck in arriving at the contents of this Bill was made at a time when money conditions and the rates of interest on investments were entirely different from those which exist to-day. There is at least 1 per cent. difference, and I am not at all happy in my mind that, in passing this Bill, we shall not be sanctioning a rate of interest, certainly on the "C" stock, and also on the "A" and "B" stocks which is not in keeping with conditions as they are to-day.
    8.16 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am very much obliged to the Committee for the tenderness with which they have treated my prentice hand in matters of finance. My hon. Friends are all such experts in this matter that I am sure they might have been much harsher with me in their criticisms. But when my hon. Friend the Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) says that he reads in my countenance that I am very much disturbed I must tell him he is not a success as a thought-reader, because I am not at all disturbed by the gloomy prospects which have been held out. The modification which I suggest is one which can incorporate in the Bill, if that is found possible, with complete equanimity from my point of view, because as I accept the forecast of Sir William McLintock that 5 per cent. will be earned, obviously I am not giving anything away when I make the condition of default on the part of the undertaking a failure to earn at least 3½ per cent. If I think it is going to earn 5 per cent., it does not make much difference whether the figure is 3½ per cent. or not, from my point of view. From my hon. Friends' point of view it may be a concession, and perhaps they will allow me to consider that point.
    I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit) will not expect me to give a fiat and binding undertaking, here and now, to incorporate the change in the Bill. What I have promised is that it shall he looked into most sympathetically; and I can say, with complete candour and honesty, that because my hon. Friends, who have so much experience, anticipate
    1522
    that the concern may not be able to earn this full 5 per cent., the more attention will be given to this question. But do not let it be supposed that I can promise here and now to make the change. All I say is that it may be possible. If it will meet the point of my hon. Friends, I can say that we will consider it most carefully, and if it is impossible to incorporate it in the Bill, the Government will most certainly do so. And I can promise this further, that at any rate my hon. Friends shall have an opportunity, subject to Mr. Speaker's decision, of raising the whole point again if the Government are riot able to incorporate this proposal.
    Now I must join issue with my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) when he talks about a Government guarantee of the rate of interest, whether it be 3½ per cent. or 5 per cent. With all respect to him, I simply do not understand what he means. The Government are not guaranteeing either 3½ per cent. or 5 per cent. He might just as well talk of the Government guarantee being extended to the 4 per cent. stock of the Port of London Authority. Then he suggested that this proposal about a receiver is a novelty. In the Port of London Act there is a Clause by which a receiver and manager is to enter if the 4 per cent, is not earned upon the stock of that authority, but the Government do not give a guarantee that the 4 per cent. will be earned. I think it will be most misleading to people outside this House if at some future time they refer to this Debate and see that the Noble Lord said, in the presence of representatives of the Government, that de Government were guaranteeing this stock.
    Lord E. PERCY: Of course, I never intended to give any outside person that assurance; but will the right hon. Gentleman deny that they are giving a statutory guarantee?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Absolutely.
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: May I draw attention to Sub-section (4) of Clause 3, which says:
    "It shall be the duty of the board to conduct their undertaking…so as to secure that their revenues shall be sufficient."
    Surely that is a statutory duty.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It certainly is not a statutory guarantee or a Government guarantee. I speak in the presence of much greater financial experts than myself, but from a legal point of view I do want it to be understood that there is no guarantee at all. It is what is called a standard rate of interest upon the "C" stock, and under Sub-section (4) of Clause 3 it is the duty of the board to conduct their undertaking so as to earn the standard rate of interest upon the stock. Five per cent. is to remain the standard rate of interest, but my proposal is to modify the provisions about the receiver so as to require a receiver to enter only if 3½ per cent. is not earned. In answer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), Subsection (4) of Clause 3 really has no bearing at all on the standard rate of interest. The question we are considering is the conditions under which a receiver may enter.
    Sir ROBERT HORNE: Is it not also at the present time the standard rate of interest to which regard is given by the railway tribunal in the case of the main line railways, and no railway is making that money at the present time and there is no Government guarantee?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: My question was as to the interpretation of Sub-section (4) of Clause 3. Are the Board to take into account 3½ per cent. or 5 per cent. What is to be their aspiration when the change is made?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Their aspiration will be to conduct the undertaking in such a way as to meet the standard rate of interest on the stock. The standard rate of interest will be 5 per cent. I should think that is clear beyond doubt. My last word is with reference to what my Noble Friend said about telling the Committee they must not upset delicate agreements. I have not suggested to the Committee that these agreements cannot be upset if the Committee are so minded, but surely, as sensible men, it is right for us to face the facts, to be realists, as we were told the other day. These agreements have been made, and, if we are to have unification, people must be consulted. Hon. Members are always complaining about compulsory expropriation, and
    1524
    when we avoid compulsion and use the arts of agreement we are then told we are interfering with the freedom of the Committee. The agreements are subject to approval by the Committee, but we must remember that agreements are very difficult to negotiate, and unless there is some overwhelming reason it is not desirable, and probably it is not wise, to disturb them; but it is always open to the Committee to consider the question from the point of view of the balance of convenience. I have tried to the best of my ability to appreciate the points raised, and I think they have been well worth the discussion, which has been by no means prolonged, and, if my hon. Friend now sees fit to withdraw his Amendment, I will undertake to give the matter that further consideration which I have promised.
    8.24 p.m.
    Sir A. BEIT: I am very glad that this discussion has arisen on my Amendment. It would have been unthinkable that the finances of this gigantic undertaking should have been passed over without comment. In view of the assurance given by the learned Attorney-General I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: In page 52, line 22, at the end, insert the words:
    "so, however, that the said stock shall not be redeemable before the date of the dissolution of the trust for which provision is made by Section (Provisions as to certain stocks of the Metropolitan Railway Company) of this Act, except upon six months' notice of intention to redeem and at the end of any year."
    In line 31, leave out the word "or," and insert instead thereof the words: "the Metropolitan undertaking and."
    In line 38, leave out from the word "Board," to the word "in," in page 53, line 5.
    In page 53, line 8, after the word "undertaking," insert the words:
    "or the Lewis undertaking."
    In line 20, leave out the words "paragraph (a)," and insert the words "paragraphs (a) and (b)."
    In line 21, after the word "thirty-seven," insert the words "of this Act." —[Mr. Pybus.]
    Clauses 39 (Dealings with transport stock by local authorities), 40 (Power of board to borrow temporarily), 41 (Reserve fund), 42 (Insurance fund), 43 (Tramway debt liquidation fund), 44 (Continuance of grants under 20 and 21 Geo. 5. c. 7) and 45 (Application of revenues of board) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 46.—(Annual report, statistics and returns.)
    8.29 p.m.
    Sir WILLIAM RAY: I beg to move, in page 60, line 24, to leave out the words "of their proceedings under this Act during the preceding year," and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "dealing generally with the operations of the board during the preceding year (including any action taken under Section thirty-one of this Act) and containing such detailed information with regard to the proceedings and policy of the board as may properly be given without detriment to the interests of the undertaking of the board or of any of the amalgamated railway companies."
    This Amendment simply makes the return a little more full and a little more useful. As this is a matter in which the public generally are interested, we think that the suggestions made in my Amendment are such as should be provided for the public.
    Mr. PYBUS: We have much pleasure in accepting this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 60, line 29, leave out from the word "Minister," to the end of the Sub-section, and insert instead thereof the words:
    "such financial and statistical returns as may be agreed between the Minister and the board or, in default of agreement, as may be determined by the rates tribunal." —[Mr. Pybus.]
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I beg to move, in page 60, line 32, at the end, to add the words:
    "Provided that either House of Parliament may at any time by resolution request the Minister to lay before Parliament a report by the board of their findings in relation to any matter."
    8.30 p.m.
    This is an Amendment to enlarge the powers of Parliament to require information from the Minister in relation to the proceedings of the Transport Board. The particular kind of case which I have in
    1526
    mind is one in which the Board may be involved in large expenditure, resulting in a burden upon the undertaking beyond its capacity to bear. The recent discussion on the finance of the undertaking lends point to the importance of this proviso. The board might be committed to that scheme of expenditure in circumstances which no longer held good, and since 12 months might be too long to continue the progress of that scheme, an earlier opportunity should be given to enable them to change their policy until circumstances were more favourable. If the Minister would consider this Amendment favourably, I should be very glad. We want the fullest possible opportunity of ascertaining from the Minister as to the proceedings of the board in regard to such a matter as I have detailed, or in regard to any other matter such as may easily arise with such a large and important undertaking. I hope that the Minister may see his way to accept the Amendment.
    8.31 p.m.
    Mr. PYBUS: In accepting the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray) before, I consider that we made adequate provision for the purpose of keeping Parliament informed as to the proceedings of the board arid the general operation of the scheme. The hon. Gentleman has overlooked the point that it will always be open to Members of Parliament to address questions to the Minister relating to London transport. The Amendment is apparently designed to put upon the Minister an obligation to lay before Parliament a report by the board, and their findings in relation to any matter so required by a Resolution of either House. It is unusual in character, and it- appears to be unnecessary. If either House passes such a Resolution, as of course it is entitled to do, the Minister will do his best to give effect to it.
    8.32 p.m.
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I did not hear all that the Minister said, but, if his sole objection to the Amendment is that the terms of it are rather too wide, let me say that I do not insist upon the exact wording, as long as Parliament will have the amplest opportunity of requiring information from this great undertaking. If the Minister says that the previous Amendment gives those powers, all I can say is that it does not seem to me that

    1527
    the powers afforded there are quite as wide as those for which I ask. The previous Amendment says:
    "such financial and statistical returns as may be agreed between the Minister and the board or, in default of agreement, as may be determined by the rates tribunal."
    I do not want that. I want such information and statistical returns as may appropriately he required by Members of this House, or of the other House of Parliament. There seems nothing unreasonable in asking for that. The Minister says that Members may put a question on the Paper and secure information from the Minister, but the information given in reply to a question is rather curtailed, and is necessarily not so full as might be obtained by a Parliamentary demand for a report. If it is only the matter of the terms of the Amendment that is between the Minister and myself, perhaps he will consider a method of meeting my wishes, leaving the matter of the actual wording to be settled on some future occasion. His answer is that the previous Amendment provides what I ask, but I do not think that it does.
    Mr. PYBUS: I must say at once, in view of the Amendment that I have just accepted, and of the statement that I have made, that it is always open to hon. Members to inquire in the House about any question arising out of London transport. I cannot go any further.
    8.35 p.m.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten one very important fact. It is true that he has accepted a previous Amendment undertaking, after agreement with the board, to lay certain figures, but there will be no opportunity for a general examination of any problem that may occur during any year at a time when, perhaps, extensions are under consideration. Under the present Amendment, either this House or the other House must pass a resolution before the Minister will be called upon to lay papers. That seems to me to be an ample safeguard, and, in view of the size of the undertaking, its general significance, and the fact that it is the first of its kind in the country and probably will be the model upon
    1528
    which many future schemes will be based, I think that the Minister might very well, even now, reconsider his decision, in view of the fact that no information could be insisted upon unless and until Parliament had discussed the question and passed a Resolution in favour of inviting the Minister to lay papers.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    8.37 p.m.
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: It is not unnatural that one should express one's regret that the Minister has not seen his way to accede to the appeal which has been made from both sides of the Committee that he should reconsider his rather arbitrary decision in regard to the Amendment that I moved just now. I take this opportunity of once again pleading with him between now and Report to bring to bear upon this question an open mind, and to see whether there is not something substantial in the case that I have put, forward, and whether he cannot meet us in some small way. As has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), there is no chance of a privilege of this kind being abused, and yet it affords a proper opportunity for Parliament to be adequately informed on any matter falling within the jurisdiction of this very important undertaking, which, as the Minister has been reminded, is without precedent, is the first of its kind, and is only too likely to be followed by many others.

    CLAUSE 47.—(Accounts and audit.)
    Amendments made: In page 60, line 38, leave out from the word "Minister" to the end of the Sub-section.
    In page 61, line 4, leave out the word "the," and insert instead thereof the word "a."—[Mr. Pybus.]
    Clause 48 (Enactments relating to accounts of railway companies not to apply to board) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 49.—(Alteration of traffic areas under 20 & 21 Geo. 5, c. 43.)
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 62, line 2, to leave out from the word "words" to the end of line 46, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "11. Metropolitan Traffic Area.—The London Passenger Transport Area as constituted by the London Passenger Transport Act, 193, with the addition of such parts of the London Traffic Area, as constituted by the London Traffic Act, 1924, and of the administrative county of Hertford, of the borough of Chopping Wycombe, in the county of Buckingham, of the boroughs of Dunstable and Luton, in the county of Bedford, of the urban district of Wrotham, in the county of Kent, of the urban district of East Grinstead, in the county of East Sussex, and of the urban district of Horsham, in the county of West Sussex, as lie outside the London Passenger Transport Area as so constituted.".
    This is an Amendment to provide that the area of the Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner shall include the whole of the London Passenger Transport Area. It is inconvenient that these small urban areas on the verge of the London Passenger Transport Area should be outside, and partly under the jurisdiction of one Commissioner and partly under that of another. The proposed area of the Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner, as the Clause now stands, is adjusted so as to include the whole of such urban areas as would otherwise be divided. The Amendment is designed to make these further adjustments from the point of view of administrative efficiency. It brings in, therefore, the whole of the County of Hertford. I hope that the Committee will accept it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 63, line 2, leave out the word "passing," and insert instead thereof the words "commencement of this Part."—[Mr. Pybus.]

    CLAUSE 50.—(Special provisions with respect to Metropolitan Traffic Area.)
    8.42 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 63, line 7, to leave out Sub-sections (2) to (7), and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "(2) The following enactments, that is to say, the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act,
    1530
    1869 (in this section referred to as "the Act of 1869"), Sections eight and fourteen of the Metropolitan Streets Acts 1867, and the London Cab and Stage Carriage Act, 1907, shall not apply to any public service vehicle, or to the driver or conductor thereof;
    (3) Subject to the provisions of the next following sub-section, the 'powers which, under the Act of 1869, as amended, extended, or applied by, or by any Order made under any subsequent enactment, are exerciseable within the City of London and the Metropolitan police district by the Secretary of State, with respect to tramcars, light railway cars and trolley vehicles, and the licensing of such vehicles and their drivers and conductors (including the power of granting licences which by his direction is exerciseable by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis) shall be transferred to the Minister and for the purpose of the exercise by the Minister of the powers so transferred the limits of the Act of 1869 shall be extended to include the whole of the Metropolitan Traffic Area and any reference in any such enactment to the Secretary of State shall, in relation to the said vehicles or matters, be construed as a reference to the Minister.
    (4) The Minister may by order provide—

    (a) that any licences in respect of tramcars, light railway cars or trolley vehicles, or any class of such vehicles, which are grantable by him by virtue of the powers transferred to him by the last preceding sub-section may be granted by the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Traffic Area (in this section referred to as "the Traffic Commissioner") and that any licences to drivers and conductors of tramcars, light railway cars, and trolley vehicles, or any class of such vehicles, which are so grantable by him may he granted by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis or by the Traffic Commissioner: and

    (b) that as regards persons residing in the Metropolitan Traffic Area, or any specified part of that area, the function of the Traffic Commissioner of granting licences to drivers and conductors of public service vehicles, or of any class of such vehicles, shall be transferred to the said Commissioner of Police:

    Provided that no order conferring any power, or imposing any duty, on the said Commissioner of Police shall he made under this Sub-section, save with the concurrence of the Secretary of State.
    (5) An order made under the last preceding Sub-section may—

    (a) make such adaptations and modifications in the provisions of Part IV of the Act of 1930 as may be necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the transfer of the said functions from the Traffic Commissioner to the said Commissioner of Police; and

    (b) provide for the !payment by the Minister, as part of the expenses of the

    1531
    Roads Department of the Ministry of Transport, into the Metropolitan Police Fund of such sum in respect of the costs incurred by the said Commissioner of Police in connection with the exercise of the functions transferred by the order as the Treasury, after consultation with the Minister, may from time to time determine; and

    (c) be revoked or altered by subsequent order made in the like manner.

    (6) Before determining the conditions to be, attached to a road service licence with respect to routes, stopping places or terminal points within the City of London or the Metropolitan police district, the Traffic Commissioner shall consult with the Commissioner of Police, and if the Commissioner of Police is dissatisfied with any condition attached to a road service licence with respect to a route, stopping place, or terminal point within his police district, he may appeal to the Minister, who shall make such order in the matter as he thinks fit, and any order so made by the Minister shall have effect as if it were an order made by the Traffic Commissioner.
    (7) No local authority shall exercise under the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847, as amended, extended, or applied by any subsequent enactment any powers with respect to public service vehicles, tramcars, light railway cars, and trolley vehicles, or the licensing of such vehicles, or of their drivers or conductors, and there shall be repealed so much of any other Act as empowers any local authority to regulate such vehicles, or to make regulations for the conduct of drivers or conductors of, or passengers in, such vehicles.
    This is an apparently very long and important-looking alteration in the Bill, but, as a matter of fact, the Amendment is mainly of a drafting character. As the Clause stands, the functions of the Secretary of State with regard to tramways, light railways and trolley vehicles are transferred to the traffic commissioner, but, as a result of consultation that we have had with the Secretary of State, it is thought that these functions would be best transferred to the Minister. The Amendment merely puts this arrangement into the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clauses 51 (S. 35 of 20 & 21 Geo. 5. C. 43, not to apply to vehicles owned by the board) and 52 (Consequential and minor amendments), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

      CLAUSE 53.—(Powers of Commissioners for South Eastern Area to hold public sittings in London Traffic Area.)
      Amendments made: In page 65, line 29, after the word "Eastern," insert the word "Traffic."
      In line 30, leave out the word "London," and insert instead thereof the word "Metropolitan."—[Mr. Pybus.]

    CLAUSE 54.—(Transitory provisions as to licences.)
    Amendments made: In page 65, line 34, leave out the words, "a local or other," and insert instead thereof the word "any".
    In line 37, after the word "commencement," insert the words "of this part."
    In line 39, leave out the words, "Part IV of the Road Traffic Act, 1930," and insert instead thereof the words, "any enactment relating to any such licence."
    In page 66, line 2, at the end, add the words:
    "(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section fifty hereof, a road-service licence granted under the Act of 1930 before the commencement of this part of this Act and any backing of any such licence shall, during the currency thereof and until the date of expiry, so far as it relates to a route or portion of a route falling within any part of a traffic area transferred by this Act to the Metropolitan Traffic Area, have effect as if granted by the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Traffic Area on the date of transfer, so, however, that no service of public service vehicles may be provided under any such licence otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act." —(Mr. Pybus.]

    CLAUSE 55.—(Date of operation of this part of this Act.)
    Amendment made: In page 66, line 5, leave out the word "thirty-two," and insert instead thereof the word "thirty-three."

    CLAUSE 56.—(London Traffic Act, 1924, made permanent.)
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 66, line 12, to leave out the word "thirty-one," and to insert instead thereof the word "thirty-two."
    The London Traffic Act (1924) was continued in force by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1931, until the end of this year. Provision is made to continue it for another year.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 57.—(Reconstitution of Advisory Committee.)
    Amendments made: In page 66, line 25, leave out the word "thirty-two," and insert instead thereof the word "thirty-three."
    In line 26, leave out the word "thirty-four," and insert instead thereof the word "thirty-five."
    In line 33, at the end, insert the words:
    "from amongst the members appointed by local authorities or groups of local authorities (other than the representative of the City Police)."
    line 40, leave out Sub-section (5).— [Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]
    Clauses 58 (Extension of duties of Advisory Committee) and 59 (Extension of powers of Advisory Committee with respect to inquiries) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 60.—(Provisions as to routes for road services within part of London Traffic Area.)
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 68, line 22, to leave out from the beginning to the word "except," in line 30, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "As from the appointed day it shall not be lawful for the board or any other person, not being a person using the vehicle in accordance with a road service licence granted to him under Part IV of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, to use a vehicle for the purpose of conveying passengers for hire or reward at separate fares on any road within the special area."
    This is purely drafting.
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: May we have some explanation? Is there no mistake as to the character of the Amendment?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: No, it is purely drafting. it is simply carrying out the meaning of the Bill as we have explained it all the way through. It is merely improved wording. That is what it amounts to.
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I am very ready to accept my hon. and gallant Friend's assurance, but, when one sees that it shall not be lawful for a person to use a certain vehicle for conveying passengers for hire, one wonders whether one is quite seized of the importance of the Amendment.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I think it merely improves the wording of the Clause as it now stands.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 68, line 32, after the word "Area," insert the words:
    "(in this section referred to as the Traffic Commissioner')."
    In line 33, leave out the word "shall," and insert instead thereof the word "may."
    In page 69, line 3, leave out the word "That."
    In line 20, leave out the word "a" and insert instead thereof the word "the."—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 69, line 26, at the end, to insert the words:
    "() The Traffic Commissioner, either on the application of the Commissioner of Police or of any person who is using a vehicle upon a route approved under this section or without any such application, may at any time alter an approved route or revoke his approval of a route under this section or alter or revoke any condition attached by him to his approval;
    () If the Commissioner of Police is aggrieved by the failure of the Traffic Commissioner to revoke any approval of a route under this section or if the Commissioner of Police or any person who is using a vehicle upon a route approved under this section is aggrieved by any alteration of any route or revocation by the Traffic Commissioner of his approval of a route or the alteration or revocation of any condition attached by him to his approval or by the failure of the Traffic Commissioner to alter an approved route or to alter or revoke any

    1535
    condition attached by him to his approval, the Commissioner of Police or that person, as the case may be, may appeal to the Minister and upon any such appeal the Minister shall be entitled to take any action which the Traffic Commissioner might have taken in the first instance, and the decision of the Minister shall have effect as if it were the decision of the Traffic Commissioner and shall be final and conclusive."
    The object of these Sub-sections is to enable the approval of a route, once given, to be reviewed by the Traffic Commissioner either on his own initiative or on application to the Commissioner of Police by any party concerned, and to provide machinery for appeals to the Minister against the decision of the Traffic Commissioner.
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: Did hear my hon. and gallant Friend say this entitles any operator to raise the question of an appeal?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Yes.
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: There will not be any operator except the combine.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: If there is no operator, the matter will not arise.
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: What is the purpose of the Amendment?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The board or any other operator has a right of appeal.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 69, line 27, to leave out from the word "person," to the word "on," in line 29, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "uses a vehicle for the purposes mentioned in Sub-section (1) of this section on a route not being an approved route, or if any person using any such vehicle."
    In the Clause, as printed, the offences created by Sub-section (4) do not cover all the cases in Sub-section (1). The Amendment brings Sub-section (4) into conformity -with Sub-section (1).
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 69, line 35, leave out from the word "pounds "to the end of line 38.
    In line 41, leave out the words "running a service," and insert instead thereof
    1536
    the words "using the vehicle."—[Lieut. Colonel Headlam.]
    Lieut.-Colonel HEAD LAM: I beg to move, in page 70, line 6, at the end, to insert the words:
    "() For the purpose of the last preceding sub-section, a vehicle used on a special occasion for the conveyance of a private party shall not be deemed to he a vehicle carrying passengers for hire or reward at separate fares -by reason only that the members of the party have made separate payments which cover their conveyance by that vehicle on that occasion.
    () Nothing in this section shall apply to any tramcar or trolley vehicle which is being operated under statutory powers.
    () Proceedings for an offence under this section shall not he instituted except by or by the direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Traffic Commissioner, or a chief officer of police
    () The Minister may by order make such provision as he may consider necessary for the transition from the enactments in force immediately before the appointed day and relating to the user of vehicles for the purpose of conveying passengers for hire or reward at separate fares in the special area to the provisions of this section, and may by any such order provide that any vehicle which is immediately before the appointed day being lawfully used by any person for such purpose as aforesaid may continue to he so used, notwithstanding the provisions of this section, for such period as may be prescribed by the order and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the order.
    The Minister may revoke, vary, or amend an order made under this sub-section."
    The object of the first of these Subsections is to bring the provisions of the Clause into conformity with the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 61 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. The second Sub-section is necessary in view of the fact that the provisions as to approved routes are obviously unsuitable for tramcars and trolley vehicles. The third Subsection is designed to prevent vexatious proceedings by rival operators or private individuals. The fourth Sub-section follows the lines of Section 96 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. It is required to enable services to be continued during the transitional period.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 61.—(Restriction on number of stage carriages and express carriages using certain streets.)
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I beg to move, in page 70, line 14, after the word "may," to insert the words "with the approval of the Advisory Committee."
    The Committee are aware that the Clause deals with restricting the number of stage carriages and express carriages using certain streets, and the purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that any steps taken by the Minister shall be with the approval of the London and Home Counties Advisory Committee, so that the question may be considered from the point of view of the passenger problem for the whole of London. I trust that the Minister will see his way to accept the Amendment, because it is a helpful Amendment, and one which is likely to improve the Bill.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The effect of the Amendment would be to make the action of the Minister subordinate to the approval of the Committee appointed to advise him. The Minister is required by Sub-section (2) to refer the matter to the Advisory Committee for their advice and report before making any regulations. I am aware of no precedent requiring any Minister to obtain the approval of any advisory body. If such were the case they would take the place of the Minister. Therefore I do not think that the Amendment of my hon. Friend can be accepted by us.
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman be good enough to tell me what happens? Subsection (2) provides that the Minister shall consult the Advisory Committee. Having consulted them, they advise him. What does he do then? Does he accept their advice? I am only asking him to act after having accepted their advice instead of acting himself.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: If he asks for their advice I do not think -he need necessarily accept it. The point is that the Minister asks for advice. The advice is given, and subsequent action is the responsibility of the Minister.
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: Does my hon. and gallant Friend consider that the position is sufficiently safeguarded in Sub-section (2)?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I think so.
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I will not press the Amendment, and beg to ask leave to withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In page 70, line 15, leave out from the word "section," to the end of Sub-section (1), and insert instead thereof the words:
    "regulate the number and frequency of journeys to be made, either generally or during particular periods, by vehicles conveying passengers for hire or reward at separate fares over any street or part of a street within the special area, and may further by any such regulations—

    (a) classify such vehicles by reference to their class or description or the route on which, or the conditions under which, or the purposes for which, they are being operated;

    (b) allot, a specified number of journeys of a specified frequency or a, specified proportion of the aggregate number of journeys permitted to be made during specified periods to a particular person or group of persons by whom such vehicles or any class of such vehicles are or are to be operated, or to persons who operate such vehicles on particular routes specified in the regulations, or subject to particular conditions so specified or for particular purposes so specified, so, however, that the number of journeys allotted to persons operating vehicles with the written consent of the board -under Section sixteen of this Act shall be included in the allotment of journeys to the board;

    (c) require persons operating vehicles to which the regulations apply over, or over any part of, any such street as aforesaid to submit to the Minister particulars of the services maintained or to be maintained by them with such vehicles; and

    (d) provide for any limitation imposed by the regulations being dispensed with or relaxed in special circumstances or on special occasions."—[Mr. Pybus.]

    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 71, line 9, after the word "Minister," to insert the words "and requesting that a public inquiry be held."
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Really, are we not to have an explanation of this Amendment? It is a very complicated Bill, and it is absolutely impossible to follow the purport of these Amendments unless we have some sort of explanation, a few words even, of some of these very long Amendments on the Paper. As far as I am able to understand the present Amendment, it is the insertion of a provision that there must be some request for a public inquiry before the Minister

    1539
    can order such inquiry. I wish to know whether there is any reason for inserting it.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I shall be only too glad to give the hon. and learned Member any explanation he requires to the best of my ability. The Amendment is in order to make it unnecessary for the Advisory Committee to hold a public inquiry in every case where an objection is made, unless the objectors themselves ask for a public inquiry.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Can an inquiry be held without it being asked for?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I do not think that it can, but this makes it absolutely clear that in future it will not be held unless the objectors themselves ask for such an inquiry. It is not clear at the moment, and therefore we wish to make it clear that it is not necessary unless they make a request.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: That is an extraordinary position. Supposing the advisory committee came to the conclusion that it was a matter of such importance that there should be a public inquiry, apparently they could not act upon that opinion unless someone requested them to do so. I am sure that that cannot be the meaning of the Subsection. It seems to be very stupid if it is.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The advisory committee can always hold an inquiry if they so wish, but objectors, the outsiders, must make a demand for it before they are able to have an inquiry.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I am much obliged. The hon. and gallant Member said exactly the opposite before. That is why I was rather confused.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Not exactly.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir PAUL LATHAM: I beg to move, in page 71, line 12, to leave out from the word "organisation," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "and any other person whose interests may be affected by the proposed regulations shall be entitled to be heard in support of the objection or of the proposed regulations."
    1540
    I formally move the Amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Kennington (Mr. Harvey).
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: This is an Amendment which we are able to accept. It will enable other person affected as well as those organisations representing the public service vehicles to be heard in the event of the advisory committee holding a public inquiry.
    Major MILNER: What provisions are there to enable the public to know that such an inquiry will be held? Is there any provision for public advertisement? If not, the insertion of the proposed words will be useless.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: There are rules and procedure under the London Traffic Act which refer to this matter, under which notices can be given. I appreciate what the hon. and gallant Member says, but presumably anything that is in an Act ought to be known by the public. If, however, we find that it is desirable to give some form of notice that is not in the Bill, I will look into the matter. I am wiry grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for drawing attention to it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 71, line 29, to leave out from the word "continues, ' to the end of the Sub-section.
    This Amendment is to do away with the necessity of giving notice to an offender in the prescribed form before he can be charged with a continuing offence. No such notice is normally required before proceedings can be taken for a continuing offence. The circumstances do not appear to justify the requirement of notice.
    9.6 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I do not quite follow the argument behind the Amendment. I should have thought that notice of an offence should be given before action is taken to prosecute for the offence and that it was a reasonable step to take before starting to prosecute a person that he should have some notice that he is infringing the Act, even if it is a continuing offence. I do not know what may be the view of the Solicitor-General but it seems to me an equitable thing in an offence of this sort that the person should have

    1541
    notice. Unless there is a strong reason for omitting the words, the Committee ought to leave them in.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not think it is necessary to give notice to an offender when he is continuing an offence. Presumed knowledge of the law applies in such a case. I am not aware of any similar case in which there is a provision that notice must be given to one who is continuing an offence.
    9.8 p.m.
    Major MILNER: This is a very technical Bill and there are apparently numbers of occasions on which vehicle proprietors may be brought up under this Clause. Therefore, there ought to be some provision whereby notice is given. It might happen that, unwittingly, a perfectly well disposed individual, who is desirous of carrying out the law, may commit some offence under a regulation, and it seems to me unfair that if he commits that offence for a period of, perhaps, six months or even longer he should be liable to a fine of £20 for the first offence and £50 for a second offence or subsequent offence. I am reminded by my hon. and learned Friend that this does not relate to what is ordinarily termed a continuing offence, but to a first offence, on which a fine of £20 can be imposed, or to a second offence, for which a fine of £50 can be imposed. In the case of a continuing offence, which may be a continuing first offence, there can be a further fine of for each day on which the offence continues, after notice of the offence has been given. The provision as to notice ought to remain. It applies to the first offence and to a continuing offence. In regard to a first offence it ought not to be possible to inflict not only a fine of £20 but a fine of £5 a day for a continuance of that offence, which might amount to a very considerable sum. While desirous of keeping within the law people may honestly commit an offence under the regulations. Therefore, the original words ought to remain.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I am afraid that I was unwittingly misled. The words
    "after notice of the offence has been given "
    9.10 p.m.
    do not apply only to the continuing offence. They are words that apply to an offence whether it be the first, a second or a continuing offence. The words are:
    1542
    "(4) Any such regulations may provide for imposing fines…not exceeding in the case of a first offence 20 pounds, or in the case of a second or subsequent offence 50 pounds, together with, in the case of a continuing offence, a further fine not exceeding five pounds for each day on which the offence continues after notice of the offence has been given."
    The words:
    "After notice of the offence has been given "
    apply to all the offences, first, second and further offences. Therefore, if the words are taken out it will mean that a fine can be imposed without any notice in a first offence. I am sure that that is not the intention.
    9.12 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Exactly the same provision is made in the Road Traffic Act. There is no provision there for notice and I cannot really see any reason why notice of offence should be given to the first or any other offence under this Act as distinct from similar cases under the Road Traffic Act. Such questions as inadvertance and the rest of it are eminently matters for the magistrates who have to deal with them. The usual provisions enable the magistrates to give full effect to the consideration that a man is a first offender or that he has acted through inadvertance. I cannot see why notice should be given in this case as distinct from others.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 71, line 35, leave out the words "the traffic commissioners for any area," and insert instead thereof the words:
    "the Traffic Commissioner for the Metropolitan Traffic Area."—[Lieut. - Colonel Headlam.]
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 71, line 36, at 9.14 p.m. the end, to insert the words:
    "() Nothing in this section or in any regulation made thereunder shall apply to any tramcar or trolley vehicle which is being operated under statutory powers."
    The object of the Amendment is to make clear the intention that the Clause is not applicable in the case of tramcars or trolley vehicles.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Why should tramcars and trolley vehicles be outside the Act? Are they special favourites of the Minister?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Because they cannot deviate from the route.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The Minister says that it is because they cannot deviate from the road. We ought in justice to the Committee to have some real reason, apart from that, why they are to be excepted. Tramcars are not things that should have any special privilege over other vehicles which are much more modern and up-to-date. These old fashioned things are being given a privilege. Is it a relic of the late Government, who did everything they could to encourage prehistoric ideas?
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 71, line 39, leave out from "1924" to the end of the sub-section.—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]

    CLAUSE 62.—(Power to make regulations with, respect to road traffic generally in London, Traffic Area.)
    9.17 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 72, line 20, to leave out the word "hours" and to insert instead thereof the word "periods."
    This is to enable the Minister to make regulations with regard to any period where it is more or less than a day.
    Sir K. VAUGHAN - MORGAN: I should like to put a question on this point. This action is taken under Section 10 of the London Traffic Act, 1924, and I should like to ask why the words in this Bill do not follow the words of the Section in the 1924 Act. There it is stated that
    "For the purpose of relieving congestion and facilitating traffic in and near London."
    That part has been left out of the present Bill, and I should like to know the reason, if any, why a different wording has been adopted in this case.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: In the 1924 Act the controlling words were for "the purpose of relieving congestion," but it is now necessary to introduce these controlling words because the purpose of this Bill is not merely to deal with congestion but with the matter from a broader point of view.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Does this in any way regulate the hours of the men employed? Those who are interested in the labour side of this subject ought to have some idea as to whether the Minister has any power for dealing with long hours.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The regulations in this Clause are only for the purpose of controlling vehicular and other traffic, and have no connection with hours of labour.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: When the Government propose to regulate these matters in the interests of the companies they do not propose to put in any power to regulate the hours of the men employed, or deal with the danger to the public if men have to drive for long hours. That is a, curious omission.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is dealt with by other legislation, which prevents men from working beyond a certain number of hours. This Clause is not the place to deal with such a matter.
    Amendment agreed to.
    9.20 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 72, line 34, after the word "vehicle," to insert the words:
    "the route on which !he vehicle is being operated."
    This is to remove a doubt as to whether the regulations with reference to matters in paragraph (c) of the Third Schedule to the London Traffic Act of 1924 regulate properly the use of stopping places. It is merely to clear up the point.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    9.21 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: This is a convenient place at which the Attorney-General might give the Committee some information as to what are the theories and ideas of the Minister of Transport in dealing with the important questions with which he will have to deal under this Clause by regulations. The Clause, I understand, gives the Minister power to deal with the rush periods, and he cannot have taken such powers without clear and definite ideas as to the regulations he proposes to make. Some of us would like to know what are the kind of regu

    1545
    lations he proposes to issue. Obviously, he is going to do something. I cannot conceive that he has no knowledge of what he is going to do. He must have some knowledge, and the Committee is entitled to know what is in the Minister's mind. Again, if this scheme is to be successful we do not want too much Ministerial interference. We want to be sure that the Minister will not be continually interfering with the management of the board.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I cannot believe that the Committee at this late hour and at this stage of the Bill would really like me to do what the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. Williams) suggests. But if it is any satisfaction to him may I say that I have here a list of things which the Minister can do by way of regulation, and if the Committee wishes I will read it out.
    HON. MEMBERS: No.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Read it.
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: Hear, hear!
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I take it that the Committee does not wish it to be done. All I can say it that the Minister is fully alive to his responsibilities under this Bill and will make such regulations as are necessary when the time comes.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: The position is that the Minister knows what he intends to do but he does not wish the Committee to know. That is a curious position. I am sorry to have to say this. I made my suggestion in all kindness, and I hope the Committee will be allowed to know what is to be the policy of the Minister.
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: Hear, hear!
    9.23 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: If my hon. Friends are anxious to know what the Committee does rot wish to be read I will read one or two of the regulations which might be made. A regulation might be made for prescribing the routes to be followed by all classes of traffic or by any particular class of traffic or vehicles from one specified point to another; or for prescribing the conditions subject to which and the times at which articles may be loaded on to or unloaded from
    1546
    vehicles or vehicles of any particular class or description on the streets—
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is that all?
    Clause 63 (Consequential and minor Amendments) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 64.—(Date of operation of this part of this Act.)
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 73, line 6, to leave out the word "thirty-two," and to insert instead thereof the word "thirty-three."
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: May I ask for a little information on this?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This is to enable, as the Amendment seems to suggest, different times at which different provisions of the Bill will come into operation.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 73, line 8, at the end, to insert the words:
    "and different days may be fixed for different purposes and different provisions of this Part of this Act."
    9.26 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: This Amendment deals with the different dates which may be fixed by the Minister, but as the Government are more or less pledged to uniformity, why should there not be one date for the whole of these things There may be reasons, but it is a little curious that a Government which has made such an absolute idol of uniformity should be inserting this Amendment in which there are different dates. Thanks to the Government, I am rapidly arriving at a. state of some confusion as to whether the Government really are so fond of uniformity. The Committee is entitled to some adequate explanation as to why there should be different dates. Are they to have different dates for the North and South of London or for the East and West or for different localities?
    9.27 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This is not at all an unfamiliar provision in a Bill of a comprehensive character dealing with a number of subjects. I am sure

    1547
    my hon. Friend's acquaintance with the methods of this House would enable him to quote half-a-dozen instances where this has been the procedure. It is thought desirable to empower the Minister to bring different parts of the Bill into operation at different times. I cannot say more than that, and I think the Committee must trust the Minister and myself when I say that it may be necessary, and I see no reason why the Minister should not be given that power. It has not been found at all inconvenient in other legislation to which we have all been parties in this House.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: As far as the Attorney-General is concerned, I have implicit trust in him, but although I might conceivably find other cases of this kind of thing, it is not necessarily good. I understood that uniformity was everything. Now that the right hon. Gentleman has begun to give way on this, it helps us enormously in our case against the whole Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 65.—(Settlement of disputes as to pay and conditions of service.)
    The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Sir W. RAY:
    In page 73, line 14, after the word "applies," to insert the words "(other than the excepted employés)."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Before I call on the hon. Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray) to move his Amendment, I should like to ask him one question. He wants to move an Amendment to insert the words, "other than the excepted employés." Would he be good enough to inform me how much of his later Amendments to Clauses 67 and 68 that covers? I am rather in a difficulty about this.
    9.30 p.m.
    Sir W. RAY: The first Amendment standing in my name conveys very little, but perhaps I could say what I have to say in one short speech and deal with the whole of the Amendments standing in my name on pages 200 and 201 of the Order Paper.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think it would be for the general convenience both of the hon. Member for Richmond and the Committee if he explained his scheme on this Amendment.
    Sir W. RAY: I beg to move, in page 73, line 14, after the word "applies," to insert the words "(other than the excepted employés)."
    This first Amendment practically conveys nothing by itself but the consequential Amendments which I have down explain more what is in my mind. The proposals I am submitting are really on behalf of the administrative staff which will be taken over by this great combination. At the present moment the technical, administrative and clerical staffs in the service of the London County Council which will be taken over by this new body, are dealt with by a point committee representative of the authority and its members. Under the Bill as it stands, dealing with matters connected with the negotiating committee, the wages board and the committee for making and varying schemes, the only people on the employés' side are the trade unions, namely, the National Union of Railwaymen, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, and the Railway Clerks' Association. The ordinary employés of the county council belong to the organisations mentioned and to other organisations, but there are a large body of the administrative staff on the technical administrative and technical side who are not members of these trade unions, arid, consequently, they will have no representation on the bodies dealing with the interests of the men.
    Unless something like the proposal which I am suggesting in a later Clause is adopted, it will mean that this type of employé, with whom we have worked harmoniously for some years on joint committees, will be compelled in his own interest to join one or other of the three trade unions concerned. I am not speaking from any prejudice against trade unions at all; we are negotiating with them week by week and month by month, but, so far as members of the staff are concerned, there is a desire that they should not be forced into joining the ranks of the trade unions. It is quite possible, as has been illustrated by the success of our joint committee of members and staffs, to get a successful

    1549
    organisation of the kind, arid it seems a pity, under the provisions of a Bill of this kind, that this cannot be continued. I am moving these Amendments simply in the interests of a body of men who can in no way be called competent to join the trade unions, and simply with the idea of making provision for negotiations between that type of man and those who will be in control of this great combination. If any success attends this Amendment, I will move the others formally.
    9.34 p.m.
    Lieut. - Colonel HEADLAM: The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray) is not one which the Government can accept as it stands. It is quite clear that his proposals go much too far, and that such a joint committee would be unworkable in practice. The point of view which he has expressed has been fully considered in consultation with the Minister of Labour. That is the considered view of the Government. The Minister of Transport, however, is prepared to consider the matter further, in consultation with his colleague the Minister of Labour, to see whether some alternative Amendment can be proposed to meet the case. The Government are, however, impressed with the view that the machinery of Part VI of the Bill is expressed to apply to grades of staff who may not ordinarily be associated with machinery such as that of the Clause. The Government will, therefore, be disposed to view with favour a proposal to impose some salary limit such as that which operates under the Railways Act. I hope that my hon. Friend will be satisfied with the assurance that we are moving on those lines.
    9.36 p.m.
    Sir GEORGE HUME: I want to press the Government for very serious consideration of this point. I speak with some knowledge of the position as chairman of the Joint Committee of members of the staff, and I know how that association has been working during the last few years. To attempt to force the staff, of a standing such as we have to deal with, into other channels, would be a very great mistake indeed. This Amendment may not be inspired, and I dare say the Government, after giving it consideration, will produce something better or
    1550
    more workable, but for something to be done is most necessary. It will be a real disaster if an organisation such as has been worked out should be torn to pieces and thrown on the scrap heap, and if all the employés who have been accustomed to work on these lines should be forced into trade unions, to which they simply would not go willingly and in which they would have no voice at all. The result would be bad not only for them but for the organisation itself.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: These Amendments have been put on the Paper by hon. Members who are very well instructed and have full knowledge of these people and their position. Would it not be better if the Government accepted the Amendments now and considered any improvements that may be necessary before the Report stage?
    9.38 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think it is better that we should have an opportunity of considering the matter further. I can give my hon. Friends, who are interested on behalf of the staff concerned, an assurance that these men certainly shall be given the rights which the Committee intend shall be preserved. The best way of doing that, with due regard to their welfare and the peace of the undertakings, is a matter for consideration, but I have no hesitation at all in saying that the Government recognise that some proper provision must be made. We prefer to do it by further negotiation and consideration rather than by acceptance of these Amendments at the moment.
    9.39 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I quite understand the Attorney-General's point of view. He speaks of negotiation and so on. I take it that those negotiations will be with, amongst others, the trade unions with whom this bargain was made—a bargain which is incorporated in this Clause, just as a bargain was made with other people who appeared before the Joint Committee. There were arrangements made with regard to certain sections. This arrangement was agreed between the trades unions and the Minister, who incorporated what is the procedure of the Railways Act, which has worked for so many years. I understand that in any question of altering the Clause the trade unions will be taken into consideration.
    9.40 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is because of the delicacy of the position that I say further consideration must be given to it. There is no desire to interfere with arrangements for keeping peace within the industry, arrangements which have worked well in the past; but they must apply to everyone and not to one separate body of persons.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Can we have an assurance?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Certainly the organisations in question will be asked to concur in the arrangements that are made. Negotiations with everyone affected will be conducted.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Will this be fixed by the Report stage?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Certainly.
    Sir W. RAY: In view of the extremely conciliatory statement of the Attorney-General I feel that there is nothing for me to do but to withdraw all my Amendments in the hope that we will get something satisfactory before the Report stage.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE; 66.—(Constitution of Negotiating Committee and Wages Board.)
    Amendment made: In page 73, line 41, leave out the word "Federation," and insert instead thereof the word "Confederation."—[Mr. Pybus.]
    Clause 67 (Establishment of councils) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 68.—(Power to make schemes.)
    Amendment made: In page 74, line 39, leave out the word "thirty-three," and insert instead thereof the word "thirtyfour."—[Mr. Pybus.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    9.42 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: On what basis does this Clause work out? The Clause begins with the words:
    1552
    "For the purpose of giving effect to the foregoing provisions…schemes shall be made and may, from time to time, be varied by a committee consisting of six representatives of the board and two representatives of each of the trades unions."
    Does that refer to the three trades unions mentioned earlier, and is it to be a committee of 12?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It will be an equal number on either side. I do not think any other trade union is likely to be brought into the Bill by any arrangements that may be made to deal with the last point that we discussed.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will there not be any representative of people outside the three trades unions?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Clause does not provide for representatives of people outside the unions at present.

    CLAUSE 69.—(Application of Part VI.)
    Amendment made: In page 75, line 7, leave out the words "station and," and insert instead thereof the words "stations or."—[Mr. Pybus.]

    CLAUSE 70.—(Definition of trades unions.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Perhaps I might seek further to elucidate the point which I raised earlier. This Clause specifies three particular trade unions. I have no wish, as I am sure the Attorney-General realises, to make any difficulty in this matter, but we heard just now that there was to be some effort to reach agreement in this connection. I wish to ask him, if, in the course of those conversations, he finds it advisable that some representation should be given to that large body of people who are outside these three very excellent trade unions he will take steps to secure that representation. I ask him to consider between now and the Report stage putting in some provision either in this Clause or elsewhere in the Bill to deal with those people.
    The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: The question of the hon. Member is so hypothetical that I find a difficulty in answering it. In effect, he asks me, if there should be some persons outside these three unions who desire to be represented—
    Mr. WILLIAMS: There are.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: He asks what I propose to do regarding those people. I do not know what the number of such persons may be, or what their bond of union may be or what sort of representation they desire. I am afraid I must leave it to my hon. Friend to frame some Amendment on the point if he thinks fit, for the Report stage.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: The Attorney-General said that he was going to deal with this matter between now and the Report stage. These people who have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray) and other hon. Members this evening are I take it, a considerable body. I am not trying to raise any difficulties in connection with the negotiations upon this point, but it is up to some of us here to see, that if there is a body of people not concerned with the unions mentioned in this Clause, they should have some kind of representation, direct or indirect. I am trying to put it to the Attorney-General as peaceably as I can that he should consider the case of these people with the hon. Member for Richmond, or with whoever else it may be desirable to consult.
    Mr. MAITLAND: Is it not quite clear that the Amendment put down by the hon. Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray) on Clause 70 dealing with the excepted employés covers the point which the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) has in mind l If there is any arrangement of the kind suggested the proposal in that Amendment will be covered in the new Clauses or Amendments introduced on the Report stage to deal with the point.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: We have no desire to keep anything back, but if the Committee will trust me I shall try with the help of the Minister and of the hon. Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray) and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) to devise something which will be satisfactory to the persons concerned.

    CLAUSE 71.—(Transfer and compensation rights of officers and servants solely or mainly occupied in scheduled undertakings.)
    9.50 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move in page 75, line 19, to leave out the word "thirty-one" and insert in stead thereof the word "thirty-two."
    I think this is a drafting Amendment. I am not sure whether there is any purpose in retaining "nineteen hundred and thirty-one" in the Bill and I do not see why it should not now become "nineteen hundred and thirty-two."That would only be the year preceding the year in which the Measure comes into force.
    9.51 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am afraid that this is not merely a drafting Amendment. It so happens that the 12th March, 1931, is the date upon which the Bill was first introduced and when its provisions became known and it was thought reasonable to date the rights of people in the service of the different undertakings as from that date, or rather to mark them by reference to that date. Thus the people who were in the service of the undertakings at that date are to have the advantages which Clause 71 gives. It was thought that people who came into the service of the undertakings after that date did so with a full knowledge of the proposed transfer to the board. They will of course have tile benefit of their contracts of service with the undertakings. They will not be thrown on the streets and be deprived of their existing rights, but they will not be placed in the advantageous position which everybody—I ask the Committee to mark that—employed up to 12th March, 1931, has. The Committee will realise that the proposals in the Bill in this respect are much more favourable than the corresponding proposals in similar Measures where these compensation benefits were only given to persons who "had been in some cases five years, in another case two years, in the service of the undertakings concerned. In this case if a person has only been in the service for a, week, before 12th March, 1932, he acquires the rights conferred by the

    1555
    Clause. I am afraid it would be departing from the intention of the Minister and the scheme of the Bill as originally introduced to accept the Amendment.
    9.53 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Would the Attorney-General not consider the fact that the Bill has had a chequered career since it was introduced, and the possibility that some people may have entered the service since this date, thinking that possibly the Bill would never become an Act. In view of the very long intervening period which will now be over two years, would it not be fair to change the date to 1932? The Attorney-General will see the possibility that people who have been taken on and who thought they were getting permanent situations, may find themselves the first to be discarded, because they have no protection under this Clause. We are anxious that as many as possible should be protected, and I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should, at least, carefully consider this point.
    9.54 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has got himself into an amazing position by moving this Amendment. Surely he must know that in any Bill of this kind it is necessary, for compensation purposes, to take the date when the Bill was introduced. He says that because the Bill has had a chequered career we ought to change the period of compensation and bring it forward a year. The Bill may have a still more chequered history in the future, and it may be years before it comes into operation. To change a date of this kind in Committee would lead to endless confusion. The Government have got into enough confusion already over this Bill, and I ask them, for goodness sake, to have nothing to do with the very bad advice tendered them by the hon. and learned Member.
    Question put, "That the word 'thirty-one' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 218; Noes, 37.

    Division No. 20.]

    AYES.

    [9.56 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Hornby, Frank

    Albery, Irving James

    Dickie, John P.

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Dower, Captain A. V. G.

    Horobin, Ian M.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Drewe, Cedric

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Duckworth. George A. V.

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Roml'd)

    Beaumont. Hon. R. E, B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Ellis. Sir R. Geoffrey

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Beit, Sir Altred L.

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Jackson, Sir Henry Wandsworth,. C.)

    Bernays, Robert

    Emrys-Evans. P. V.

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Jennings. Roland

    Blindell James

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Bossom, A. C,

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

    Boulton, W. W.

    Evans, David Owen (Carolgan)

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

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Evans. R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. VV.

    Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Jones. Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

    Ganzonl. Sir John

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Gibson, Charles Granvllie

    Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Lamb. Sir Joseph Quinton

    Buchan-Hepburn, p. G. T.

    Glossop. C. W. H.

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Burnett, John George

    Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

    Leckie, J. A.

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Leighton. Major B. E. P.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Lewis, Oswald

    Castle Stewart, Earl

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Grentell, E. C. (City of London)

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)

    Griffith. F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'. W.)

    Lister. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Grimston, R. V.

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Christie, James Archibald

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Clayton Dr. George C.

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Harbord, Arthur

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Hartland, George A.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Conant, R. J. E.

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

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Cook, Thomas A,

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    McKie. John Hamilton

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Heligers, Captain F. F. A.

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Crossley, A. C.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Magnay, Thomas

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Maitland, Adam

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Rankin. Robert

    Soper, Richard

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Ray, Sir William

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Storey, Samuel

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Strickland. Captain W. F.

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Remer, John R,

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Robinson, John Roland

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Ropner. Colonel L.

    Thompson, Luke

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Rosbotham, S. T.

    Thomson. Sir Frederick Charles

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir S. Eyres

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

    Russeil, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Tryon. Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Salmon, Major Isidore

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Salt, Edward W.

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    North, Captain Edward T.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth Putney)

    Ward. Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Scone. Lord

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Pearson, William G.

    Selley, Harry R.

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Penny, Sir George

    Shakespeare. Geoffrey H.

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Petherick, M.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Peto, sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Potter, John

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Slater, John

    Womersley, Walter James

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-ln-F.)

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Pybus, Percy John

    Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Smith Carington. Neville W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Ramsay, T. a. W. (Western Isles)

    Somerveil, Donald Bradley

    Captain Austin Hudson and Lieut.-

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Somervilie, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Banfield, John William

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

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Briant, Frank

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Milner, Major James

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

    Janner, Barnett

    Parkinson, John Alien

    Cape, Thomas

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Price, Gabriel

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Thorne, William James

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Kirkwood, David

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Daggar, George

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Edwards, Charles

    Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Lunn, William

    Mr D. Graham and Mr. John.

    Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.

    10.4 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 77, line 13, to leave out the word "three," and to insert instead thereof the word "six."
    This is a proposal to give more time for the purpose with which Clause 71 deals. The Clause, as drafted, gives only three months, and it is thought to be desirable to have six months within which time the board will have the right to give notice to the late employés of transferred undertakings.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 78, line 21, at the end, to insert the words:
    "() Where, for the purposes of agreeing or determining by arbitration under this Act the amount and nature of the consideration to be paid by the board for the transfer of an undertaking or part of an undertaking, any part of the remuneration or emoluments paid or payable to an existing officer or servant has been treated as part of the profits of the undertaking or part of
    1558
    the undertaking the part of the remuneration or emoluments so treated as part of the profits shall for the purposes of assessing the compensation, if any, payable to that officer or servant under this part of this Act or the Twelfth Schedule to this Act he deemed not to have formed or to form part of the remuneration or emoluments which the officer or servant was enjoying before the transfer to the hoard of the undertaking or part of the undertaking or would have enjoyed if that transfer had not taken place."
    10.5 p.m.
    There are some undertakings which remunerate their officers by giving them a share of the profits. In so far as those profits have been taken into account in fixing the consideration in the transfer of the undertaking, it will be manifestly improper to include them again in the computation of the compensation that has to be paid to an officer remunerated in that way. The point seems to have been overlooked when the Bill left the Joint Committee, and this Amendment provides that the computation shall not include the same item twice over.
    Mr. MALLALIEU: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end, to insert the words:
    "Provided that any existing officer or servant whose remuneration or emoluments, or part thereof, have been treated as part of the profits of the undertaking, or part of the undertaking as aforesaid, shall be entitled to claim against the proprietor of the undertaking, or part of the undertaking, such sum as would but for this sub-section have been payable to him under this section, the amount thereof to be determined in the same manner as though the question had arisen between himself and the board."
    10.6 p.m.
    I believe that my words more clearly interpret the intention of the Government than the Amendment of the Attorney - General as it stands. I will ask the Attorney-General to consider the case of a small concern which is taken over by the board, and I will reduce the matter to its utmost simplicity by taking a concern consisting of two people, "A" and "B." "A" wishes to start a small motor omnibus company, but has not sufficient money, and gets hold of "B" to put up some money. "A" and "B" both put up money, but "A" also works. The position under the Attorney-General's Amendment is that the payment which the man who has worked receives will be written back into the profits of the undertaking, so that "A" and "B" will together share the compensation which "A" should have received himself for his loss of employment, as distinct from his loss on the capital. 'Under the Attorney-General's Amendment, "13," who is the mere financier, will share compensation which should go solely to "A," the man who has both worked and put up some of the capital. That cannot he the intention of the Government, and, if I am right, perhaps the Attorney-General will be able to accept my Amendment to his Amendment.
    10.9 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I confess that but for the illustration which my hon. Friend gave, I thought that I understood the purpose of his Amendment to the proposed Amendment, but I was not quite sure whether it was in the proper form. The Amendment to the proposed Amendment has only appeared on the Paper in the last day or two, and I have not had the opportunity of considering the terms of it. I think that I appreciate
    1560
    my hon. Friend's point, but it goes a little further than the illustration which he gave, where, I should have thought, the two people were the joint proprietors of the undertaking. I understood the point of his Amendment to the proposed Amendment to be that where the man, so to speak, had his remuneration already computed in the consideration paid to the undertaking of which he was an officer, he should be entitled to get back from his employers that part of the consideration which really represents part of his remuneration. If that be so, my hon. Friend's Amendment covers a point that wants considering, and I will see whether an appropriate form of words can be designed to protect employés who may be in that position.
    Mr. MALLALIEU: On that understanding, for which I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Proposed words there inserted.
    Further Amendment made: In page 78, line 33, leave out the word "section" and insert instead thereof the words "part of this Act."—[Mr. Pybus.]
    Commander MARSDEN: I beg to move, in page 78, line 34, at the end, to insert the words:
    "a permanent director, a director employed in accordance with a contract for service, and a director actually employed in the conduct or management of any undertaking or part thereof, transferred."
    10.11 p.m.
    In endeavouring to put these words into Sub-section (10), I have not in mind the directors of bigger companies. My object is to improve the position of the directors of small independent undertakings. I ask the Committee to consider the position of these men. Most of these undertakings, the large number of which is shown in the Schedule to the Bill, did not start as limited companies. Some of them started with one or two men, some of them ex-service men, with one or two omnibuses, and they gradually worked up services which the large organisations were unable to provide, and created a demand which so far the independent undertakings have alone been able to supply. As time went on, these small

    1561
    undertakings formed themselves, for reasons which suited them, into limited liability companies, but I am sure that hon. Members will not picture the directors of these companies in the way that we are accustomed to picture directors and in the way which is usually shown in the cartoons of some of the Socialist papers. These men are much more often in the workshops in boiler suits than they are in the board room. Most of them are what we should call working men. They spend their whole time running these small undertakings, and of all the people taken over in this Combine who, I should have thought, were the most deserving, they are the one class which has been left out in the cold.
    When these undertakings are taken over by the board, naturally the directors will get something of the purchase money which their holding of shares will entitle them to get, but that is only the purchase price of the undertaking on the value that will be arrived at by the arbitration. As far as I can see, it does not affect in the slightest the particular directors to whom I am referring. They will merely get money for something which has been bought from them compulsorily, under a sale which they had no desire to effect; but what is most important to them is their jobs. They will riot be left entirely without means, but they are men with initiative and enterprise who want a chance of work in the future; that is more important to them than receiving a few pounds for their share in the undertaking. If they can be brought into this Bill as officers or servants, and they have any complaint that they have not been taken over by the Combine, they will be able to proceed as laid down in Schedule 12. They will go before the arbitration board, which will consider their case. If they have no claim they will receive nothing, but, if it is thought they have a just claim, the board will be able to award compensation. It would be far fairer to these men to give them at least a chance of going before the board.
    Personally, I should think the most sensible thing the Combine could do would be to take over the men. But imagine their position! They are directors of their little companies, and are very proud of the fact. They have been, as we may say, "bucking against"
    1562
    the big combines, forcing them to reduce their fares, putting on services which the bigger companies could not give, paying their employés larger wages than the big combines and, what is most important, charging lesser fares than the large combines. These are the men who, from my point of view ought to be encouraged to the highest degree. As far as I can make out, everybody else is to get something. Most of the losing companies will get considerably more than they are worth, and most of the companies which are making profits less than they ought to get. There cannot be many persons of this class. The list of undertakings is named in the Schedule, and there cannot be more than two or three men in each company. I ask the Minister and the learned Attorney-General to give way on this point, and to give a fair deal to a most deserving class of men.
    10.18 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: These words seem to me to be far too wide to cover my hon. and gallant Friend's purpose. The words:
    "a permanent director "
    would apply to people in a very different position from what he has described. The next words:
    "a. director employed in accordance with a contract for service "
    are, I understand, recommended to cover the case of a director who also has some contract of service in another capacity. If he is engaged under a contract of service he will be entitled to his compensation under the scheme, apart from being a director, and I cannot see that we should give him any better rights merely because he is a director. The next words are:
    "a director actually employed in the conduct or management of any undertaking or part thereof."
    These words are rather obscure to me. I understand they are intended to cover the case of a director who is personally interested as an owner of the undertaking, and therefore goes about the daily work, as my hon. and gallant Friend says, in a boiler suit in the workshops or some other part of the undertaking. If the man is employed under a contract of service, he will get his compensation if he loses his position. I am afraid I cannot enlarge the word" officers" to cover the case of directors. Bearing in mind

    1563
    that everybody who owns the undertaking or has a share in the ownership will get his share back, and everybody who is employed under a contract of service will get his compensation if he is not employed by the board, I cannot quite see why, by reason of the fact that it happens to be a company, and he has become a director, he should be entitled to something more than a man who has not made his business into a company and has interested himself in maintaining the success of his little undertaking. I am afraid the words are not very apt to cover the cases, and the Government are unable to accept the Amendment.
    10.20 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I am only seeking after truth. Perhaps the learned Attorney-General will tell us whether the director who is a full-time director of a company and in fact looks after a particular branch of the work of the company would get any compensation. I have read this Clause several times, and the only reference to a definition of "officer," as stated in this Clause, is a managing director. A large number of the people to whom the hon. and gallant Member for North Battersea (Commander Marsden) referred, are not managing directors; they are directors doing a full-time job. They are not officers or servants of companies. We are not quite clear, some of us, as to how they stand.
    10.21 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am afraid that I cannot deal with the situation which is described in the words of the last observation of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). They are people whose position we cannot quite understand.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Under this Clause.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If the hon. and gallant Member for North Battersea (Commander Marsden) will define the position which the people occupy, I shall be able to deal with them. I have dealt with the people who have a contract of service, and with people who own an undertaking or part of an undertaking. I understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to include some persons who work in businesses in a
    1564
    general way, but I do not see why they should be entitled to any compensation. I have said that already, and I do not wish to repeat my observations.
    Mr. MACMILLAN: What is the legal definition of managing director? Is it defined in the Companies Act?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: There is no precise definition. It remains to be decided by an arbitration tribunal, if there is any dispute. I think that a man who is the only director of an undertaking and who is remunerated for looking after the undertaking by some share in the profits, or by some official salary, is the managing director, even though he may not be appointed as managing director under the articles of the company.
    Mr. MACMILLAN: May not that be held to cover a good many of these cases?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes, I think it would be. I think that a great many of these cases would probably be regarded as managing directors, the term in fact being an enlarged definition of "officer."
    10.23 p.m.
    Mr. CAPORN: Would the tribunal, in considering whether a director is or is not a managing director, he free to disregard the memorandum of association?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: You mean the articles of the association?
    Mr. CAPORN: Yes, the articles. In most companies the articles provide whether there should or should not be a managing director. If, with a particularly small company, it is provided that there should be a managing director paid a salary, he would be a managing director within the meaning of the Bill. Suppose that there is a director who is in fact paid a substantial salary, and gives his whole time employment in the management of the company, either as manager of the whole or of a branch of the company, I should like to know whether the Attorney General thinks that the tribunal under this Bill would be able to consider the claims of such a man.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think that it would be.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause 72 (Transfer and compensation rights of officers and servants occupied in certain other undertakings) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 73.—(Compensation rights of certain officers and servants not transferred to the board.)
    10.25 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 80, line 42, to leave out the words "and, in particular, to, ' and to insert instead thereof the word "including."
    This Amendment is put down to meet an objection taken by the London County Council to the words in the Bill, on the ground that, if the arbitrator were directed in particular to take account of reallocation of duties, he might regard that aspect of the matter to the exclusion of other relevant circumstances. The Amendment is regarded as suitable and proper by the London County Council, who took the objection.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 74.—(Compensation rights of officer's and servants of Railway Clearing House.)
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 81, line 15, to leave out the words "immediately before the appointed day."
    This Amendment and the following one cover the same point. They are put down in order to deal with the position that will arise in consequence of the fact that the transfer of the Underground and Metropolitan Railways and the coming into operation of the pooling schemes may not all take place on the same day, and, therefore, the appointed day will not be appropriate in relation to the: employés of the Railway Clearing House.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 81, line 15, after the word "he," insert the word "previously." — [The Attorney-General.]
    Clause 75 (Compensation rights of officers and servants of joint railway
    1566
    undertakings) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 76.—(Continuance of compassionate allowances.)
    Amendment made: In page 83, line 16, leave out the word "three," and insert instead thereof the word "six." —[Mr. Pybus.]

    CLAUSE 77.—(Provisions as to standing arbitrator.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the, Bill."
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I should like to-ask a question with regard to this Clause, which relates to the appointment of a standing arbitrator. It is stated in Subsection (2) that the fee payable to the standing arbitrator is to be fixed by the Lord Chancellor. I quite admit that probably no one would do it better, but, at the same time, I think that the House of Commons has some right to know on what lines this fee is going to be fixed. It is all very well to quote some other Act, as is done here, but I think that this Committee have a right, when they are laying it down as part of the law of the country that an arbitrator of this kind shall be appointed, to know the basis on which the fees are to be paid. They have all to come out of the concern sooner or later, and I think we might have something definite on that point before we give the Government this Clause.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not know how much my hon. Friend is asking me to tell him when he asks me to tell him the basis upon which the fee will be fixed. The basis, of course, will be that it is fair and that it is necessary to secure a competent arbitrator. If my hon. Friend means will I tell him the figure that will be fixed by the Lord Chancellor, he is asking an impossibility, but I happen to know a figure which has been suggested as a possible one. I do not really know whether the Committee would desire me to tell them the precise figure or riot, but I suggest that they should not press me. The figure covers a certain number of days—I forget the number—and it really is a very moderate

    1567
    fee, and there is a fee of 15 guineas for every day beyond the number that the original sum is to cover.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has gone some way to meet us. He says it will be on a reasonable basis, but what is reasonable for some people is not reasonable for others.

    CLAUSS 78.—(Superannuation Funds, Etc.)
    10.31 p.m.
    Mr. THORP: I beg to move, in page 84, line 3, to leave out the words (in this section referred to as existing benefit funds ')" and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "(other than the Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund and the British Electrical Endowment Fund), which funds or schemes are in this section referred to as existing benefit funds.' "
    The object of this Amendment is to preserve the vested interests of people who are members of the British Electrical Endowment Fund.
    Mr. PYRUS: This Amendment and following Amendments in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell (Mr. Cassels) are designed to make more precise the provisions already in Sub-section (6) with regard to the British Electrical Endowment Fund, some members of which will be transferred to the service of the board. The Amendments have been agreed with the persons concerned, who will continue their membership on the same conditions as though they remained in their previous employment. We accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. THORP: I beg to move, in page 84, line 5, to leave out the words "(in this section referred to as existing banks '," and to insert instead thereof the words
    "(other than the British Electrical Provident Fund), which banks or institutions are in this section referred to as c existing banks.' "
    10.34 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Could we have some explanation of the Amendment? I do not see why we should have back bench Amendments forced on us. The Minister
    1568
    accepts this without any explanation. He simply says someone has agreed to it. It is only the excuse given for accepting the Amendment, and, surely, the Committee should have some information. What are the "existing banks"? It is monstrous the way the Committee have been treated.
    The CHAIRMAN: As far as I can make out, the hon. Member is now asking for an explanation of the second Amendment which is practically in identical terms with the one which the Committee have just passed.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: You say that it is practically identical, but I do not think that it is wholly identical.
    The CHAIRMAN: The point is that I must rule that the principle has been settled on the Amendment which has been passed, and I cannot allow the hon. Member to pursue it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    10.36 p.m.
    Further Amendments made: In page 84, line 8, leave out the words "or Part V," and insert instead thereof the words
    "Part V or Part VI."—[Mr. Pybus.]
    In page 85, line 41, leave out the words "or of the British Electrical Endowment Fund."
    In line 44, leave out the words "or fund."
    In page 86, line 9, leave out the words "or fund."
    In line 11, at the end, insert the words:
    "() Any person who, being an officer or servant of a transferred company, is transferred to and becomes an officer or servant of the Board and who, immediately before the appointed day was a member of the British Electrical Endowment Fund (in this sub-section referred to as the Endowment Fund ') shall (subject to the provisions of the trust deeds and rules for the time being applicable to the Endowment Fund) continue for the period during which lie remains an officer or servant of the hoard to be a member of the Endowment Fund; and while he so remains a member he shall be entitled to the same benefits, rights and privileges and subject to the same obligations, whether obtaining legally or by customary practice, as he would have been or might have become entitled to or subject to if the undertaking carried on by the company under which he held his office or employment had not been transferred to the board, or if the board had been a company within the meaning of the said trust deeds

    1569
    and rules, and the board shall, in respect of that person, have the same rights and be subject to the same obligations as the board would have been subject to under the provisions of the said trust deeds and rules if the board had been a company within the meaning of the said trust deeds and rules, and as from the appointed day, in construing the provisions of the said trust deeds and rules, the board in respect of that person shall be deemed to be, and always to have been, such a company.
    () Any person who, being an officer or servant of a transferred company, is transferred to and becomes an officer or servant of the board, and mho immediately before appointed day was a depositor in the British Electrical Provident Fund (in this sub-section referred to as the Provident Fund ') through the company under which he held his office or employment, and any person being the wife or child of an officer or servant so transferred and being immediately before the appointed day a depositor in the Provident Fund may, for the period during which such officer or servant remains an officer or servant of the board, remain a depositor through the board in the Provident Fund and shall be entitled to the same benefits, rights and privileges, and be subject to the same obligations, whether obtaining legally or by customary practice, as he or she would have been entitled or subject to, and the board shall in respect of that person have the same rights and be subject to the same obligations as the board would have been subject to under the provisions of the trust deeds and rules for the time being applicable to the Provident Fund if the board had been a company within the meaning of the said trust deeds and rules and as from the appointed day in construing the said trust deeds and rules the board shall in respect of that person be deemed to be, and always to have been, a company within the meaning of the said trust deeds and rules." —[Mr. Thorp.]
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Are all these words ruled by the same principle?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is too late.
    Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 36, line 18, to leave out the word "may," and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "(in this section referred to as a local authority's fund ') may so long as he remains an officer or servant of the beard."
    This Amendment is designed to meet the point raised by the London County Council that the right to retain membership of a local authority's fund shall not continue in the case of a transport officer or servant when he leaves the service of the Board. It is merely formal.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 86, to leave out lines 30 to 32, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "() Where any person who continues to be a member of a local authority's fund ceases to be an Officer or servant of the board the provisions of any such enactment, scheme, rule, or regulation as aforesaid which would have been applicable upon his ceasing to be an officer or servant of the authority shall apply as if he had remained an officer or servant of the authority, and had ceased to be such an officer or servant at the time at which, and in circumstances similar to those in which he ceased to be an officer or servant of the board;
    () Where any officer or servant of the board continues after the appointed day to be a member of a local authority's fund."
    This is another Amendment designed to meet points raised by the London County Council concerning the transfer of certain of their employés to the board.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I should like an explanation of this matter. The Patronage Secretary must know that it is the right of a Member of the Committee to ask for an explanation. I have been most reasonable and I do not see why we should be refused an explanation. I am sure that the Minister will be only too delighted to tell us what is the agreement with the London County Council.
    10.41 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is not simply a question of an agreement with the London County Council. The hon. Member is entitled to ask for information, and he is so quick that I am sure he will readily take in a very brief explanation. There are certain funds in which these employés of the County Council are interested, and a number of provisions are necessary to meet all eventualities, providing in substance for their right to continue to have an interest in the fund, notwithstanding that they are transferred to the board. Certain consequential provisions are necessary, such as providing for a deficit when it is due to a member continuing as a, member of the fund. It is necessary that the board should make up the deficit. These are arrangements which are part of a plan satisfactory to the County Council for leaving these persons in the fund, notwithstanding their transfer.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I thank the Attorney-General for his very courteous

    1571
    answer, and I assure him that I appreciate the very clear exposition that he has given.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 86, line 43, leave out from the word "fund" to the word "except," in line 8, page 87, and insert instead thereof the words:
    "where a local authority becomes liable to pay and pays into a local authority's fund any sums, whether ascertained upon an actuarial valuation or otherwise, being sums which if their undertaking had not been transferred to the board would have been payable by them out of the revenues of the undertaking, the board shall on demand repay to the authority so much of the said sums as relates to officers or servants of the board who continue or at any time since the appointed day have continued to be members of the local authority's fund;
    () the board and the local authority may enter into agreements for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the last two preceding sub-sections and."
    In line 15, leave out from beginning to the word "the," in line 19, and insert instead thereof the words:
    "If upon an actuarial valuation of any local authority's fund a deficiency is found to exist the board shall (without prejudice to any other liability of the board under the preceding provisions of this Section) on demand make good to the authority for the credit of."
    In line 32, leave out from the word "Board" to the end of line 39.
    In line 40, leave out the words "Provided that no such scheme of the Board," and insert instead thereof the words, "but no such scheme."—[Mr. Pybus.]
    10.44 p.m.
    Mr. THORP: I beg to move, in page 88, line 9, to leave out the words, "with the approval of the Minister."
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Does the Minister agree to be left out I How did he come to be left out by a back bencher I hope the Minister will tell us. I do not want to accept, without explanati6n, an Amendment which turns the Minister aside.
    Mr. THORP: In deference to the wishes of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) who so courteously referred to me as a back bencher, I may say that the object of this Amendment is that any member of the board who at the date of its coming into operation has
    1572
    any vested interest in the fund, in the way of either having been a subscriber for some time to the fund or having been a depositor in the fund, may be allowed, notwithstanding any objections that may be made, to remain a member of the fund. He may have for a very considerable time contributed to the fund for the benefit of himself or in certain circumstances for the benefit of his wife and family. The Amendment follows on a previous Amendment.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I must apologise to the hon. Member. When I described him as a back bencher I did not mean to hurt his feelings. Most of us in the House are in that position. I never intended it in any derogatory sense.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 79.—(Exemption from stamp duties.)
    10.46 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 89, line 3, at the end to insert the words:
    "() in respect of the issue of any transport stock by the board under Sub-section (1) of Section eighty-eight of this Act; or
    () in respect of the distribution under any scheme made, or deemed to be made, under Section eighty-eight of this Act of any assets of the Underground Electric Railway Company of London, Limited (in this Section referred to as "the Underground Company "), or of the London and Suburban Traction Company, Limited, amongst the holders of stocks (which expression in this Section includes debenture stocks) or shares of those companies, or on any instrument made for the purposes of, or in connection with, the transfer of the whole or any part of the assets of the Underground Company to any company formed under any such scheme as aforesaid with a view to the acquisition of those assets, or in respect of so much of the nominal share and loan capital of such last-mentioned company as constitutes the consideration for, and as is equivalent to, the value of the assets so transferred or any instrument securing such loan ca pit al."
    The first part of the Amendment is to provide for exemption from stamp duty the exchange of this transport stock for a certain amount of "A" and "C" stock, to which the Underground Holding Company become entitled under the settlement with the Underground lines. This part of the exchange was part of the settlement arrived at in connection with

    1573
    the financial arrangement. The second part of the Amendment is consequential on the proposed inclusion in Clause 88 of provisions with regard to the Underground Holding Company setting up a new company in connection with this liquidation.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 89, line 5, leave out from the word "of," to the first word "and," in line 8, and insert instead thereof the words, "Stocks or shares of the Underground Company."
    In line 28, at the end, insert the words:
    "or
    () in respect of the creation, division, or vesting of Metropolitan Railway Assented Stock (in this paragraph referred to as Assented Stock '), or in respect of the transfer to the trustees mentioned in Section (Provisions as to certain stocks of the Metropolitan Railway Company) of this Act of Metropolitan Consolidated Stock, or in respect of the transfer by such trustees of Transport C Stock to those holders of Assented Stock who exercise the option of exchanging their Assented Stock for Transport C Stock, or in respect of the transfer by such trustees of Transport C Stock to holders of Assented Stock pursuant to Sub-section (16) of the said Section, or in respect of the trust deed mentioned in the said Section."
    In line 32, after the word "part," insert the word "transferred."—[The Attorney-General.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    10.48 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: There is one point I wish to raise—a point of principle. This is a semi-public undertaking and it is to be made free of certain taxation in the form of stamp duties. I remember when a large rationalised undertaking came into being some years ago, Imperial Chemical Industries, that very large payments in respect of stamp duties were involved, and it was partly in consequence of the heavy burden cast on that company that the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, proposed in the Finance Bill of the following year a new provision in regard to stamp duties in connection with rationalisation. It seems to me to be the right thing to do. You do not want to impose an undue penally in connection with an amalgamation which may
    1574
    be regarded as being in the general public interest. Here we are bringing about, whether it is for good or for bad does not matter, a great rationalisation, and because it is a semi-State enterprise it is being given conditions of taxation more favourable than if it was a purely private enterprise. It is an unfair discrimination in favour of State enterprise as against private enterprise. A State enterprise ought to bear its fair share of taxation in exactly the same way as a private enterprise, and this form of discrimination is unfair. It may be that the Attorney-General can give us sound reasons why this should be done, but superficially I do not see any reason why this combination should be treated more favourably than the Imperial Chemical Industries would have been treated if their amalgamation had taken place after the Finance Act of, I think it was, 1928.
    10.50 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I really do not know what the hon. Member means by State enterprise. This is not State enterprise, but a body akin to the Port of London Authority. We all know that when Parliament puts into an Act of Parliament certain arrangements which necessitate the formation of companies which would involve the payment of Stamp Ditties, the payment is not enforced but where the undertakings for their own private purposes form companies of course the Stamp Duty is payable. It would be quite unfair to compel people to come into a unification scheme of this sort and bear expenditure due to the payment of Stamp Duty. That is the difference between the two cases.

    CLAUSE 80.—(Maintenance of transferred undertakings until appointed day.)
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 90, line 23, to leave out the word "is," and to insert instead thereof the word "are."
    This and the next amendments are not quite drafting Amendments. They provide for the manner in which the board may give notice that a particular contract was not reasonably necessary in their opinion in the ordinary course of business and therefore ought not to be transferred to the hoard.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 90, line 33, leave out the word "three," and insert instead thereof the word "six."
    In page 91, line 6, leave out the words "(which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld)."
    In line 22, leave out Sub-sections (6) to (11), and insert instead thereof the words:
    "(6) For the purpose of securing a proper adjustment as between the board and each of the companies specified in Part I or Part 11 of the First Schedule to this Act (other than the South Metropolitan Electric Tramways and Lighting Company, Limited) (which companies are in this section referred to as transferred companies ') in respect of the earnings of those companies during the period commencing on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, and ending on the day preceding the appointed clay (which period is in this section referred to as the final period ') the following provisions shall have effect.
    (7) Between the commencement of this Act and the appointed day no sums shall be distributed by any transferred company by way of dividend or otherwise in respect of any part of the final period except such as are certified by an auditor approved by the Minister (in this section referred to as the approved auditor ') as being properly available for distribution as having been earned in the part of the final period in respect of which the distribution is to be made.
    (8) As soon as may be after the appointed day the approved auditor shall ascertain and certify the sums which have been earned (after charging interest on any debenture stock) by each of the transferred companies (other than the Metropolitan Electric Tramways, Limited, and the London United Tramways, Limited) during the final period so as to be properly available for distribution, and have not been distributed before the appointed day (which sums are in this section referred to as the undistributed earnings).
    (9) The auditor, in certifying any sum under this section, shall—

    (a) in the case of an Underground Company, have regard to any agreement as to the payment of revenues into a common fund made in pursuance of the London Electric Railway Companies' Facilities Act, 1915;

    (b) in the case of the London General Omnibus Company, Limited, and in the case of the Tramways (M.E.T.) Omnibus Company, Limited, exclude all sums received by the company during the final period by way of dividend on the shares of any Underground Company in respect of any period before the final period, and shall include all sums payable by way of such dividend in respect of the final period; and

    1576

    (c) in the case of the London General Omnibus Company, Limited, shall add back any sums set aside by the company out of the revenues of the final period for the purpose of the redemption of any debenture stock of the company.

    (10) Each of the transferred companies shall, subject to the provisions of subsection (12) of this section, be entitled to retain out of the assets of its undertaking transferred to the board by this Act a sum sufficient to pay the interest accrued up to the appointed day and unpaid on any debenture stock of the company, and the sum so retained shall be applied by the company in the payment of that interest accordingly.
    (7) So soon as the undistributed earnings have been ascertained and certified the board shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (12) of this section, repay to each of the transferred companies (other than the Metropolitan Electric Tramways, Limited, and the London United Tramways, Limited) the amount of its undistributed earnings.
    (8) Where, in pursuance of this section, any sums are to be retained by, or repaid to, any transferred company, there shall be deducted from the sums so to be retained or repaid a sum equal to the Income Tax thereon at the standard rate of income Tax prescribed by section fifteen of the Finance Act, 1932.
    (13) In this section the expression the Underground Companies means the companies specified in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act."—[The Attorneyneneral.]

    CLAUSE 81.—(Payment of interest on debenture stocks.)
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.—[The Attorney-General.]
    CLAUSE 82.—(Power of owners of transferred undertakings to retain temporarily officers, books, etc.)
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE 83.—(Documents of transferred undertaking to be surrendered.)
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 93, line 27, after "Part II," to insert the words "or Part VI."
    This Amendment is consequential on the insertion of an earlier Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 84 (Inspection of works, etc.) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 85.—(Pending proceedings and existing contracts.)
    Amendments made: In page 94, line 7, leave out "Parts I, II, or III," and insert instead thereof the words "paragraph (1) of Part I, or in Parts II, III, or VI."
    In line 8, after the word "Act," insert the words "(in this Section referred to a transferred undertaking ')."
    In line 18, leave out the words "it relates," and insert instead thereof the words "they relate."
    In line 23, leave out from the word "That," to the word "shall," in line 34, and insert instead thereof the words:
    "nothing in this section—

    (a) shall apply to any contract the liability under which is by virtue of Part VII or section eighty of this Act to remain a liability of the undertakers; or

    (b)."—[The Attorney-General.].

    Clause 86 (Provisions as to substituted stock) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 87.—(Dissolution of transferred companies.)
    10.56 p.m.
    Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 95, line 18, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 28, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "The companies specified in Part I or Part II of the First Schedule to this Act (other than the South Metropolitan Electric Tramways and Lighting Company, Limited), which companies are in this section referred to as the transferred companies,' shall in the case of a transferred company being a statutory company, as soon as the transport stock to be issued as consideration for the transfer to the board has been issued and distributed in accordance with this Act and, in the case of a transferred company not being a statutory company, as from the appointed day, enter upon the liquidation of their affairs and upon the conclusion thereof be dissolved in manner provided in the Third Schedule to this Act."
    This is a drafting Amendment designed to bring this Clause into accord with the Third Schedule, with regard to the liquidation of the companies.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 95, line 29, leave out the word "section,"
    1578
    and insert instead thereof the word "sub-section."
    In page 96, line 6, after the word "affairs," insert the words:
    "and for any other purposes necessary for enabling a transferred company to give effect to the provisions of this Act."—[Mr. Pybus.]

    CLAUSE 88.—(Dissolution of the Underground Electric Railways Company of London Limited and the London and Suburban Traction Company Limited.)
    Amendments made: In page 96, line 29, leave out the word "hereinafter," and insert instead thereof the words "in this sub-section."
    In page 97, line 9, after the word "company," insert the words:
    "or to the said trustees, as the case may be."
    In line 33, after the word "distribution," insert the words:
    "subject to the provisions of this section."—[Mr. Pybus.]
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 97, line 35, after the word "stock," to insert the words:
    "(other than fractional parts of Transport Stock which cannot conveniently be distributed)."
    This Amendment is in accordance with the universal practice, that where fractions of stock have to be provided for the fraction shall be sold and cash shall be paid.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 97, line 38, leave out the words "or sub, scription of," and insert instead thereof the words "of, or subscription for."
    In line 40, leave out the word "thereof," and insert instead thereof the words:
    "of those assets or such fractional parts of Transport Stock as aforesaid."
    In Page 98, line 6, after the word "so," insert the words "to he."— [Mr. Pybus.]
    10.58 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 98, line 7, to leave out from the word "provide," to the word "of," in line 15, and to insert instead thereof the words:

    1579
    "(a) for the formation by the Underground Company of a company (in this section referred to as the new company ') to be incorporated under the Companies Act, 1929, as a company limited by shares and registered with a memorandum and articles of association in such form as may be prescribed by the scheme;
    (b) for the transfer to the new company, in lieu of distribution amongst the stockholders and shareholders of the Underground Company of such part of the assets of the Underground Company remaining as aforesaid (other than Transport Stock distributed or to be distributed among the stockholders and shareholders of the Underground Company) as may be prescribed by the scheme in exchange for fully paid shares or stock or both of the new company;
    (c) for the distribution amongst the stockholders and shareholders of the Underground Company of the shares and stock so taken in exchange by the Underground Company; and
    (d) for the conversion of the existing Central London Railway Guaranteed Assented Ordinary, Preferred Ordinary, and Deferred Ordinary Stocks constituted by trust deed dated the thirteenth day of December, nineteen hundred and twelve, made between the Underground Company of the one part and Glyn, Mills and Company (then and therein called Glyn, Mills, Currie and Company and in this sub-section referred to as ' the said trustees')."
    Mr. MACMILLAN: May we have an explanation of this Amendment?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: These are purely domestic arrangements, for the winding up of the different holding companies and so on, that is necessary in connection with disposing of the different undertakings included in the Underground Group. They are matters which concern only those undertakings, and the public interest is not in the least affected by them. It is the merest machinery for disposing of the different holding companies in accordance with arrangements satisfactory to the shareholders.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 99, line 5, leave out the words "bearing interest at the rate of five per cent. per annum."
    In line 7, after the word "stock," insert the words
    "bearing interest at the rate of five per cent. per annum."—[The Attorney-General.]
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 99, line 10, at the end, to insert the words:
    1580
    "() any arrangements made by the Underground Company with any class of its stockholders or shareholders, or with the holders of Metropolitan District Railway Assented First Preference Stock, or with the holders of Central London Railway Guaranteed Assented Ordinary, Preferred Ordinary, or Deferred Ordinary Stocks, or by the London and Suburban Company with any class of its stockholders or shareholders, in anticipation of and with a view to carrying out any of the provisions of this section and which have been conditionally assented to by such holders, respectively, before the passing of this Act shall on their becoming operative be treated for all purposes of this Act as if they were, or formed part of, schemes prepared by those companies respectively under this section."
    The effect of the Amendment is to ensure that it will not be necessary to obtain again the approval of shareholders who have already signified their approval in advance.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 99, line 11, leave out the word "so."
    In line 11, after the word "prepared," insert instead the words "under this section."
    In line 17, after the word "made," insert the words "or deemed to be made."
    In line 19, leave out the word "securities," and insert instead thereof the word "stocks."
    In line 20, leave out the words "for those securities," and insert instead thereof the words "or part exchange for those stocks."
    In line 26, after the word "Railway," insert the word "Guaranteed."
    In line 27, leave out the word "and," and insert instead thereof the word "or."
    In line 27, leave out from the word "stock," to the word "or," in line 30.[The Attorney-General.]
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move in page 99, line 31, to leave out from the second word "stock," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "or any stocks or shares in the new company (whether in the course of the liquidation of the Underground Company or otherwise) distributed amongst the holders of shares or stocks of the Underground Company, the provisions of Section eighty-six of this Act shall apply to the stock so taken in exchange and to the stocks and shares of the new company so distributed and to the trustees. executors, and all other holders in

    1581
    any representative or fiduciary capacity of any stock or shares for which that stock is exchanged, and to the trustees, executors, and all other holders in any representative or fiduciary capacity of stocks or shares of the Underground Company who receive stocks or shares of the new company upon any such distribution thereof as aforesaid as fully and effectually as if in that Section the expression existing stock ' included the stock and shares so exchanged and the stocks and shares of the Underground Company, and as if the expression transport stock issued in substitution ' included transport stock and new assented stock so taken in exchange and stocks and shares in the new company so distributed.
    () Trustees, executors, and other holders in any representative or fiduciary capacity of stocks and shares of the Underground Company, or of the London and Suburban Company, or of the Metropolitan District Railway Assented First Preference Stock, or of Central London Railway Guaranteed Assented Ordinary, Preferred Ordinary, or deferred Ordinary Stock may concur and shall he deemed always to have had power to concur in any scheme made or deemed to be made by the Underground Company or by the London and Suburban Company under this Section.
    () Where the Underground Company or the London and 'Suburban Company is unable after diligent inquiry to find the person to whom any transport stock or money representing the proceeds of sale of any other assets of those companies, or any share or security of the new company, or any new Assented Stock is issuable or payable in pursuance of a scheme made under this Section, or where any transport stock or any such money, share or security or new Assented Stock as aforesaid is so issuable or payable to a person who, or whose committee, cannot give an effectual receipt for the same, the company may transfer the stock, share, or security, or pay the money as nearly as may be, in manner provided for the payment of securities or money into court by trustees under Section sixty-three of the Trustee Act, 1925, and that Section shall apply with all necessary modifications to such stock, share, security, and money.
    () For the purposes of this Section, unless the context otherwise requires, the expression stockholders ' includes holders of debenture stock, and the expression stock ' shall be construed accordingly."
    The first two and the last of these proposed new Sub-sections are necessary to provide for cases in which the holders of stocks are trustees. The purpose of the other Sub-section is to provide for cases in which the beneficiaries are infants or persons of unsound mind.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clauses 89 (Protection for holders of Debenture Stock of London United Tramways Limited), 90 (Costs of Act), and 91 (Valuation for rating purposes of hereditaments occupied by the board) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 92.—(Protection for statutory gas and water undertakers.)
    Amendments made: In page 102, line 8, leave out the words "light railway or trolley vehicle system."
    In line 9, leave out the word "system," and insert instead thereof the word "tramway."
    In line 13, leave out the word "system," and insert instead thereof the word "tramway." — [The Attorney-General.]
    Clauses 93 (Protection, for Great Western Railway Company), 94 (Protection for London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Company), and 05 (Protection for London and North Eastern Railway Company) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 96.—(Protection for National Omnibus and Transport Company, Limited.)
    Motion made, and' Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This Clause refers to an agreement which has already been determined and the subject-matter of the Clause is therefore unnecessary in the Bill.
    Question put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE 97.—(Protection for South Metropolitan Electric Tramways and Lighting Company, Limited.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This Clause was inserted for the benefit of the South Metropolitan Electric Tramways and Lighting Company, whose tramways will be transferred, but whose lighting undertaking would have remained with the Company, but the Company have now sold their electricity undertaking to the Joint Electricity Authority, and therefore the necessity for the Clause no longer arises.
    Question put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE 98.—(Saving for London County Council.)
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 107, line 6, at the end, to add the words:
    "(3) If any question arises under the last preceding sub-section as to whether the consent of the council has been unreasonably withheld that question shall be determined by the Minister."
    This is an Amendment intended to give effect to the decision of the Select. Committee that machinery should be provided for dealing with any deadlock likely to arise as to whether the consent of the Council had been unreasonably withheld. The Clause relates to the question of road works, and it seems that the Minister of Transport would be the appropriate person to determine such a dispute.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 99.—(Provisions as to undertaking of Surplus Lands Committee.)
    Amendments made: In page 107, line 34, after the word "That," insert "(i)."
    In line 42, at the end, insert the words:
    "and
    (ii) where the limited company is unable after diligent inquiry to find the person to whom any shares in the capital of the limited company are issuable, or where any such shares as a foresa icl are issuable to a person who, or whose committee, cannot give an effectual receipt for the same, the company may transfer the shares, as nearly as may be, in manner provided for the payment of securities into court by trustees under section sixty-three of the Trustee Act, 1925, and that section shall apply with all necessary modifications to those shares."
    In page 108, line 29, leave out tte words:
    "and persons under disability may and shall," and insert instead thereof the word "may."—[The Attorney-General.]

    CLAUSE 100.—(Sale of part of undertaking to Southern Railway Company.)
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 111, line 36, to leave out the words, "East Surrey Traction Com-
    1584
    pany," and to insert instead thereof the words "London General Country Services."
    This is due to the fact that the East Surrey Traction Company has now given itself a new name.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 112, line 3, leave out from the word "to" to the word "taken," in line 5, and insert instead thereof the words:
    "the Maidstone and District Motor Services, Limited, in respect of the part of the undertaking of that company which is."—[The Attorney-General.]

    CLAUSE 101.—(Application to board of 33 & 34 Viet. c. 78.)
    Amendments made: In page 112, line 13, after the word "forty," insert the words "both inclusive."
    In line 13, leave out the second word "to," and insert instead thereof the word "forty-three."—[The Attorney-General.]
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 112, line 14, at the end, to add the words:
    "and any provision of any Light Railway Order made under the Light Railways Acts. 1896 to 1912, or any local Act which immediately before the appointed day had effect in relation to any of the undertakings which are transferred to the Board by this Act and which incorporated or enacted provisions to the like effect as the provisions of the Tramways Act, 1870, which by this section are not to apply to the board or their undertaking shall in the like manner in its application to the Board or their undertaking cease to have affect."
    Sir JOSEPH NALL: May we have an explanation of what is really intended by this Amendment? What is the board really being relieved from in relation to the Tramways Act?
    11.10 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This is merely due to the fact that many of the tramways in London have been authorised by light railway orders, and are therefore light railways. It is purely a drafting Amendment to provide that the intention of the Clause shall be effective in the case of light railways as well as tram. ways.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clauses 102 (Powers of board as to Bills in Parliament and provisional orders), 103 (Inquiries by Minister) and 104 (Protection for Postmaster-General) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 105.—(Interpretation.)
    Amendments made: In page 113, line 14, leave out the word "thirty-two," and insert instead thereof the word "thirty-three."
    In line 21, leave out the word "thirty-two," and insert instead thereof the word "thirty-three."
    In line 26, after the word "undertaking," insert the words "or the Lewis undertaking."
    In line 30, leave out the word "thirty-two," and insert instead thereof the word "thirty-three."—[The Attorney-General.]
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 113, line 35, at the end, to insert the words:
    "and
    "(d) for the purposes of Sub-section (7) of Section thirty-eight, and of Sub-section (2) of Section forty-five of this Act, the day immediately preceding the earliest date fixed as the appointed day in relation to the transfer of any undertaking. the consideration for the transfer of which is in whole or in part satisfied by an issue of C stock."
    This Amendment refers to the question of interest on "C" stock. The purpose is to secure that the two years of which we were speaking in respect of which the interest on the "C" stock is payable at the standard rate, which is 5 per cent., shall in all cases run from the earliest day after the appointed day for any undertaking for which the consideration is paid either wholly or partly in cash for "C" stock.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 114, line 5, at the end, to insert the words:
    "Company,' where used in relation to companies specified in Part I, of the First Schedule to this Act, includes Lots Road Power House Joint Committee."
    The Lots Road power house is managed by a joint committee of the undertakings that own it. This Amendment is to give
    1586
    that committee the status of a company. It is merely a device for facilitating the arrangements.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 114, line 6, leave out the words "means and".—[The Attorney-General.]
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 114, line 9, to leave out from the word "Fares," to the end of line 10, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "means fares and other charges in connection with the conveyance of passengers and their luggage."
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Does this cover the question of parcels traffic? Is there any provision for fixing the question of parcels traffic apart from the provision for fares, or does parcels traffic come within the expression "fares," so that the same machinery covers those charges?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am not sure about that. It was intended to cover fares and passengers' luggage. I am not sure whether parcels tome into it.
    Sir S. C RIPPS: Is there any provision in the Bill at all for it?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is covered, I am told, by the Railways Act.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Is it covered for omnibuses?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Not for omnibuses. The hon. and learned Gentleman has raised a question which, for the moment, I cannot answer, but I will take care that parcels are provided for on omnibuses.
    Sir J. NALL: While the London General Omnibus Company and the Underground do not cater for parcels, the Metropolitan Railway Company do. Are their charges in any way affected by this Amendment?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This Amendment covers, in fact, fares and other charges in connection with passengers and passengers' luggage. The idea is to bring that all under the jurisdiction of the same tribunal but I will look into the question of parcels and insert a provision if necessary.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 114, to leave out from the first word "Area," in line 14, to the second word "the," in line 16, and to insert instead thereof the words "has the same meaning as in."
    This Amendment is necessary in consequence of the fact that the London traffic area now ceases to be an area for the purposes of the Act of 1930 and remains a purely administrative area for the purposes of the Act of 1924.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 114, line 17, leave out the words "and the Road Traffic Act, 1930."
    In line 25, at the end, insert the words:
    "Rates Tribunal ' means the Railway Rates Tribunal established under the Railways Act, 1921."—[The Attorney-General.]
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 114, line 28, after the word "paid," to insert the words "or payable."
    Sir S. CRIPPS: May I ask the learned Attorney-General the meaning of this Amendment? The words "or payable" seem to cover a contingent liability going on for ever. I am not certain what it is that has to be deducted from the receipts before arriving at the revenue of the board in any period of time. Does "payable" mean "due and payable," or does it mean payable at some future date, or what does it mean?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think it means "due and payable."
    Sir S. CRIPPS: That should be inserted.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes. Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 114, line 31, at the end, insert the words:
    "Special Area ' means so much of the London Passenger Transport Area as lies within the London Traffic Area."
    "Statutory Company ' means a company incorporated by special Act."
    In page 115, line 14, leave out the word "twenty-nine," and insert instead thereof the word "twenty-seven."
    In line 34, after the second word "be," insert the words "a company owning."—[The Attorney-General.]

    Clauses 106 (Repeals) and 107 (Short title:), ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave. to sit again."
    We have to-day dealt with 86 or 87 Clauses, and those who take an interest in the Bill have been in the House, with brief intervals, for the best part of eight hours. I think we might adjourn the consideration of the new Clauses and Schedules to another occasion.
    11.20 p.m.
    Sir J. NALL: I want to ask the Minister if he will take the opportunity of making an explanation be fore we finish the Committee stage, in order that we might not prolong the matter on the Report stage; and this is the appropriate moment, before we, resume the Committee stage on the new Clauses. The new undertaking will include the old Underground group and the Metropolitan Railway Company, and the House ought to have some declaration as to the intentions of policy from the Minister in relation to the parcels service. The Metropolitan Railway conducts a very considerable parcels service, which is in no way comparable to that of the Underground companies, who do not cater specially for parcels traffic. The Committee ought to know; Is it considered that the new board, as the one monopoly passenger organisation for this area, should develop a parcels service in connection with its organisation?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that this does not arise on the question of reporting Progress.
    Sir J. NALL: On the question of reporting Progress, it would, of course, be a matter of concern inn regard to the first of the new Clauses which we take when we resume Progress. That Clause relates to the existing scales of charges and so on, and the scope and extent to which they may be used. When we resume consideration would be an available opportunity for the Minister to indicate whether the new board is to conduct the various subsidiary departments of the several undertakings, either

    1589
    within the scope in which they have been conducted in the past, or whether it is proposed to extend these activities to the whole area included in the Bill.
    11.23 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am afraid that I cannot deal with the points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall). They will arise upon the new Clauses which we have to discuss, and I cannot discuss them now. As to the proposal to report Progress, the Committee has been exceedingly patient, and I think it will be for the general convenience not to take the new Clause now, particularly as I think that it would be appropriate if the Schedules were, in any case, taken on a different day. I do not know whether the Committee would be prepared to arrive at an understanding that we shall get the new Clauses and the Schedules in about half a day. The greater part of the Schedules is really consequential. They have been discussed, and they are nothing like so formidable as they look on the Order Paper. We should like a general understanding as to when we shall finish the Committee stage. I propose to assent to the proposal that we do now report Progress.
    11.24 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: So far as we are concerned. we are anxious to do anything we can to assist, and we shall certainly try to see that the rest of the Bill is got through in half a day. I am sure that the Committee is most grateful to the Attorney-General. I am glad to accept the suggestion that he has been good enough to snake.
    11.25 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Without in any sense accepting that the proposal as to half a day is adequate, in view of the extraordinary courtesy of the Attorney-General, I will do my best to see that the Committee stage does not take long; but the whole of the proceedings on the Bill have been a definite scandal.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
  Ordered,
  "That the Committee of Public Accounts do consist of Fifteen Members."
  Mr. Albery, Captain Crookshank, Mr. Culverwell, Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. Denman, Sir Vivian Henderson, Mr. HoreBelisha, Mr. Morgan Jones, Sir James Duncan Millar, Sir Assheton Pownall, Mr. Ramsden, Major Salmon, Sir Arthur Michael Samuel, Mr. Robert Smith, and Mr. E. J. Young, nominated Members of the 'Committee.
  Ordered,
  "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."
  Ordered,
  "That the Committee have power to report from time to time."
  Ordered,
  "That Five be the quorum."—[Sir Thomson.]

  ESTIMATES.
  Ordered,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to examine such of the Estimates presented to this House as may seem fit to the Committee, and to suggest the farm in which the Estimates shah be presented for examination, and to report what, if any, economies consistent with the policy implied in those Estimates, may he effected therein."
  Ordered,
  "That the Committee do consist of Twenty-eight Members."
  Sir Charles Barrie, Mr. Brocklebank, Earl Castle Stewart, Commander Cochrane, Mr. Cocks, Mr. Daggar, Mr. James Duncan, Mr. Richard Evans, Sir George Gillett, Mr. Hannon, Sir Vivian Henderson, Lieut.-Colonel Heneage, Mr. Campbell Ker, Mr. Law, Captain Loder, Captain Macdonald, Mr. McEntee, Mr. Maclay, Major McLean, Mr. Nunn, Sir Assheton Pownall, Mr. Ross Taylor, Major Salmon, Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay, Mr. Strauss, Sir Kenyon Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John Wardlaw-Milne, and Mr. Edward Williams nominated Members of the Committee.
  Ordered,
  "That Seven be the quorum."
  Ordered,
  "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records, and to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House."
  Ordered,
  "That the Committee have power, if they so determine, to appoint one or more Sub-Committees, and in that event to apportion the subjects referred to the Committee between the Sub-Committees any of which shall have the full powers of the undivided Committee; and that Four shall be the quorum of any of the Sub-Committees:"
  Ordered,
  "That the Committee do report any evidence taken by the Committee or by any of the Sub-Committees to the House."
  Ordered,
  "That the Committee have power to report from time to time."—[Sir F. Thomson.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Mary esson.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven o' Clock.

TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  RUSSIAN BACON (IMPORT).
  RUSSIAN BACON (IMPORT).
  IMPORT DUTIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (RECOMMENDATIONS).
  IMPORT DUTIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (RECOMMENDATIONS).
  OAT PRODUCTS AND PEARLED BARLEY (IMPORTS).
  OAT PRODUCTS AND PEARLED BARLEY (IMPORTS).
  CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES.
  CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

WATFORD AND ST. ALBANS GAS ORDER, 1932.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Watford and St. Albans Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

WEYMOUTH GAS ORDER, 1932.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Weymouth Consumers Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

VISITING FORCES (BRITISH COMMONWEALTH) BILL. [H.L.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Bill, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.
LORD SNELL LORD SNELL had the following Notice on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government:
Whether any approximate estimate can be given of the cost to the State of the conveyance to and maintenance in prison of persons committed for non-payment of (1) maintenance and affiliation orders; (2) of civil debts and also (3) for the non-payment of fines;
whether His Majesty's Government proposes to amend the law under which each of the above classes is imprisoned, specially as to (1) the imposition in all
202
cases of a test of means; (2) the power of courts of summary jurisdiction to reduce and cancel arrears; and (3) bringing persons fined before the court a second time on their failure to pay;
and whether in the interests of national economy as well as of the persons concerned, it is not desirable that all possible steps shall be taken at once to reduce the number of persons committed under the above heads;
and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hesitated for a long time before venturing to trouble your Lordships with the Question which in the end I decided to put upon the Paper of your Lordships' House. The matter with which it deals is undeniably important, but fear lest it should be thought that I, who am neither lawyer nor magistrate, was meddling with a matter beyond my own personal experience, caused me to delay putting the Question before you until the present time. The knowledge, however, that many of your Lordships are magistrates and therefore are sympathetic to the purpose which I have in view, encouraged me at length to put the matter before you. My noble friends on these Benches are associated with me in this matter, which is, however, by no means a Party question, and I am hoping to have the sympathy of many of your Lordships who, unhappily, do not share my political opinions. The terms of the Question on the Order Paper are such that, if His Majesty's Government are willing, will give to your Lordships much desired information.
I had better say what I ask for, and it is:
"Whether any approximate estimate can be given of the cost to the State of the conveyance to and maintenance in prison of persons committed for non-payment of (1) maintenance and affiliation orders; (2) of civil debts and also (3) for the non-payment of fines."
My interest in this matter, my Lords, is of long standing. When, as a young man, I was an officer of the Charity Organisation Society, I saw at close quarters the distress that is always associated with imprisonment, and I arrived at the conclusion that imprisonment should be restricted to definite breaches of the law and, perhaps, also to defiance of the orders of the court. I am especially concerned at the present time, because

203
my studies suggest that the peaks of imprisonment for debt always coincide with times of industrial depression, and it is very much on my mind that men should be imprisoned for debts which they would have paid had they been in work, but which unemployment, for which they are not responsible, prevents them from meeting. So we need to remember how some of these debts are contracted. Touts get people to sign a paper to pay so much per week and then unemployment comes upon them and they are unable to meet the payments, and in the end are imprisoned for debt. Since this Question has been on the Notice Paper of the House I have had letters from people giving particulars of their own cases which heat my ordinarily well-controlled blood.
In the first place, I will endeavour to place the numbers of those who are imprisoned for debt under their appropriate headings, with a preliminary word upon the magnitude of the general problem. The total number of debtor prisoners in 1930 in England and Wales was round about 13,000, and the debtor prisoners, I believe, at the present time are actually more than those in prison for fines. The first section that I desire to call your attention to comprises those fined for offences against the law, but imprisoned in default of specific payment. In 1930, 12,497 persons were imprisoned in default of fines, a number which was an increase of 918 over 1929. Of these 483–464 males and 19 females—were actually under 21 years of age. We have to remember that the device of fining instead of imprisoning is in itself a merciful development of our criminal procedure. Through the use of that device our prison population has been greatly reduced. Thus, in 1930, out of 521,789 convictions in police courts 496,139 were dealt with by fines. As compared with the number of fines imposed the number of imprisonments in default was only 2.5 per cent., but that is a very large percentage of those who are actually received into prison. In 1930 these amounted to 53,063 men and 6,873 women, making a total of 20 per cent.
Then there are those who are sent to prison in default of payment of arrears under affiliation orders and orders for the maintenance of wives and children. In 1930, the last year for which these statistics are avail-
204
able, 6,849 were so imprisoned, 71 under Poor Law maintenance orders, 2,540 under arrears for illegitimate children, and 4,238 for wife and children maintenance orders. Then there are those imprisoned for the non-payment of local rates, and these number 2,032, or actually about one-sixth of those who are classified as non-criminal prisoners. There are also those who are sent to prison for the non-payment of civil debts, and in 1930, 3,810 were so sentenced by County Courts and 18 by the High Courts, and these figures included 88 who were sentenced for the non-payment of Income Tax.
If you contrast these figures with those of the prison population generally, they show some cause for anxiety. The number of prisons has actually been reduced from 56 in 1913, to 29 in 1930, and the daily average of prisoners has fallen from 14,000 to about 8,000, and the Prison Commissioners say that the total receptions on conviction per 100,000 of the population numbered about 540.3 per annum in the years 1908 and 1909 and only 93.2 per cent. in the year 1929. Those figures unhappily do not represent an equal reduction in crime, but rather suggest that the old method of dealing with the cases by imprisonment was modified and a great many of them were dealt with by probation and by fines; but nevertheless the figures relating to those who are sentenced to prison for debt are altogether disturbing. In regard to the cases known as "civil process prisoners," which include those in prison for maintenance and affiliation orders and civil debts, the situation is, as I say, disturbing. Mr. Claud Mullins, the well-known Metropolitan Magistrate, has stated that "there has been a fall since 1913 of about 1,150 per annum, but an increase of nearly the same number since 1924," and the Prison Commissioners in their Annual Report for 1929 state that "between 1913 and 1929 there has been a substantial decline in the number of prisoners committed to prison by County Courts (all civil debts) but there has been a large increase in the numbers committed for failure to comply with wife maintenance and affiliation orders."
These figures make one anxious regarding the whole question of the present law and its administration in regard to imprisonment for debt. As it stands at

205
present, the person may have, or he may not have, committed an offence against the criminal law, but he is sent to prison because he cannot, or, it may be, because he will not, pay a sum of money to retain, or even to regain his freedom. I am not suggesting that imprisonment for debt should be entirely abolished, but I do hope that His Majesty's Government, in the reply which will be made this afternoon, will indicate that some inquiry into the operation of the present law will be undertaken, and that possibly new regulations respecting its administration will be made. It is right that I should explain that in obtaining these facts and statistics I have drawn freely on a series of articles published in the Justice of the Peace in April and May last, written by Mr. Claud Mullins, the Metropolitan Police Court Magistrate. I personally believe that a great public service is rendered when Judges and magistrates on suitable occasions draw the attention of the public to improvements that their experience suggests might be made in the administration of the law. I have seen it suggested that such comments should be discouraged. I think comments of that kind were made at the time of the death of the late Sir William Clarke Hall, who was not only a great magistrate, but also a pioneer in the movement for children's courts and probation. Mr. Claud Mullins has, I believe, made extensive studies on this question of imprisonment for debt, and if the results of studies of men of like experience is discouraged, the public will in the end be the losers.
In this connection I venture to quote the comments made by Mr. Justice du Parcq when speaking at the annual meeting of the Brixton Prisoners' Aid Society in August, 1931. He said:
"I am astonished to learn that in Brixton prison last year there were over 3,000 prisoners committed for debt. One knows that the theory is that no man is merely imprisoned for debt; he is, or ought to he, committed for contempt of court, in that, being able to pay a debt which the court has ordered him to pay, he has contumaciously refused to do so. From the secretary's report it seems that many of the people therein referred to are in for debts which are physically impossible for them to pay."
Thus we have an experienced Judge of the High Court expressing his astonish-
206
ment that in one year as many as 3,000 persons were committed for debt to Brixton Prison, and that many of them went to prison for debts which it was quite impossible for them to pay. That fact alone should satisfy your Lordships that an inquiry into this grave matter is long overdue.
Sir Edward Parry, at the end of a long and honourable judicial career has stated that:
"… we have retained an ancient system of imprisonment for debt which other civilized countries have long ago abolished. We retain it only for the poor. Wealthy men who run into debt are never imprisoned. They file a petition, receive a coat of legal whitewash, and, assoiled of all their debts, live happily on the savings which they have thriftily invested 'in the wife's name.' Abolish imprisonment for debt; persuade the Treasury to forgo the fees that it obtains in the somewhat inglorious capacity of bum-bailiff in the mean streets; and you will clear your County Courts for higher and better tasks."
One of the chief difficulties of the present system is the difficulty that magistrates have in determining the ability of a person to pay. A magistrate may be confronted with conflicting statements, possibly even by false swearing, and undue leniency on his part would be wrong to the creditors, many of whom may be as poor as the debtor himself, and some of wham may actually be his own wife and children. On the other hand, no doubt, severity means merely to inflict a period of futile imprisonment upon a person which leaves both the debtor and the creditor in a worse position than before.
I would also draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that delay in the payment of debts is not something that is peculiar to the poor people of this country. Most people defer paying their debts until the very last moment when it is safe to do so, and I believe that it is almost considered bad form to pay your Income Tax on the first demand. Therefore, the poor should not be specially penalised because they share in a common human failing. If one thinks of what might be done, I would suggest that the magistrates might be assisted in ascertaining the means of the person before them before they impose conditions upon a debtor. I have seen it suggested by Mr. Claud Mullins that the public assistance committees should be used for this

207
purpose, and there seems a good deal to be said for that. If a man must submit to a means test to prove that he has not 2s. 6d. between himself and starvation, he ought to be protected by a means test from being sent to prison for not paying what he is often quite unable to pay. I would also like to say that except in cases where a man's conscience is deeply engaged mere wilful disobedience of an order of the court deserves no sympathy at all, but the law should make it quite clear that a man's failure to comply is wilful and not due to inability.
I believe, too,—although, as I said when I began, I am not a lawyer— that the discretion of the magistrate is harmfully restricted by Section 13 of the Act of 1914 under which there can be no committal to prison for less than five days. Mr. Methuen, an Assistant Commissioner of Police, has said that
"if the offender does not pay the police automatically use the committal warrant. It is suggested that in all such cases the offender should be brought before the court again before the committal."
A further improvement would be the universal adoption of the metropolitan method of officially notifying persons fined in their absence. Some offenders, says Mr. Methuen, may be quite unaware that a fine has been imposed until a committal is executed. The police do all they possibly can to avoid taking a person to prison, but in the end they are hound to administer the warrant. Magistrates, too, increasingly use the powers conferred upon them by Section 12 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, whereby they may detain the debtor within the precincts of the court for that particular day, and one feels that this discretion might be much more freely used. There is also the device of giving a debtor time to pay, which has been a great blessing in thousands of cases, but in 1930, in only 4,434 of the 12,492 cases of imprisonment for the nonpayment of fines, was time to pay allowed. Those figures suggest to one the need for inquiry into what is being done.
The question finally resolves itself into whether more cannot be done to secure that the amount of the fines should be in accordance with the ability of the offender to pay. The annual report of the Brixton Prisoners' Aid Society, 1931, states that:
208
"We notice again this year that many of the men here for wife maintenance have been ordered to pay an amount which is quite impossible, even should they he earning full wages at their particular occupations. This gives a man no encouragement to try, as in any case he could not pay the whole. It does appear that sonic form of court or tribunal is needed where these matrimonial cases could be gone into more fully than a busy magistrate, with all the burden of other cases on his time, can [go into them], and they appear to need much more frequent review than can be arranged at present."
I respectfully commend that suggestion to your Lordships' notice.
I am as convinced as I am about anything that the average police court is not the place to which poor persons, or indeed anybody, should be compelled to go in cases of domestic trouble, for relief; and in another place I on several occasions introduced a Bill to provide for courts of domestic relations where people might obtain advice from properly trained and specially selected and sympathetic judges, under conditions where social as well as legal evidence would be admissible. I have examined the workings of such courts in the United States of America, and I feel that the principle upon which they are based, not necessarily the methods adopted, would be an advantage to our own country, and some day I shall take the courage to introduce such a Bill in your Lordships' House.
The position to-day seems to be deplorable. Seven thousand men are imprisoned annually under orders for arrears of maintenance of wives and children or of illegitimate children. No means test is applied, and I am informed that it has been decided that evidence of means is not required to give justices jurisdiction to make an order. Sir Edward Parry, after thirty-four years as a County Court Judge, has said:
"There is on the civil side of our law no fouler abomination and no more unclean relic of barbarism than the legal procedure by which we exploit the terror of prison to screw money out of the poor … our imprisonment for debt to-day is not only a relic of slavery … The bulk of the burden of debt which hangs round the neck of the poor would never have been incurred but for Section 5 of the Debtors Act of 1869."
Your Lordships will notice that I am allowing the lawyers, with my usual caution, the use of the strong language that is being brought into this matter.
Finally, I do with all sincerity suggest to your Lordships that at this time, when we all desire to reduce expenditure, we have in this matter one of those rare opportunities when a reduction of public expenditure on prisons and prison vans would at the same time do something to remove what is a reproach to us among the nations of the world. I therefore ask His Majesty's Government the Question have put on the Paper, and I move for Papers.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Snell, has made an extremely interesting statement on a question which is really of some importance. My excuse for intervening in this debate is that for the best twenty years of my life I was in charge of the prisons of Scotland and had to give a great deal of attention to this subject of prison reform. All prison reformers, I think, admit that Lie best prison reform is to reduce the number of persons sent to prison, and our object and aim for many years past has always been to keep down that number to as a low a figure as possible. I thankfully recognise that a very great deal has been accomplished in that direction, and a good deal of it is due to wise legislation and the careful carrying out of that law. In the year 1909, when I first went into prison administration, the Lumber in Scotland was over 50,000. Last year it was only 15,000; so that there has been a great reduction. But I, for one, still think that there is room for further improvement.
The noble Lord, Lord Snell, has dealt with the matter under three headings. First, there is the question of maintenance arid affiliation orders, and that is, perhaps, the most difficult of all. Our procedure in Scotland is different and we get very few husbands committed to prison for failing to maintain their wives. The procedure is not, as a rule, by maintenance order. From time to time, however, public assistance committees, who have had to support the wife and children, find it necessary to prosecute a man for failing to maintain his wife and family. As a member of a public assistance committee I know that that is done with great reluctance. At our last meeting, for example, a member suggested that we should prosecute a man who had accompanied the hunger marchers to this City and left his wife and children be-
210
hind. That suggestion was negatived and it was decided to wait and see what he did when he came back. It does sometimes occur, however, that a man deliberately goes away and finds work elsewhere, leaving his wife and children. In such cases imprisonment, or the threat of imprisonment, is found effective. The total number in Scotland was only 224 during the last year for which figures are available.
Then we have the equivalent of bastardy cases—we call them in Scotland aliment cases. Persons committed under that head are treated as civil prisoners. The number last year was 190, which is, of course, equivalent on a fair proportion to eight or ten times that number in England. Therefore, it is not at all a negligible quantity. They are committed to prison for refusing to pay under an order for maintenance of art illegitimate child. I confess that I feel considerable hesitation in dealing with this question because we must be very careful to do nothing which would make it more difficult for an unfortunate woman or girl to receive that which is really due to her for the maintenance of a child. The responsibility of the father ought to be brought home to him. I do not know that very much can be done in this direction. I have, however, not infrequently come across cases of men imprisoned who refused to pay because they stoutly maintained their innocence and said that they were not in any way responsible. It is quite possible that there may have been a miscarriage of justice in some of these cases where it is very difficult to obtain the requisite evidence.
When we come to the question of imprisonment for debt we are in a different position in Scotland altogether. In Scot land imprisonment for debt was abolished under the Debtors (Scotland) Act, in the year 1880, so that for fifty-two years we have gone without any imprisonment for debt except in certain very modified forms. No one, I think, will suggest—we certainly do not claim—that we are more honest in Scotland in paying out debts. No one would suggest that Scotsmen are readier to part with their money and pay what is due than are people in England. Moreover, I do not think it can be suggested that tradesmen in Scotland are sufferers because they cannot get an order for committal to prison for non-

211
payment of money due to them. It may be that they are more chary in giving credit. That possibly may not be a bad thing. It is no kindness to go on giving credit beyond a certain point when it may only involve a debtor deeper and deeper in the bog from which he cannot extricate himself. Imprisonment for debt in Scotland was abolished by that Act except for non-payment of Imperial taxes and of rates. Last year there were only three persons imprisoned under each of those heads, six in all.
Although we have no direct experience in Scotland of imprisonment for debt, I do know something of the practice in England. It may operate exceedingly hardly when persons are really quite unable to pay, but it does seem to be effective because I notice from judicial statistics that a very large number of orders to pay were made in the year 1930 —127,081—and 3,800 persons went to prison in default. I can only suggest that the fear of imprisonment leads friends and relatives to come forward and somehow or other the debt is paid. All the same, the fact remains that a large number of people go to prison. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, gave us figures under certain headings. The matter, I know, has received attention in England from time to time. In the year 1923 the late Sir Maurice Waller, then Chairman of the Prison Commissioners for England, wrote to me on the subject and asked about our procedure. The matter was being carefully considered at that time, I understand, by the Home Office, but nothing has followed. In France, in Germany, and in other countries abroad there is no imprisonment for debt. We are apt to think that we lead the way in matters of penal administration, but T am afraid that that is not so in a good many respects. Other countries are ahead of us.
While perhaps it is too much to hope that England may in this respect follow the lead of Scotland—Scotland has to follow the lead of England in many matters of penal administration—I think that for once the preponderant partner in that happy union which exists between us might take a leaf out of the book of the small country to the North and at all events find out what can be done in this matter. There is a very limited kind of imprisonment for debt, known as
212
ad factum praestandum. Those are cases in which action is taken against persons who have bought things under the hire purchase system and are called upon to return things which they have probably pawned. Under that heading a small number of persons—about 80 last year—are sent to prison. That number will be still further limited by a very recent Act of Parliament passed after inquiry had been made into the matter by a committee. The number is always limited by the fact that the creditor has to pay for the maintenance of the prisoner while in prison. Before I retired from the prison service, I began to get a little anxious because a large and wealthy firm took to committing its debtors to prison, and they of course were able to pay; but the number under that heading is very limited.
Let me pass to the third of Lord Snell's points: imprisonment in default of payment of fines. I am afraid that in Scotland we are in a worse position than you are in England, proportionately. It is not easy to compare the figures because of the different way in which the statistics are compiled, but out of the total number of persons committed to prison last year in Scotland, which was some 15,503, I find that no fewer than 8,258 were imprisoned in default of payment of fines as compared with 4,407 who were sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine. Your Lordships see that that accounts for very considerably more than half our prisoners, and I am convinced that there is a great deal of hardship in this connection. As your Lordships know, prisoners can be liberated on part payment of fines after they are imprisoned. The amount required to liberate them is calculated according to the number of days imprisonment to which they were sentenced and the amount of the fine. Saturday is the favourite day on which poor relatives and wives come up with the money to ask at the prison office: "How much is required to get my man out?" It is a pitiable thing. Saturday counts as two days, because, Sunday being a dies non, you can pay on Saturday the fine which would be payable on Sunday and therefore they score two days by paying their fine on that day.
The number is large. What is the remedy? I think there are several. I think a good deal can be done, perhaps

213
even without legislation, but, as it is now, undoubtedly very many of the wrong people go to prison because they have not the money wherewith to pay. I do not agree with the suggestion hinted at by the noble Lord opposite, that the limitation of imprisonment to five days as the shortest Sentence ought to be changed. When the Criminal Justice Administration Act of 1914 was under consideration many of us were anxious that the minimum period should be not less than seven days. Five days was fixed upon because I think all who are interested in this question are agreed that short sentences are to be deprecated in the strongest possible language. They are not long enough to act as a deterrent: they are not long enough to admit of the adoption of any training or instructional methods in prison: they only familiarise with prison life the prisoner who does not find it particularly hard to be incarcerated under modern conditions for five days. Hard or brutal treatment in prison would not be tolerated nowadays, and the consequence is that a short sentence only makes the man who undergoes it feel that prison is not such a bad place after all, and he is not afraid if he gets a longer sentence.
When we are considering this question of fines, I would emphasise the danger of the inequality of the sentence. It is true that the courts ate directed to consider the means of the offender. But just think of a practice, which I fear is not altogether uncommon, of a court adopting a standard fine for a standard offence. For example, you will find a court inflicting a line of five shillings on everyone who rides a bicycle on a footpath or who rides a bicycle without a light. If I am caught doing such a thing, the five shillings is nothing to me; but it may mean a great deal to the butcher's boy who is doing the same thing on the same day. Perhaps on the face of it nothing seems more just than to say: "We impose the same penalty on rich and poor alike, five shillings in every case." If I remember rightly, in Scotland, a court pronouncing on motoring offences such as exceeding the speed limit, which was once an offence, would say: "That costs three guineas." The three guineas may be nothing at all to some motorists; it may mean a great deal
214
to the working man who is riding home from his work on a more or less dilapidated motor bicycle. The apparent equality may, and very often does, result in real inequality.
The Criminal Justice Administration Act of 1914 does already prescribe that the means of a person are to be taken into account. Section 5 says:
"A court of summary jurisdiction in fixing the amount of any fine… shall take into consideration, amongst other things, the means of the offender so far as they appear or are known to the court."
I cannot help thinking that if that direction were emphasised by circular or otherwise, the courts would take steps to ascertain the means of the person whom they are about to fine. I see no reason why they should not do so either through the public assistance committee, as suggested by the noble Lord opposite, or in some other way. Indeed in many cases the means must be very well known to the court, judging by the occupation and usual remuneration of the person who is before them.
Time to pay has greatly reduced the number of persons going to prison. I think that that, more than anything else, has contributed to the great reduction to which I alluded before. But even so there is room for improvement in the legislation, I think. The Act prescribes that time to pay, if asked for, shall be given, unless the prisoner fails to satisfy the court that he has a fixed abode within its jurisdiction. I cannot help thinking that in these days of telephones it might be quite possible, very often, for a court, through the police in attendance, to ascertain from perhaps a neighbouring police force whether the man before them was a respectable man who had a fixed abode in a neighbouring jurisdiction. I, myself, have seen cases of respectable men in prison who had been brought before the court in the City of Glasgow and who had a residence outside that jurisdiction but not far off. It would have been quite easy to ascertain in a short time, through the police, who are connected with each other by telephone, whether the man had a fixed residence or not. I think a little extension of the law in that direction would be a valuable provision.
May I just direct attention for a moment to one other provision in that same Act of 1914, Section 1, subsection (3). That is a provision that:

215
"Where a person so allowed time for payment as aforesaid appears to the court to be not less than 16 nor more than 21 years of age, the court may, if it thinks fit, and subject to any rules made under this Act, order that he be placed under the supervision of such person as may be appointed by the court until the sum adjudged to be paid is paid, and in such case before issuing a warrant committing the offender to prison in respect of non-payment of the sum a court of summary jurisdiction shall consider any report as to the conduct and means of the offender, which may be made by the person under whose supervision the offender has been placed."
It is within my knowledge that, when that clause was passed, Sir Evelyn Ruggles Brise, the distinguished chairman of the English Prisons Commission at that time, had very great hopes that it would reduce enormously the number of young persons committed to prison. I am afraid that hope has not been justified. That section of the Act has been very little used.
I do not know whether any rules have been made for its use in England, but both in England and Scotland it has been to a large extent a dead letter. When we have such an extension in the number of probation officers available much greater use might be made of that provision, and I do not see why it should be limited to those under twenty-one. A great deal could be done to prevent the committal to prison if inquiry were duly made and the facts reported to the court before a warrant was issued. I cannot help thinking that in many cases wider use of probation would be better than imposing fines. Fines are not always satisfactory. Take the well-known case of fining for prostitution. There we have had great difficulty. I have known again and again of very undesirable people coming to the prison gate and paying the fine of a girl in prison where their motives were not of the best. They wished to get the prisoner into their power and keep her there, and we could not refuse to let such a person out even though the character of the one who applied might be perfectly well known. Again, a fine may operate very hardly upon a family. You may get a lazy man committing some offence and being fined, and the wife will starve herself and may be the children as well in order to scrape together the money to get him out of prison. In many such cases it would be better if he were placed under supervision and, before being sent to
216
prison, every effort made to get him to work, if work were obtainable, and to behave properly.
I must not detain your Lordships longer, but I venture to hope that His Majesty's Government will take into consideration the proposals of the noble Lord opposite, which, as he rightly said, are no Party questions, and that they will consider the whole subject very carefully along with other matters in penal administration which have been dealt with in the very able Report recently issued on persistent offenders. I hope that ere long we may see further legislative proposals introduced in order that we may make progress in this exceedingly difficult matter. The question of money undoubtedly enters into it, but it is not the greater part of the question; the major question is undoubtedly what is the wisest, most humane and most satisfactory method of dealing with offences against the law.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I agree with my noble friends Lord Snell and Lord Polwarth that the time has come when the whole of this question should be re-examined. Most of it dates from over one hundred years ago and the whole influence of prison administration is now working on a different line from that which we started over a hundred years ago. I do not intend to take up time by dealing with the parts of Lord Snell's Question relating to civil debts and the non-payment of fines, but I do wish to say a few words on behalf of those 7,000 persons committed to prison from time to time in respect of maintenance and affiliation orders. Lord Snell told us that last year 7,000 persons were committed for breaches of those orders. I submit that in respect of those orders we are dealing with a matter which is really a relic of the past. From early time the payment of the poor rate was enforced in the same way as those maintenance orders and affiliation orders are to-day. If a person was summoned for non-payment of poor rate and had no means to pay, the magistrates, without further ado, were required to commit him to prison for a period not exceeding three months. That remained the law until recent times.
When the Bastardy Act was passed and the question came to he considered of how an affiliation order was to be enforced, the analogy or precedent of the

217
enforcement of the payment of poor rate was accepted, with the result that the person is sent to prison if he neglects to pay. The result is that we have a large number taken from their families and when the breadwinner, if a married man, is sent to prison the wife and family fall back upon poor relief. The next step in the procedure was in the case of the maintenance orders under the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895. Where in a police court a married woman might get a separation the Act provided that in default of payment under the maintenance order it was to be enforced in the same way as an affiliation order—that is to say, in default of payment and means to pay the defendant was sent to prison for a period not exceeding three months.
The procedure for enforcing the payment of local rates is anomalous, You find with regard to rates raised, for example, by an urban authority, to meet the expense of public health administration (that is, the general district rate), the defaulter, if brought before the magistrates and it is proved he has no means to pay, escapes further supervision, the amount being regarded as a civil debt. You therefore have this position. A person might he summoned for non-payment of the poor rate and of the general district rate on the same day before the same bench of magistrates. In the case of the poor rate if the defendant had no means to pay he was sent to prison, but in the case of the general district rate, if he had no means to pay, he was discharged. That remained the law with regard to the poor rate down to the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, when an important amendment was made. The magistrates still have power to commit persons to prison, but the law was modified by the provision that no warrant of commitment could be made against a defaulting ratepayer if he showed to the satisfaction of the magistrates that his inability to pay was due to circumstances beyond his control. In that event the magistrates would have no power to commit to prison, but I gather from what the noble Lord, Lord Snell, has said, that notwithstanding that, provision a considerable number of persons have been, and are still being, committed to prison for non-payment of poor rate.
218
The whole question should be fully reexamined and all these local rates and all orders made by magistrates for the payment of money should be put on the same footing. It seems to me that the provision with regard to the general district rate is sound, non-payment being regarded as a civil debt. Arrears arising from the non-payment of poor rate should be regarded as a civil debt and arrears under maintenance and affiliation orders should also be regarded as a civil debt. That would put the matter on an entirely simple basis. At the present moment it is extremely confusing, and no person other than a lawyer can possibly follow the various provisions. In these circumstances I urge the Government to take the matter into consideration, and either by legislation or some form of inquiry bring about some change in the law.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, I am sure this House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Snell, for raising this Question, and I am sure also that his anxiety and his sympathy upon this matter will be shared by every member of your Lordships' House. The Government also desire to thank the noble Lord for the suggestions he has made in the course of his speech, which certainly shall receive most sympathetic consideration. We also desire to thank Lord Polwarth for giving us the experience of Scotland. I was particularly struck with his views upon the question of fine instead of imprisonment. It is perfectly right to say, as Lord Snell said, that the object of that measure was a merciful one, that where someone had committed an offence you gave him the option of paying a fine to prevent his going to prison and suffering the stigma of prison.
The noble Lord certainly made a point which is rather a familiar one with us who have studied the question, about equality—how ridiculous it is, for instance, to fine an errand boy 5s. and a millionaire 5s. for the same offence. It is a difficulty that one does not quite see the way out of, unless you have some means test. May I also remind the noble Lord that if you fix a maximum fine and say that for a certain offence the penalty shall be forty shillings or seven days, you are not catering for the millionaire? The question of imprisonment for debts has long engaged the attention of jurists and

219
philanthropists, and I hope I may be allowed to claim upon this question that jurist and philanthropist are interchangeable terms. Certainly those who have the honour of being His Majesty's Judges are alive to the great difficulty of the question, especially those who find themselves upon Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies.
I will endeavour to answer all the questions raised by the noble Lord, and make some remarks as I go along. Roughly speaking, and only roughly speaking, the number of people who are imprisoned for non-payment of fines is just half the number of people who are imprisoned for non-payment of debts of other sorts. May I give the latest figures? They are for 1931, and I regret to have to trouble your Lordships with quite a number of figures. In 1931 the numbers were: for non-payment of fines, 11,543; for non-payment of wife's maintenance and under affiliation orders, 6,563; for non-payment of rates, 2,189; and for non-payment of County Court orders, 3,554. We observe, therefore, that the non-payments of fines numbered 11,500 odd, and in respect of other debts the persons sent to prison numbered just over 12,000.
Now let me deal with the various questions that have been addressed to me. First of all, the most important question, whether it is possible to reduce the number of persons sent to prison for failure to pay sums of money, certainly deserves the most careful consideration, not merely because imprisonment is an expensive process to the State, but because, more important still, its effects are liable to be so injurious that the use of this sanction cannot be justified unless it is the only practicable method of enforcing obligations which must be enforced in the public interest.
Let me deal first with the financial questions. The costs of conveyance of prisoners are not completely known. The duties of conveying persons to prison falls upon the police generally, or, in the County Court cases, on the bailiffs. In 1931 the number of persons sent to prison for non-payment of money was 23,849, of whom only 3,554 were County Court cases. The conveyance of these 3,554 cost £ 1,216. At the same rate, and only giving a hypothetical figure here, the conveyance of the whole number of 23,849 would be
220
about £ 8,000, but the exact figures are not available. Now as to the next financial question, that is the cost of maintenance in prison. The daily average of persons in prison resulting from these 23,849 committals was approximately 1,350, so there are 1,350 people, on an average, every day in this country imprisoned for non-payment of debts of some sort or another. The estimated annual cost of a prisoner— that is, the amount expended on staff and maintenance charges, less the estimated value of prison labour—is £ 44 8s. 9d., and therefore the figure that the noble Lord will want is the aggregate cost of 1,350 persons at £ 44 8s. 9d. per year—namely, about £ 60,000.
The financial aspect of this matter is no doubt important, but it is less important in my view than other aspects. If imprisonment is necessary as a, sanction for the purpose of justice, the expense is small compared with the value to the community of a weapon of which the threat is effective in the vast majority of cases; but if imprisonment is used in any cases where the application of so severe a sanction is unnecessary or unwarranted, the resulting charge on public funds, however heavy it may be, is light compared with the burden on the public conscience. The bad effect which imprisonment may have upon a man's character and self-respect, the suffering caused to his family and dependents, and the fact that he is cut off from any possibility of earning while in prison and will probably find it more difficult than ever to secure employment on his release—all these evil results cannot be disputed. If therefore it is possible to reduce the number of persons sent to prison without weakening unduly the necessary legal sanction, everyone will agree that all practical measures ought to be taken for that purpose.
In reviewing this problem the first question is in what proportion of cases is the liability to imprisonment effective in securing payment. Again complete statistics are not available, but such figures as are obtainable show that the number of defaulters sent to prison is very small compared with the number of those who pay. Now for the moment I am not discussing the question, which is rather an ethical question, of the righteousness of the policy—I will use

221
the expression of one noble Lord—of "putting the screw on a man's relations." Personally I feel sure that in many cases where a man, if left to himself, could not pay and would have to go to prison, he gets out of prison because his relatives pay. I am not discussing here or defending the propriety of the contention that that is a proper thing. But the facts are these. The number of fines imposed by the courts of summary jurisdiction in 1931 was 461,709. The number of persons sent to prison in default was 11,593; that is to say— and this is the figure to emphasise—only 2.5 of the total go to prison. This small percentage of defaulters includes a large number of persons whose convictions are for being drunk and disorderly.
There are no statistics showing what number of wife maintenance or affiliation orders are in operation, and the figures that I am about to give to your Lordships may astonish you. Between 17,000 and 18,000 such orders are made in the course of a year, and, as such orders usually operate for many years—because it is so much a week over a period of years—the number of orders in force at any one time must be very large indeed. I am told that the aggregate number is unlikely to be less than 200,000. In 1931 the number of imprisonments under such orders was 6,563. But, just as the figure of those fined who went to prison was only 2.5 per cent., the number of those who go to prison under affiliation amid maintenance orders represents only 3 per cent.
As regards fines, the number of imprisonments as the noble Lord, Lord Snell, pointed cut, was greatly reduced by the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, which compelled the courts to allow time. Before this the courts had the power to allow time, but they seldom used it, and I think I am right in saying, after very careful inquiry, that the cases in which time is not allowed and might properly be allowed are now fortunately very rare. Section 5 of the Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, pointed out, requires the court in fixing the amount of the fine to have regard to the means of the offender so far as they appear or are known to the court. In many cases it must be impossible for any reliable information to be obtained upon this point, especially where the defendant is
222
dealt with in his absence, as not infrequently happens in the case of motoring offences; and it is quite certain that in many cases (the noble Lord is quite right) disproportionate fines are imposed by the same court for similar offences by different defendants. May I add my own testimony? It fell to my fortune to be a Judge for a good many years. From time to time I used to preside over inquiries in which people wished to prove that a debtor had means. I do not want to say that there is a great amount of perjury in those cases, but I do say from my personal experience that there arc no cases in which it is so difficult to arrive at the truth.
Between 400 and 500 young persons under twenty-one are committed to prison for non-payment of the fines, but at very few courts is any use made of the provision of Section 1 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, empowering a court to place under supervision persons under twenty-one who are given time to pay. Defendants who do not appear and are convicted and fined in their absence sometimes hear nothing of the result of the case till they are suddenly faced with a warrant of distress or commitment. In this matter, as in so many matters, the Statute law is not so much to be blamed as the difficulty of administering the law, and the difficulty in the administration of the law is that it may be—I do not say it is—different in different places. That is a matter of which we have to make the best. I am not for a moment suggesting that the law is not properly administered, but it is the administration of the law that wants looking into. The Home Secretary has advised courts of summary jurisdiction that where a defendant does not appear or write before the date when the summons is returnable, the hearing should be adjourned and notice sent to the defendant that if he does not attend the case will be dealt with in his absence: and that when the case is so dealt with he should be informed of the result, the amount of the fine imposed, the time allowed for payment, and the consequences of failure to pay. It is not known how far this advice is followed, but it is advice which most certainly ought to be followed. The general adoption of the practice would involve some additional trouble and expense to clerks to justices and might lead to demands

223
for an increase of salary. On the other hand, it would remove a grievance which, in the case of some defendants, is a substantial one.
With regard to maintenance and affiliation orders, in making a maintenance order the court may provide for payments by the husband of such sums not exceeding (a) £ 2 a week to the wife and (b) 10s. a week for each child under the age of 16 as the court shall—I would draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Snell, to the words now corning—having regard to the means both of the husband and wife, consider reasonable. An affiliation order may be for the payment of a weekly sum not exceeding 20s., and in making the order the court has to have regard to all the circumstances. The means of the defendant are no doubt taken into account when the order is made, but there is no specific requirement to that effect; and certainly, from such experience as I have had in my early days when I used to appear professionally in a police court, I have generally known— and I expect your Lordships who have sat as justices have also known—that these inquiries as a general rule are made. In neither case is there any requirement that the circumstances are to be reviewed by the court before a committal order is made, and no proof of means is required; but—and this is a point which is satisfactory as far as it goes—the small number of committals in comparison with the total number of orders is some evidence that the courts generally are reluctant to commit except as a last resort.
As regards arrears of payments due, the courts have no power to order a reduction or cancellation, though they can in effect do so by ordering the defendant's committal for one day, after which no further commitment can be issued in respect of those arrears. They can, on the application of the defendant, revoke or vary the order, but that does not affect any payments which are already due. Men whose financial circumstances change frequently fail to apply for or to obtain a Variation of the order, and the prison authorities have reported cases of men who come to prison for arrears under orders to pay 15s. a week, though the men are at the time only drawing 15s. 3d. unemployment pay, the 15s. order having been made when the men were
224
in work and not subsequently varied. That is a matter that wants looking into. While the courts of summary jurisdiction, generally speaking, do their best to deal in an equitable and considerate manner with cases which often involve serious difficulties, there are nevertheless some substantial defects both in the law and in the practice of the courts.
The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and the noble Lord, Lord Snell, said that they thought the time had conic when an inquiry into this matter would be useful. So do I. In my view a careful inquiry, presided over by a chairman of outstanding legal authority, might show certain ways by which it would be possible to increase the number of cases in which the money is paid and to reduce the number of cases of imprisonment, and my right hon. friend the Home Secretary is thinking of setting up a commitee to make such an inquiry.
I shall have to deal with County Court cases because in some respects they are the most serious of all. Your Lordships are probably aware of Section 5 of the Act of 1869 which the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, told us does not apply in Scotland. Speaking only personally and not officially I wish England would follow that example. It has well been said that without some system of enforcing payment of debts it would have been impossible for the commerce of the world to have attained its present proportions; for modern commerce is necessarily founded largely on credit and credit could not have existed without the power of enforcing the fulfilment of financial contracts. On the other hand, remedies against a debtor's person are not only inconsistent with the growth of opinion among civilised nations, but in themselves they are worse than futile, inasmuch as they strike at the root of all personal effort on the part of a debtor to retrieve his position and render a return to solvency possible. Here again I am in agreement with those who say that while a man is in prison and not able to earn money to pay his debts the screw should not be put upon the relatives, but there is the necessity of devising some system which is just to creditors while not unduly harsh upon debtors and which will discriminate between involuntary inability to meet obligations and wilful refusal or neglect. After all, when a man is

225
out of work he very often has to go to his small grocer and get goods and to obtain credit, but you have not only to consider his case; you must in justice look at both sides and have regard also to the circumstances of the small grocer who supplies the goods. I only say that lest it should be thought I was unfair in dealing with one side only.
Now I will come to the County Court cases, which are very difficult. In regard to County Court cases there is already what the noble Lord, Lord Snell, has called a means test, and his Question does not seem to be so much directed against them. The County Court statistics for 1931 show that the number of judgment summonses issued was 267,354. There were heard 160,785. I assume, therefore, that a number of people paid or satisfied the demand. The commitment orders made were 127,938, and the number issued was 93,927. Now conies the important figure. The debtors imprisoned under County Court process last year were 3,554 of whom 855 were released before the fall period. The percentage is small of those who actually went to prison. I am not saying it is not a serious thing, but the percentage is small, and it is difficult to see how it can be reduced further. It should be remembered that these men do not stay in prison for long. While I am in entire agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, in regard to what he said with respect to their sentences, that is not the point I am on a the present moment. The maximum term under the Act is forty-two days, and it is quite usual for the Judge to commit for a much shorter term, such as twenty-one days or fourteen days. Even so, the debtors are released at once if they pay the debt, and, as pointed opt, 855 were released before their term of imprisonment came to an end last year. The figure I am now about to give your Lordships is striking. There are probably not more than about one hundred County Court debtors in prison at any one time. That is a small number when it is remembered that more than a quarter of a million judgment debtors per annum fail to pay their judgment debts until a judgment summons has been issued against them.
It is also to be remembered, my Lords — because I must endeavour to put both sides of this case—that it is not only the working classes who fail to pay their
226
judgment debts. The richer classes are also compelled to pay their debts by this means, and I am given these figures. There are cases on the records of a retired Army officer living in the West End in a house rented at £ 120 a year, of a clerk in a Government office, of a stockbroker in Brighton employing four servants there and also renting a furnished house in London. I am not so sympathetic with them in their inability or alleged inability to pay their debts. The fact is that there are certain classes of debtors who have placed themselves, or are placed by their relations, in such a position as will defeat all kinds of process except that of the judgment summons procedure. Undischarged bankrupts, persons with bills of sale on their furniture, men who have made marriage settlements covering their furniture, men about town in furnished chambers, widows and unmarried women with property protected by deeds of settlement—all these and many others place themselves in such a legal position that no legal remedy except the process of a judgment summons can reach them. I am afraid my sympathy does not extend very greatly to that class of person. If there were no power in reserve to send to prison in the last resort those who can pay their debts and refuse to do so, it would he opening the door to deliberate fraud and would leave unprotected the tradesmen who give credit with complete justification.
Then again it is found in practice that there are numbers of people of all classes —not the upper classes or the working classes alone—who incur debts which they could pay if they really tried, but, as the noble Lord told us, in some cases it is their practice not to pay until the commitment order has been made. I am told that this curious phenomenon happens in some districts more than in others. I can assure the noble Lord I am not speaking of Scotland— my statistics relate to England—but there is a good deal of evidence that it really occurs. Before a Judge makes a commitment order he has to be satisfied that the debtor either has the means to pay the whole debt or that since the date of the judgment he has had the means to do so. Here comes in the administration of the law once more. Some Judges are

227
very careful to make no commitment orders unless they have convincing evidence that these conditions are fulfilled. In these cases it is not accurate to say that the debtors are committed to prison for debt. They are committed because they can pay and will not, or because they might have paid and would not. I remember a very distinguished County Court Judge in my earlier days who used to say that he thought that every time a debtor went to prison on one of his orders he had made a mistake.
All Judges ought to be scrupulous in their requirement of evidence as to means, and on the whole I think they are. At any rate I have no evidence that they are not, and I may say that there is no evidence that they are not. But whether in any particular case the evidence is convincing or not when the order of commitment is made, it by no means follows that the debtor will go to prison. A practice has sprung up which has now become almost universal of suspending the commitment orders conditionally upon the debtor paying the debt by regular future instalments. Those instalments are cut down to whatever sum the Judge thinks that the debtor can pay. Very often the debtor's own admission is the best evidence as to what he can pay and is accepted, and all County Court Judges take great care not to fix the instalments too high. But that is not all. As the weeks and months roll by before the debt is completely paid the debtor's circumstances may have changed for the better or for the worse. When he fails to pay an instalment there is a further opportunity of considering the matter. The Judge has power to suspend the warrant still further, and the debtor has power to apply for the suspension. Even where he fails to apply, in most County Court circuits the bailiffs have authority from the Judge to report the case either to the Registrar or the Judge if they think that the case is not one where the debtor ought to go to prison. In one way or another the greatest care is taken that the wrong men do not actually go to prison.
I am not saying that the system is perfect—no human system is perfect—but from the experience I have had the greatest possible care is taken to see that it works properly. None the less, some
228
inquiry might well be made to see whether further improvements can be introduced. The system has its critics. Many think that it is weighted too much in favour of the debtors, and others, while supporting the power of committing to prison as a last resource, object to the whole system of suspending the warrant. In all cases, however, there is a test of means before the order is made and there are opportunities for reconsidering the debtor's means before he actually goes to prison. One last case, and that is with regard to arrears. There is power to suspend the original judgment while the instalments under the commitment order are being made; if arrears do pile up there is power to make a fresh order for further instalments; and there is power in effect to make the arrears unenforceable by refusing to commit to prison. Lastly, there is power to bring the debtors before the court a second time before they go to prison. I regret to have detained your Lordships so long and to have given so many statistics, but the question, as the noble Lord pointed out, is really an important one. I hope I have answered all the questions. There are no Papers which I can lay, but I trust that I have adequately put before the noble Lord the position of the Government and the position of affairs at the present moment.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, my purpose in putting this Question on the Order Paper was not to make any attack upon the administration of the law or to criticise the police or anything of that kind. It seemed to me that there was a very real human problem involved, especially at a time when there is great unemployment, and I ventured to put the Question in the hope that I should elicit from His Majesty's Government some kind of promise that the matter should be enquired into. I beg to thank the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for the kindness with which he has answered my Question, and I welcome in the fullest degree the promise he has given that the matter will be sympathetically considered, while expressing a renewed hope that some kind of inquiry will be undertaken. I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MUSK RAT AND NUTRIA.
THE EARL OF ILCHESTER THE EARL OF ILCHESTER rose to ask His Majesty's Government what further progress has been made in dealing with the musk rat and nutria danger; and whether the nutria has been scheduled under the Destructive Imported Animals Act, 1932, and what staff is employed by the Ministry upon the extermination of musk rats; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I make no apology for again bringing forward the subject of my Question which is on the Paper to-night, because the increase of musk rats in this country is becoming a very serious menace indeed and the Trustees of the British Museum can only look on the answers to the Questions which I put a few weeks ago as exceedingly unsatisfactory. I do not propose to detain your Lordships this evening by repeating matter which I mentioned in the House so recently. Therefore I do not want to take up very much of your Lordships' time, especially as your Lordships will probably have noticed that several interesting articles have appeared on the subject of the musk rat in the Press recently, drawing the attention of the public to this new danger which is threatening the country.
To take the subject of the nutria first, the nutria, as your Lordships probably know, is the coypu rat of South America. It is about the size of a beaver or a big otter. I do suggest to the Ministry of Agriculture that the only safe method of dealing with these animals, which are now being introduced into the fur farms of this country, is to schedule them under the recent Act. Possibly the nutria is not so prolific as, possibly it is less active in its methods than, the musk rat, but As greater size makes it an equal if not a greater danger. As far as we know it has exactly the same habits as the musk rat. At a conference which I understand was recently held at the Ministry of Agriculture between the members of the Ministry and the fur farm owners I am told that it was very noticeable that exactly the same arguments were used, often by the same speakers, as were used several years ago when the question of the musk rat was being discussed. I maintain that this animal should be treated with the gravest suspicion. What better way of keeping it under observation can there be than by scheduling it and putting the farms under licence so
230
that the Ministry can keep them under full observation? I am afraid that the Ministry have been caught napping once over the musk rat and it seems to me that they would be very well advised not to take the risk a second time. Further, the nutria is a valuable animal, and surely one would have thought that the owners of these farms would welcome the assistance of the Ministry of Agriculture in preventing the escape of these animals from the farms.
Now I turn to the problem of the musk rat, which at the present moment is a much more serious matter. I was very glad to hear, on a recent occasion, the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, say that this was a very important matter. That is certainly a step in the right direction, because up to two or three months ago the Ministry of Agriculture did not seem in the least to realise the seriousness of the escape of these animals and they were doing extremely little towards combating it. They were really using methods which might have been employed by any man who set himself to kill a few harmless mice in a clover field. But now I believe they really are impressed by this danger, and it is up to them to impress the Treasury with the danger of the situation and to obtain the largest possible grant to deal with it. May we hope this evening to he given sonic idea of what grant is likely to be given for this purpose in the coming year? It is a serious matter, I know, at this moment, to have to suggest big expenditure, and I am afraid that it probably does mean big expenditure; but I believe that it would be an economy to go ahead at this time and not to waste one moment.
You may have to spend thousands of pounds now, but is it not worth spending thousands to save the reservoirs of this country, which may easily be undermined, and which will be undermined in time, by this pest; to save the banks of our rivers and to save the agricultural land on each side of our rivers; because, when the banks break down, that land becomes marsh and in time will have to be reclaimed, if it is possible to do so? I do say that unless this matter is tackled seriously all over the country you will be spending millions in a year or two's time, whereas you would probably be able to save the situation at the moment with thousands. Furthermore, you probably will not get to the bottom of the

231
trouble if action is delayed. I am afraid that the Ministry of Agriculture have brought this situation on themselves. They were fully warned and they had before them the experience of Germany, where the situation is completely out of hand, as I told your Lordships a few weeks ago, but the Ministry did nothing for two years.
The noble Earl told us that he would have thirty fully trained men ready by the end of this year. That is a matter for great congratulation, but I hope that he is going to give us an assurance that he is not going to stop at thirty men. We want three, four, or five times that number and the sooner they are trained the better. Those men, as I understand it, are going to be employed only in Shropshire and in the counties round Shropshire. What is going to be done in the rest of England? On the last occasion I gave your Lordships' House a list of quite a number of counties in which this pest has been reported. Are the Ministry going to sit still and allow these rats to propagate all through next summer without doing anything to stop them? I sincerely hope that they will do nothing of the kind. It was for that reason that I pressed very strongly for a general survey of the whole country so that the Ministry should know exactly where these animals are. In answer to that, the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said that I should be interested to know that circulars had been sent round to the drainage boards and to the catchment area boards. I shall be much more interested this evening if he will tell us what answers he got from those boards and whether they are going to help him. I raised the question with my own county council a week or two ago. I am glad to say that I think there are none of these animals in my own county, but I am quite sure, from the answer given, that if I had not raised the question that paper would have been put away and nothing more would have been heard of it.
I am very much afraid that probably the same thing is happening in other parts of the country. I noticed that in another place mention was made of some new pamphlet which was to be or has bene circulated, but this matter cannot be dealt with by circulars and pamphlets. The real difficulty is to detect the animal. The trappers have to be most skilful in finding out where he is. May I
232
give an illustration? A man trained quite recently in Shropshire, an admirable man for the job, was told to clean up a small stream close to his own door. When he got to work he found that his own garden was full of rats and lie had not the slightest idea before that there were any there. That shows the difficulty of the situation. I urge that a thorough survey should be made of the whole country and in doing so I suggest to the Ministry that when their own trained men make this survey they should enlist the sympathy of the catchment boards, that they should hold lectures and teach as far as possible how the presence of the rat may be detected and how he may be caught.
I mentioned to your Lordships a few weeks ago the lamentable state of Shropshire and the neighbouring counties and I do not intend to repeat what I said, except that a recent survey of many miles of the Severn in the worst places at low water, showed that one could not go ten yards without discovering new traces. Another serious matter is that the rat is reported within two or three miles of the lake which is the chief water supply of Liverpool. To the list of counties I formerly gave may I now add the Fens of Cambridge and Hampshire? The rats are also reported from, Wiltshire. I am told that I exaggerated by saying that the embankments of the London Midland and Scottish Railway between Stirling and Perth were infested. The railway engineers have informed me that the embankments there are not infested and I have great pleasure in repeating their statement. It is only fair to add that the line runs through one of the worst districts for rats in Scotland. The water of the Allan river touches the embankments in several places. These are spots which the company, no doubt, will watch with the greatest care for it seems possible that even now the rats are there without their knowledge.
One of the danger spots is Carsebrech Loch, which was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, on a recent occasion. This is a lake a mile long and, I believe, a reservoir; it is within a stone's throw of the line, and I am told that the dams on two sides are riddled with holes—that it is only a matter of time before there will be a collapse. There is a large village not far off below the lake and it would be an unpleasant

233
awakening for the inhabitants if these dams suddenly gave way. We were told that a start was going to be made during the winter, but nothing has been done there. The rat is reported from Fifeshire, Aberdeenshire, on the East Coast, and right across Loch Lomond; yet what have the Scottish Board of Agriculture done? We are told that they enclosed one loch, and incidentally I hear that the fence put up was so low that the rats jump in and out just as they like, and that a new fence is going to be erected. Bat surely that is not the way to deal with the matter. It seems to me that the Scottish Board at any rate must realise what they are up against. Is it surprising therefore that there is alarm at the situation? We insist on a very adequate grant from the Treasury and on an immediate and progressive increase of staff which car go about the country and find out where these animals are. This seems to us the only way of tackling the menace and catching up the two years which have so unfortunately been lost. I beg to move.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, before the noble Earl answers I would like to make one suggestion and that is that the best method of ascertaining where these rats arc would be to send instructions to every district fishery board throughout Scotland and England. They have watchers on all waters, especially at this time of the year, and probably would have better opportunities of detecting any animal than anybody else.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR):My Lords, the last time that this subject was raised by the noble Lord I took the opportunity of thanking him on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture for doing so, and may I on this occasion again thank him? I am very glad that he realises, as I think he said he did, that the Ministry of Agriculture is alive to the very grave danger with which this country is faced if we have an infestation of musk rats. May I assure him that we are determined to do everything in our power to see that the country is not allowed the infliction of such an infestation? Before I deal with the question of the musk rat perhaps I might touch very briefly on the nutria which has also been mentioned. The noble Lord brought up
234
the question of nutria in the last debate. I then told him that there were certain inquiries upon the reply to which our answer must depend. I hope to have the reply to those inquiries in the next week or so, and let me assure him that if the result of those inquiries is to satisfy us, as I gather the Trustees of the British Museum are already satisfied, that action is necessary, then certainly we will not delay in taking action; but I think he is aware probably of the nature of those inquiries, and I think he will admit that we should not be justified in failing to await the reply.
May I now turn to the question of the mask rat, and the importance of the problem of dealing with the musk rat? We all of us know that Germany has been so overrun with this plague that they virtually, with the exception of certain important works, almost have given up hope of dealing with the question. We have one advantage over Germany, and that is we are an island, and the real problem, I gather, of Germany is that however thoroughly they deal with their own problem in their own country, there is a neighbouring country that does not deal with the problem, and accordingly Germany is being continually flooded by supplies of rats from this other country. We, fortunately, are not in that position and if, therefore, we can deal effectively with the musk rats in this country we can rest assured we are safe.
What exactly is the position at the present moment I think the matter has been put before your Lordships very thoroughly and very fairly by the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester. He has told you of the main disturbance, centring round Shropshire and going out into Montgomery, Stafford and other neighbouring counties, an area amounting to something over 300 square miles. In addition, the noble Earl has told you of other appearances of the mask rat. This is certainly most disturbing, but, although I do not want to minimise the importance of it a bit, I think it would be possible to exaggerate the fears which of necessity the appearance of a single musk rat must arouse. My reaction on first hearing of single musk rats having been seen in Sussex and Hampshire was to say that if one had been seen there were hundreds under ground, and that if there were hundreds under ground then there would be

235
thousands next year. I find, however, that as far back as the beginning of 1931 single musk rats were found in Lincolnshire, Lancashire, Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire, and in none of those counties has there been a reappearance of the rat. It looked therefore as if it was an isolated escape from a farm before proper regulation was exercised, and that such escape has not been allowed again. There certainly have been outcrops of the rat and I assure your Lordships that it is our intention to see to it that every case of the appearance of this plague, in however apparently small a form, is being looked into and will be looked into by the Ministry.
Do let me assure your Lordships that if my last reply did not entirely satisfy you, if even this evening you are left with a feeling of disquiet, as everyone of us must be, it is not for lack of effort on the part of the Minister of Agriculture or his staff. It is a problem that has defeated Germany. We are going to do everything in our power to see that it does not defeat us. If your Lordships are not satisfied, when I tell you what we are doing, that we are taking all the action that is necessary, then I implore you to make every possible suggestion for increased effort or improved method, and we will be only too delighted to consider it. We are informed by our expert advisers—I might mention that one of our most valued expert adivsers is also connected with the National History Museum—that apart from certain improvements, and certain minor increases, which can be made, really everything is being done that could be done on the existing basis. If other methods of dealing with the matter can be suggested to us by experts we shall be delighted to consider them, but in so far as we are dealing by known methods with this plague we are doing everything that can be done.
The noble Earl mentioned the question of the Treasury. I cannot tell him beforehand exactly what the Treasury are going to allow, but I can tell him that hitherto we have asked the Treasury for everything that our experts have requested us to ask for, and the Treasury have granted us what we have asked for. Then, what exactly are we doing? In the area which I will call the Shropshire area we have thirty trappers working
236
at the present moment, and—the next figure will perhaps astonish your Lordships—they are catching actually sixty to eighty rats a week. You will say then that the problem is only being played with, but the fact of the matter is this: We have a large area centring on Shropshire, where the numbers are really large. If we were to plunge our trappers into that main area the effect would inevitably he to drive the rats outwards, and the last position would be worse than the first. What we are really doing is that we are putting our trappers on the outside, where admittedly the rats are more scarce, and so we do not secure very large bags, but gradually we are driving in and I can tell your Lordships that we are expecting to reach the centre before next summer. Your Lordships will realise, therefore, that we are not proceeding at a slow rate. If we were advised by our experts that more trappers could be employed we are prepared to consider that, but at the present moment we are supplying all the trappers that have been demanded.
We are—and this is a very important part of our policy, because everything cannot be done by the Government—circularising all local authorities in the areas concerned. The noble Earl mentioned that his local authority had received notification but had not taken much interest. I think we may assume that the local authorities in the areas which are concerned will take great interest. In addition, we have circularised all the drainage authorities, the main catchment boards, and, through them, all the local drainage boards. We have also appealed to all landowners, both through the Press and through the Central Landowners Association and the Land Union, to co-operate with us in every possible way. I am not able to tell the noble Earl whether we have been in communication with the fishery boards, but I will certainly bring that point to the notice of the Department. In addition, we are issuing posters and leaflets to all interested parties, and we have received very great assistance from publicity in the Press. If some of that publicity has seemed at times to be rather critical of us, we "do not really mind in so far as the publicity for the musk rat will help us very much in waging our war.

237
I have said that we are perfectly prepared to consider an increase in the number of trappers, but can we say that the existing trappers are catching sufficient rats at the moment to make us feel that the doubling, if necessary, of their numbers is really going to offer your Lordships the progress which you desire? Supposing that every additional trapper caught as many rats per week as each of the trappers at present does, then our numbers would go up from between sixty and eighty to between 120 and 160. I think your Lordships would still, on those figures, say that we were playing with the problem. But I hope that the description that I gave to your Lordships of our policy, and the reasons I gave why the effect in numbers seems to be so small, will satisfy your Lordships that you must not at the moment judge the success of the policy by the actual numbers being caught week by week. I might tell the noble Lord—and I think he will be very glad to hear it—that we have been able to obtain an assurance from Herr Roith, the great German expert, that he is prepared to come over here and help us in oar campaign, especially in regard to training our trappers.
Might I add to the appeal that we have already made in oar circulars and in our letters to the various local authorities, catchment boards and landowners—might I add the appeal from this box of the Ministry of Agriculture to all those bodies to do everything possible to hack us up in our efforts? It is most essential that our intelligence work should be helped. I believe it is possible—the matter is under consideration at the moment—that the Department itself could do with an increase of official survey work, but in addition to that we require the backing up of all the various local institutions. When we are closing in, for instance, on this area there are bound to be some rats which will escape past our trappers. We find that the intelligence work is first-rate, and if individual rats do get by our trappers the keepers or other agencies inform us at once. Possibly there are other matters that we may have to consider.
We have discussed this matter already, but perhaps we could call in to a greater extent the assistance of science. It may be that the biologists or the zoologists could help us by evolving some form of
238
disease or some scientific method of tackling this problem. To a layman—I am one— the suggestion may seem farfetched, but we are prepared at the Ministry to consider every possible alternative that is suggested to us. The noble Earl has mentioned that he would like a detailed survey of every single waterway in the country. Well, it may be that we shall have to come to that. Our information at present is that that survey would be a most tremendous expense and that the bulk of the answers would simply be negative. At the present moment we are relying mainly on those bodies which I have mentioned, to whom we have written. I think the noble Lord asked a question about the answers we were getting from them. I can tell him that in the vast majority of cases we have promises from the local authorities, the drainage boards, the railway authorities, the canal owners, and so on, of every cooperation, and we find that as soon as a rat is sighted we do now get a report, such is the public alarm about the matter. A suggestion has been made—and indeed in some areas for certain times it has been carried out—that we should offer a reward for every rat trapped. That is a policy that we have carried out to a certain extent. It is being carried out also in Scotland on a temporary basis, but I think your Lordships will admit that if we have that policy on a permanent basis it would have its dangers. It might be a temptation to some who are less scrupulous than others to encourage the breeding of rats rather than the destruction of them. At any rate, that is a point of view that most certainly has to be considered.
I think your Lordships will probably realise from what I have said that we are not complacent about this matter. We are satisfied that everything we can think of is being done, but that most certainly does not mean that we are happy about the situation. We should be most grateful to your Lordships, and to anybody, for any suggestions for further action. If trapping is not sufficient, is there anything else? Are there other methods that your Lordships are prepared to suggest? In the meanwhile I can tell your Lordships that, whilst pursuing our present policy to its utmost limits, we are prepared to push every item of policy hitherto pursued and

239
to investigate every new item of policy that is proposed.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, my interest in the musk rat is not because of any episcopal responsibility for it, but because I happen to be Chairman of the Standing Committee of the British Museum and the Natural History Museum. I should like on behalf of my colleagues to express to the noble Earl who has just spoken— and I waited until he had spoken before doing so— our gratitude to him for the evident signs of a renewed concern on the part of the Ministry of Agriculture which he represents. It was worth while my noble friend Lord Ilchester raising this matter again to get from the noble Earl, speaking on behalf of his Department, the assurance that his Department does consider this a very real menace to the whole country, and that there is no step which is likely to effect the reduction of that menace which the Ministry is not willing to take. I am most grateful to the noble Earl for that statement, and for the many assurances which his speech contained of the activity and concern of his Department.
I merely rose to say that the one thing which my colleagues specially desire and which Lord Ilchester specially mentioned, and which is contained in his Notice, was dealt with very cursorily at the end of the otherwise reassuring and, if I may say so, admirable speech of the noble Earl, and that is the necessity, in view of the greatness of the peril, of taking steps to have a really complete survey of the whole country in regard to this matter. I do not see how the admirable desires of the Ministry can really be carried out unless it is in a position to know how the matter stands, not merely in one or two areas where the evil has been particularly detected, but over the whole country. Your Lordships are familiar, after these two debates, with what has happened in Shropshire. It is to be remembered that only two years ago there was but a small colony of these rats in Shropshire and now the area infested, as he has pointed out, covers more than 350 square miles. The evil is spreading up and down the waters of the Severn and those waters that are connected with it. There must also be
240
colonies of rats in different parts of the country which, in a very short time, may develop into as great a danger to all those areas.
I do not think it was mentioned, but take an area which is very well known to me, in the East and West Ridings of Yorkshire, all that marshy and watery land between York and Doncaster or Selby and York or Beverley and Hull. It is known that musk rats have appeared there, and very soon they may become serious, and that immense area, already as we know gravely in danger of floods, may have that danger rapidly increased. The noble Earl will say, no doubt, that these cases are well known, but I doubt very much whether the real gravity of them has been grasped by the local authorities, in spite of all these circulars, and nothing could be more effective—I am coming to that in a. moment—in dealing with these local authorities than being able to point to the results of a survey calling particular attention to the gravity of the position in a particular area. What I want to stress is the rapidity with which the little colonies of rats in one area can spread into a much wider area and do unmitigated mischief.
Again, as the noble Earl himself has confessed, it is not enough merely that the existence of these rats should be known. What requires to be known is the proper and scientific way of dealing with them when they have appeared. As he has rightly said, in Shropshire it would be madness, merely because rats have appeared, to set trappers at work, since that might only drive them into a further area. In Shropshire, quite properly, while dealing with the Severn itself, they are beginning with the outlying areas, and driving the rats in so as to prevent them spreading further, but with this kind of treatment these local authorities are imperfectly familiar, and I do not see how our local authorities can really tackle what is not only a most important but a most intricate subject, unless the Ministry of Agriculture will greatly increase the number of investigators and specialists who are prepared to give advice of that kind in the different areas which a survey will show to be really in danger.
Thirdly, I would impress upon the Ministry of Agriculture that these quite

241
admirable admonitions which have been addressed to the various local authorities, the catchment boards and the drainage boards, would be immensely enhanced in their effect if the Ministry tackled the problem in a thorough way, and were able to make a survey of the position throughout the country, and call the attention of these local authorities to the position as it affects, or as it appears likely to affect, the various areas with which they are concerned. It may be, as the noble Earl has said, that this would be a matter that would entail some expense, but, in view of the weighty words with which he began his speech, I think that he will be able to persuade the Treasury that a large expense in this matter is really economical. It is far better to spend money to see how this great menace is affecting every par; of the country at this moment than to wait until an immense amount of money may have to be expended to repair the ravages of these rats throughout the whole of the country. Therefore, while cordially thanking the noble Earl for the considerate way in which he spoke and for the emphasis he gave to the greatness of this menace, I beg of him to implement the satisfaction which those parts of his speech gave to those of us who are concerned in this matter by an assurance, even now, that he will press the Treasury to enable the Ministry of Agriculture to make a thorough survey throughout the whole country.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Earl on the Treasury Bench for the spirit he has shown, but I must confess that I am still very much disturbed in my mind at the action which is being taken. I do not myself know anything about the nutria except that in Germany, and indeed in Central Europe, it is not scheduled as a pest; but that is not sufficient. Six weeks ago, with a full knowledge of the case, the Trustees of the Natural History Museum and the British Museum asked the Ministry of Agriculture to schedule this rat as a pest and nothing has been done. It is quite possible that an animal which is perfectly harmless in Germany may, in this country, with a different diet and a very much milder winter climate, be a real danger. They bring no allegation against the animal. They merely say that in the
242
climate and in the dietetic circumstances of Great Britain it may be very dangerous and therefore should be scheduled. Nothing has been done except to make a few inquiries. I hope we are not going to see the comedy of the musk rat repeated.
May I just make a few technical observations about the musk rat to bring home to your Lordships more perhaps than has already been done how disastrous he is? The musk rat procreates its species with astonishing speed. A doe can have a many as five litters a year varying from three to fifteen offspring on each occasion. One doe has been known to introduce into the world no fewer than 65 young ones in a single year. And the trappers in Shropshire are killing them at the rate of two musk rats a week per trapper! That is not very helpful. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, says that apart from minor improvements everything is being done which is recommended. I really feel impelled by the complacency of the noble Earl to explain how this terrible situation has grown up owing to the caution of the Ministry of Agriculture and their passion for asking questions.
This matter was first brought to their notice by the Trustees of the Natural History British Museum on January 25, 1930. A second letter was sent to them two months later begging that importation should be prohibited and that existing farms should be controlled and supervised. Three months elapse. The Ministry of Agriculture then ask for the help of a distinguished member of the staff of the British Museum to whom special leave is immediately granted for a week or more. Then, having had the first communication from us in January, by the middle of June the Minister of Agriculture asks the British Museum if the musk rat is a rat within the meaning of the Rat Acts. After careful advice the Trustees reply, entirely without prejudice, and quite unofficially, and without impinging upon any judicial rights which your Lordships may possess on a subsequent occasion, that we do think the musk rat is a rat within the meaning of the Rat Acts. Four more months elapse. We are now at the end of October. We repeat our serious concern at the situation, and the Director is actually instructed to make personal

243
representation on the subject pressing for prohibition and for licences. A month elapses and the Ministry of Agriculture agree that steps should be taken to eradicate the musk rat, but the legal position not being clear they think it desirable to consult the Law Officers of the Crown. Of course, the Trustees again have to protest.
Now we come to March, 1931. A conference at the Ministry of Agriculture decides that legislation is necessary. A good deal of trouble was taken about preparing an Act of Parliament and the Bill was read a second time on June 27, or thereabouts, but Parliament unfortunately was dissolved. If the Ministry of Agriculture had the slightest idea of the realities of the situation they would have got a Bill of this sort through Parliament in the last 48 hours, because every single representative of an agricultural constituency or of any constituency which has great waterways and canals and drainage systems realises how perilous the situation will be to husbandry, if it continues. But the Ministry of Agriculture did not realise the situation and allowed Parliament to separate with nothing done. But on October 24—again four months later —the Ministry decided that the Bill ought to be reintroduced and actually the Bill was passed into law sometime in April of this year. We very soon afterwards expressed our opinion as to the best type of appliances and on May 17 the Ministry of Agriculture told us that they considered the appliances and equipment adequate.
Now, my Lords, I do not know what the nutria is going to do when it gets loose in this country, whether he is going to behave as the other animal has behaved. He may possibly be like the perfect little gentleman that he is in Germany, but we do not know whether we are going to suffer the same trouble that we are suffering from the musk rat. It may be more serious, or it may be less serious, but there is danger. Why the Ministry do not immediately prohibit importation and provide for farms in this country to be supervised I cannot understand. I wish that any of your Lordships who happen to be passing the neighbourhood of the Natural History Museum would go in to see the interesting exhibit of the habitat and the habits of the animal, and the appalling devastation
244
proved by photographs of some of the infested areas in Shropshire. As the most rev. Primate said just now it is essential that a proper survey of the country should take place. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said that in Bedfordshire he knows there are not any there now. How does he know? He does not know. He is merely guessing. We ought to have a proper survey at once, and the Ministry of Agriculture ought to employ at once half-a-dozen inspectors ad hoc.
Think, my Lords, how active and how alert the Ministry of Agriculture are about foot-and-mouth disease. The moment there is an outbreak a huge area is scheduled. Inspectors are sent down by the dozen, by the car load. Chars-a-banes full of inspectors are sent down. Animals are collected and slaughtered and before you know where you are a whole herd of cattle has been burned. There is no system in Europe better equipped or more efficient for dealing with an outbreak of cattle disease than the system of the Ministry of Agriculture in this country. There is nothing in the whole world to touch it. Yet, when we are threatened with and actually in the throes of a risk of which we have all known for years, and which the Ministry of Agriculture have had before them since January 25, 1930, we really can scarcely get them to move. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, expressed some hope that money would be forthcoming in the new Estimates. The new Estimates do not come into force until April, 1933. The money ought to be spent now; the organisation ought to be laid down now for a great spring campaign. Unless we do that we really are going to have this musk rat nuisance becoming a plague and the plague will involve a very severe loss to farming as a whole.
I add only one further observation. If a biological attack can be safely made on this animal it would be a great triumph for science, and I hope that that subject will be investigated. I merely utter this word of caution. To poison these rats or to infect them with some parasitic disease may cause great damage to the musk rat, but it may bring about even greater damage to live stock of different descriptions. The fact that Lord De La Warr and his Department are considering the possibility of a biological attack upon

245
the musk rat must not in any way allow them to be deflected from the immediate purpose of the Department, which is to kill the animals out by much more old-fashioned but less sensational methods. I again urge the noble Earl to be much more active, much more decisive, in this matter than he has been hitherto, because the more I hear about it the more alarmed I am at the progress of this very serious menace.
LORD HANWORTH: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will allow me to detain you for about two minutes, because I desire to support the observations which have been made by the noble Earl who moved this Motion. It must have occurred to your Lordships as somewhat remarkable that two debates have been raised on this subject with an interval of only some six weeks between them. Your Lordships are quite aware that repetition is the earliest form of emphasis, and it is because the Trustees of the British Museum have desired to emphasise the great importance of this matter that they have asked the noble Earl to present the case to your Lordships, in order that we may draw the attention not only of the. Ministry of Agriculture but of the public at large to this very serious menace of which the Trustees of the British Museum have cognisance and in respect of which they have a duty to perform.
Although one welcomes the observations which have been made by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, I confess that there is too much of a note of futurity about them. If anything can be done or if anything can be told he hereby gives notice that the Ministry of Agriculture will consider it. The debate was raised six weeks ago and I should have liked to hear something of the past; I should have liked to hear him say that since the debate was initiated they have done this, that or the other. My Lords, they have done something. They have issued some leaflets and they have issued some posters, so I suppose that if your Lordships are detained waiting for a train at some station, side by side with the rates which are to be charged for the conveyance of goods your Lordships will have the opportunity of reading about the musk rat. That really is of no use whatever. You need skilled persons to deal with the menace. The musk rat burrows
246
by the waterside; he does not reveal himself. It is no use telling people by a leaflet: "Please go and catch musk rats." They will not know where to find them and they will not know how to catch them. If one goes to the Museum at South Kensington one will see that the musk rat in winter builds a sort of curious beehive habitation. If one could find some of those, one might be able to destroy them; but to distribute leaflets and to issue posters is a waste of money.
We know that for this reason, that, although the noble Earl talks of the expert advisers of the Ministry of Agriculture, we know that they do not exist, or did not exist, because we at South Kensington were asked to provide an expert who knew something about it. There was nobody else who knew anything about it and they asked for our expert to advise them. More than that, they have quite recently asked that the expert should be given leave from South Kensington, because he was really the only expert they had and they wanted his services for a longer time. Thereupon the Trustees were asked to agree that this expert should be lent for a longer time to the Ministry of Agriculture. It is useless for the noble Earl to talk about his expert advisers. We know that the head and feature of the whole of them is the one whom we have allowed to go from the Museum at South Kensington to assist the Ministry of Agriculture. I should like to know how many experts have been trained? How many are there? What is the number of trappers who have been trained or who are in course of being trained for the purpose of dealing with this serious menace?
It was for the Trustees to reveal a responsibility which lies upon them. It was part of their duty to come to the House and to tell your Lordships what this menace is. It was part of their duty to try to rouse public opinion upon it, more particularly because they knew the imperfections in the equipment of the Ministry of Agriculture for dealing with this matter. I hope that the noble Earl will be able at no distant date to come and say that some trappers have been trained, that there are men authorised and equipped to deal with this matter, that the Treasury have been approached and that steps have been taken during this winter to see that the menace shall

247
be dealt with. I do not want merely some story that a certain number of rats have been caught, which can easily be made good again by a score of does or rats in the course of a very few months. I wish to offer my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, for the information which he has given. I confess that I have some sympathy with him in the position in which he is placed. The reason I got up to-night was in order to add my voice to those of noble Lords who have emphasised the importance of this question, and to press it upon the attention of your Lordships and of the public.
One more word about the nutria. The only step which can be taken and which should be taken is to schedule the nutria. Then the Ministry of Agriculture would be equipped to deal with it as and when the information comes that such and such regulations are necessary. Until it has been scheduled, with all the safeguards that are necessary, they are not equipped to deal with the nutria at all. They ought to take steps to schedule the nutria at once; then they will be able to deal with it. It is no use waiting until some replies have been received from the Continent or anywhere else. There has been a danger signal raised already about the nutria and it calls for immediate action by the Ministry of Agriculture.
THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, for his speech, because I realised from it that the Ministry are really seriously concerned about the situation. I confess that I am still very much alarmed because, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanworth, has just said, everything is too much in the future. What we want is that something shall be done at once, and the sooner the better. My reason for urging the noble Earl to increase his staff was that unfortunately trappers cannot be in two places at the same time. If they are going to deal with the Shropshire area, what is going to happen to the rest of England? Personally I do not mind the fact that not many animals are being caught, because I think the plan he outlined for Shropshire is the right one; but we want that done all over England. While the Ministry is sitting waiting you will have propagating all over the country next spring.
The noble Earl's speech was, I felt, an excellent one because it exemplified my
248
point that a general survey was an absolute necessity. I feel I could not have made a better speech myself on that point. I hope that something may be done on these lines, as I think it is a purely technical matter and that you will not catch these rats unless you have trained experts. The noble Earl did not mention anything about Scotland. I hope the Scottish Board of Agriculture will be urged to take immediate steps. Further, I ask that the noble Earl will go to the Treasury not for £ 2,000 or £ 3,000, which I believe is what they are being granted. The noble Earl said the Treasury had been most kind and had given them all they wanted. I hope he will go to them for £ 50,000; and probably even that will not be enough. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS (BASIC PRICES).
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
Moved, That a Committee of five Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider and report whether, as one of the methods of giving effect to the basic price system of charge by gas undertakers in those cases in which a power to make a differential charge in respect of any part of the existing or intended limits of supply is proposed to be continued or granted, it is expedient to authorise a separate basic price in respect of each such part, arrived at by adding to the basic price fixed in respect of the area for which no differential charge is proposed a sum representing the differential change as proposed to be authorised or continued, or as actually made.
That the Lords following be named of the Committee

V. Hereford,

L. Chesham,

L. Meston,

L. Rhayader,

L. Hutchison of Montrose.

That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House

249
of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Leave given to the Joint Committee to hear parties interested, by themselves, their counsel, agents and witnesses, so far as the Committee think fit.
Then a Message was ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to request them to appoint five members of that House to be joined with the said Committee.
House adjourned at ten minutes after seven o'clock.