Sitting of 5 July 1932

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Bournemouth, Poole, and Christchurch Electricity Bill [Lords].
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Kilmarnock Gas Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill.
Read the Third time, and passed.
Public Works Facilities Scheme (Shrewsbury Corporation) Bill.
Read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    EXCHANGE RESTRICTIONS.
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is now proposed to establish some form of clearing house between this country and those where restrictions on foreign payments are now in existence?
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now describe the agreements made to establish clearing house or other arrangements to overcome the present handicaps under which the export trade of this country is suffering?
    Mr. JOHN COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): On 8th February in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Keighley (Captain Watt) I gave reasons why His Majesty's Government felt that the adoption of a clearing-house system would not on the whole be of benefit to the trading community. Since then the results of various clearinghouse systems in other countries have been carefully observed and this view is confirmed. It is not therefore proposed to institute such a system. It is considered, however, that benefit might re-
    212
    suit from agreements to facilitate the use of frozen or blocked accounts in foreign currencies for the purchase of goods for export. Endeavours will therefore be made to arrange experimental agreements of this nature with certain foreign countries, and for this purpose legislation will not be required.
    Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Can my hon. Friend say whether they will be raw materials or manufactured goods?
    Mr. COLVILLE: At this stage, I cannot add to my present answer, but all classes of goods may be taken into consideration.
    Mr. HANNON: Can my hon. Friend say whether he thinks that this suggested experiment can be brought to some conclusion before the House rises, and will he be able to make any statement on this important matter before the House rises?
    Mr. COLVILLE: As I have indicated, this will not require legislation, but we shall endeavour to secure agreement as quickly as possible.

    GERMANY (BRITISH COAL QUOTA).
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any decision has yet been reached with regard to the action to be taken as a result of the discrimination by the German Government against the importation of British coal into Germany; and, if so, of what nature?
    Mr. COLVILLE: Yes, Sir. I expect shortly to be able to inform the House of the nature of the communication which is being made to the German Government.
    Captain MACDONALD: Is my hon. Friend aware that this question was answered last week, and it was stated that negotiations were taking place; and has any progress been made in those negotiations?
    Mr. COLVILLE: I understand that a question has been put down for next Monday, when I hope it will be possible to say more as to the nature of the communications.
    Mr. HANNON: Is not this a matter of supreme importance and one that has

    213
    been before the House repeatedly for months past and when are we going to get some decision?
    Mr. COLVILLE: It has been indicated to the House already that the German proposals are complicated by being associated with other proposals which do not relate to coal.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does not this action on the part of Germany prove the futility of imposing duties?
    Mr. COLVILLE: Not at all.

    FRANCE (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the new quotas introduced by the French Ministry of Commerce with regard to the importation of manufactured goods into France are regarded as satisfactory to British exporters; and, if not, what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. COLVILLE: The French quota system has been in operation since last October and new classes of goods have been included under it from time to time. As has already been stated His Majesty's Government are always ready to make representations where necessary to secure equitable treatment for British manufactures but general representations against the quota system as such are not at present likely to serve a useful purpose.
    Captain MACDONALD: Have there not been any negotiations at all about this quota system when it is discriminating against our trade?
    Mr. COLVILLE: If evidence of discrimination is found, representations are made at once, but the position which the Government have taken up in regard to the quota system in general has already been explained to the House.

    CHEESE (PRICES).
    Sir CHARLES CAYZERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any recent investigation has been made by the Food Council into the retail price of cheese; and, if not, whether he will instruct the council to carry out such an investigation, in view of the benefits which would accrue to British farmers if the margin between the wholesale and retail prices of their cheese could be reduced to the lowest possible level?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The attention of the Food Council has not yet been drawn to any marked variation in the usual margins between the wholesale and retail prices of cheese, but if my hon. Friend has any particular evidence to offer on which an inquiry could appropriately be based, perhaps he will be good enough to send it to me.
    Sir C. CAYZER: Is not my hon. Friend aware that the difference between the wholesale and the retail price of best Cheshire cheese has recently been over 1s. per pound, and does not he think that the retailers' profit of over 150 per cent. is somewhat excessive?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I said that there is no difference as far as I am aware in the usual margin between wholesale and retail prices, but, if my hon. Friend can supply me with any particulars, I will willingly assist him.
    Sir C. CAYZER: I will do so.

    IMPORT DUTIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any information as to whether the Import Duties Advisory Committee proposes to adjourn at any time during the summer; and, if so, at what date arid for how long?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Walter Elliot): I understand that the Committee propose to make arrangements which will ensure that their work will continue uninterrupted throughout the summer.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the slow rate at which the recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee are being issued is adversely affecting the trade of the country, he proposes to appoint further commissioners?
    Major ELLIOT: I do not think that the work of the Committee would be aided at present by adding to their number. I would remind my hon. Friend that within six weeks of their appointment the Committee made recommendations covering a very wide range of manufactured goods. They have since made a number of further recommendations, some of them of the greatest importance.
    Mr. ROBINSON: Is the right hon. and gallant Member aware that in many cases industries have made representations to the committee, in some cases for raising the tariff and in others for lowering it, and that the only information they have received in the course of months has been that the committee is considering the matter?
    Major ELLIOT: Yes, but I do not think that a larger number of persons will consider these matters any quicker than a small number of persons.

    FOREIGN BUTTER.
    Sir C. CAYZERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, before the House rises for the Recess, he anticipates any decision by the Tariff Advisory Committee on the request by the British farmers for the imposition of an emergency duty on foreign butter?
    Major ELLIOT: I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to paragraph 17 of the Committee's first report, in which they indicated that pending among other things the discussions at Ottawa they did not anticipate that they would be in a position to form conclusions upon which to base any recommendations concerning commodities such as that to which he refers.
    Sir C. CAYZER: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that the importation of foreign butter is likely to be greatly increased in the near future in view of the butter quotas in Germany, Switzerland and Belgium and that unless some action is taken the British butter industry will be seriously injured?
    Major ELLIOT: I fully appreciate the difficulties of the industry, but the whole subject is being comprehensively considered and it is impossible to take action. That was the position taken up by the Advisory Committee.
    Sir C. CAYZER: Cannot the right hon. and gallant Member do something to accelerate progress in this matter?
    Major ELLIOT: I am afraid that I cannot expedite the Ottawa Conference.
    Mr. LAMBERT: May I ask whether the Advisory Committee is considering these agricultural questions at all?
    Major ELLIOT: I do not think that question arises.

    RUSSIA.
    Mr. LIDDALLasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, if he is aware that substantial orders can be placed with Lincoln engineering firms by the Russian Government providing further credit facilities are made available; and, in view of the fact that at Lincoln upwards of 6,000, of a working population of 20,000, are now unemployed, will he take steps to provide the necessary credit facilities?
    Mr. COLVILLE: I am aware that the Soviet authorities have expressed their readiness to place certain orders in this country if given the credits which they require. As regards the second part of the question I cannot for the present add anything to the announcement which I made on the 23rd May, that the Export Credits Guarantee Department had been authorised to guarantee further credits for £1,600,000 for trade with Russia.
    Mr. LIDDALL: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise, or I hope to raise, this matter at the earliest opportunity, if possible to-night, on the Adjournment.
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if, in view of the large contracts just placed by Russia with Germany under a new trade agreement, he can arrange that manufacturers in this country will have the advantages of a similar agreement?
    Mr. COLVILLE: I have received a translation of an agreement dated 15th June between representatives of German industry and the Soviet Trade Delegation in Germany, setting out the terms on which the latter shall place orders up to 31st May, 1933. The conclusion of a similar agreement between representatives of British industry and the Soviet authorities postulates the guaranteeing by His Majesty's Government of additional credits for trade with Russia, and, as I have already explained, guarantees in excess of £1,600,000 are not available.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Will the Department reconsider the matter, in view of the very large amount of work that is known to be available? Can we be assured that there will be reconsideration?
    Mr. COLVILLE: The position is under examination by the Advisory Committee. I cannot add more than that at the moment.
    Mr. CHORLTON: Does the hon. Gentleman know that very large contracts have been placed in Germany, that the American trade has almost disappeared, and will he, if possible, see whether there is not some way of making larger credits possible than are agreed to now?
    Mr. COLVILLE: I cannot add anything to the statement I have already made. The Government are fully aware of the facts, and, as I have stated, the Advisory Committee are considering the position.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Are the Government prepared to see more and more men thrown out of employment, rather than make arrangements equal to those made by Germany?
    Mr. COLVILLE: If the guarantee of the Government is used, it must be used with caution.

    EMPIRE PREFERENCE DUTIES.
    Mr. DINGLE FOOTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which Colonial Legislatures have approved Empire preference duties; in how many cases protests have been entered by nonofficial members; and whether he has issued any instructions to Governors of Crown Colonies with regard to such preference duties?
    The SECRETARY of STATE to the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): As regards the first part of this question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers given, on 13th April, to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald), and on 2nd June, to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Touche). I am sending my hon. Friend copies of those answers. I am not aware of any protests having been entered by non-official members of Colonial Legislatures against the Empire preference duties. I have been in constant communication with Governors of Colonies on the subject of Imperial trade policy, and I have stated that I was sure Colonies would wish to reciprocate to the fullest extent practicable the preferences
    218
    given by this country; and I have every reason to believe that I have rightly gauged their wishes.
    Mr. FOOT: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the statement which appeared in the "Times" of 31st May to the effect that in the case of the Straits Settlements, the preferences were passed under strong protest from the nonofficial members?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No. My attention was not directed to that statement, and I am satisfied that, broadly speaking, every single part of the British Empire desires to reciprocate the policy of this country.

    ARGENTINE.
    Mr. McENTEEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the House information as to the negotiations during the past six months for the import of commodities from the Argentine on a barter basis; and, if so, what commodities were so exported or imported?
    Mr. COLVILLE: No negotiations of this kind have been entered into by His Majesty's Government.

    PILOTAGE ACT.
    Mr. DAVID ADAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of foreign ships entering the Port of London during the year 1931 that dispensed with pilots; and whether he will consider the introduction of legislation to provide for compulsory pilotage for all ships entering British ports?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am informed by the Trinity House that approximately 3,395 foreign ships, being ships excepted from the requirements of compulsory pilotage in the Thames, entered the river in 1931. It is estimated, however, that 1,200 of these voluntarily employed pilots for that part of the pilotage district between Gravesend and London Bridge. As regards the second part of the question, my right hon. Friend cannot undertake, on the information before him, to introduce legislation modifying the provisions of the Pilotage Act, 1913, under which each case for the extension of compulsory pilotage can be decided on its merits after full consideration of the views of all the interests concerned.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    STRENGTH.
    Brigadier-General NATIONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether there has been a further decline in the strength of the Regular Army at home and the Territorial Army since the 1st March; rand, if so, will he state what the total deficiency in earth is at the present time?
    Mr. WOMERSLEY (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The 1st June figures for the Regular Army show an increase of 1,100 over the 1st March. In the Territorial Army there is a reduction of 2,500. The total deficiencies on 1st June were Regular Army 9,100, Territorial Army 41,800.
    Brigadier-General NATION: Are not steps being taken to increase the Territorial Army in view of the deficiency in recruitment?
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that my right hon. Friend has this matter under careful review and is giving it every consideration.
    Captain WATT: Does my hon. Friend not think that the Government can do more in conjunction with the employers' organisations to encourage recruitment for the Territorial Army, which is the best insurance which this country has at the present time?
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: It is not my duty to express an opinion, but I will certainly convey that question to my hon. Friend.

    ORDNANCE FACTORY, WOOLWICH.
    Brigadier-General NATIONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the recommendations of the May Committee in regard to the review of the ordnance factory at Woolwich have been or are to be carried out; and what the saving will amount to per annum?
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: The May Committee recommended that the authorised minimum establishment at Woolwich should be reviewed, but this step has not so far proved to be necessary, since customers' actual peace-time needs for goods produced by the factories have provided this year orders sufficient to employ the existing authorised minimum. The question falls to be reconsidered in con-
    220
    nection with next year's Estimates. The actual strength at Woolwich has however been for long in process of reduction towards the authorised minimum. This process still continues, and my hon. and gallant Friend will see from the Royal Ordnance Factories Estimate that the provision made for wages is £184,300 less this year than last. This figure includes £67,000 on account of the abolition, in accordance with the May Committee's recommendation, of certain preferential rates of wage previously enjoyed by Government establishments.

    SERVICE PENSIONS (J. MARTIN, LANCASHIRE FUSILIERS).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that Mr. James Martin, late No. 2724, private, Lancashire Fusiliers, of 43, Baker Street, Elton, Bury, Lancashire, was 65 years of age on 9th May, 1932; that a copy of his birth certificate has been shown to the authorities of the Chelsea Royal Hospital; that he has been refused a pension due to him at 65 years of age because the records at the hospital do not coincide with his birth certificate; and will he state why the man's incorrect Army record takes precedence over his correct record in this connection?
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: The age given by a recruit on first attestation is accepted as his correct age throughout his career for various purposes, including the assessment of pension, and no exception can be made in this case.
    Mr. DAVIES: If it can be proved that the wrong age was due to the fault of the officer recruiting at the time, will it alter the attitude of the War Office towards a claim for pension; and will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question as to the power of the War Office to over-ride the birth certificate in this connection?
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: My answer to the first part of the supplementary question is that, if my hon. Friend has any information to the effect he has stated and will convey it to my hon. Friend, he will no doubt look into the matter. As regards the latter part, I can only repeat the statement that no exception can be made in this case.
    Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. Would it not be better that a question of this character should be referred to the Department concerned rather than waste the time of the House?
    Mr. DAVIES: May I inform the hon. Gentleman that the whole business has been dealt with by correspondence with the War Office, and that I have completely failed to achieve my purpose.
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is really no point of Order.
    Mr. HANNON: May I respectfully submit that you and your predecessor at various times in this House have held that questions affecting small personal matters of this character should not be put down upon the Order Paper and waste the time of the House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that I cannot undertake the duty suggested.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Is it not the case that, when satisfaction is not obtained even in personal cases, a Member has the right to bring the matter to the House of Commons to try and get it adjusted?

    TERRITORIAL ARMY (SUNDAY TRAINING).
    Sir JAMES DUNCAN MILLARasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been directed to the action of certain commanding officers in the Territorial Army in arranging for rifle practice and other military exercises on Sundays; whether he is aware that objection is taken by officers and men in the Territorial Army to such work being engaged in on Sundays instead of week-days; and whether the War Office will issue instructions with a view to preventing such practices in future?
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: My hon. Friend is not aware that any objection is taken in the Territorial Army to the long established practice of training during the week-ends in the summer months. It would not be practicable to omit the Sunday work without impairing the efficiency of the training.
    Sir J. DUNCAN MILLAR: Will my hon. Friend consider any case where it can be shown that work which might be done on weekdays is done on Sunday?
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: I would ask my hon. Friend to repeat his question. I am not quite sure of my ground.
    Sir J. DUNCAN MILLAR: Will the hon. Gentleman consider any case in which it can be shown that work which is undertaken on Sundays could more properly be undertaken on weekdays and that it is the desire that it should be undertaken on weekdays?
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: I cannot myself undertake to consider that matter, but I will convey the terms of the supplementary question to my hon. Friend who will no doubt give it the fullest consideration.

    REMOUNTS.
    Mr. JOELasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what was the value of remounts purchased for the British Army from the Irish Free State for 1931 and the first six months of 1932; and whether, in view of the undesirability of the British Army being dependent on the Irish Free State for a large proportion of its horses, he will state how soon he anticipates the encouragement which he is now giving to British horse-breeding will make it possible to obtain the entire supply of remounts for the British Army in Great Britain?
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: The prices paid for remounts purchased in the Irish Free State in 1931 was £20,056 and in the first six months of 1932 was £15,770. The increased proportion for the first six months of 1932 is due to the fact that it is the practice of the Department to purchase a large proportion of the requirements of remounts in the first half of the year. As regards the second part of the question, it is the policy to purchase horses in the United Kingdom whenever possible, but at present the supply is not sufficient to meet requirements.

  SCOTLAND.

    EDUCATION RATES.
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, taking the different Scottish educational authorities, he will state those which are budgeting for an increased rate in the current year and those which are budgeting for a lower rate, giving the names and figures in each case?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Archibald Sinclair): I regret that I shall not be in a position to furnish the information required by my hon. Friend until the education authorities have finally determined their estimates of expenditure for the current year and have forwarded the usual returns to the Scottish Education Department.
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: When will that be?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: I think about the end of August.

    GAELIC.
    Lord SCONEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the county distribution of the 293 schools in which Gaelic was taught in 1930–31, together with the total number of those receiving instruction in that tongue?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: The distribution of the schools in which Gaelic was taught in 1930–31 was as follows:—Argyll, 84, Inverness 124, Ross and Cromarty 73, Sutherland 12. I regret that the information in the possession of the Department does not enable me to state the number of pupils receiving instruction in the language.
    Mr. HANNON: Is a specific grant made in Scotland for the teaching of Gaelic in elementary schools?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: No, Sir. It is quite in the ordinary course of education in some schools. Gaelic is only taught in schools where there are very large numbers of children whose only tongue is Gaelic.

    EDUCATIONAL CURRICULUM.
    Lord SCONEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the dissatisfaction throughout Scotland in regard to the results achieved by the present educational curriculum; and if he will consider the advisability of appointing a committee of investigation, which shall include representatives of trade and industry as well as of the learned professions?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: The evidence available from many sources does not support the statement in the first part of the question. For example, in 1928 Lord Salvesen's Committee on Education and Industry in Scotland reported favourably
    224
    on the character, physical condition and intellectual attainments of the children at the stage of leaving school. This independent and representative committee heard evidence from many persons and associations of the kind referred to in the second part of the question. Having regard to the terms of the report of the committee, which was so similar to what my Noble Friend has in mind, I do not think that the time is opportune for adopting his suggestion.

    ADULT EDUCATION.
    Mr. COWANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can state the amount of the grant from the Scottish Education Fund specifically allotted for the purposes of adult education in Scotland during each of the last three years; and what steps, if any, are now being taken to encourage adult education in Scotland?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: The grants from the Education (Scotland) Fund are paid in aid of the general expenditure of the education authorities, and no part of the grant to any authority is allotted specifically for the purpose of adult education. As to the second part of the question, classes for adults in the subjects of a liberal education are recognised under the Code of Regulations for Continuation Classes, and all proposals by education authorities for formation of these classes, in co-operation with voluntary bodies or otherwise, are sympathetically considered by the Department.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS (COMPENSATION FOR DISTURBANCE).
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland which county councils in Scotland have in their employment as county clerks officials who have received, or are at present receiving, compensation for loss of office under the Derating Act; and were the officials in question actually unemployed for any period between the termination of the office for loss of which they have been, or are being, compensated and the commencement of the present office for which they are receiving salary?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: I regret that I have no information on this subject as I have no jurisdiction in the matter of the appointment of county clerks, or as regards the terms on which they hold their appointments.

    TEST WORK, MONTROSE.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is in a position to make any statement as to his negotiations with the county council of Angus regarding test work at Montrose?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I am informed that this matter was considered by the public assistance committee of the county council of Angus at a meeting held yesterday, when the committee instructed the county clerk to report to the Department of Health for Scotland that there is no test work in Montrose and that no one is required to work as a condition of getting relief.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: If any case happens in the future where work is made a condition of relief, will the hon. Gentleman take steps in the matter?
    Mr. SKELTON: It is, of course, quite illegal in Scotland to make work a condition of relief, but I am bound to say that inquiries have not shown that any case of that sort has occurred at Montrose.

    FISHING INDUSTRY.
    Captain McEWENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any steps have yet been taken, in so far as the Scottish fishing industry is concerned, to give effect to the recommendations of the Economic Advisory Committee's Report?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: The Report of the Economic Advisory Council's Committee on the Fishing Industry is under consideration by the Ministers concerned, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement.
    Captain McEWEN: In view of the great interest with which the Report was awaited by Scottish fishermen in general, would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to get some undertaking chat action can be expedited?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Yes, that is my intention, I can assure the hon. and gallant Member.
    Mr. LAWasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that in April and May, 1932, out of 161 voyages of Iceland trawlers, sailing from Hull, 59 of
    226
    such voyages left their respective skippers and mates in debt, although the fish landed for those 59 voyages totalled 67,800 cwts.; that during the same period, out of 71 voyages of North Sea trawlers outward from Hull, 44 left the skippers and mates in debt, although the fish landed for those voyages totalled 9,160 cwts.; and whether he will consider the desirability of collecting further facts and figures of this nature for submission to the Tariff Advisory Committee with the object of increasing the existing tariff on foreign-caught fresh fish?
    Captain Sir GEORGE BOWYER (Assistant Whip): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend has been informed of the facts stated in the first part of the question. With regard to the last part, the Import Duties Advisory Committee have given public notice that they have before them an application by the British Trawlers' Federation for additional duties on foreign-caught fresh fish, and it is for the industry to furnish the Committee with any further information in support of the application.

    ROYAL SEAMEN'S PENSION FUND.
    Sir J. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, with regard to the proposed new scheme for payment of pensions to seamen and fishermen under the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund, he can state what steps have been taken to safeguard the interests of Scottish applicants for pensions; and whether he will be prepared to receive representations from Scottish Members of Parliament interested in the matter regarding the provisions contained in the new scheme?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: I presume that in his reference to Scottish applicants for pensions my hon. and learned Friend has the interests of Scottish fishermen particularly in view. I have had an opportunity of considering the proposed new scheme in its bearing on the interests of fishermen, and my views have been represented to the Board of Trade. The subject is also on the agenda of a meeting of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee which is being held to-day. As regards the last part of the question, I shall be very glad to consider any representations which Scottish Members may wish to send me on this subject.
    Sir J. DUNCAN MILLAR: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to receive a deputation of Scottish Members interested in this matter to put their views before him?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Certainly, I should be very glad to receive a deputation, but I think it would be helpful if views could be sent in, because a number of Departments are concerned, and it would be necessary that those views should be before the Board.
    Sir J. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Minister of Health if he can state separately the number of pensions awarded to seamen and fishermen, respectively, from the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund during the present year?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): I am informed by the Governing Body of the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund that during the present year they have awarded 431 pensions to seamen and 28 to fishermen.
    Sir J. DUNCAN MILLAR: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the governing body of the fund have suspended the operation of the scheme mainly so far as the fishermen are concerned, until the whole scheme has been readjusted; and is there any justification for withholding pensions from those who have qualified under the old scheme?
    Mr. BROWN: I should like notice of the first part of the question. With regard to the second part, amendments of the scheme whereby the fishermen will be placed in a more favourable position than they have been recently, are at this moment under the consideration of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, in consultation with the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour. If my hon. and learned Friend has any facts relating to this question which he would like to place before us, we shall be glad to receive them.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    WELFARE LEVY, DURHAM.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Secretary for Mines the total amount raised by the welfare levy in the County of Durham; and whether he can also state separately the amounts spent or about
    228
    to be spent on pit-head baths, welfare halls, recreation grounds, and other purposes?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Isaac Foot): As the reply is rather long and contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The total amount of Output Welfare Levy collected from the Durham District up to 30th June, 1932, was £1,468,268. Of this sum four-fifths, with certain interest earned, together amounting to £1,240,102, has in accordance with the Act been credited to the Durham District Fund.
    The allocations made from the Durham District Fund up to 30th June last are as follow:

    £

    Pithead baths, including canteens

    16,053

    Recreation, indoor and outdoor

    650,928

    Health

    464,321

    Other purposes

    8,994

    Total

    £1,140,296

    One-fifth of the Output Welfare Levy, namely, £293,653, has been credited to the General Welfare Fund, which provides mainly for research and education. In addition, a sum of approximately £109,000 has been collected as Royalties Welfare Levy in respect of minerals raised in Durham. This sum has been credited to the Pithead Baths Fund, which is made up of the receipts from the Royalties Welfare Levy, together with certain contributions from the General Welfare Fund and interest on Welfare Fund investments which the Miners' Welfare Committee have allocated to the Pithead Baths Fund. From the Pithead Baths Fund allocations amounting to £283,795 have been made for pithead baths in Durham.

    ITALY (ORDERS).
    Mr. GEORGE HALLasked the Secretary for Mines whether following upon the inquiries made by His Majesty's Ambassador at Rome, any arrangement has now been made to place the remaining orders for the supply of coal from this country to complete the undertaking in the Hague protocol?
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: No, Sir, inquiries are still in progress.

    CLOSED MINES, SOUTH WALES.
    Mr. G. HALLasked the Secretary for Mines the number of coal mines which have been closed in South Wales since 1st October, 1931; where those mines are situated; and the number of miners thrown out of employment?
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Since 1st October, 1931, 68 pits in South Wales and Monmouthshire, employing 13,100 wage-earners have been closed and not reopened. Of these, 35 were small pits employing less than 20 men each and tin the aggregate only 217 men. I will send to the hon. Member a list of the other pits showing their situation. The net reduction in employment in South Wales and Monmouthshire over the period in question was 6,200.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: Are these the benefits of Import Duties?
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: Why does the hon. Gentleman propose to send the list only to my hon. Friend. It would be interesting to many of us.
    Mr. FOOT: It is a very long statement, containing a large number of pits. I will send the list if there is a general desire for it.

    COLLOIDAL FUEL.
    Mr. McKEAGasked the Secretary for Mines if he can give any estimate of the number of miners for whom work would be found if colloidal fuel, instead of oil only, were used by British naval vessels?
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The work on the use of colloidal fuel is still in an experimental stage, and until further experience is obtained it is not practicable to indicate what degree of success will ultimately be achieved or what are likely to be the proportions of coal and oil in the fuel which might be adopted for particular purposes. Consequently I am unable to give the estimate for which my hon. Friend asks.

    LOW-TEMPERATURE CARBONISATION AND HYDROGENATION.
    Mr. McKEAGasked the Secretary for Mines if he will, at an early date, make a statement as to the results of research in regard to the low-temperature
    230
    carbonisation and hydrogenation processes of dealing with coal?
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: As was stated by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council on the 23rd September last in reply to a question by the former Member for Pontefract (Mr. T. Smith), the Government decided to continue with the scheme which had been adopted by the previous Government for research into low-temperature carbonisation and hydrogenation, but in a somewhat modified form. The plant then decided upon is still in course of erection.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    MINES DEPARTMENT (STATIONERY AND PRINTING).
    Mr. DINGLE FOOTasked the Secretary for Mines what is the annual expenditure by his Department on stationery and printing; and whether he is satisfied that all reasonable economies are being made in this direction?
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: For the current year the expenditure is estimated at £6,000. My hon. Friend will find that the information is published annually in Appendix B to the Estimates of His Majesty's Stationery Office. Every effort is made by my Department in consultation with the Stationery Office to effect all reasonable economies.
    Mr. DINGLE FOOT: Is my hon. Friend aware that the words "Cromwell House" have been printed at the head of his Department's notepaper, and is not this quite unnecessary and a gross waste of public money?
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: It is true that the words have been restored to the paper of the Department, but there is no expense on public funds, and, if there had been, I think it would have been an expenditure amply justified.
    Mr. DINGLE FOOT: Will my hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he has not surreptitiously made away with some of the old notepaper for the satisfaction of using the new?
    Mr. O'CONNOR: May I ask whether the agreement to differ has now extended to the family?

    TAX OFFICE, STRATFORD (WOMEN CLEANERS).
    Mr. GROVESasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if his Department has yet made any changes in the working conditions of the women cleaners engaged at the Deanery Road, Stratford, Inland Revenue section, who are paid 12s. for 28½ hours in early morning and late evening shifts; and whether these women are insured under the National Health Contributory Insurance Scheme?
    Major ELLIOT: The cleaning of the offices at Deanery Road, Stratford, is done under contract and the women cleaners are in the employ of the contractor. In point of fact notice to determine the contract is being given. I am making inquiry into the question of National Health Insurance.
    Mr. GROVES: I put a question down for written reply three weeks ago and got no reply, but since this oral question has been on the Paper these women have received a shilling per week increase. As the amount is still inadequate, will the right hon. Gentleman make further investigations and see that fair wages are paid?
    Major ELLIOT: No. As I have said the cleaners are in the employment of a contractor. The Department has made no increase. As to further action, notice of the determination of the contract has been given.
    Mr. GROVES: The officers of the right hon. Gentleman's Department made inquiry, and, following that inquiry, the women got an increase of a shilling a week. As this leaves these women still badly underpaid, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange that any new contract guarantees the payment of adequate wages?
    Major ELLIOT: As I have stated, the women are in the employment of a contractor and notice to determine the contract has been given. It would be impossible to go further than that.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: As this contract is being determined, will the Department see that in any new contract with any other firm, or if the Department takes the work under its direct control, fair wages are given?
    Major ELLIOT: I do not think that arises out of the question.

    STATIONERY OFFICE.
    Mr. JAMES DUNCANasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the pending retirement of the director of the printing and binding division of the Stationery Office, he will leave unfilled this position, as there will still be one deputy director and two assistant directors to do the director's work, thus saving about £940 a year?
    Major ELLIOT: I am satisfied that it would conduce neither to efficiency nor to economy to leave unfilled the position of director of the printing and binding division of the Stationery Office. The possibility of reducing the total number of divisions, and, in consequence, of directors, as suggested by the Select Committee on Estimates, is already under consideration.
    Mr. HANNON: Is not the Stationery Office flooded with directors? Is it not possible to make some reduction of the immense staff employed by this branch of the public service?
    Major ELLIOT: In the latter part of my answer, I have said that the possibility of reducing the total number of directors is under consideration.
    Mr. HANNON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Stationery Office there are 18 directors and 18 deputy directors in charge of various departments?
    Mr. GROVES: In view of the fact that these directors have recently performed miracles in connection with the Conversion Loan, would it be right to sack them?

  IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

    IMPORT BOARDS.
    Mr. COCKSasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the question of setting up import boards in this country for the purchase in bulk of Dominion-grown wheat, meat, wool, and other Empire products will be discussed at the Ottawa Conference?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): As I explained in my reply on

    233
    the 23rd of February to the hon. Members for Colchester (Mr. O. Lewis) and Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom would not seek to exclude beforehand any proposal which may be made. They do not, however, propose to initiate discussion of the question of setting up import boards in this country.

    AGENDA.
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can now indicate what are the principal items on the agenda of the Ottawa Conference?
    Mr. THOMAS: His Majesty's Government in Canada are still in consultation with the other Governments in regard to the agenda, and in the circumstances it is not possible for me to make a statement on the subject at present.

    EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD'S REPORT.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will circulate to the various delegations to the Ottawa Conference the report of the Empire Marketing Board, which has just been published?
    Mr. THOMAS: Arrangements are being made for a supply of copies of the report of the Empire Marketing Board to be available for the use of the various delegations at the Ottawa Conference.
    Mr. HANNON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great value of this report in view of the forthcoming Conference at Ottawa, and will he emphasise the importance of giving it a careful study?
    Mr. THOMAS: The very fact that I am Chairman of the Committee, that it is my report, is the best guarantee.

  SOUTH AFRICA.

    AIR MAIL CONTRACT.
    Mr. JOELasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in view of the fact that a representative of the Air Ministry is to proceed to Ottawa for a short period whilst the Conference is in session, in order to provide expert advice on any air questions which may arise, he will consider the desirability of suggesting to the South African Government that no decision should be taken
    234
    with regard to the allocation of an airmail contract for internal air communications in that Dominion until an opportunity at Ottawa for discussion of the principles involved has occurred?
    Mr. THOMAS: I shall, of course, be ready to discuss the matter to which the hon. Member refers during the course of the forthcoming Conference at Ottawa, if opportunity should arise. But the matter is solely one for the decision of the Union Government and I would, in this connection, draw the hon. Member's attention to the second part of the reply which I gave to him on the 29th of June.

    STEAMSHIP SERVICES (COMPETITION).
    Major MILLS (for Sir CHARLES BARRIE)asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (1) if he is aware that the South African Government-owned steamers are competing in a rate war with other British established lines trading from the East Indies and the Far East to the Cape ports; and if the question of Government-owned steamers competing with privately-owned steamers will be raised at the Ottawa Conference;
    (2) if he has any information as to the result of the operations of the vessels owned by the South African Government for the years [930–31 and 1931–32?
    Mr. THOMAS: A few steamers owned by His Majesty's Government in the Union of South Africa are running in competition with privately-owned lines trading from the East Indies and the Far East to South African ports. Information as to the results of the operation of these vessels is set out in the report of the General Manager of Railways and Harbours of the Union of South Africa for the year ended 31st March, 1931, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. The report for the following year is not yet available. As has been explained, the Agenda of the Ottawa Conference is still under discussion, but I have no reason to think that this question will come up.
    Major MILLS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether losses or profits made by these vessels are debited or credited to the South African Government Railway Fund?
    Mr. THOMAS: I have not the least idea.

    GRAND OPERA (GOVERNMENT GRANT).
    Mr. COCKSasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the financial stringency and of the fact that the agreement between the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Covent Garden Opera Syndicate can be terminated on 31st December, 1932, at the option of either party, he will approach the British Broadcasting Corporation with a view to securing the termination of the agreement at the end of the year?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Graham White): The agreement between the Post Office and the British Broadcasting Corporation gives no power to the Postmaster-General to call upon the Corporation to terminate its agreement with the Opera Syndicate at the end of the present year. The agreement between the Post Office and the Corporation duly laid before Parliament in June, 1931, was for a period of five years as therein provided.
    Mr. COCKS: As this agreement can be terminated, cannot the Government exercise their persuasive powers with the British Broadcasting Corporation to end this corrupt business
    Mr. WHITE: I hardly think flat I can add anything useful to the replies which my right hon. Friend has given to questions on this subject.

    POSTAL ORDERS (POUNDAGE).
    Sir WILFRID SUGDENasked the Postmaster-General the number of sixpenny and one shilling postal orders issued by him from 6th April, 1931, to 6th April, 1932, and the total amount of stamp duty obtained by him there for from the public?
    Mr. WHITE: The figures for the year ending the 6th April are not available. Those for the year ended the 31st March, 1932, are as follow:

    Number.

    Poundage.

    6d. postal orders

    33,992,669

    £141,615

    1s. postal orders

    21,158,854

    £88,125

    These figures include the orders issued in the Dominions and Colonies and also 4,998 sixpenny and 8,772 one shilling orders issued by the Admiralty on His Majesty's ships, free of poundage.
    Sir W. SUGDEN: In view of the small amount used, and in view of the people who use them, will the Department consider a reduction of the poundage on these small orders?
    Mr. WHITE: I will take note of the hon. Member's remarks.

  EDUCATION.

    EXPENDITURE.
    Mr. POTTERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the average annual over-all cost per elementary pupil in schools under public control in England and Wales for the year 1913, and for the nearest available 12 months, 1930–31; and will he give the percentage increase of the three principal items of expenditure which have caused the rise in the annual charge on public funds for elementary education?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herwald Ramsbotham): The total cost per child to public funds of elementary education was £13 2s. 6d. in 1930–31, as compared with £4 15s. 2d. in 1913–14, being an increase of £8 7s. 4d. The three principal items which caused this increase are teachers' salaries, where the increased cost is £5 10s. 11d. per child, or 181 per cent.; miscellaneous expenditure (principally on the upkeep and equipment of schools), where the increase is £1 5s. 5d. per child, or 171 per cent.; and special services (i.e., school medical service, schools for defective children, etc.), where the increase is 13s. per child, or 390 per cent.

    ADULT EDUCATION (GOVERNMENT GRANT).
    Mr. COWANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the amount of Treasury grant specifically devoted to the purposes of adult education in England and Wales during each of the last three years?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The specific grants paid by the Board of Education under their Adult Education Regulations during the last three years were as follow:

    £

    1929–30

    …

    …

    …

    54,610

    1930–31

    …

    …

    …

    60,453

    1931–32

    …

    …

    …

    68,404

    Courses in adult education are also conducted by a number of local education authorities as part of their provision for further education, and the expenditure thereon attracts Exchequer grant at the rate of 50 per cent., but the cost of such courses cannot be stated separately from the rest of the authorities' expenditure on further education.

    DAN GE ROUS DRUGS.
    Sir W. SUGDENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he is aware that there is at the present time in the West-end of London more open selling of cocaine and similar drugs than at any period since the War, and that the greater part is supplied through chemists who carry on a normal business; and whether he can make a statement on the matter?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME.DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): No, Sir. All the evidence is to the contrary.
    Sir W. SUGDEN: Is it not the fact that these supplies are coming through continental chemists?
    Mr. STANLEY: No, Sir.
    Sir W. SUGDEN: If the Home Office have knowledge that they are not coming through continental sources, will the Under-Secretary say through what sources they are coming?
    Mr. STANLEY: I have just said that all the evidence is to the contrary.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS - MORGAN (for Mr. JOHN)asked the Home Secretary if he has any information as to whether the reduction of preventive personnel due to measures of economy has resulted in any increase in the smuggling of dangerous drugs?
    Mr. STANLEY: There has been no decrease recently in the preventive staff, and, so far as is known, no increase in the smuggling of dangerous drugs.

    EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will form a committee of the chairmen of the prin-
    238
    cipal joint and stock banks to advise as to the use of the Exchange Equalisation Account, or whether he proposes to act on the advice of the Bank of England?
    Major ELLIOT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and to the second part in the affirmative. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepts, of course, full responsibility.

    INTER-ALLIED DEBTS (REPAYMENTS).
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount loaned for war purposes by Great Britain to allies for war purposes; what has been the aggregate repayment to date; what amount was loaned by America to Great Britain; the aggregate repayment to date; and what would be the amount in sterling at current rates necessary to pay the next instalment?
    Major ELLIOT: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    Exclusive of the sum of £327,000,000 lent to the Dominions, the loans by Great Britain to her allies for war purposes amounted to £1,324,000,000. The advances by the United States of America to Great Britain were £878,000,000. These are in all cases the original capital sums. After allowing for interest and other adjustments, and the fact that the Belgian war debts to the allied Governments were charged on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles, the amounts of these loans as at the date of funding (or in the case of Russia as at 31st March, 1932) were:

    £

    Loans by Great Britain to allied Governments

    2,312,000,000

    Loans by the United States to Great Britain

    945,000,000

    The aggregate repayments to date under the Funding Agreements are:

    £

    Loans by Great Britain to allied Governments

    71,000,000

    Loans by United States to Great Britain

    278,000,000

    Sterling equivalents of United States dollars are given at par in all cases. The

    239
    advances to Russia, which of course were never funded, amount to £1,066,480,000, including interest at 5 per cent. to 31st March, 1932.

    FIVE PER CENT. WAR LOAN (CONVERSION).
    Mr. O'CONNORasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the main burden of the loss of income attendant on the scheme for the conversion of the 5 per cent. War Loan will fall upon the direct taxpayer, he is in a position to give an assurance that the resultant saving to the Exchequer shall be applied in reduction of the burden of direct taxation?
    Major ELLIOT: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer regrets that he cannot give definite pledges so far in advance of next year's Budget.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: Is the Financial Secretary aware that a great deal of anxiety has been caused by the speech of the Lord Privy Seal in another place, and will he take an early opportunity to give an assurance on behalf of the Government that the case of the direct taxpayer is going to be favourably considered at an early date?
    Major ELLIOT: As far as I remember, the Lord Privy Seal said that it was most desirable that direct taxation, including Income Tax, should be reduced.

    ST. MARY'S STEAMSHIP COMPANY.
    Mr. GROVESasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, since the Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) has called attention to the affairs of the St. Mary's Steamship Company, Cardiff, in this House, the company have taken steps to place upon the market for sale some of their ships; and whether the financial proceeds of any such transaction will be held by the Treasury as subject to Income Tax payment as a contribution to the £36,000 due to the Treasury?
    Major ELLIOT: I am not aware of the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member. In any case, as I informed him on the 26th of May last, and again on the 27th of June, the taxation liabilities of the company in question have been settled.
    Mr. GROVES: Now that the right hon. and gallant Member is aware of all the circumstances, does he propose to take any action?
    Major ELLIOT: I am not going to open again a settlement which has been reached.
    Mr. GROVES: Is the right hon. and gallant Member aware that this indebtedness of £36,000 has been settled for £3,600, and in view of the loss to the taxpayer will he now make fresh inquiries and take action for the recovery of these amounts?
    Major ELLIOT: As I have given this information twice already this Session I am aware of it.
    Mr. GROVES: Is the right hon. and gallant Member also aware that all his replies have given me no information whatever?

    EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT.
    Sir C. CAYZERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the objects for which, and methods by which, the £150,000,000 authorised by Section 24 of the Finance Act, 1932, is to be re-lent to the Exchequer unless and until it is required by the Equalisation Account?
    Major ELLIOT: Any balance on a Government account which is surplus to requirements for the time being is re-lent to the Exchequer on Treasury Bills or Ways and Means Advances. The object is to avoid unnecessary borrowing from the market by the Exchequer while idle balances are held elsewhere.

    CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when it is estimated that the contributions by State, employers, and workpeople under the Contributory Pensions Act will provide sufficient funds to pay the cost of all old age pensions after 70; and whether recent events have led to any retardation in the actuary's estimate of the date?
    Major ELLIOT: The general relation of contributions to pensions is fully set out in the report by the Government Actuary on the Financial Provisions of the original Bill (Command Paper 2406 of 1925), in particular in paragraph 11 of that report. Sufficient experience of the

    241
    working of the Acts has not yet been accumulated to enable any modification of the estimates contained under this head to be made. I would remind the hon. Member that under the Contributory Pensions Act, the State does not pay contributions as such—it meets (on a graded basis) the excess of expenditure on benefits under age 70 and administration over the receipts from the contributions of employers and employed. It also meets the whole cost of old age pensions after 70.

    CIVIL SERVICE REMUNERATION.
    Sir ASSHETON POWNALLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is yet in a position to announce the decision of the Government with regard to the consolidation of pay of the Civil Service?
    Major ELLIOT: A settlement has now been reached on this subject on a committee of the Civil Service National Whitley Council, subject to formal ratification by the Council at its meeting on Thursday. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of the Memorandum embodying the settlement.
    Sir A. POWNALL: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is based substantially on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service?
    Major ELLIOT: I think it is true to say that it will be substantially based on those recommendations, but my hon. Friend will see the settlement set forth in detail in the table which I am circulating.
    Following is tire Memorandum:

  CIVIL SERVICE NATIONAL WHITLEY COUNCIL.

    Memorandum on Civil Service Remuneration.
    The Government adhere to the decision to terminate the system under which Civil Service remuneration varies automatically with changes in the cost of living figure and to apply instead the principle of consolidated remuneration which will he subject to consideration in the light of any substantial changes upwards or downwards in the level of remuneration outside the Civil Service, but having regard to the representations of the Staff Side of the National Council consolidation will be deferred until the 1st April, 1934.
    In view of this decision it is agreed
    The Official Side of the National Council place on record that the foregoing arrangements must be regarded as subject at all stages to the overriding consideration of the national financial position.

    BLIND PERSONS (PENSIONS).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the pension of l0s. a week now paid to blind persons at the age of 50 prior to the qualification for the additional pension of 10s. on the ground of old age at 65 is stopped at the age of 70; whether consideration has been given to the question of continuing the payment of the full 20s. after the age of 70; and, if so, what decision has been reached
    Major ELLIOT: I am aware that under the existing law one of the pensions in the class of case referred to by the hon. Member must cease when the pensioner attains the age of 70. The matter has been carefully considered under this and previous administrations, but I cannot hold out any hope of legislation to provide for continuance of the two pensions after that age has been reached.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the whole question of blind persons, since in the nature of things ten shillings is a very small sum for those who must have special attendance?
    Major ELLIOT: I agree that that is so, but all these matters must be reviewed subject to the financial condition of the country at the present time.

    PRISONERS BY DEFAULT (COST).
    Captain CAZALETasked the Home Secretary what was the approximate total amount of expenditure incurred during 1930, both in administrative costs and in maintenance, of persons committed to prison in default of payment of Income Tax, rates and taxes, civil debts and maintenance and bastardy orders?
    Mr. STANLEY: The approximate charge on the Prison Vote during 1930 in respect of this class of prisoner is estimated at £38,480.
    Captain CAZALETasked the Home Secretary how many persons were committed to prison in 1930 in default of payment of fines; what was the total amount of fines involved in these cases; and what was the approximate cost of their imprisonment?
    Mr. STANLEY: The number of persons committed to prison in default of payment of fines in 1930 was 12,497; and the approximate charge on the Prison Vote during that year in respect of this class of prisoner is estimated at £19,370. The information required by the second part of the question could not be obtained without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour.
    Captain CAZALET: Does my hon. Friend contemplate taking any measures by which this expenditure by the State might be decreased?
    Mr. STANLEY: We are always thinking of any ways of decreasing the expenditure of the State, and we lose no opportunity of reducing the cost per day per head of prisoners.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the Under-Secretary satisfied that such prisoners as are convicted are given ample time to pay by instalments when they cannot pay a full fine at once?
    Mr. STANLEY: Yes, Sir.

    CONVICTION (LEONARD DUMPER).
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULTasked the Home Secretary whether he will reconsider the case of Leonard Dumper, about which he has already received information; and, in view of this man's previous exemplary character and to the conviction being his first offence, he will remit the sentence of two months' hard labour imposed by the court, from which Dumper through ignorance did not appeal?
    Mr. STANLEY: My right hon. Friend regrets that he is unable to reconsider the decision which be has already communicated to my hon. Friend. I may add that full information as to appeals is contained on all cell cards.
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: Does my hon. Friend not think that in view of the fact that this man was genuinely in search of employment and probably had no idea of the magnitude of the offence with which be was charged, the sentence of two months is very excessive?
    Mr. STANLEY: I repeat that the case has been fully considered by my right hon. Friend, who feels that, in view of all the circumstances, he can take no action in the matter.

    AIR ROUTE (PERSIA).
    Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air who is conducting the negotiations with the sheikhs on the Trucial Coast, in the Persian Gulf, for an air station, with landing places and rest houses; what will be the cost of the transfer from the Persian to the Arabian side of the gulf; and what is the reason for the proposed change?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): I have been asked to reply to this question. The negotiations are being conducted by the Political Resident in the Persian Gulf, and the capital cost of the transfer is, roughly, estimated at £9,750. As regards the last part of the question, the decision of His Majesty's Government to transfer the air route to the Arabian coast has been taken as a result of a detailed examination of the whole question, which has shown that the Arabian route possesses certain important practical advantages.

    BURMA (CONSTITUTION).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for India what procedure the Government proposes to adopt with regard to the setting up of a constitution for Burma?
    Sir VICTOR WARRENDER (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. His Majesty's Government have given careful consideration to this matter; but until the people of Burma have indicated that they desire separation from India and that. a separate constitution will in fact be required for Burma, it would be premature to make any statement as to the procedure which would be followed in that event.
    Mr. MANDER: Is it not intended to deal with the Burma Constitution simultaneously with the Constitution for India as a whole?
    Mr. HANNON: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of sending my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) to Burma?

    FINNISH GOVERNMENT (CLAIM).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to state the present position of the negotiations with regard to the claim of the Finnish Government against the British Government concerning Finnish vessels used by the latter during the War?
    Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir. In accordance with the recommendations of the Council of the League of Nations in January last, His Majesty's Government agreed with the Finnish Government in May to arbitrate the preliminary question whether the Finnish shipowners did or did not exhaust the means of recourse placed at their disposal by British law. Discussions are now proceeding regarding the choice of a suitable arbitrator.

  TRANSPORT.

    RAILWAYS (RECEIPTS AND WORKING EXPENSES).
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Minister of Transport if he can give the House the approximate figures of the total receipts of the railways in Great
    246
    Britain in 1913 and the latest available period; and also the total of their working expenses for each period?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): After adjustments of the 1913 figures necessary owing to changes in the method of compiling railway accounts, the gross receipts of the railways in Great Britain, including ancillary businesses, may be taken at approximately £135,000,000 in 1913 and £191,900,000 in 1931. The working expenses in 1913 were approximately £88,900,000 and in 1931 £158,300,000.
    Sir W. DAVISON: In view of the very startling figures which the hon. Gentleman has given, showing an increase in expenses from £88,000,000 to £158,000,000 in the period mentioned, can he say whether the parlous state of the railways is due to the great increase in working expenses, and not, as is often alleged, to motor transport on the roads?
    Mr. PYBUS: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the question of road and rail transport for goods is at present under inquiry, and he might await the result of that inquiry.
    Sir W. DAVISON: But I am asking the hon. Gentleman if the figures which he himself has given us do not show that, quite apart from the question of road transport, the railways are suffering by the increase in expenses?

    MAIN ROADS (FOOTPATHS).
    Mr. TURTONasked the Minister of Transport how many miles of footpaths are being constructed on main roads at the present time; and how many miles of such footpaths have been constructed since July, 1931?
    Mr. PYBUS: The information is not readily available and as a special return would involve expense I hope that in the interests of economy my hon. Friend will not press for it.
    Mr. TURTON: Will the Minister, when he next writes to the various local authorities, impress upon them the uneconomic nature of this expenditure?
    Mr. PYBUS: I would not be prepared to write to local authorities asking them not to proceed with pathways, if life was being endangered by reason of the fact that there were no pathways.

    TESTATORS (FAMILY MAINTENANCE).
    Sir W. SUGDENasked the Attorney-General if he will consider introducing legislation at an early date to deal with the maintenance of the family of a testator on the lines of Act No. 41, 1916, New South Wales, with suitable adaptations to English conditions?
    The ATTORNEY- GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): The Government cannot undertake to introduce legislation on this subject. If it is desired to test the feeling of the House, this can be done by means of a Private Member's Bill when opportunity offers.
    Sir W. SUGDEN: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the very great hardships which obtain in this country by reason of the inadequacy of the law in respect to wills, on this matter?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have no doubt that hardships would exist under any system of law.

    KURDISTAN.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the nature of the agreement under which Kurdistan was promised autonomy in 1924; and what is the present position of that country?
    Mr. EDEN: I have no knowledge of the alleged agreement. The Kurds are not united in a geographical or political unit, but are distributed among four countries, namely, Turkey, Persia, Iraq and Syria.

    CHINA (MARITIME CUSTOMS).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action has been taken regarding the seizure of the Dairen customs by Manchukuo; and whether steps will be taken for the preservation of any part of the customs which are security for debts?
    Mr. EDEN: The Dairen customs have not been seized by Manchukuo. After the dismissal of the Japanese Commissioner of Customs for refusing to remit the revenue to Shanghai, the Japanese staff resigned and handed over the Dairen customs to Manchukuo. Through the intermediary of the Japanese and British Legations, the Chinese authorities have been informed of the terms of an arrange-
    248
    ment providing for a Manchurian quota for the foreign obligations secured on the Chinese customs revenues and for the maintenance of the integrity of the Customs Administration, to which the Manchurian authorities might be persuaded to agree. It is still uncertain what attitude the Chinese Government will adopt. His Majesty's Government will continue to work for the security of the loans and the integrity of the Customs Service by such means as are open to them and are proper in the circumstances.

    JERUSALEM (WATER SUPPLY).
    Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many houses in Jerusalem are without direct water supply for washing and/or drinking; what immediate action is being taken to deal with the present shortage of water in the town; and when it is anticipated that the municipality will be able to furnish the town with an adequate water supply?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have no information as to the number of houses in Jerusalem without direct water supply. I understand that, in view of the present shortage, steps have been taken to ration the inhabitants. A comprehensive scheme for the provision of an enlarged supply from a new source, to be undertaken by the Government of Palestine in co-operation with the municipality, is at present under active examination, both in its technical and in its financial aspects. It is estimated that it will take two years to complete the scheme.

    PITCHBLENDE DEPOSITS, CANADA.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN (for Mr. JOHN)asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he can furnish the House with any information as to the action taken to develop the recently discovered pitchblende (radium ore) on the Great Bear Lake, North-West Territory, Canada?
    Mr. THOMAS: I understand that the deposits in question are being actively developed, and I am sending to the hon. Member the information on the subject which has been supplied to me from the Office of the High Commissioner for Canada.

    IRISH FREE STATE (FINANCIAL RELATIONS).
    Colonel GRETTON (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he can state the amount of the annual payments which are disputed by the Irish Free State Government, for how many years those payments are due to be made, and the approximate value of the capital debt which they represent?
    Mr. THOMAS: I have prepared a statement in tabular form, and, with my right hon. and gallant Friend's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Colonel GRETTON: Cannot the House be furnished with some general informa-

    Item.

    Annual Payment.

    Number of Years to run.

    Approximate Capital Value.

    Land Purchase Annuities.

    £2,960,000

    The Land Purchase Acts do not specify the periods of payment of the Annuities, which depend on the rates at which the Sinking Fund Payments accumulate. The average annuity would run for between 60 and 70 years from the date of the corresponding advance, which would have been made at any time between 1891 and 1923.

    The total amount of advances outstanding in the Irish Free State, of which these annuities are in repayment, was about £89,500,000. Against this Sinking Fund payments have accumulated to approximately £13,500,000.

    Excess Stock and Bonus Stock Annuity.

    £134,500

    The period will correspond to that of the payment of the Land Annuities (see above).

    The annuity represents about 12 per cent. of the service of the Excess Stock and Bonus Stock (about £30,000,000) attributable to the Irish Free State.

    Local Loans Fund

    £600,000

    20 years from 1926

    Loans outstanding in the Irish Free State on 31st Feb., 1926, were £10,343,000.

    Works Annuities: (1) Telegraph Acts

    £15,850 (diminishing to £1,000 in 1937).

    Until 1942

    The capital debt on 1st April, 1922, was £281,000, of which about £60,000 is still outstanding.

    (2) Public Offices Site (Dublin) Act, 1903.

    £13,200

    Until 1933

    The original capital advanced was £225,000, and will be completely repaid by the final payment in 1933.

    (3) Railways (Ireland) Act, (diminishing). 1896, and Marine Works (Ireland) Act, 1902.

    £6,080 (diminisbing).

    Until 1950

    The original capital advanced was £552,000, of which £28,108 4s. 4d. is outstanding.

    Note.—It is not possible to give corresponding particulars of the duration of the payments in respect of Judicial, Civil and Royal Irish Constabulary pensions, which depend on the survival of the pensioners. The annual payments, which are of course diminishing, are at present £1,117,000 in respect of R.I.C. pensions and £155,000 in respect of Judicial and Civil Pensions.

    250
    tion, in view of the fact that we are proceeding with the Report stage of the Resolution taken in the Committee last night?
    Mr. THOMAS: The question was put as a result of the arrangement which I made with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) yesterday. It was at the Government's desire—that is why they arranged the question—and the object was that the information should be in the possession of the House to-morrow. It is a very long document, and in the end I do not think hon. Members would be wiser till they had read it.
    Following is the statement:

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LANSBURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council tell us what the business will be for the rest of the week, and also how far he proposes to go to-night?
The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): With regard to the business to-day, there is a Motion on the Paper, standing in my name, to allow, contrary to Standing Order No. 15, business other than the business of Supply to be taken before Eleven o'Clock in the event of the Department of Mines Vote being agreed to before that time, and, in addition to Supply, the Government desire to obtain Order No. 2, which is the Report stage of the Ways and Means Resolution, the Committee stage of which was finished at an early hour this morning, and the two Motions standing in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer concerning Orders Nos. 2 and 3 made under the Import Duties Act, 1932. All these Orders are exempted business. The Government would like, if possible, to obtain Orders Nos. 3 and 4, namely, the Second Reading of the Malta Constitution Bill and the Second Reading of the Extradition Bill, both from another place. The Eleven o'Clock Rule is being suspended for the purpose of those two Orders, which are not exempted business.
With regard to the rest of the week, to-morrow (Wednesday) Supply, Committee (19th allotted day), Home Office Vote, and the Second Reading of the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Bill.
Thursday: Supply, Report (20th allotted day), Ministry of Transport Vote, and the Committee stage of the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Bill.
Friday: Irish Free State (Special Duties) Bill, remaining stages.
Normally the outstanding Votes in Committee and on Report would be put from the Chair at Ten o'clock to-morrow (Wednesday) and on Thursday, but in order to meet the convenience of the House, the Government propose to table Motions to-morrow and on Thursday to enable the Chairman of Committees and Mr. Speaker, in the event of the Votes selected for discussion being disposed of, to put the Questions in respect of outstanding Supply Votes before Ten o'clock.
252
May I remind the House, for the benefit of those who were not in the previous Parliament, that a similar Motion was put down in 1930 and 1931, the reason being that if by any chance the Supply Vote comes to an end early—it is entirely in the hands of the House, and there is no question of trying to suppress debate —the Guillotine does not fall under the Standing Orders till Ten o'clock, and therefore, under the Rules of the House, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker, whichever it be, in Committee or on the Report stage, has to put every one of the Votes singly, and they have all to be read out. There are 152 of them, and it is, therefore, a very great strain on all concerned, so that that Motion is being moved just to cover that contingency. It happened in 1929 and came as a surprise, and it was found very awkward, so that a Motion was put down by the last Government in 1930 and again in 1931, and we shall put it down to-morrow.
During the week the Government hope to make progress with the Malta Constitution Bill and the Extradition Bill, and with other outstanding business.
Mr. LANSBURY: On the last two Bills, the Malta Constitution Bill and the Extradition Bill, I think that in all probability we shall be able to agree about those—at least, the Second Reading—but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman not to ask us to sit too late to-night. I do not know what discussion there will be on the Report stage of the Money Resolution that was taken yesterday. So far as we are concerned, we propose to continue further discussion on the Second Reading and Committee stages of that Bill, and we hope very much that that would be agreed to, but with regard to the Second Reading and the Committee stages of the Irish Bill, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will, in the usual way, do his best to give us fair time to-morrow night and on Thursday to deal with those very important matters. If we were stronger, we might try to take other measures, but we all know the position that both our hon. Friends below the Gangway and ourselves are in, and we have fallen in with this arrangement, but that can only succeed if all the Members of the House help us.
Mr. BALDWIN: I quite agree. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman, I recognise the reasonableness of the case which he has put. We have no desire to

253
take advantage of the very large majority which we have, and I am sure that satisfactory arrangements can be come to by consultation through the usual channels. The length of our sittings depends upon how far Supply runs and so forth, but we have no desire to sit up unduly late to-night or to-morrow night.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the Clock, and that the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
The House divided: Ayes, 298; Noes, 40.

Division No. 279.]

AYES.

[3.51 p.m.

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

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

Denville, Alfred

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Dickie, John P.

Hunter. Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

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

Donner, P. W.

Hurd, Sir Percy

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

Dower, Captain A. V. G.

Hurst, sir Gerald B.

Atholl, Duchess of

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

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

Balley, Eric Alfred George

Duggan, Hubert John

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

Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

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

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Dunglass, Lord

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

Eady, George H.

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Eden, Robert Anthony

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

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

Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Ker, J. Campbell

Belt, Sir Alfred L.

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Kimball, Lawrence

Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Blaker, Sir Reginald

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

Law, Sir Alfred

Bossom, A. C.

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

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

Boulton, W. W.

Falle Sir Bertram G.

Leckie, J. A.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Fermoy, Lord

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

Lees-Jones, John

Bowyer. Capt. Sir George E. W.

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

Fraser, Captain Ian

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Braithwaite,.J. G. (Hillsborough)

Fremantle, Sir Francis

Levy, Thomas

Broadbent, Colonel John

Ganzoni, Sir John

Liddall, Walter S.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunilffe-

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

George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

Liewellin, Major John J.

Browne, Captain A. C.

Gibson, Charles Granville

Liewellyn-Jones, Frederick

Buchan, John

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Lioyd, Geoffrey

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Goff, Sir Park

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

Burnett, John George

Goldie, Noel B.

Loder, Captain J. de Vere

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Goodman. Colonel Albert W.

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Gower, Sir Robert

Mabane, William

Castlereagh, Viscount

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

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

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Greene, William P. C.

MacAndrew, Capt..J. O. (Ayr)

Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

McConnell, Sir Joseph

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

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

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

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Grimston, R. V.

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

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

Mc Keag, William

Chalmers, John Rutheiford

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

McKie, John Hamilton

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

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh,S.)

Guy, J. C. Morrison

McLean, Major Alan

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Chotzner, Alfred James

Hales, Harold K.

Maitland, Adam

Christie, James Archibald

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Making, Brigadier-General Ernest

Clarry, Reginald George

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

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Clayton. Dr. George C.

Hanley, Dennis A.

Margesson. Capt. Henry David R.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Colville, John

Harbord, Arthur

Martin, Thomas B.

Conant, R. J. E.

Hartland, George A.

Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

Cook, Thomas A.

Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Cooke, Douglas

Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)

Millar, Sir James Duncan

Copeland, Ida

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

Cowan, D. M.

Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

Mills, Major.J. D. (New Forest)

Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

Hepworth, Joseph

Milne, Charles

Cranborne, Viscount

Holdsworth, Herbert

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

Crooke, J. Smedley

Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

Hope, Sydney (Chester, Staiybridge)

Mitcheson, G. G.

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

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Moison, A. Hugh Eisdale

Crossley, A. C.

Hornby, Frank

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

Munro, Patrick

Cuiverwell, Cyril Tom

Horsbrugh, Florence

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Curry, A. C.

Howard, Tom Forrest

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

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

Howitt. Dr. Alfred B.

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

Davison, Sir William Henry

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

North, Captain Edward T.

Nunn, William

Rosbotham, S. T.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

O'Connor, Terence James

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Runge, Norah Cecil

Summersby, Charles H.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

Sutcliffe, Harold

Ormiston, Thomas

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Tate, Mavis Constance

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

Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'grn,S.)

Patrick, Colin M.

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

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

Peake, Captain Osbert

Salmon, Major Isidore

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Pearson, William G.

Salt, Edward W.

Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

Percy, Lord Eustace

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

Petherick, M.

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

Turton, Robert Hugh

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

savery, Samuel Servington

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Pickering, Ernest H.

Scone, Lord

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

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

Pike, Cecil F.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Potter, John

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

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

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

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

Pybus, Percy John

Slater, John

Weymouth, Viscount

Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

White, Henry Graham

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

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

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

Somerset, Thomas

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Ramsden, E.

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Womersley, Walter James

Rathbone, Eleanor

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Wragg, Herbert

Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

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

Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

Stevenson, James

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

Stones, James

Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)

Strickland, Captain W. F.

George Penny.

Robinson, John Roland

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

NOES.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Milner, Major James

Attlee, Clement Richard

Healy, Cahir

Parkinson, John Allen

Batey, Joseph

Hirst, George Henry

Price, Gabriel

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

Jenkins, Sir William

Thorne, William James

Buchanan, George

John, William

Tinker, John Joseph

Cape, Thomas

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Kirkwood, David

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Daggar, George

Lawson, John James

Williams. Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Logan, David Gilbert

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Edwards, Charles

Lunn, William

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Granfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

McEntee, Valentine L.

Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr.Groves

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Grundy, Thomas W.

Maxton, James

CANDIDATES (LOCAL GOVERNMENT) ELECTION DEPOSIT.
Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require candidates at local government elections to deposit a sum of money to be forfeited under certain conditions."
I need detain the House only a very few minutes in explaining the provisions of the Bill, as they are very few and simple. The Bill is also, in my opinion, quite uncontentious. All parties in municipal life suffer from the abuse which it attempts to remedy. Its object is to bring local government elections into line with Parliamentary elections in so far as the payment of a deposit by candidates i; concerned, such deposit to be forfeited unless the candidate secures a certain quota of the votes polled, which is fixed in the Bill at one-eighth. As the House
256
is aware, there are a large number of municipal elections where freak candidates, commanding practically no support whatever, put themselves up, or have themselves put up, in several wards, thereby causing not only considerable expense to bona fide candidates, but involving the borough in a wholly unnecessary election in a very serious expense in the way of poll clerks, engaging halls for the election and other incidental expenses.
There was a recent case in a county council election where a candidate put up for no fewer than five different divisions and got only a negligible number of votes in any one case, but which involved the county in very considerable expense. Lancashire Members will be aware of a similar case which has recently occurred in Manchester. Then there is also a flagrant case, to which my attention has been drawn by present Members

257
of this House, namely, the case of the borough of Hornsey, where one individual has been in the habit of getting himself nominated again and again for practically every ward in the borough, and I am told that he gets only two or three votes in each ward; yet it involves the borough, quite apart from the candidates who have had to oppose him, in hundreds if not thousands of pounds of expense. I am also told that there is a similar case in the borough of Marylebone. I do not wish to detain the House, or I could give similar instances in all parts of the country.
The Bill provides that a duly nominated candidate at a county council election shall deposit with the returning officer the sum of £20, and a duly nominated candidate at a borough council or urban district council election shall deposit with the returning officer the sum of £10. This deposit shall be forfeited in the event of the candidate failing to poll one-eighth of the total number of votes polled; in the case of a division, ward or district returning more than one member, one-eighth of the total number of votes polled divided by the number of members to be elected. It is also provided that where a candidate is nominated at an election in more than one division, ward or district, he shall in no case recover his deposit more than once, that is, if he gets votes in one ward to entitle him to get the money back, he shall not be
entitled to get more than the one deposit back, and shall forfeit the other deposits.
Mr. BATEY: I want to oppose the introduction of this Bill. In my opinion, it is one of the most reactionary proposals that have been brought before the House. To say that a candidate at a county council election must be prepared to deposit £20 means that working-class candidates will be unable to stand. It is clear that the object of this Bill is in the interests of the rich, to make it impossible for working men to come forward as candidates. If this Bill were in operation in the county of Durham, we could not put up candidates for the county council or the local elections. It is clear, on the face of it, that the object of the Bill is to make it impossible for working men to run as candidates in local elections. If the object is, as the hon. Member says, to prevent a candidate standing for a number of seats, let him bring in a Bill to that effect, and we may support it; but it is one thing to prevent a person from standing for four, five or six seats, and another thing to bring forward a proposal such as is contained in this Bill, to which I am strongly opposed.
Question put,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require candidates at local government elections to deposit a sum of money to he forfeited under certain conditions."
The House divided: Ayes, 212; Noes, 64.

Division No. 280.]

AYES.

[4.9 p.m.

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

Donner, P. W.

Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Eady, George H.

Allen, Lt.-Col. J.Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

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

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

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

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

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

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

Atholl, Duchess of

Chalmers, John Rutherford

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Balley, Eric Alfred George

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

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

Chotzner, Alfred James

Fermoy, Lord

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Christie, James Archibald

Fraser, Captain Ian

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Clarry, Reginald George

Fremantle, Sir Francis

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

Clayton, Dr. George C.

Ganzonl, Sir John

Belt, Sir Alfred L.

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

Conant, R. J. E.

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Cook, Thomas A.

Goff, Sir Park

Blaker, Sir Reginald

Cooke, Douglas

Goldle, Noel B.

Bossom, A. C.

Copeland, Ida

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Cowan, D. M.

Gower, Sir Robert

Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Crooke, J. Smedley

Greene, William P. C.

Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Broadbent, Colonel John

Crossley, A. C.

Grimston. R. V.

Browne, Captain A. C.

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

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

Buchan, John

Cuiverwell, Cyril Tom

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

Hacking, Rt. on. Douglas H.

Burnett, John George

Denville, Alfred

Hales, Harold K.

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

Hammersley, Samuel S.

Hanley, Dennis A.

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

Savery, Samuel Servington

Harbord, Arthur

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Scone, Lord

Hartland, George A.

Milne, Charles

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

ShepperSon, Sir Ernest W.

Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

Mitcheson, G. G.

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Hepworth, Joseph

Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

Slater, John

Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)

Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Somerset, Thomas

Hornby, Frank

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Nicholson, Rt. H n. W. G. (Petersf'd)

Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

North, Captain Edward T.

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Nunn, William

Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

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

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Stevenson, James

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Ormiston, Thomas

Stewart, William J.

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

Penny, Sir George

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Petherick, M.

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

Kimball, Lawrence

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

Kirkpatrick, William M.

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

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Law, Sir Alfred

Potter, John

Summersby, Charles H.

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

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Tate, Mavis Constance

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Pybus, Percy John

Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

Lees-Jones, John

Raikes. Henry V. A. M.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Leigh, Sir John

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

Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

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

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Ramsden, E.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Liddall, Walter S.

Rankin, Robert

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Rathbone, Eleanor

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Liewellyn-Jones, Frederick

Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

MacAndrew. Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)

Remer, John R.

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

McConnell, Sir Joseph

Robinson, John Roland

Weymouth, Viscount

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

Rosbotham, S. T.

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

McKie, John Hamilton

Runge, Norah Cecil

Womersley, Walter James

McLean, Major Alan

Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

Worthington, Dr. John V.

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Wragg, Herbert

Maitland, Adam

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

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

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Salmon, Major Isidore

Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

Salt, Edward W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Sir William Davison and Mr. James

Martin. Thomas B.

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Duncan.

NOES.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

Grundy, Thomas W.

Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

Attlee, Clement Richard

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Maxton, James

Batey, Joseph

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Milner, Major James

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

Healy, Cahir

Parkinson, John Allen

Buchanan, George

Hirst, George Henry

Peake, Captain Osbert

Cape, Thomas

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

Pickering, Ernest H.

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

Price. Gabriel

Colville, John

Hurd, Sir Percy

Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Jenkins, Sir William

Salter, Dr. Alfred

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

John, William

Tinker, John Joseph

Curry, A. C.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

Daggar, George

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Williams. David (Swansea, East)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Kirkwood, David

Williams. Edward John (Ogmore)

Dickie, John P.

Knight, Holford

Williams. Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

Duggan, Hubert John

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Edwards, Charles

Logan, David Gilbert

Wood. Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

Eimley, Viscount

Lunn, William

Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Foot. Dingle (Dundee)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

McEntee, Valentine L.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Gibson, Charles Granville

McKeag, William

Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr.

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

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Groves.

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir William Davison, Lieut.-Colonel Applin, Mr. Campbell, Mr. James Duncan, Mr. Hannon, Sir Assheton Pownall, Sir William Ray and Sir Gervais Rentoul.

CANDIDATES LOCAL GOVERNMENT) ELECTION DEPOSIT BILL,
"to require candidates at local government elections to deposit a sum of money to be forfeited under certain conditions," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 119.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Sea Fisheries Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Wokingham District Water Bill, without Amendment.
Hire Purchase and Small Debt (Scotland) Bill,
Chesterfield and Bolsover Water Bill, with Amendments.

POLICE FORCES (AMALGAMATION).
Ordered,
"That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the. Committee on the Police Services of England, Wales, and Scotland, a copy of which was presented to this House on 29th July, 1920, be referred to the Select Committee on Police Forces (Amalgamation)."—[Sir Hugh O'Neill.]
Report of the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read;
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [18TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1932.
  CLASS VI.

    MINES DEPARTMENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £144,595, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mines Department of the Board of Trade."
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
    I am moving this Amendment notwithstanding the 'admirable speech of the Secretary for Mines on 3rd May. We thought when that speech was made that at last we had discovered a Secretary with understanding, vision arid some sympathy, and we want in this Debate to ascertain whether he possesses the other qualification of a Secretary for Mines, namely, courage. Understanding, vision and sympathy without courage are like a bone without meat. The hon. Gentleman will know that he is, to a large extent, responsible for the well-being of 850,000 miners, with their wives and families, and at this moment they are not only suffering hardship, destitution and degradation, but, many of them, demoralisation also. The Debate on 3rd May centred largely on the question of safety. To-day we wish to concentrate attention more upon the economics and some of the social aspects of the industry rather than safety, always in the hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue to do his best in regard to safety measures. The exact power of the Secretary over mines has been disputed time and again. I am going to submit that he has a great deal more power than has been exercised by past Secretaries for Mines. If there is no power to compel, at least they are able to initiate and to influence, and very often have the power to bring recalcitrant coalowners into a sane frame of mind, both for their own self-preservation and for the sake of the
    272
    men for whom they are responsible. This Debate has very largely been brought about by what has appeared in the "News-Letter," a small publication circulated, presumably, on behalf of the Prime Minister. We are not sure whether the Prime Minister subscribes to all the views expressed in that document, but here is a paragraph taken from the last issue:
    "With five years of production stability now assured to them, the leaders of the industry have no excuse for delay in reviewing the whole position, bringing to their aid the best knowledge and experience available, envisaging an ultimate policy and devising a succession of measures designed to realise it stage by stage. How far Government action or control will prove to be necessary, whether to enforce amalgamations or to bring about a wider reorganisation, or to protect the community, will depend upon the response of the owners to the present needs and the temper and spirit in which their policy is devised and worked out."
    That rather indicates that for five years more the mine workers and their families are to be dependent upon the action or inaction of the coalowners. We have had some experience of the progress they make in the past. Commission after Commission has attempted to initiate action in the right direction, but we have discovered always that unless Parliament superimposes its will some section of the coalowners always refuse to do what is necessary. Therefore, the review given by the Secretary for Mines on 3rd May, which was a good background to any mining Debate, is sufficient justification for us to raise this question once again. The hon. Gentleman told us how output had fallen from 287,000,000 tons in 1913 to 219,000,000 tons last year, how exports had fallen from 98,000,000 tons to 61,000,000 tons, the number of workpeople been reduced from 1,105,000 to 840,000 and the number of mines in production reduced from 3,289 to 2,243. On top of that he informed us that individual output had increased during the period, the relative value of wages had decreased, the security of the mine-workers had gone, profits had almost reached vanishing point, and, to use the hon. Gentleman's own words it was a "melancholy record of serious retrogression." Presumably that melancholy record must persist unless something is done by the Government. I do not ask for legislation, because I know that to do so would be out of order, but I do ask and insist that something shall be done to prevent further retro-

    273
    gression during the next five years, apart from waiting for voluntary activity on the part of the mineowners.
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Isaac Foot): The hon. Member has put into my mouth the statement that the security of the workers had gone. I have no recollection of saying anything that would bear that interpretation.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I should hesitate to misinterpret the hon. Gentleman, but think his statement of the number of mines which had closed down, and that with a potential capacity for an output of 300,000,000 tons, the total output was only 219,000,000 tons, must indicate that there is no security for any man in the industry to-day;,so that while the hon. Gentleman may not have used those exact words the implication was clearly there throughout the whole of his speech.
    Mr. FOOT: The arguments I then put forward dealt with the security of the owners as well as the miners—with the general security of the industry.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: That, of course, only strengthens our argument. Because the mineowners, or some of them, have apparently been so stupid, have formed a sort of mutual suicide club, they have almost destroyed the million mine workers. I want to say to the hon. Gentleman that during his term of office we shall always be grateful for information, and shall ourselves be willing to supply what information is at our disposal, and we know that he will always help if he can, but that is not sufficient. We want the hon. Gentleman to use the power he has to help us despite any hostility he may encounter from certain sections of the coalowners. The hon. Gentleman said on 3rd May:
    "I sometimes wonder what would happen if for a period of six months Members of Parliament and editors of newspapers had to spend an apprenticeship in the mines. I think that there might be some change of emphasis in the leading articles, and perhaps legislation might have taken a different course.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1932; col. 985, Vol. 265.]
    We entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We hope that his Department is not going to be only a sort of agency for collecting and distributing statistics but that, having satisfied himself that certain weaknesses and defects are inherent in the present organisation of the system,
    274
    he will use the power at his disposal to influence and initiate reforms and, browbeat if need be, the coalowners into real activity.
    The first thing we want to submit to the hon. Gentleman is that the Mines Act of 1930 has been proved to be only a partial success. We think it must be amplified by central selling agencies before there can be any sort of guarantee either to the workers or to the investors in the industry. The claim of the workers is as simple as it is just. All they claim is that the commodity they produce shall be sold at such a price as will guarantee to them a civilised existence. The coal question can be divided into two compartments. We consume approximately 70 per cent. of the output in this country, and we export approximately 30 per cent. As to the 70 per cent. consumed here, we declare that consumers ought not any longer to expect to buy their raw material at an uneconomic figure, but ought to be willing to pay a price that will at least guarantee the workpeople a reasonable wage consistent with the dangers they encounter and the physical effort they put forth.
    How can the hon. Gentleman assist us to achieve this end? We say that central selling agencies are the first essential. While we have quota regulation with individual selling there can be no such thing as security either for the work-people or those who have money invested in the industry, for in the past 10 years we have witnessed, alongside an increase in individual output, a persistent decrease in the wages of the workpeople, and yet the demand for coal has remained inelastic. In spite of all the reductions in wages the demand for coal has not increased. If the men worked in the pits for nothing it is doubtful whether we should be able to increase our sales in present circumstances. The wage sacrifices have been made in vain. We submit to the hon. Gentleman that, without legislation, he can go to the Mining Association, who can approach the several units of which the association is made up, and he can insist 4.30 p.m. on behalf of the Government and the workpeople that they shall not only set up central selling agencies, but see as quickly as possible what economies are possible in that direction. Not only do we suggest central selling agencies, but we suggest that

    275
    enormous economy can be effected by means of transport. Coal could be directly delivered to the consumers from the nearest collieries to any large unit and in that way we should bridge the gap between producer and consumer, and there would be less trouble in disposing of inferior coal. The larger the unit the less trouble in that direction. We are convinced that with more central selling agencies there would be a nearer balance between the quota of requirements than there is to-day, when each individual colliery has to dispose of its own minerals. The Westphalian experience shows that if there are central selling agencies amalgamations and groupings are almost inevitable.
    The central selling agency is a pivot around which the Secretary for Mines ought to be working. I shall be able to show in a moment that, whatever individuals may say in this Parliament, the Miners' Federation of Great Britain who are not without experience, and the Mining Association of Great Britain are both in favour of central selling agencies. Yet, for some unknown reason, individualism still prevails to the detriment of those connected with the industry. The Miners' Federation of Great Britain have summed up their views in a very few words as follows:
    "Firstly, that the forces which make for a reduction in the demand for coal also have the effect of rendering that demand inelastic in so far as price reductions are concerned do not increase the total demand.
    Secondly, that those forces must of themselves exert a most powerful influence on the general level of coal prices and tend to keep that level down.
    Thirdly, that when the industry is menaced by such powerful external factors, it is folly to allow its position to be lowered by competition from within. At such a time it becomes more important than before to remove internal weakness."
    The Secretary of the Mining Association of Great Britain, representing the coalowners, makes this statement in the Colliery Year Book for 1930:
    "The…surplus of productive capacity over present demand, both in the inland and export market, has brought down coal prices far below the general level of prices. They have reached a point at which the economic operation of the collieries is impossible, and the capital resources of the industry are being gravely impoverished."
    Those are the two sides of the industry, containing all the essential elements
    276
    in the industry, and yet no solution has been found for this very difficult problem. We suggest that not only the Secretary for Mines himself, but the President of the Board of Trade, and also the Prime Minister if need be, ought to be called in to insist upon the coalowners setting up their central selling agencies, and guaranteeing to their workpeople not only some element of security but the earliest possible meeting place whereby the output may be concentrated upon the most economic units, and consumers will not be called upon to pay higher prices for their minerals.
    I have an extract here from "O'Connell's Coal and Iron News" of 10th September, 1931. I do not wish to read it except to explain that here is one of the many sources whereby the industry is drained, and consumers are exploited, after the mineral has left the pit top. In this case, they refer to a case where shipowners to the Canary Islands are obliged to have coal for bunkers. The price of this coal at Cardiff is 16s. a ton and with 7s. for freightage that makes 23s. a ton. The price charged to the shippers for bunkers on the Islands is 34s. per ton. That seems to the shipowners, and it seems to me, to be an exhorbitant profit. The profit per ton taken by the people on the Canary Islands is three times as much per ton as a colliery receives in Cardiff for producing the ton. That is one direction where the hon. Gentleman can get into action at once. The Prime Minister can go to the United States, to Lausanne, to Geneva, to Ottawa and elsewhere, but there is every reason why we should expect him to call together the recalcitrant elements in the coal industry in this country so that order may be evolved out of chaos. The export trade is a different proposition. I submit to the hon. Gentleman that the export trade in coal is much more political than industrial. The hon. Gentleman said a few days ago that quotas, licences, subsidies, restrictions, special freight charges, Government guarantees and the Import Duties Act all affect adversely the transport of coal from one country to another, and merely to leave this question of the export trade exclusively in the hands of the coalowners means that there can be no solution of it outside a European agreement. What did the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee? He said:

    277
    "The extent to which the price-cutting tactics in Poland has gone is shown in the fall of the f.o.b. price of their large coal from 17s. 3d. in December, 1929, to 12s. 6d. in February, 1932, the f.o.b. price for comparable British coal on the latter date being 15s. 4½d. per metric ton." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1932; col. 975, Vol. 265.]
    Can the hon. Gentleman see any solution of this problem outside a European agreement? We do not think that there is one. Consequently, we call upon the Mines Department, the Board of Trade, and the Government in relation to this export trade to make it a primary duty on their part to secure a European agreement at the earliest possible date. We know that there must be unity in the industry before we can negotiate abroad. If central selling agencies were to be set up here that would be the first step that would make a European negotiation possible. If a European agreement could be propounded by this Government, and, inspired by the Secretary of Mines, could be carried to Geneva and fought for among the nations until finally the warring elements of all coal-producing countries could be brought together, his name would go down as one of the greatest Cromwellians that this or any other Parliament has ever known. We say that this cut-throat competition, internal and external, means death and destruction to the coal trade of Europe. We ask the Secretary for Mines to think on the lines of a European agreement where markets can be equitably obtained, where prices can be fixed equitably between producer and consumer, and where you can get an element of tranquillity and peace in the industry, not for five years, but for many years ahead.
    The next point I want to raise is that of a National Board. Disputes, lock-outs and 'strikes in this country are all sufficiently familiar to every Member of the Committee to justify us in demanding from any Government that whatever lies within their power to bring the mine-owners' and miners' representatives together for the purpose of negotiating uniform agreements, they ought to do. They ought to exercise every power at their disposal. The Miners' Federation have already declared in favour of a National Board bringing representatives together with an impartial chairman. That has the virtue of avoiding compulsory arbitration. It also has the virtue of setting up a body
    278
    that would exact more uniformity and more agreement in the mining industry than has characterised it for the past generation. I hope the hon. Gentleman will use all the influence at his disposal, both with the coalowners and with the miners' representatives, to bring them together at the earliest possible moment, and to influence them to accept such a board. For Scotland to attempt to live apart is impossible; for South Wales to attempt to live apart is impossible, and the same is true of Northumberland or Yorkshire, or any of the individual units. If the export trade is in a parlous plight for the moment, the other districts are bound to suffer because of the competition of the coal which would be otherwise exported. While one district might be termed an inland district and another an export district, they all have a unity of interest, and for that purpose they ought to come together for wage agreements settled on a uniform basis, so that we may be free from disputes for a very long time.
    I want to raise the question of scientific utilisation of coal. We have a great deal about low temperature carbonisation and hydrogenation, and the latest form, that of colloidal fuel. I know the hon. Gentleman will probably tell me later on that our research station in Greenwich holds out a helping hand to any inventor who seems to have a proposal worth examination. We want the hon. Gentleman to do more. We are not content any longer that the Mines Department should be a recording agency. We have reached the stage when we have got beyond being like Micawber waiting for something to turn up. We think that it would not be out of place, and that the time is not inopportune even in these days of economy, for the Government, of its own volition, to recruit a body of experts, supply them with the necessary funds, and impose upon them the duty of finding the best possible scientific means of utilising coal in this country. We think that that would be sound economy. That would be the best thing that could possibly emerge during this period of industrial depression.
    No longer ought we to be content to accept very trivial replies to questions, such as the reply which was given by the First Lord of the Admiralty a few days ago, when he said, in answer to a hon. Member, that if the colloidal fuel was

    279
    sufficiently colloidal the Navy might use it. We want something more than that. We want the Government to make itself responsible for the greatest of all problems confronting the mining industry. We are convinced that if you select the right men, supply them with funds, give them an idea, the same type of man as those who have conquered the air and the sea and have annihilated space can also solve the mysteries of coal. We want the hon. Gentleman to do something in that direction instead of waiting for some inventor to come along with some half-baked scheme and then finally to tell the House all about the millions of pounds that have been lost by financial brigands by one system or another. We think that this is a national responsibility, and the Government ought to encourage inventors to do their best. If they set up their own Department and their own establishment we are convinced that great things can be done.
    I want to ask the Secretary for Mines, in the parlous plight of the mining industry, and the constant decrease in the demand for coal during this period of world depression, what part he has played in the Board of Trade when they have been considering questions of credits to Russia. Does he constantly remind the Board of Trade that such credits would be invaluable to the mining industry, that, of all countries, none has a greater potential value to the mining industry than Russia? Without dwelling on that subject, I want to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will play his part in the councils of the Board of Trade to secure the maximum amount of trade for steel and such other equipment as will provide the maximum amount of work for the mines of this country. We think that that is his duty, and that he ought not to rest content until every one of these avenues has been explored, and the maximum power at his disposal has been used in these directions.
    On the 3rd May I referred to the question of miners' lamps. The Department, I know, is fully equipped with all the knowledge relative to this subject, and has been endeavouring to secure better lighting in mines. There have been divers expressions of opinion as to whether nystagmus is due to bad lighting or to the presence of gas, but, be that as it may, we are convinced that,
    280
    the better the lighting, the fewer would be the accidents, arid, in all probability, the greater the output per person. Two recognised valuable lamps, reaching the standard which I believe the Mines Department desires to reach, have been on sale in this country for a few years. They are very costly lamps, and are in no way in competition with any other lamp sold in this country. I believe that one of the two, hitherto imported from Germany, is now largely produced in this country. The other is the Wolf lamp, some parts of which are imported from Germany. If we want to encourage this firm to produce their lamps in this country, we ought not to aim a deadly blow at them in the interim before we have given them a chance.
    I know that the hon. Gentleman has no power with the Tariff Advisory Committee, but we think that, if the Department insist upon improving the lighting in mines, as this is one of the only two kinds of lamps available that will fulfil the Department's standard, it would not be out of place for the hon. Gentleman, although it would be apparently supporting a plea for a private firm, to make representations to the Advisory Committee to deal with this question from the point of view of lighting, as distinct from the point of view of the individual sale of any particular kind of lamp. I know that the hon. Gentleman needs no tuition on this matter, that he knows a great deal about it, and that probably his officials know great deal more than either I or he knows about the subject; and, if they can be instrumental in, expediting the decision of the Advisory Committee, they will be helping themselves and the miners by improving mine lighting.
    The question of gas detection has been raised very often in the House. Some four months ago, the hon. Gentleman undertook, with the Executive of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, to have certain further tests applied. I would merely ask him whether those tests have yet started, and, if so, where they are taking place, and whether he has any report yet as to the results. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to make some statement upon that matter when he comes to reply to the Debate.
    I received a day or two ago the monthly ascertainment for the Yorkshire area, that is to say, the statement

    281
    indicating what profit, if any, has been made, the output per person, the collective output, and all the relative figures. One thing that strikes one is that output is slightly improving all the time, and I should be the last to declare that individual collieries, as far as they can be efficient, are not efficient. But, with all their efficiency, and with the terribly low wages of the miners in the Yorkshire area, which is supposed to be a sort of El Dorado—their wages are only very slightly above the pre-War wages—they ran up a deficit, that is to say, a debt to the coalowners, of about £10,000,000. When the coalowners realised the impossibility of that debt ever being paid off, they cancelled it out, and started another agreement on rock-bottom wages; and, under this latest agreement, they are now in debt to the coalowners of the Yorkshire area to the extent of £4,457,000, in addition to the £10,000,000 which was disposed of some time ago. If the mine workers are never to expect an improvement in their position until this deficit is wiped away, what has the miner in Yorkshire to live for or hope for? There is not a chance in life for him, and demoralisation has become complete. Therefore, anything that the hon. Gentleman can do to expedite any sort of selling arrangement internally, and European agreements externally, would place him on a very high pedestal in the estimation of the miners of this country.
    I should have failed in my duty had I omitted to refer to the very vital question of an Hours Convention. It almost slipped my memory, but I want to make a brief reference to it. The hon. Gentle-roan told us on the 3rd May that, unless and until all coal-producing countries reached agreement to apply a perfectly uniform convention simultaneously, there were no hopes of this country agreeing to it.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The hon. Gentleman is not now referring to the Debate on the 3rd May, but is referring to a Debate on the Coal Mines Bill later on.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that correction; I believe it was on the Second Reading or at some intermediate stage of the Coal Mines Bill. We think that it is the duty of the Government, realising all the difficulties, to leave no stone un-
    282
    turned until they have secured an Hours Convention. We have already had experience with regard to the Washington Convention. Government after Government, whether Conservative or Coalition, has always said, "There is some difficulty in the way. We appreciate the legitimacy and humanity of the proposition, but, until we can get absolute unanimity on the part of all nations, there can be no ratification of the Washington Convention." We have listened to such statements for 14 years. The Labour Government did introduce the Bill; they did square out almost every problem that could be squared out, with railwaymen, with those people who work over the week-end, and so on; but we had not the necessary majority to push that Bill through, and, therefore, the Washington Convention is still a theory, and is not in practice. If we are to take as our guide what has already happened, we shall be asking for an Hours Convention in the mining industry 14 years hence, unless some Secretary for Mines does a great deal more than has been done, shall I say, during these past nine months, or even the period prior to the Labour Government taking office in 1929. We have said, and we repeat, that, if we wait for the coalowners to agree among themselves, there never will be a, Convention. I have proof of that here in the report of the Mining Association of Great Britain for 1930–31. After referring to the appointment of their delegates to Geneva, this is what they say:
    "The instructions which the Association gave to its representative were directed primarily to avoiding, if possible, the adoption of any form of Convention."
    That is the feeling of the Mining Association of Great Britain. They send their delegates to Geneva mandated to avoid any form of convention whatever. That is a very unlikely ally for the hon. Gentleman, and he has always to recognise, therefore, that the coalowner is hostile to any step forward. That is recorded in this annual report, which says, further:
    "But, failing that, to preventing the reduction of working hours below the level prescribed in the Coal Mines Bill, which was then under discussion by Parliament, and securing universality of application of the Convention throughout not only European but other coal-producing countries."
    Therefore, the coalowners of Great Britain still stand officially for seven and

    283
    a half hours down the mine plus one winding time, making eight hours and five minutes in all. That is in excess of the hours worked by approximately 4,000,000 people who work on the surface in this country. We say to the hon. Gentleman that he has some responsibility in these matters. If he will start, as I started this afternoon, with central selling agencies, culminating in amalgamations and grouping, and will proceed to Geneva for the purpose of trying to secure—with the assistance of the coal-owners if possible, once they can be unified—some European agreement on the allocation of markets and price fixation, it may be that they will see, with 300,000 miners out of work in this country, possibly permanently, and many miners out of work in other coal-producing countries, also possibly permanently, the wisdom of a Convention which will reduce the hours all round.
    We shall be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for anything that he will do in that direction, but we shall not be content in future with mere, expressions of sympathy; nothing less than action is going to satisfy this very small Opposition. The House will be adjourning in a few days' time for three months. We know that when we return to our constituencies we shall see our own people suffering from destitution, poverty, misery, hopelessness and complete demoralisation. We want the hon. Gentleman to stand to attention and not be like a Micawber. We want him not to be content merely with understanding the problem, but to visualise the needs of the future, and even to sympathise with the mineworkers. We want him to act; we want him to use the power at his disposal; and, if the Government retard what he thinks is helpful, positive action in these directions, we want him to manifest that courage which we know he possesses, and to come out of the Government and help this small Opposition to compel the National Government to act.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: My reason for intervening now is not to deal generally with the questions raised by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) but to deal in particular with two of them. I think that, if two main questions can be dealt with now at the beginning, it will, perhaps, leave the field more free for
    284
    many of the important questions that he raised, and for subjects in which, I know, a great many Members of the House are very much interested. I thank the hon. Member for his speech, although, of course, I regret that it was in support of a proposal which might reduce my salary by £100, and he concluded with a proposal which might, if I acted upon it, result in my losing my salary altogether. I am sorry, indeed, that any references to what Burke termed "the gross lucre and fat emoluments of office" should have been imported into this Debate at all. But he said some very kind things about me, and I still hope 5.0 p.m. that I may be able to stand upon that pedestal which he has in preparation. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that I am with him in the desire to meet what are the special needs of this distressed industry, and later on, when I speak at the end of the Debate, I shall deal with some of the points which he has raised, although I think he attributed to me greater power than I possess, and, when he was suggesting that I was to control the prices of coal in the Canary Islands and deal with some other matters, he ought to have suggested an increase in my salary rather than a reduction. I have not, as far as I know, power in that direction.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I think the hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood me. I was indicating one of the weaknesses inherent in the present methods of selling, but, if a central selling agency were in existence, it might very well be that they themselves would be responsible for selling coal to shipowners instead of merchants or middlemen resident in the Canary Islands or elsewhere.
    Mr. FOOT: I think the hon. Member will agree that, although we may have power within our own territory as far as the King's Writ runs, it would be difficult for us to take any responsibility for any territories outside that area.
    I want to pass away from many of the most important matters that have been raised to two which I think are the outstanding questions mentioned by the hon. Member. I want to make reference to what has happened in relation to Part IV of the Act of 1930. That has an immediate relevance because, while the recent Coal Mines Bill was passing through the House, a deputation headed

    285
    by the President and secretary of the Miners' Federation was received by the President of the Board of Trade and myself, and they made certain practical suggestions following upon what has been the virtual breakdown of the machinery set up in Part IV of the Act of 1930. I am not going to apportion blame for the breakdown of that part of the Act, but it is generally acknowledged that the ideals that prompted the late Mr. Graham in bringing that into his Bill have not been accomplished. He was not responsible for that failure. It was set up in good faith, a machinery within which there might have functioned friendly negotiating arrangements but, owing to certain objection taken in some quarters, that part of the Act has never achieved what was intended. When Mr. Peter Lee and Mr. Edwards came before us on that occasion, they made certain proposals, and the President of the Board of Trade said they would receive our sympathetic consideration and, as far as we could, we would use our influence to bring them, or something like them, into effect. We expressed no opinion upon the proposals themselves, but with the general purpose we were in full agreement. On the Third Reading of the recent Bill I promised to do what I could to secure that bringing together of the owners and the workmen. I am not able as yet to report any satisfactory results. I have been in communication with Mr. Edwards upon the matter. He has written me officially, and I have replied to him officially, but I cannot say as yet if we shall be able to secure what I believe is the desire of all Members of the House who think about it, that owners and men should be able to come together to discuss questions that concern their mutual interests.
    There are real difficulties. I am not putting this as a debating point, but I want hon. Members to appreciate the difficulties with which I am confronted. If we had legislation, admittedly it would involve something like compulsory arbitration. No one wants compulsory arbitration. On the other hand, I think we are agreed that we ought to have nothing that would undermine the autonomy of the districts. The autonomy of the districts is a principle for which the workmen will stand as determinedly as the owners, and what we have to look for is some possibility of national discussion
    286
    which will not impose compulsory arbitration, and will not endanger the self-government of the districts. If that is to be done, I very much doubt if it can be done by statutory enforcement. I believe it can only be done by voluntary arrangement between the parties and, if only we could have a voluntary arrangement between the parties, I should be content to leave Part IV of the Act of 1930 and let it stand without any statutory alteration or any attempt to bring in new legislation. It did not achieve its purpose, but there let it rest and let us proceed with this voluntary arrangement by which the two parties can come together. They ought to come into consultation, in my opinion, upon the many matters concerning the industry, and from that consultation working conditions and wages should not be excluded. We know very well how easily misunderstandings arise and very often they arise between those who are friendly disposed to each other if they are, far apart from each other. Sometimes misunderstandings arise when there is correspondence which would never have arisen if what had been said had been said face to face. The whole purpose of our international conferences is that, although misunderstandings arise between one nation and another, they can best be dealt with not by the slow processes of diplomatic negotiation but by the discussion between the several representatives face to face and around one table.
    This is the philosophy which underlies Lausanne, Geneva and Ottawa, and here, surely, we are dealing with an industry in which all have their common interest. The owner has in it his capital, his skill and his business management, but there are the 850,000 people who have invested in it a heavier stake, and that is their livelihood. I cannot understand why those who have this common interest cannot meet together to discuss their common concerns. A most frequent complaint has been made that Parliament is interfering with this industry. This is the way to take it out of politics, and I think the opportunity was never more favourable than it is to-day. Some of the old hard-ribbed differences are not so apparent now. Moderate counsels are prevailing and I believe, if the opportunity is now taken, this controversy may be lifted out of politics, it may be for five years and

    287
    perhaps for a generation. My earnest hope is that those who have responsibility in the matter will seize the opportunity that now exists and will remember that, if they fail to negotiate with Mirabeau, they may have one day to meet Robespierre. Will the House for give me if I give the mineowners a quotation from Edmund Burke, which ought to be in every governmental chamber. It was this:
    "If there is any one eminent criterion which, above all the rest, distinguishes a wise Government from an administration weak and improvident it is this—well to know the best time and manner of yielding what it is impossible to keep."
    I am sure that in 10 years' time our successors will look back with surprise upon the difficulty of settling a question of this kind. I am sure, too, that public opinion will not for ever tolerate a refusal on the part of whoever may be responsible to come together to discuss not only common interests affecting the industry, but interests which, in the end, affect every part of our national life.
    The coal industry is being challenged as it was never challenged before. It is challenged at home by rival sources of heat and power and it is being challenged abroad, and, if the challenge is to be met, all the resources of the industry will have to be mobilised. Every ounce of energy that is available will be needed to meet this challenge. We cannot afford any dissipation of that energy, and I believe we should lose if, instead of meeting this industrial challenge, we dissipated our strength in political differences. It is in the termination of these differences, which is now within our reach, with a wise statesmanship and with a generous gesture, that we have an opportunity of giving added strength to the industry to meet the vicissitudes of the time. I hope that what may be said here to-day by those who follow in the Debate will, perhaps, reinforce what I have tried to say so that we may within a, reasonable time get an assurance that the desire of the President of the Board of Trade expressed in his interview with the Miners' Federation and the desire that has been expressed by the federation since to me, that they are ready to meet the owners upon every question affecting the industry, may be fulfilled.
    There is one other subject that I should like to dwell upon before we get to the
    288
    general part of the Debate, and that is the request for a Commission to deal with the wider uses of coal. I notice in the "Times" this morning a report that I received a deputation last night and came to a certain decision. I was not conscious at the time that I met five of my hon. Friends that I was receiving a deputation. I thought that we were having just a friendly talk together—although, of course, deputations need not be unfriendly—having regard to the Debate to-day. But I have received some rather disturbing messages from the country, including a telegram from South Wales, because in that report it is said that I have considered the question of a Commission and decided that the request should be refused. That is not just the position. I have not the power to say whether a Commission shall be set up or not. Certainly it was never intended in any conversation that I had last night to express any decision on behalf of, the Government. All I can do in the matter is to advise the Government. I have been in consultation with those in the Government who are concerned with this matter, but no decision has yet been arrived at. I am going to put before the Committee some of the reasons that influence my mind in the advice that I have given and the advice that I propose to give. I cannot see at present that the purpose in the mind of hon. Members will necessarily be served by setting up this form of inquiry. I am influenced in coming to that conclusion by what I know of the work that has already been and is being done. I ask hon. Members to take that into their consideration.
    The main facts in relation to the wider use of coal and the way in which coal can meet the severe competition of gas, electricity and oil have been recently under our investigation. The Samuel Commission, which reported six years ago, devoted a great deal of time to the subject of fuel utilisation and research, and hon. Members will probably know that more recently the National Fuel and Power Committee, a body set up in pursuance of the recommendation of the Samuel Commission, has been bringing the subject further under review. The main facts of the case, therefore, have recently been investigated. Hon. Members will recollect that on 3rd May I spent a good deal of time in the course

    289
    of my speech upon the Estimates of my Department in dealing with the work which we had in hand. On 21st April of this year a very powerful and representative deputation from South Wales, a district which has been very heavily hit by the recent depression, waited upon the Lord President of the Council, and I was invited by the Lord President also to be present when the deputation was received.
    The deputation spoke upon many things, and upon what is popularly called the back-to-coal movement. Something was then said about the use of coal by the Navy, but I am not qualified to give an opinion upon, that question. The decision does not rest with me, but necessarily rests with the First Lord of the Admiralty. But the general question of coal utilisation is the business of my Department. On 3rd May I dealt with the competition with which coal is faced, with the other sources of heat and power, and with the efforts which were being made to meet that competition. Hon. Members will remember that I spoke of the splendid efforts being made in many parts of the country to secure the better cleaning and grading of coal, the use of pulverised fuel, and the possibilities of obtaining oil from coal by low temperature carbonisation and hydrogenation, and also of the efforts both by high and low temperature carbonisation to produce a good smokeless fuel for use in the open domestic fire.
    Active steps are being taken in numerous ways by the Government and by private concerns to explore all the possible means of improving the efficiency of coal-burning appliances and the use of coal products so as to secure a wider use of coal. Attention has been drawn to this subject within the last few weeks, particularly by two developments. My hon. Friend referred to colloidal fuel, and questions have been put in the House upon that subject by some of the Members who represent mining constituencies. Colloidal fuel is an intimate mixture of fine coal and oil in certain proportions which can be used as a boiler fuel. A good deal of work has been done upon this subject during the past few years. It is not something which has suddenly appeared over the coal horizon. It is something with which we have been concerned during the past few years, and
    290
    work has been done at the Fuel Research Station.
    The matter has been given a very healthy and considerable prominence by the experiments which the Cunard Steamship Company recently announced they were carrying out on one of their ocean-going liners. It is claimed that a fuel of this kind has most of the advantages of oil fuel as regards ease of handling and control when it is being used. My Department has been closely in touch with the Cunard Company, who have been good enough to supply us with confidential information with regard to the experiment which they have made, and they have also promised to let the Department have the results of the trials when these have been ascertained. I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the Cunard Company upon their enterprise in conducting these experiments, but I would ask hon. Members to realise that the experiment as yet is only in its early stages. It would, obviously, be impossible for the Government at this stage to reach any decision as to possible directions in which they might be able to help the development of this new process. The fact that one of the main constituents of colloidal fuel is pulverised coal emphasises the importance of the work which is being done in connection with pulverised fuel generally. I do not expect that many hon. Members interested in the coal industry know anything of the extent to which pulverised fuel is now being used. The developments in that direction have been very considerable.
    Another subject which has been calling public attention to this important matter lately is the use of compressed gas for motor transport. The idea of using coal gas as a fuel for high speed engines is not new. It is well known that for a considerable time this form of fuel has been employed by many of the leading motor manufacturers for running in their engines, and, further, during the period of the War coal gas was used to a very considerable extent for the propulsion of vehicles primarily designed to run on petrol. The gas was contained in large flexible bags usually housed on the roof of the vehicle. The results of the tests carried out at that time proved that satisfactory results could be obtained, and the thermal efficiency was of a very high order. Those acquainted with the subject

    291
    will remember that the main difficulty which presented itself at that time was the limited capacity of the storage which resulted in the radius of the action of the vehicle being limited, but recent developments have tried to overcome that difficulty. They are designed to secure the supply of coal gas in steel cylinders under high compression, and it is the question of the strength of the steel which is one of the important elements in this matter.
    During the last few years a considerable amount of experimental work has been carried out in Paris, and at the present time two large gas undertakings in this country are undertaking experimental work. The enormous development of motor transport represents to a large extent the creation of an entirely new demand for fuel, and should the experiments which are now in hand prove successful, they will offer to the coal industry the possibility of securing a share in this new demand. Apart from the technical problems associated with the new development, there also arises the question of the relative costs of coal gas under the conditions specified compared with the cost of petrol. At the annual general meeting of the Institute of Gas Engineers, which was recently held in the North of England, this subject was discussed at some length, and I would refer hon. Members who are interested to the Debate which took place. It is a development which obviously is of interest to the coal industry, and we shall watch it with every sympathy and encouragement.
    I spoke just now of the work which we are doing. There are some people, I think, who assume that there is no Government organisation which has the responsibility of watching all that is being done in the country by way of experiment and getting into touch with it. The hon. Member suggested that we ought to watch, encourage, and stimulate. Really, that is what we are trying to do at the present time in our day-to-day work. There are two Government Departments at present charged with this responsibility. I hope that it will not be considered a dull contribution to this Debate if I explain what we are doing in this respect. There is the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research on the one side, and the Mines Department on the other. The Department of Scientific
    292
    and Industrial Research is responsible upon the technical side, and the Mines Department is responsible upon the commercial side. The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research keeps in close touch with all research throughout the country, and also carries out its own research. It not merely collects the information obtained from other parts of the country, but it carries out its own research at its own fuel research station. The work which is done by the Fuel Research Station is brought under the review of the Fuel Research Board upon which is represented not only the coal industry and its ancillary industries, but also the Mines Department. The report of that Board is published every year, and it is an amazingly interesting document. I do not think that it is read as widely as it ought to be. That may be a point to be taken up later, but to anyone who is interested in this subject a very romantic story is told by these annual reports. In addition to the annual report, periodically as the circumstances make it necessary, there are technical papers upon the various aspects of the question. That is the work which is done on the technical side.
    On the other side we have the Mines Department working in close association with them. We do not do technical work, but we seek to put the work which is secured as a result of scientific experiment into direct touch with the commerce of this country. I should be happy if any deputation from the House would inquire as to the steps taken from day to day in that direction. We make our inquiry, and see that the information is made available to those who are "up against it" every day in industry. If you take pulverised fuel, supposing a commission for which some Members are asking were set up, I wonder what information they could get more than we have got. I suppose that the first thing that such a commission would do would be to call the evidence which could be given by the various officials in my Department whose lives are devoted to securing this information. Some weeks ago we made an inquiry from all firms in the country using pulverised fuel, asking them to let us know the circumstances in which it was being used, and what they had discovered as a result of their own experiments. The provisional information which we have is of great interest, but that complete in-

    293
    formation will be at the disposal of all who can make use of it. That work is being done, and hon. Members may be interested in what we have learned from the returns already received. The provisional figures which we have received indicate that about 3,000,000 tons of pulverised fuel are being used annually in this country, a much greater quantity than is generally assumed.
    One direction in which in recent years oil has been substituted by coal is the heating processes in the metallurgical industry. It is believed that pulverised fuel can in many instances be as readily used as oil. The present inquiries show that progress in this direction is being made. In 1929 there were 17 undertakings in the metallurgical industry using pulverised fuel, and in 1931 the number had grown to 39. For technical advice in these matters the Mines Department is able, as a result of the close co-operation between the Departments, to secure the help of the Fuel Research Section of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research., so that there is no duplication of technical staff. As I mentioned just now, the Under-Secretary for Mines is also a member of the Fuel Research Board. This work is not done without considerable expenditure. The Fuel Research Board has a programme of research costing about £100,000 a year. That is the work which is being done, and do not know what work of a Commission would be comparable with it. Nearly the whole of the expenditure is concerned with the efficient utilisation and development of the use of coal and its products. When the Lord President of 5.30 p.m. the Council received the deputation from South Wales he said that the Fuel Research Board would be very glad to consider any proposals put before them and to carry out experiments if that course was justified. On the 13th June I had the opportunity of meeting representatives of the industry at one of their functions and I then gave them the same assurance.
    There has been a very interesting development since I spoke in the House on the 3rd May. The Mining Association and the other coal trade interests, including the interests of the workmen engaged in the industry, have decided that steps should be taken by the industry to provide an organisation for research and propaganda in regard to the extended and
    294
    progressive use of coal and its products. I had an opportunity of speaking to them at their first assembly and I said, what I think all hon. Members will agree was the right thing to say, that I regarded that decision as of first-class importance. I gave to them the assurance that had been given by the Lord President of the Council that the Fuel Research Board was not carrying out some academic inquiry which concerned no one, but was intended to be used by those who wanted experiments to be carried out. The work that is being done by this organisation, by the mining industry, and by the Government ought to be complementary and supplementary. I give it as my considered opinion, subject again to what may be the arguments used in this House, that the steady pursuance of this work, perhaps more extensive than hon. Members appreciate, from day to day, will have more effective results than the setting up of an ad hoc committee of inquiry will achieve by way of investigation.
    Yesterday I had the opportunity of meeting some hon. Members of the House and they said: "It is all very well that this work is done, but there is not enough publicity. Whatever you may do in the fuel research station and elsewhere you may get your results but you do not 'get them across.'" As to publicity, there are advantages and disadvantages. The experience of the Government in the past has not been in getting publicity but in preventing undue publicity. Sometimes undue publicity relating to important experimental work has set back the hopes that had been engendered and which were not justified when the wider experience was secured. I have not spoken about these new experiments in any lyrical strain to-day, because it is not wise in the initial stage to speak with too great enthusiasm. We have had so many setbacks in the coal industry that I do not want us to rely upon hopes until we have a sure basis for them. I will give two instances where too optimistic publicity during the experimental stage was harmful. The development of low temperature carbonisation before it could be operated on a commercial scale was rendered very much more difficult a task for those who were trying to develop the process commercially on a sound basis by certain publicity which caused a serious reaction, because of the early optimistic reports of what was expected

    295
    when it came into commercial practice. The result was that the work of low temperature carbonisation was set back for years.
    The second instance was in connection with pulverised fuel. This process was making steady progress and receiving a great deal of attention from shipowners until, again by unduly optimistic publicity at too early a stage, it received a setback. One shipping firm converted one boiler of a ship for the use of pulverised fuel, and at the end of a single voyage they gave great publicity to the results of the experiment, claiming for it enormous advantages. They announced their intention of converting the remaining boilers of the ship for the use of pulverised coal, and that ultimately they intended to convert the whole of their fleet to the use of pulverised coal. They proceeded with the conversion of the remaining boilers of the one ship, but further experiment exposed unexpected difficulties, with the result that instead of carrying out their announced intention of converting the whole of their fleet, they reconverted the one ship to hand fuelling and ceased to take any interest in the process. Those are the two instances that I would submit to the Committee for their consideration. I think those who know a great deal more about the coal industry than I pretend to know would accept this as being a fair proposition, that when an experiment has reached a stage when it is a commercial success publicity is no longer necessary. The problem has largely solved itself when the question of commercial practicability has been settled. Publicity is then no longer necessary, because it will in those circumstances be able to find a very ready market.
    I have spoken longer on these two questions than I had intended. I do not want anyone to get the impression that we do not regard this side of the work as of immense importance. The work of the scientist and the chemist is of vital importance. It was by their inquiries, carried on over many years, that what was regarded as waste has been turned into wealth. Coal tar was formerly a waste product. I was reading the other day in the Trade and Engineering Supplement of the "Times" of 4th June what was said by Mr. E. J.
    296
    Grant. Speaking of what was a waste product not many years ago he said:
    "Coal in the past has been regarded simply as a fuel. But science looks at coal as a progressive raw material. This angle of approach has led the scientist to find new means of treating it such as hydrogenation and low-temperature carbonisation, and to extract numerous products, such as synthetic resins, drugs, lacquers and wood preservatives, from that Aladdin's cave of industry, coal tar."
    Speaking to the coal industry some time ago, at one of their meetings, I said that the battle of the coal industry had to be fought in the laboratory. I hope that we shall be able to redeem some of our losses by our successes there. Some of the greatest battles in the history of the world have been lost in one part of the field and won in another. At the battle of Naseby, the Parliamentary forces on the left were swept away by the shock of Rupert's cavalry but the centre was sustained and saved by the indomitable Ironsides of Cromwell on the right. It may well be that that will be the experience of the coal industry. If we mean in this House to dwell upon the restrictions that are always being imposed upon us, the tightening of quotas abroad and so forth, the whole industry will be paralysed. Recognising these difficulties let us have the determination to overcome them. There is a hopeful sign in the direction of scientific investigation and inquiry, and it may well be that one man whose name we do not yet know may before long solve one secret that may mean everything for our coal industry. There are immense issues at stake.
    The chemists and the scientists have the joy of discovery. It was that joy of discovery that made Archimedes cry "Eureka!" Here, however, is something more than the joy of discovery and that is meeting the needs of the country and meeting the needs of a great industry. We would like the scientists and the chemists, doing their work from day to day in many places through the country, to know that the Government and this House watch their work with great sympathy. It may be that they will be stimulated in their work by the knowledge that they may be able to do something that will lift the shadow of unemployment that rests upon thousands of the homes of their fellow-countrymen and that one man, by his persistent, unfailing work, may give a message of hope to the

    297
    coal districts of this country. That is my hope. My desire is that as a result of our Debate to-day we may lay emphasis upon this side of the problem. Although at present I do not see that we should serve the cause by setting up a Commission, if I thought that would help us forward, I would give advice to the Government upon that line. I believe the best thing is to make the fullest use of the work that is being done, to see that it is co-ordinated and to send out some message of encouragement to those who may have in their hands the redemption of this distressed industry.
    Mr. BATEY: I want to express my disappointment at the speech of the Secretary for Mines. If the coal industry was in a normal condition, if miners were working for reasonable wages, if we had no unemployment we could very well afford to sit and listen to the sort of speech that we have heard to-day. We remember that miners are working for disgraceful wages, that there are 300,000 miners unemployed, and yet the Secretary for Mines has not said a single thing that would give encouragement either to the men who are working or to the men who are unemployed. He has dealt with the National Industrial Board, and has expressed the hope that under that board a voluntary agreement will be reached. If that is his hope, he might as well never speak about it again. If he believes that we do not need statutory enforcement attached to the National Industrial Board, then he had better cease to give attention to the question altogether. If he is going to depend upon a voluntary arrangement between the owners and the miners to make effective the work of the National Industrial Board, he is doomed to disappointment.
    He also dealt with the question of the Commission considering collodial oil, but on that subject he left us in thin air. We had hoped in the past that we were going to get something from low temperature carbonisation that would help our people, that we should get some help from the hydrogenation process and something that would help from pulverised fuel, but we have got nothing from any of these things because we have had a Ministry of Mines that has been absolutely useless. We get no further forward. The Secretary for Mines to-day has shown himself hopeless in face of
    298
    these new processes. He says that we must wait, and that something may turn up. We cannot afford to wait, because our people are in such a bad condition. For years we have taken the opportunity of raising this question before the Adjournment for the Summer Recess, in order to impress upon the House the necessity of something being done for the mining class. We have done that year after year but things have become worse. They are becoming worse every day, and they will become still worse. The President of the Board of Trade went to Newcastle arid said that by the end of 1932 things would be far better than they were at the end of 1931. They are going to be far worse; and the Secretary for Mines holds out no hope for industry so far as these new processes are concerned.
    Nine years ago I went down to Greenwich to see the research station which had been erected. We were led to believe then that there was something in research which would help the coal industry, but we are no farther forward to-day than we were then, and all the money that the Government have spent on research might just as well have been thrown in the sink for all the help it has been to the industry or the mining classes. They are in the same poverty stricken condition now as they were nine years ago. Science has proved of no use to the industry. I regret the helplessness of the Department of Mines. The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) in 1925 proposed its abolition, and it was the miners' Members who saved the Department. We went to the then Prime Minister and impressed upon him what it meant to us. It might just as well have been abolished then for all that it has meant to the mining classes. It seems that we are to go on year after year without getting any improvement. I consider that on a mining Debate we should have not only the Secretary for Mines but a representative of the Cabinet on the Front Bench. It is not sufficient for Members of the Cabinet to be away enjoying themselves in Lausanne. [interruption.] Yes they are. The President of the Railway Union made a very sensible remark when he said:
    "Our elder statesmen are luxuriating in Lausanne and the old guard of British statesmen will shortly congregate at Ottawa."

    299
    The Prime Minister has scarcely been two hours in the House during the last 12 months. Either he wants to be away or the Conservative Members want to have him away. So long as he has an opportunity of taking the big chair and enjoying himself he has never troubled a little bit about this House. [Interruption.] I know that he has been an invalid. The Chancellor of the Exchequer suffers from gout—and then there is the Lord Privy Seal. We have a Cabinet of chronic invalids. And during all this time the wining population of this country is sinking deeper and deeper into poverty while the Government make no attempt to help them. The mining classes are in a worse condition now than when the Government came into office. I regret that the Secretary for Mines is content to wait until something turns up as a result of this experiment. I should like him to have taken hold of the matter, not wait until some company promoter comes along and takes possession; because if that happens the mining classes will get no benefit. If it is going to be a success, as we are told is likely, then we want the benefit for the mining classes not for company promoters.
    In reply to a question the Secretary for Mines said that 19 collieries in Durham have been shut since 1st January this year and 7,360 men thrown out of employment. Those are the kind of facts which make us feel bitter with the Government as to the way in which they are dealing with this question. Twelve months ago the then Secretary for Mines, also in reply to a question, said that from 1924 until that date no less than 70 pits in the county of Durham had been stopped, and if you add the 19 pits which have been stopped this year it will be found that we are building up a colossal figure of pits stopped and of men unable to get work anywhere else. Yet nothing is being done. Let me say a word or two on the question of foreign quotas. The other day I asked a question on this matter and it was answered by the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department. I do not know why there should be several Departments dealing with the mining industry. We have the Board of Trade, the Mines Department and the Overseas Trade Department. Instead of having two or three Departments interfering in this question it would be much
    300
    better if all questions were dealt with by one Department, the Mines Department, and it may be that the reason why we are unable to make any progress in regard to foreign quotas is because the question is handled by various Departments in this country. Generally, when we ask questions on this matter we are told that the Department is considering the matter; and week after week that is the only answer we can get. If we ask whether they have made any progress in their negotiations with France or Germany or Belgium the answer is that they are considering the question; and it is the same answer for many months. In a reply which was given last week concerning the German quota it was said:
    "Negotiations are still in progress. His Majesty's Government will reply at an early date to the proposal of the German Government that the matters in dispute should be referred to arbitration."
    The reply which was given by the Secretary for the Overseas Trade Department to-day did not carry the matter any further. It seems to me that the Government should have sent an immediate reply to the German Government, which several weeks ago proposed to submit the quota proposal to arbitration. I cannot understand why such a long time is allowed to elapse before a reply is given. If the industry was in a normal condition there would be no need for hurry, but there is now every need for hurry and an answer should have been sent to the German Government long before this. No time should have been lost. An answer has not even yet been sent. Some of us have contended that the coal industry is being injured by the tariff policy of the Government and we have illustrated our point by referring to the reprisals of France, Germany and Belgium. Hon. Members opposite have disputed it, but the French restrictions upon the import of coal proves that they are due to the tariff policy of this country. Last August they were 100 per cent., and on 1st September they were reduced to 80 per cent., on 1st December to 72 per cent., on 1st February of this year to 70 per cent. and on 15th May to 50 per cent. On 15th May the Secretary for Mines said:
    "The position was greatly improved by the withdrawal of the French 15 per cent. surtax on coal on the 25th February, 1932, and was further improved by the changes of 15th May, 1932, in the quota arrangements which made the position of British coal imports

    301
    into France much less unfavourable, in comparison with coal imported from all other countries. The question of improving the machinery for the issue of licences is at present under consideration by the trade interests concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1932; col. 1622, Vol. 267.]
    I do not consider that there is anything very beneficial to the coal industry in that. I hold that we are suffering because of the tariff policy 6.0 p.m. of the Government. I understood that tariffs were put on in order to be used as a bargaining power. If tariffs are to be used for bargaining, we cannot afford to wait until after the Ottawa Conference. It is quite clear that from Ottawa there is no prospect of anything that will better us. In the "News-Letter" of 25th June there appears this statement by the Dominions Secretary:
    "Recovery in our export trade is vital to us, and even if the Dominions and all the rest of the Empire purchased from us everything they wanted from outside, we should still need markets in other countries. We cannot afford to enter into agreements, however favourable they might otherwise be, at Ottawa, which will cut us off from our foreign trade."
    Why should the use of bargaining power be delayed until after Ottawa. The condition of the industry is such to-day that we need to be in a hurry and we cannot afford to wait. One other subject with which I wished to deal is the prospect of new industries being started in this country. I maintain that the coal industry has no hope from any of the new industries. The Government have repeatedly said that as a result of our tariff policy hundreds of new industries would be started in this country. In the distressed area of the County of Durham not a single new industry has been started and there is no hope for Durham from new industries. I urge the Secretary for Mines to make up his mind to be something more than a mere cog in the wheel at the Ministry. He should make that Department some use to the industry so that it can be used to benefit the conditions of the mining classes.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I would like to take this opportunity of paying my humble tribute to the Secretary for Mines. I am sure that no one works harder than he does in the interest of the whole industry. Furthermore, I believe that when his term of office is
    302
    over we shall find the coal industry much improved. When I say, "improved" I not only mean that it will be improved effectively on the managerial side, but I believe that the relations between coal-owners and men will be much improved as well. I am one of those who believe that the relations between the owners and the men at, the present moment are much less strained than they were. I sincerely hope that that is so. But the men are earning very low wages and the owners are making heavy losses, and it is quite clear that anything in the nature of a stoppage would mean only the starvation of the men and bankruptcy as well.
    I do not suggest that it is merely economic necessity that is drawing the owners and the men together. I believe that there is a general desire in all quarters in the industry to cut out strife that would break the industry in half, and that there is a desire on the part of the owners to make use of the machinery of the Coal Mines Act and to get the industry out of the realm of politics. Some of the public may think that the coalowners and the men are on bad terms. I suggest to anyone who says that, that he should go to the districts and see for himself. I believe that in the districts he would find the owners and the men working very hard to come to an amicable agreement. There is what I might call an underlying feeling of suspicion that has been going on for a great number of years. One side thinks that if it makes a concession the other side may take advantage of it and use it merely as a stepping-stone.
    Unluckily disputes have gone on over a great number of years. I was reminded of that in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Coal Mines Act by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham). He told the House about the action of a certain ancestor of mine in dealing with a stoppage at his collieries. I agree that in the light of modern days the action of my ancestor could only be described as very deplorable. But he lived a very long time ago. I would remind hon. Members that he was one of Wellington's Commanders in the Peninsula War, and, frankly, I do not see that it is any use going back as far, except to point out that the employer is more enlightened to-day than he was 80 or 90 years ago. It is often said that the coal-owners are a stupid and reactionary

    303
    body. Perhaps they are. In my humble opinion, and I speak from a limited experience, they are a great deal more capable than many colliery owners on the Continent and in America.
    It is also said by some that they are making no efforts to work out details under the Coal Mines Act. People say they spend their entire time looking for new evasions. My own view is that the coalowners of Great Britain are well aware of what the Coal Mines Act means. They know that under the Act they have machinery to effect complete reorganisation and rationalisation of the industry. They know that if they make use of that machinery they will be able to meet with the men's representatives and keep the industry out of the realm of politics.
    With regard to the first part of the Act, I have been told by my friends of the Mining Association that they are working very hard now in preparing a scheme whereby evasion can be cut out. We all know what harm is being done by a few unscrupulous owners in the matter of evasion. There is the combining of the sale of coal and cake, question of subsidiary companies, the manipulation of freights, and, worst of all, the manipulation of quality. There, to my mind, is a most fruitful field of activity. These irregularities make it very hard for the owners who are trying to play the game, to compete against unfair competitors. The Mining Association are working hard to effect a solution of these problems.
    At the same time I am told that they are working out the details of a scheme by which co-operative selling on a more unified basis may be brought about. The Mining Association have seen in the past the exploitation by certain exporters before minimum prices were fixed. They see now what different results are brought about because the foreigner knows beforehand what is the minimum price for export coal. The Mining Association are working hard on a scheme to obviate those difficulties. They are working hard on other schemes which I need not quote. What I want to emphasise is that the owners are not shirking their responsibility. They are determined to make full use of the machinery of the Act, and are determined thoroughly to rationalise their industry.
    So far, so good. But I would like to see the owners go a step further. I do
    304
    not know how far their schemes have materialised, but I suggest this very important point, that they should meet Mr. Edwards and his colleagues of the Miners' Federation and ask for co-operation and help in setting up schemes. In my own colliery business when a point of interest comes before me I do not go and ask my fellow coalowners about it. I ask the checkweighman his view. I ask the view of the man at the face, the opinion of all concerned with the industry. In the same way cannot the owners as a whole get the advice and assistance of Mr. Edwards and his colleagues?
    It is sometimes said that the owners will not meet the men, that it is impracticable. The owners are always perfectly willing to meet the representatives of the men, but what they have said in the past is, "We will not meet the representative of the men when it comes to discussion of wages on a national basis." It is a very good course to take a definite line on any special subject, but I say to the owners that if they are going to forego the advantage of setting up a joint committee merely because they do not wish joint discussion of wage agreements on a national basis, they are definitely in the wrong.
    I have said in the past that I thought the miners had been badly led. It is no good going back to the past. I have said that I thought Mr. Edwards was an admirable leader of the men now, but to the owners I say that the man whom we regard as a good miners' leader is not always regarded as a good leader by the men. There are some leaders who make overtures to the owners and find them persistently turned down, and when they return to their men they are apt to find themselves a little unpopular, and some of their own young men would be glad to get rid of them. Quite bluntly I say to the owners, "It is all very well your saying what a splendid leader Mr. Edwards is, but that is not enough. You have to meet him officially and to invite his co-operation."
    I have here the ascertainment figures for Durham, covering the wages for this month. They show that there has been a further fall of 8 per cent. In other words, the industry is only able to pay 29.5 per cent. of the basic rates, as compared with some 37.36 per cent. in the month before. That is a heavy falling off. As hon. Members know the minimum percentage

    305
    is 65 per cent. and has to be made good. I regard the position as bad, about as bad as it could be. In summer, of course, the industry is in a lower state than in the winter. At the present time it is particularly bad. I say to the owners, "Our industry is in such a serious condition that we cannot afford to be inactive. Therefore get on with the work. Get in touch with Mr. Edwards. Invite his co-operation, and the sooner you do that the better it will be not only for the coal trade but for every member of the community."
    Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: I quite agree with the Noble Lord that it is not fair to judge men of the last century by the conditions of to-day. What I did say about his ancestor was not intended as any personal reflection upon his relatives. I am glad to know that the Noble Lord has given some indication of being in advance even of the coal-owners of the present time, and I sincerely hope that he will be able to exercise considerable influence with his associates in the mining industry. I hope that he will endeavour to free their minds from the prejudice which they have to a large extent held up to the present time, with regard to miners and miners' leaders. I have had considerable experience in connection with that aspect of the industry and I would say, on the suggestion as to the miners' leaders urging stoppages of work, that the difficulty of the progressive member of the miners' organisation always was to get the leaders to agree to a stoppage of work.
    I do not know, however, that the coal-owners are altogether to blame for their view of the miners' leaders, because most of their knowledge of the miners and miners' representatives has been gained through newspapers which very often reflect the minds of interests other than the coalowners' and miners' interests. I agree that the interests of the coalowner and the miner are the same, to a very considerable extent. I do not, however, agree with the Noble Lord in imagining that we can get away from politics. The coalowners take up the line that the Miners' Federation can and ought to free itself from politics. If they lay that down as a general principle in all discussions on the condition of the industry I am afraid that on those lines there is
    306
    little likelihood that we shall come any closer together than we are at present. The coalowners themselves have never been out of politics. There is no capitalist section which has ever been out of politics and it is no use suggesting that the representatives of the workers should keep themselves clear of politics. We could not do so, even if we were willing, and personally I am not willing.
    The Secretary for Mines said that he did not want to be lyrical on the subject of the mining industry, but if he was not lyrical, he struck me as being almost poetical. I do not know whether he believes in all he said, but, if he does, I fear it will be some time before he can carry the majority of hon. Members opposite with him. While he treated the subject rather from a lyrical standpoint, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) treated it from a purely economic standpoint, and I suggest that hon. Members ought, to-morrow, to read the speech of the hon. Member for Don Valley. They will find in it a fair presentation of the miners' case. The main theme of the Minister was his desire that miners and owners should come together. He has had some experience now of the leaders and representatives of the miners, and he feels, I am sure, that they are thoroughly capable of putting forward an honest, decent fair case, and that they are not the type of men who are anxious to pick a quarrel which would be destructive of the interest and of the well-being of the industry. But I think they must be pardoned for holding the view that the mining industry is of sufficient importance to warrant national action being taken when it is in a state such as it is in at the present time.
    It is the industry by which we live—not only those who are representatives here, but the men whom we represent. We meet those men week by week, we hear their complaints, we get their confidences to a greater extent than employers or managers. When I ask hon. Members to read the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley in order that they may learn how we approach the consideration of this question, from the higher standpoint, I would also ask them to pay some attention to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). He comes from a district which has

    307
    suffered heavily in this depression. I dare say he would contend that it has suffered the brunt and is worse than anywhere else. On that point, however, I am bound to disagree with him. In South Wales exactly the same thing would be said.
    As it happens, a committee representing Glasgow University—most of them professors, I believe—have been inquiring into industrial conditions in the South-West of Scotland. Their report has been published as a Blue Book by the Stationery Department and we find from that report that in the county of Lanark there were, in 1930, only some 59 men working where 100 were working in 1926. We find that 41 per cent. of the mining population there are no longer engaged in the mines. I do not know that there is any other district which has been more severely hit. The whole North-East Coast of England and Scotland, an area which largely depends on export trade, has had serious difficulties, but bad as the conditions were, up to last year those difficulties have been increased by the tariff policy of the Government. I am not questioning the fact that any number of hon. Members opposite honestly believe that the Government's policy in the long run will be of.advantage to the nation. I merely put it to the Committee that the policy of this Government has reacted more or less disastrously upon the mining industry which makes it all the more reasonable for us to ask that the Government should consider our case with the closest attention.
    The general question, however, has been very well put by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley, and I do not wish to go over the ground which he has covered. There are one or two local matters however which I wish to bring to the notice of the Secretary for Mines. As I have said, we meet our members in the mining areas every week-end and hear their complaints and receive their confidences. I find there is considerable complaint in the County of Lanark on the question of ventilation. That is a subject which does not involve legislation but can be dealt with administratively, by the Department. I wish it to be understood that I make no reflection of any kind upon the work of the inspectorate. The inspectors do their work admirably and I want to put in a plea
    308
    for an addition to the number of inspectors. The mining industry, as it is worked to-day, is not what it was a few years ago. The introduction of machinery, both in producing the coal and distributing it along the face to the roadway, has created problems which make inspection more necessary than ever. In the interests of safety we require more inspectors so that the pits can be examined more frequently than is possible under present conditions. If we had an addition to the inspectorate which would enable more constant examination to be made I feel certain that the question of ventilation would not be the trouble which it is in Lanark at present.
    There is in operation in the county of Lanark to-day a system which is, I believe, illegal. That is the system of double deductions on the coal produced by the men. By agreement there is a certain allowance for dirt, or foreign material as it is described in the Mines Act, but I do not think it is legal to have two deductions. They are not entitled to have a certain allowance made on the tail board of the weighing machine and in addition an allowance of a considerable amount for dirt that cannot be seen. I am not sure that this matter is easily understandable by those who are not acquainted with the practice which is in operation but it is a very serious factor and is the cause of considerable disagreement between employers and workmen. If, as we believe, the practice is illegal, the mines inspectors can deal with it. If it is illegal no employer should be allowed to put this practice into operation as they are doing in Lanark.
    I would also call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the question of contracting. Possibly this is a matter with which the Department could not very well deal at the moment, but I draw attention to it because contracting is on the increase. On account of the growing mechanisation of the industry, more contractors are being employed and they are not always of the best character. In a number of cases recently men have found themselves deprived of their wages. The employer or the manager is responsible for the employment of the contractor. Usually the contractor is employed for the purpose of reducing rates and thereby reducing wages. Consequently a more or less unscrupulous employer does not

    309
    pay very much regard to the character of the man whom he has employed as a contractor and it has happened in the Scottish coalfield that men have worked for a week or a fortnight and have found at the end of the time that no wages were forthcoming and that the coalowner refused to accept any responsibility. We think that he ought to be held responsible and if the Department have not the power to deal with that matter, they ought to ask for legislation giving them power to compel the coalowner, who is the ultimate and real employer of the contractor, to take responsibility for the payment of the wages to the men. These are all local questions of considerable difficulty in Lanarkshire and right through 6.30 p.m. out Scotland. My right hon. Friend the late Secretary of State for Scotland drew my attention to the difficulties that he was encountering in connection with the same matter in Fife, so that we may take it that this question is one that is creating a considerable amount of ill-feeling, and justifiable ill-feeling, among the men.
    If the Department can do anything to put an end to practices of this kind, they will render a considerable service that will mean the men being more willing to meet the employers in a friendly spirit than is possible under present conditions. We, on this side, are anxious that there should he agreement, as far as is humanly possible, between the miners and the coalowners, but unfortunately we are not quite sure that the coalowners are, in many cases. If they were coalowners, then they would be equally interested with us in the matter, but they are not all coalowners. As a matter of fact, in Scotland and, I think, right throughout Great Britain, it is true to say that the persons who are in control in the mining industry are men who have a direct interest in keeping the industry in its present condition. They want to get coal cheap, and they do not care how disorganised the industry may be, so long as they can get coal cheap, because their profits are made in an entirely different direction.
    I do not want to elaborate that matter, and I do not want to make any capital out of it. I am merely putting it that that is one of the difficulties that the industry is up against, and it is one that can be dealt with without foreign interference at all—I mean, in the sense of
    310
    conventions held anywhere in Europe. It and most of the questions that we are putting here to-day can be dealt with at home, if there is that agreement between the parties concerned in the industry that is essential, and if there is the help given by the Mines Department which we believe it was formed for the purpose of giving. I hope, therefore, that as a result of this Debate the Department will take some courageous action, because courage, as my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley said, is the one essential at the moment. Let the Mines Department take its courage in both hands, and I have no doubt that the bulk of the Members of this House will give it all the support that is necessary to try to get this industry put into a sounder position than that which it occupies to-day.
    Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: I do not quite agree with the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham). I do not know anything about Scotland, but I can assure him that, as far as Northumberland is concerned, there is not a single person in control of the industry there who is not only too anxious that the price of coal should be increased. I wish to associate myself with the speech of my Noble Friend the Member for Down (Viscount Castlereagh). There is every hope for the coal industry when owners coming from such distinguished coal-owning families take such a reasonable and broad-minded attitude. We listened to a very important speech by the Secretary for Mines. I do not refer to his remarks about new uses for coal and new fuel from coal; but I feel that at last the industry has had a lead given to it by the Government, arid at last the Mining Association has been told that the Government will use all their influence to secure the formation of a National Board or something Along those lines. Though I have no right to speak for anyone but myself, I wish to support the hon. Gentleman to the full.
    It is very easy for any Member of this House to indulge, in criticism of the owners. They are not very strongly represented here, they are few in number, and on the whole they are unpopular and have forfeited the confidence of the country. I think it is rather cheap merely to engage in criticising them unconstructively. But I feel that the time has come when they should be told—for, after all, I think the worst accusation

    311
    that could be made against them is that they have lost touch with public opinion in this House, in the country, and even among their own members—what is the feeling of this House, and I believe that the general feeling of this House is that the Mining Association must learn how to yield gracefully to the inevitable. They must learn what is the greatest lesson that any individual has to learn in life—when to cut their losses. That is the hardest lesson we have to learn and, I think, the most important. In my opinion, the principle of treating the industry as a whole, and nationally, has been conceded long ago, and I cannot do better than read the words of Mr. Peter Lee, President of the Miners' Federation, in the quarterly report that has just come out to the Durham Miners' Association. He expresses much better than I could what I mean, when he says:
    "If the nation recognises the need for co-operation on a national basis for production and distribution, it must also in time provide for working conditions and wages to be considered nationally."
    That, in my opinion, is the crux of the whole situation. Further on he says something that may also interest the Committee:
    "If the three parties who will have to undertake the task enter upon it in the right spirit, it is quite possible to arrive at a decision that will establish a far more satisfactory system to govern the coal trade than we have experienced for many years, for what has been found possible in other industries should be attainable in the mines."
    That, roughly, is what every Member who represents a mining constituency, whatever his party, is out for. I think we can assure the Mining Association that they will not find it a difficult atmosphere. Certainly I am at a loss to understand how it is that men on both sides who take such a reasonable point of view have failed to come together. I have the honour to number among my friends both the secretary of the Miners' Federation and many very important men in the Mining Association, and I repeat that I am at a loss to understand how men who individually, hold reasonable and broadminded views, when they form part of a deputation of five or ten, seem to lose all the breadth of view and all the sense of proportion which they have, and fail to give the industry a lead. The Mining Association must also be aware, as we
    312
    are aware, of the feeling in this House. I think it has generally been conceded that the last Debate on the Mines Vote displayed a more reasonable spirit in every quarter than ever before. Then we had four days' Debate on the Coal Mines Act, and almost every speech then gave the hope that a reasonable attitude and spirit was entering into the industry.
    I referred just now to the cutting of losses. I think that one thing, and one thing only, stands in the way of the Mining Association accepting the principle of national negotiations, not only on wages, but on general questions affecting the industry, and that is that the 1926 strike was fought over the question of national negotiations. It is very understandable, and I am not blaming them, but they are unwilling to say six years later that they will concede that principle, but they must learn when to cut their losses. To my mind, the future of the mining industry depends, not on new inventions nor on the laboratory. I think those things are too hazy. They are things that we may hope for, but it is folly to pin our hopes upon anything but the most unsubstantial and pious wish.
    The future of the mining industry depends, first and foremost, on the implementation of Part I of the Act of 1930 and, secondly, on bilateral commercial treaties abroad. The Act, everybody agrees, is not being properly worked, and the question that I wish to ask the Secretary for Mines—I am sorry he is not here—is, What is going to happen during the Recess? We all know that the Mining Association are full of good intentions, but we also know that they need a very large majority—I think, 85 per cent. or something like that—to bring about any drastic changes in the organisation of the industry. What has to be done is quite plain. I am afraid there is a long list of very important things. Inter-district competition must be stopped; certain districts which I will not name must be forced to play fair with regard to carrying out the Act; and there must be some scheme ultimately introduced for the elimination of uneconomic pits. All this can be done under the Act.
    Then there is the question of district marketing boards and export marketing boards. The suggestions put forward—I do not say that I stand for them or

    313
    against them—in a book recently published by Mr. Merrett should be considered, and above all attention should he paid to the need for securing certainty of employment for those men who are in work, and securing that short time is not worked. Another matter—I do not know how it affects other coalfields, but it affects the one that I represent—is that I think there is too little inducement held out for piece workers. I think that datal men are too numerous, and there is very little temptation for the best men to become piece workers.
    I must be honest with the Committee and say that I face the Recess with considerable trepidation. I have the honour to represent, roughly, half the Northumbrian coalfield. I suppose that we all think well of our constituents, but I cannot help feeling that I number among mine some of the finest miners in the world. They are going through a very hard time, and I want to know what I can say to them during the Recess; whether I can go down to them and say that the Government are determined to push on the work of re-organisation and the conscious planning of the industry, because I feel that that is the only way in which I can sincerely hold out hope to them. What will happen if the Mining Association fails to get a sufficient degree of unanimity or a sufficient majority for the proposals which their reasonable and moderate leaders are putting forward at the present time? Are we to wait till next Session before the subject can be ventilated again? Then, to turn to the export trade and Ottawa, are we to wait till the next Session, till after 15th November, when the present import duties expire and come up for revision, before negotiations are to be entered into with foreign countries? That is a very important. question. To my mind, they should begin immediately Ottawa is over.
    There is one other question to which I should like to refer, and that is the effect of our tariffs and import duties on the coal industry. I want to be honest about it, and I think every Member of this House should be above treating it as a mere debating point, in any attack on or defence of the present system of import duties. I sincerely believe that in the main the reason for foreign restrictions on the import of British coal is largely that foreign mines—I refer to German, French, and Belgian in particular—are
    314
    not working at full time and that their men are unemployed just like our own. The second thing is that they are short of foreign currency, or at any rate Germany is. We are the main country from which they buy foreign coal, and I regard it not only as natural that they should impose restrictions on the importation of all foreign coal, but natural that they should particularly discriminate against ours, because, to take the case of Germany, the only other foreign coal imported is from the Saar Basin, which they persist in regarding as part of Germany, and from Holland, with whom they have a commercial treaty. I honestly think that you will find 90 per cent. of the explanation of the foreign restrictions along those lines.
    I have great faith in the Secretary for Mines. He has been compared with all sorts of people to-day, and in my own mind I hardly know who it is who is sitting there, whether it is Oliver Cromwell and whether I should greet him in Milton's words as
    "Cromwell, thou chief of men";
    or whether it is Edmund Burke, in which case I would have a far wider field of quotation; or whether it is Archimedes. I cannot help thinking of the latter, because among the remnants of my education I remember something about Archimedes' screw and the Amendment of hon. Gentlemen opposite is an attack or the Minister's "screw." All these three men were noted for their persistence, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if he goes on with persistence, as he has begun, in defending the interests of the mining industry he will have the full support of every Member of the House, to whatever party he may belong, who has the honour to represent a mining constituency.
    Mr. DICKIE: I intervene in the Debate to press again the case of the exporting areas in the mining industry. In this industry, as I pointed out during the Debates on the Coal Mines Act, we are suffering to-day from the blunders of the past, and each and every day, particularly in the exporting areas, those blunders are compelling us to reap their bitter fruits to a greater and greater extent. With regard to the incidence of the Act of 1930, I should like to call the attention of the Committee to an interesting statement, which has had an apt and speedy

    315
    confirmation during the last few days, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Slater), in the Debate on the 2nd June. He was pointing out the difficulties and disadvantages which this Act imposed on the industry, particularly in regard to finding capital and obtaining a return on capital by men who sought to put down large sums of money in order to give employment to large numbers of men, and he used these words:
    "What is the position to-day? We sink a colliery with a possible projected production of 1,000,000 tons per annum and, when we have got to that point, we are told by the quota committee that we cannot produce according to our capacity, I know many instances where men have embarked on a capital expenditure of as much as £1,000,000. We go on and we sink pits and we are told, when we are striving our utmost to produce coal cheaply, to put in the most modern machinery and to create the greatest possible wage-earning capacity for the worker, that we must work at an uneconomic output."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd June, 1932; col. 1383, Vol. 266.]
    These are the words of one who is intimately acquainted with the industry and whose lifework it has been. In the last few days we have had confirmation from the chairman of one of the largest coal-producing companies—Pease and Partners, Limited. At their meeting a few days ago Lord Gainford spoke of the Thorne Colliery, one of the most modern and efficient collieries in the world, which took from 10 to 12 years to sink at a cost of £1,000,000. Owing to the depression in the mining industry, the company is in a parlous condition, the shareholders are getting very little return for the capital, and the workers are being daily paid off. The chairman said:
    "The position of Thorne was greatly prejudiced by the operations of the quota, which prevented them from raising and disposing of the output, which they could readily do but for the restrictions placed upon them."
    That is only one instance. Instances are multiplying rapidly, and I am convinced that very shortly, by the mere influxion of time, it will be found that these quota restrictions and minimum prices are operating to the detriment of the mining industry to such an extent that they will succumb and naurally he swept away. Here is the case of William Cory and Son, another well-known firm:
    "The company's export trade has been further handicapped by the curtailment of
    316
    output and the fixation of minimum prices by the collieries under the regulations imposed upon them by the Coal Mines Act."
    That was stated only a week ago.
    Mr. JOHN: Are William Cory and Company producers?
    Mr. DICKIE: They are the biggest marketers of coal in the world. Is the hon. Member labouring under the impression that you can know nothing about the production of coal except by working in a pit? I thought that we had got rid of that fantastic fiction long ago. If the hon. Member thinks that, let him go out to Westminster Hall, and, as he passes through, stop at the brass plate where Warren Hastings was tried. Then let him go home and take down Macaulay's Essay on Edmund Burke, who was the greatest figure at that trial in spite of the presence of High Commissioners, of Indian Princes, and of men who have spent their lives in India. The man who knew more about India at that trial than any other man was Edmund Burke, who had never been out of England in his life. He knew more about its traditions, religion, races and characteristics than any figure at the trial, and it is nonsense to think that nobody knows about the mining industry except those who have worked at the pit. Perhaps the hon. Member will accept the statement of the president of the north-eastern branch of the Association of Colliery Managers, Who is the agent for Horden Collieries. Speaking only on Saturday last, that gentleman said:
    "The Act had removed the freedom of working pits, destroyed incentive, knocked the heart out of colliery managers and discouraged all enterprise and development.… Unless some change is made in the Coal Mines Act of 1930, coal mining is a dying industry in this country."
    I impress on the Committee what he said next, for it is in reality the essence of the whole position, and shows the very severe restrictions and the dangerous handicaps that this Act has placed on the export trade in coal. He said:
    "If minimum prices for export continue, there will be no trade left."
    These are only three instances. I do not want to recapitulate the arguments that I used in the Debates on the Coal Mines Act, but I would urge on the Minister, apart from any question of legislation, the vital necessity for pressing on the owners, if it be true that they can

    317
    do this thing themselves with consultations and arrangements among themselves, the vital need of getting rid as speedily as possible of the restrictions in regard to the quota and minimum prices. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) pointed out that there were two ways round this competition; you had either to meet these people with the same weapons that they were using, or you had to enter into some form of international agreement. As far as I am aware, neither is being done. The Minister knows that I was for many years as good a Free Trader as he was, and those of us who have sacrificed the beliefs of a lifetime and who came forward to support the Government in the operation of a tariff, did not do it willingly or lightheartedly; we did not do it without thought and without a purpose. We did it for the express purpose of putting into the hands of the Government a weapon which would enable them to meet a situation of this kind.
    Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that it is to the bulk of imports that other countries are now taking exception, and if these minimum prices for export coal are removed and the prices reduced and more coal is sold by us, the immediate result will be to render more mines idle in other countries? That will result in our quota being reduced to the same figure, so that no reduction in minimum prices will enable us to sell a larger volume of coal abroad. We shall merely be getting less revenue for the same amount of coal.
    Mr. DICKIE: I do not agree with the hon. Member. I pointed out during the Debate on the Act that we have lost to other countries which had increased their export of coal while our exports of coal had declined. We gave the Minister this weapon in order that it should be used. It is not for me to say how he ought to use it, but I will make one suggestion in regard to the case of France. France is a great wine-producing country, and we import a great deal of wine, particularly champagne. They have just been celebrating the 250th anniversary of the man who put the bubble into it. We have heard a great deal to-day about Cromwell; the headquarters of the Mines Department is Cromwell House, and the Minister of Mines is a great admirer of the Protector. Let him, like his illus-
    318
    trious predecessor, go down to history as a great protector; let him go down as the miners' protector, and, when Frenchmen say to him that they will not take our coal, let him say to them, "You take away that bauble!"
    I want to reinforce the argument of the hon. Member for Spennymore (Mr. Batey). He recalled that the Minister had told the House that no less than 19 collieries had been closed in county Durham in the last two months. That is a serious matter. An hon. Friend whispers to me that an announcement of another mine closed has been made to-day. I regret that the Minister for Mines is not in the Cabinet so that this matter could be brought more closely to the notice of the Members of the Government. The Government seem to lose sight of the fact that as each colliery closes down in a distressed county like Durham it is made more difficult for the other collieries to carry on. This year the county has lost no less than the equivalent of a shilling rate, namely, £140,000, and the public assistance committee is budgeting for an increase for Poor Law relief of something like £170,000.
    I view the possibilities of the Recess with the greatest concern, for I hardly know what is going to happen, and, to tell the truth, I do not know what I am to say to my constituents with colliery after colliery closing down, with trade declining, and with more men becoming unemployed and having no alternative employment in those distressed areas. I hope that the Ministry, the Mines Department, the owners, and the miners will come together. We are losing this export trade daily, and I want them to try and find out some means of retaining it. I hope that during the Recess they will get busy and find some means of keeping pits open. Hon. Members opposite are not the only ones 7.0 p.m. who realise the hardships suffered by the miners. Miners in my constituency are carrying home something between 30s. and 35s. a week for a week's work in the bowels of the earth. Do you think I am satisfied with it, or that any of us are? I want to see an improvement. We have to get a practical means for doing it and I hope that will be the task of the Ministry, the Miners' Federation and all parties concerned.
    Mr. CAPE: I rise to take part in this. Debate with a good deal of diffidence after hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dickie), because he insisted that those of us who had worked in the pits were not the only people who knew anything about the mining industry. No one claimed that. Although I have had long experience as a working miner, and as a miners' Member of Parliament, I do not know all the intricacies of the mining industry. I can quite understand that, being as ignorant as I am, the hon. Member for Consett will give me encouragement in the points I am making. I listened to what he said about the quota and minimum prices. I had the honour of listening to his speech in the last Debate, and it seemed to me that he has become obsessed with the matter and cannot help deriding quotas and minimum prices. He has put his point of view, and I will put mine. If you take the conditions in Durham and other parts of the country, this week-end we have at least 600 or 700 men put out of employment, which means a great deal to a small county. That is not due to the quota system. As a matter of fact, trade is in such a distressed state to-day that none of the collieries can even get rid of the quota to which they are entitled, so that the quota system will not affect the coal trade when times are bad, though it may have some effect when times are better.
    Mr. DICKIE: These two things must not be separated. It is the operation of the quota and the minimum price together, and I would like hon. Members to try to get out of their heads the idea that you cannot sell coal cheaply and pay high wages.
    Mr. CAPE: I cannot deal with the quota and the minimum price at one and the same time. The minimum price, I quite agree, is connected with the quota system, but does the hon. Member realise that the miners' wages are corning from the price obtained for coal? The lower your price, the lower your wages. The hon. Member for Consett shakes his head. The wages in every county in Britain are determined by the revenue of the industry. Nobody can deny that. The lower the price at which you sell your coal, the less revenue comes into the industry, and the consequence is that
    320
    the wages would be lower accordingly. I quite agree with the hon. Member when he does not want the miners in Durham to work for 30s. or 35s. a week.
    Mr. DICKIE: I have no desire to interrupt unduly, but. I really must point out that as an ordinary economic proposition you can pay higher wages if a pit is working at 95 per cent. of its capacity than if it is working at 60 per cent.
    Mr. CAPE: That is not exactly an economic fact, though it may have an economic effect. The revenue that comes into the industry is the determining factor of what the wages shall be. If you sell at a low price, the less will be the wages of the men. That has been our experience. I advise the hon. Member to turn his attention in another direction for the solution of the problem. There are one or two points I should like to put to the Secretary for Mines. I think the time has arrived when the Mines Department should be a separate entity and a separate Department. It is to some extent controlled by the President of the Board of Trade, who is the controlling authority so far as mining legislation is concerned. It is true that the Minister of Mines can meet deputations and is responsible for certain regulations, and can put into operation things that may be advised by his advisers, but before he does that he must consult the higher authority, the President of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT indicated dissent.
    Mr. CAPE: Very well, I am wrong in that. He has met deputations when we have been told that although the Secretary for Mines was quite prepared to do a thing, he must consult his chief before coming to a final decision.
    Mr. FOOT: We are directly responsible to the House for the Mines Vote, and for matters involving the carrying out of Acts of Parliament which are committed to us for administration, and on those matters the President of the Board of Trade would not expect to be consulted, and is not consulted. If a broad question of policy arises in this House, especially in relation to foreign countries, then my right hon. Friend is concerned.
    Mr. CAPE: When a question of legislation comes before the House the President of the Board of Trade will have to

    321
    be consulted, so that the fundamental policy of the industry is entirely in the hands of the Board of Trade. The Home Office also has certain jurisdiction over other things. I suggest the industry ought to be put under one head, and that the Mines Department should be a Department of State.
    I wish to make another suggestion that I have put to every Minister of Mines for the last 12 years, though they have all turned a deaf ear to it. There are new methods of mining which are now taking place, there is the introduction of machinery to a very much greater extent than in years gone by, and there are various questions which have been referred to in the Debate such as ventilation. I do not want to make any charges against the managers with regard to neglect of duty and so on, but I do say that the Coal Mines Act, 1911, is out-of-date. That Act wants reviewing, and an amending Act should be brought in to enable it to meet modern requirements.
    The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert): I hope the hon. Member will remember that he must not discuss matters which require legislation.
    Mr. CAPE: I thank you, Sir Dennis, for that intervention, because I am afraid I was getting rather far from the Vote, but you have put me right and I accept what you say. The industry is in a most parlous state to-day. I think every Member of the House will realise that. We who come from the heart of the mining districts have seen the terrible poverty among those who live there. Hon. Members who go to their mining divisions very frequently see that hardship and poverty. I come from a mining district, and at the present moment I view the future with fear. I have been in the coalfields a. great part of my life, and I have seen it go through hard times and through dire distress, but I have always been able to see some prospects of a revival in the near future. At the present time, as far as I can see in my own district, although the percentage of miners unemployed is not quite as high as in some other districts it is something like 38 per cent. or 39 per cent., and I cannot see in the near future where these men can be absorbed at their own work. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that the Government should give some attention to these mining districts in connection with the
    322
    introduction of new industries which are starting in this country, because we have in those areas every facility. A chance should be given in those districts to the men who will never get back into the mining industry to find employment. There are all facilities, such as housing and railway facilities, for industry to come into that area, and if the Government would give some attention to that subject, it would help to relieve the poverty-stricken districts of the coalfields.
    I realise that during his period of office, the Minister of Mines has always been very sympathetic to the pleas put to him, and has made a genuine attempt to bring the conflicting parties together with a view to trying to get them into a better frame of mind for the settlement of disputes. I want him not only to be strong and resolute, but to try as far as possible to use every power he possesses to bring the two sides together, so that they can sit down reasonably to consider what can be done. Both parties should take a share. If I sent a telegram from here to ask the Cumberland coalowners to meet me on Friday morning they would make every effort to do so, and we could discuss together the problems in our own coalfield. That is the general tendency all round; but once it is a question of national negotiations, then condition's change, though I cannot understand why. In 1921 a national Board was set up with Sir William Plender, now Lord Plender, as chairman. I was for three years a member of that Board, and we discussed all sorts of problems in connection with the mining industry as they exist to-day, except, perhaps, that the depression is now more acute than it was at that period. We went on with that National Board to 1926, and during the whole of those five years I do not think there was one area or district strike, because if districts would not agree the point was brought before the National Board, with its eminent chairman, and although the Board had not the power to lay down conditions it could advise and could bring the two sides together for consultation.
    If the coalowners in the various districts can discuss problems with the men at district boards, surely, for their own sake, they should come together as a national body, in the same way as the men have got together, and deal with

    323
    this mining situation from the national point of view. While it may be necessary for certain things to be undertaken locally, there are other matters which have a national significance and can only be dealt with nationally, either by a, board or through the medium of this House. To my mind it appears to be a case of the owners being suspicious of one another. But take the case of the miners. We are far from being angelic; everyone knows that; although we are not quite so bad as the Press makes us out to be, we are prepared sometimes to have a bit of a scrap with anybody who comes along. But the point is that the Miners' Federation is composed of men working in the mines in South Wales and men working in all the other mines right through the country up to the mines in the northern districts of Scotland. We disagree among ourselves, but after discussion we come to a certain agreement, and then, as a united body, we put forward our proposals either to the coal-owners or to the Government or to our own districts. If we, who have had nothing like the education of the coal-owners, and have nothing like the negotiating skill, can become a united body, why cannot the coalowners unite in the same way? If both sides in the industry have the responsibility of bringing the industry into a state of prosperity they ought to realise that they must first he united amongst themselves before they can he united as a whole. If the Secretary for Mines would direct his attention and his energies to bringing about that state of affairs he would go down to history—and I do not say this flippantly—as having done something serviceable and of advantage to the coal industry.
    Mr. SLATER: I cannot say that the Debate has reached a very high level from the point of view of furnishing constructive suggestions for the improvement of this great industry. Perhaps the most constructive speech to-day came from the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). We on this side, as Conservatives, may not often be inclined to support what a prominent Labour leader says regarding an industry, but on going through his speech point by point I am certain that, when we read it quietly to-morrow, we shall regard it as the most constructive speech of the day. The speech of the Secretary for Mines was
    324
    very disappointing, to my mind, because he told us only two things. The first was that he is very desirous that greater use should be made of Part IV of this Act than has been the case up to the present time. In case hon. Members do not know what Part IV is I will remind them that it sets up a body of 17 members, including six from the Mining Association, six from the Miners Federation, and with representatives of the Federation of British Industries, the General Council of the Trade Union Congress, the Co-operative Union, and the National Congress of Employers Organisations, and having an independent chairman. The Secretary for Mines was also very anxious about the wages question, regarding the present situation as unsatisfactory, and I am prepared to associate myself with that view.
    The Mining Association say they will not discuss wages on a national basis, and, as far as I can hear, they are not prepared at this juncture to discuss wages even in the districts. I have had a discussion with Mr. Edwards on this point, and I believe that the Miners' Federation, seeing the inevitability of trouble arising on this point at a little later stage, are prepared, if they can have a proper formula, to discuss even district committees and district settlements as, at any rate, a proposal which is constructive. As a Member of this House I would urge upon the coalowners to remember how much of their trade has been destroyed by the repeated trouble and strife of the last 10 or 15 years. They ought not to put off a settlement of this question until we arrive at the stage when people in this country, and more particularly those abroad, find themselves face to face with the possibility of supplies of coal being interfered with, because that will only accelerate the movement which is driving them to alternative sources of power, light and heat. These people will not lightly submit to an interference with their coal supplies just to satisfy the caprice of coalowners or miners. The point the Minister made on that is very well worth the attention of the coalowners and the Miners' Federation, and if Part IV can be brought into operation to secure a reconsideration of the whole of the problems facing the industry in addition to the wage question it will he of great value to the country 'and. to the industry.

    325
    What are the troubles we are facing? It is no use blinking facts; every Member must realise that the affairs of the coal industry are in anything but a satisfactory state. I have here the report of the Mining Association of Great Britain, who are endeavouring to Assist the work of reconstruction under Part I of the Act, and their admissions are astounding They say:
    "The fundamental purpose for which the schemes were established was the attainment and maintenance of an economic level of price for coal so far as this could be secured by action within the control of the colliery proprietors."
    What have the coalowners been doing since this House, in 1930, gave them this protection and this facility? I agree that world conditions have accentuated the difficulties of the coal trade, And that the restrictions on imports imposed in foreign countries which produce coal have made it very doubtful whether the volume of trade with them could be increased, however low prices were; but in countries which do not produce their own coal the cheapness of supplies, in association with a high standard of thermal efficiency, will continue to decide contracts. All the countries which are buyers of coal, such as Scandinavia, the Baltic Provinces, South America, Italy, and the Mediterranean countries, will continue to be influenced by the price of coal; and therefore we have arrived at a stage when the difficulties which the coalowners are undoubtedly up against as regards foreign trade have been transferred from the foreign field to the home markets. Instead of endeavouring to obtain au economic price for their coal, such as would allow a fair return on capital and a fair wage to the workers, they have started, under the protection of recent legislation, to disintegrate the whole economic structure of the industry, and to fight each other by districts. It has become a question as to which district will, in a metaphorical phrase, sell its pounds at the lowest possible price.
    What is the result? The Secretary for Mines and the Minister of Labour know it when they get telegrams or letters stating that such-and-such a colliery has seen closed down, and stressing the great hardship caused to some township which relies on that colliery. The effect of a colliery closing down is not confined to the men working in-it, but affects those
    326
    engaged in many other occupations. Money revolves, and the pound which is set in circulation by the primary producer is responsible for creating ten times that amount of purchasing power before it finally ceases its momentum. Each district suffers a great loss in purchasing power, quite apart from the miners who go out of work. Not a constructive thought has been put forward for dealing with this disintegration of the whole industry such as can make us feel certain that we are grasping the nettle and facing our difficulties. Let me give one or two instances of what is going on. Suppose the price of a certain grade of coal—washed peas—is 11s. per ton in Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, or Yorkshire. If that coal has to come up to London 12s. per ton has to be added to the 11s., which is the price at the pit mouth, to cover railway rates and wagon hire. If a Yorkshire colliery is desirous of meeting the competition in the southern consuming part of England, what can it do? It can bring the price down to 6s. 9d. at the pit, by shipping by Hull and Goole into London river.
    When we last met, with all the solemnity that perhaps carried more conviction to hon. Members' minds than anything else, the President of the Board of 7.30 p.m. Trade standing at the Box said, "Gentlemen, if you do pass this Coal Mines Bill, there will be chaos. Prices will fall 2s, 6d. per ton." Why, within hours of his sitting down, what happened? I went to the Minister myself, and I said: "Here is the war started, between rail-borne and sea-borne traffic to the South, and as much as 7s. a ton reduction has come about." The railway companies serving the collieries in the Midlands, after two years of Rip-Van-Winkle ideas of meeting the situation, suddenly awaken to the fact that the great freight trunk-lines of this country are void of traffic and that they are missing the opportunity that they used to have of a virtual monopoly of sending coal to the South. They are telling the consumers and distributors in the South of England to-day: "What you want to do is to cut your price 2s. 6d., and the railway company will cut 2s. 6d. with you."
    What is the end of it? It is that the gross proceeds of the coal industry are falling every day, and that wages are

    327
    falling at the same time. We are marching on to chaos, and it is no use thinking that this question can be calmly set aside during the coming Recess. There are tens of thousands of people in this country who see nothing but a blank wall of despair. There is nothing in the proposals of the Secretary for Mines, except perhaps Part IV—if that is the extent to which he is going to tell us he wants to do something for the industry—and some scientific developments, which I am all for. It is not touching one tittle of the real question. What is the answer? What I said in May. What this industry wants without delay is an authority, couched in a co-ordinating body at the head, which will say to the coalowners in every part of this country: "You must stop this nonsense, and you must get together and face the question of what you sell your coal at, on a basis that will give a reasonable certainty that the industry will survive, and that the wage-earners will not follow you in the idiotic policy that you are pursuing."
    That is the situation. What is needed is co-ordination at the top, as the hon. Member for Don Valley said. You want a body which can speak in the national interests of the industry. We are to-day a rambling mass of humanity going into the markets of the world, trying to sell coal against an organised pool like the Westphalian syndicate, with as much chance as a snowball has in Hades of getting anywhere near a chance of doing it. This point cannot brook more delay. We have no chance, unless we speak internationally of expressing the importance of what the coal trade is suffering from in this country. It is that those countries who have favourable balances, as a result of their trade with this country, are purchasing coal, with which we could supply them, from countries where they get no reciprocation. We have to impress them through the International Committee that we set up, that it is our coal that they must buy. We keep their humans alive by what we buy, and we have a perfect right to expect them to keep our humans alive by what they buy. That is a problem that no single coalowner can ever solve; it can only be done by co-ordination at the top.
    The problem of the industry is how to harness the over-production in the industry so that its parasitical influence on
    328
    labour and capital shall not be allowed to continue. That is the whole problem. The situation to-day is bordering upon the inevitable crash, in many important producing districts in this country, simply because we have not direction at the top. To say, when you are up against the economic trouble which besets not this industry alone, but all coal industries in every other country, that the best way of fighting is to make the cost of production dearer, seems bordering upon lunacy. You cannot possibly do it. I appeal to the Labour Members. They have an obsession that the quota system is something on to which they must hang, because they fathered it on to the House. With all the solemnity of which I am capable I ask the Labour Members to recognise that the only way in which industry can survive, when you cannot increase the gross income, is to reduce your expenses, and the only way to reduce your expenses is to put your output into the most efficient collieries. Then you can bring about something of which miners have been dreaming, better wages, and, as a paradox, cheaper coal for the consumers of this country.
    That is what the quota system means. If that continues one more year, the Government will have to pick up the whole of the coal mining industry. There is no chance of a way out in that direction. It we have to deal with over-production, let us answer it with some adequate compensation scheme. That is the only way. You will have to do it sooner or later. You must do it by bringing about coordination between all the districts under one supreme authority. Let that authority fix prices as between the districts. Let us retain any benefits that the present Acts have given us, and build up, from whatever quotas have been established, better conditions in the industry. Let us remember that this important industry is playing, and will play, in the next five or 10 years, a very important part in our iron and steel industry, which has just obtained Protection to enable it to make good against the competition of the rest of the world.
    We must get cheap coal, and if we see the progress of oil, gas and electricity we realise that. Every morning in the newspaper you come upon reports where, for instance, the Central Electricity Board says: "Here you are—4,000,000 units in 1913, and now 12,000,000 units." The

    329
    Secretary for Mines says: "More scientific use of coal," but the Secretary for Mines knows, as I know, and as everyone in this Committee knows, that that means less demand for coal. The only way that coal can meet that is by cheap production. The Mines Department has the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission as part of its expenses. The commission issued to the coalowners of the country about a fortnight ago a document, of which I have a copy, When I consider that it cost £90,000—£60,000 last year and £30,000 this year—it is the most puerile and extravagant document that I have ever read. It does not say anything, except, "What we were told two years ago we have come to the conclusion is true—that we cannot have compulsory amalgamation, and must go on in a voluntary way." That is all they say, except that they take some paragraphs out of one of the text books on probate valuation and they tell you the basis upon which colliery valuations should be effected. Maybe the Coal Reorganisation Commission have not had powers. I have said in the House before that they never had any real power. If this is the extent of their intelligence and constructiveness to bring about a better condition of affairs in the industry, then God help the industry! We must have something better than that.
    I want to go on to another phase of this question, which has been touched upon in Committee to-day, and that is whether hydrogenation or low-temperature carbonisation shall be given the preference and, if possible, the financial support of the Government, at this stage in the history of the coal trade. My impression is that there is not a low-temperature carbonisation scheme in the world that is worth anything to the coal trade, but I have always been enamoured of the possibilities of hydrogenation. I believe that if that particular research were developed, with real enthusiasm behind it, it could become not only a powerful contributor to a bigger demand for coal in this country, but, in the present national crisis, one of the greatest contributors to bringing about an equalisation in our payments abroad. If that be the case, I suggest to the Secretary for Mines that it is the considered opinion of the coalowners, who have spent their money and time in this matter, that he should direct his attention and that of
    330
    his Department to the possibilities that this research opens out. I believe that if he is persistent, he will without doubt accomplish within a very short time a great stroke for the coal industry of this country and for the National Budget.
    Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: I was delighted to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Slater), and it would be very difficult for us to find any complaint with his conception and his grasp of the mining problem. It is very refreshing to find that a coalowner, and a coalowner Member of Parliament, can advance in this Committee views which have been expressed for the last 10 or 11 years by representatives of the Miners' Federation and by hon. Members who have represented mining constituencies. I am sure that he will have been well acquainted with my predecessor, the late Mr. Vernon Hartshorn. From 1921 forward, Mr. Hartshorn endeavoured, on behalf of the Ogmore constituency, and on behalf of the Miners' Federation, to advance the views that have been expressed in the very constructive speech to which we have just listened. In the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings of this House that I have read, I find that Mr. Hartshorn was actually booed by Members of Parliament when he was dealing with this point of view. I found that certain persons who were then speaking on behalf of the coalowners and whom we know in South Wales, had not even an elementary knowledge of the mining situation.
    Hon. Members will appreciate why some of us are impatient about what one continually hears in Debate from Secretaries for the Mines Department. I do not mean the present Secretary, for whom I have a great regard and of whose speeches in particular one cannot complain, but in regard to all the Mines Secretaries over a period of years. They will appreciate why the miners' representatives feel very impatient. The policy of the Government, as we see it, can be wrapped up in a few sentences. There was no problem confronting the industry during the War. We were not then faced with the problem of markets, which is now an important problem confronting the industry. Men, money and munitions were required. Munitions were the most important; for their production a smelting fuel was required; coal was the best fuel that we had, and, consequently, there was an

    331
    enormous demand. Everything seemed to be quite plain sailing, and certainly it was so as long as the War continued. We know that, on the termination of the War, one of the greatest and most irrevocable blunders was committed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). We know that he terminated control of the industry, illegally; that, instead of retaining the industry within the purview of the Coal Control Department, and continuing to apply a scheme of planning to the industry, he permitted it to get into the chaotic state in which we have since found it.
    We know exactly what the coalowners who were then dictating policy for the association attempted to do, and I am sure that hon. Members will forgive some of us if we speak with some authority about this matter. I was concerned in it at that time, as representing many thousands of men. Not a single agreement was made, not a single conference of any kind was held, in which I did not take an official part. We know that the dominating coalowners of this country knew what the hon. Member for Eastbourne has just ventilated quite correctly—that the export market was doomed so far as pre-War conditions were concerned. They set about propounding a policy in order to recover the maximum that was possible of the internal markets, and they did so by cutting prices. Prices dropped from fabulous heights—over £5 a ton in 1920, and £ a ton for material of which a substantial proportion was really rubbish. As a miners' agent, I can speak with authority on that subject. There was no screening, and seldom any washing. Millions of tons of this material were going to France, and it was expected that we should be able to retain the French market, after the War was over, with that dumped stuff which was really a scandal for the coal trade.
    Mr. PIKE: Under the Government.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not know whether the Government was responsible. We know that industrial and domestic coal came under the Coal Mines Limitation Act, and we know that the export market was entirely free from limitation, and that the fabulous prices obtained were pooled and gave wages and profits
    332
    to the industry. However, the coalowners from that date set about a policy of cutting prices, and not until 1930 did that policy cease. Prices dropped from the figure I have mentioned, namely, £5, down to roughly 14s., which was the pithead price last year. It is true that they were able to accomplish their object; it is true that those who dictated policy were able to obtain the internal market for themselves; it is true that they drove the others into liquidation by selling coal at "scrap-iron" prices; and it is equally true that, having driven those others into liquidation, if they found they had potential assets, they bought up those collieries which had potential assets at "scrap-iron" prices. In the meantime, they have practically ruined the whole of the mining communities of this country.
    Something has happened which they did not anticipate. They did not anticipate that this would cause a reaction upon themselves, that it would set up, not only internecine competition—which was really part of their policy—but European competition. They did not anticipate that Poland, for instance, would have a subsidy of roughly 6s. 4d., and that the whole of its coal would be carried free of freight from Upper Silesia into Scandinavia; or that Germany would be driven, partly by the Versailles Treaty, partly by reparations, and partly by this cut-throat competition, to adopt every possible method of conservation, such as using lignite for the production of its internal power and placing upon the export market its very best smelting fuel in competition with South Wales and the northeast coast. All these things were not contemplated by those coalowners. These things have happened, however, and these reactions are now falling upon them.
    There are features for which they were not responsible, and I am sure that hon. Members present will pardon my stressing those cases. There are features that are above the battle, that really are not attributable either to the coalowners or to the miners at all. For instance, there was the War and what the War meant. The War meant that there was no sinking of pits, and no development. Outside the Doncaster area and Kent, there is no new coalfield in this country. From 1913 to 1923 no new shafts whatever were sunk, the seams were going further from the shaft bottom, the walking distance was;

    333
    increasing, the productive time of the piece-worker was decreasing, the datallers in proportion to the piece-workers were increasing, and, consequently, the costs of production inevitably went up. All of these features are above the battle; they have nothing in particular to do with either the miners or the coalowners. But the coalowners who were really determining the policy were the people representing the efficient concerns—I give them credit of that—because it is only the efficient representative who obtains a voice. If he is inefficient, he is obliged to be silent, and, in face of all the others, he is never elected. Those concerns that were comparatively poor through striking geological ill-luck, through bad seams, or damp seams, in which there was heavy production of gas, were exploited by the efficient concerns in propounding their policy of cutting prices to obtain reduced wages and an increased length of the working day.
    All these things they achieved, and still the industry is in its present plight, the worst plight which it has ever faced in this country. I agree heartily with the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson). I really do not know how the miners can face next winter. I heard last Saturday that not a single colliery is working in the whole of the Ogmore Valley. One hon. Member who spoke from the other side displayed a good deal of bombast. I am sorry that he is now absent, but perhaps it is a good thing, because otherwise I should not be able to restrain myself at his presumption that people who have been in the industry all their lives know less about it than he does. He was incorrect in his statement, and he ought to have admitted it, but, instead of doing so, he presumed to chastise my hon. Friends in a bombastic way.
    I disagree with the hon. Member for Eastbourne with regard to Part I. I would not stick to Part I if all the other features that he stressed could be placed in operation. Frankly, I do not look upon Part I as sacrosanct, but some of the most eminent representatives of the industry in this country—persons who cannot be ignored—speak favourably of Part I. In doing so they take, perhaps, the district point of view, and that is the unfortunate side of the mining problem. The industry has its adversities and its variations, but these are no greater
    334
    as between district and district than they are as between pit and pit, or between seam and seam. Those who take a district point of view fail to appreciate that, if uniformity can be applied in a district, it can likewise be appled throughout the whole country. There are no greater variations between the British coalfields as a whole than there are between pit and pit, or even in the same pit. You may have one pit with as many as five seams of varying thicknesses and varying gradients.
    I desire to support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T'. Williams) and of the hon. Member for Eastbourne as to the necessity for a national board and for international co-operation. I stress Part I because at present it is the only lever that we possess to increase the revenue in the industry, and, unless we can obtain revenue in the industry, it is impossible to maintain wages under the present type of agreement, which provides that a certain proportion of the proceeds shall be allocated to profit and a certain proportion to wages. It is impossible to increase the revenue in the industry unless we can increase the minimum prices, or maintain the minimum prices at a comparatively high level. An export levy may be one of the greatest levers to bring 8.0 p.m. about the international arrangements which have been indicated by the hon. Member for Eastbourne. I think the coalowners in South Wales, who opposed it in 1930, are to-day certainly very favourable to it. Perhaps they Lave learned a lesson from bitter experience. Apart entirely from that, I stress a national board in order to get a national minimum wage, which will be one of the greatest factors in favour of something like uniformity of price. I look upon a minimum wage as being the only effective control that the miners have in the industry, and I am inclined to believe that the present variation of wages as between district and district is more than any other the factor that causes diversity of price. If in Scotland wages were something comparable to those paid in South Wales, we should not have seaborne coal carried to Bristol Channel ports in competition with our bituminous seams, closing some of our bituminous collieries. They import a large number of people from Ireland for

    335
    the potato harvest and then re-engage them at preposterous wages in the collieries.
    Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY: Which collieries is the hon. Member speaking of? Has he any proof that they are using the Irish potato workers in the mines? Is not cheaper production due to the fact that the industry is 30 per cent. mechanised in this country and 70 per cent. mechanised in Scotland?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: There is something in that, I agree, but we have reports from our members in Scotland, and I deduce from them that that what they say is correct. I agree that machinery plays a significant part, but the people who are engaged in the potato harvest are re-engaged in the mines, and we have had complaints that they are not paid anything like decent wages. But the point I am putting is that variations of wages as between district and district enable one district to compete against another. A national minimum wage should not be less than 1914 plus the equivalent of the cost of living. If that became the national minimum wage, administered through a National Wages Board, anything beyond that, whether in basic rates or in piece rates, would be matters that would concern the individual districts. There are many features of autonomy that could be applied in the individual districts. This to me is the only line on which something like substantial advance can be made.
    Scientific and technical achievement is about the only hope that civilisation has. If in any sense my confidence is sometimes a little impaired, it is because technical and scientific achievement comes within the purview of vested interests and is not used for the national welfare. I certainly place my faith in hydrogenation among other processes. I am informed that hydrogen can now be produced at a comparatively low price. Although we have faith in scientific achievement, at this juncture it is the co-ordination of the industry that really matters. We are faced with a contracting market, and it seems rather suicidal that at this juncture we should be trying to throttle one another by cut-throat prices. There is no means to save that except some kind of national co-ordinating machinery, leading ultimately, we trust, to unification. We
    336
    do not mind whether it is unification under private enterprise. We are not concerned about the designation of the thing. We are concerned with our people really having the chance to live. If finally, under unification, private enterprise completely collapses, logical and reasonable men ought to face up to the only other alternative in which we believe, and that is the socialisation of the means of production and distribution.
    I sincerely trust that the Secretary for Mines will face up to these things. We are disappointed with what he had to say about the efforts of the Welsh Members in trying to elicit from the Lord President of the Council a commission of inquiry to deal with the relationship of coal and oil and the synthetic treatment of coal. We do not believe that the Department has done all that it could do in this regard, and we are convinced of that, because it has had to compliment the Cunard Steamship Company on its efforts. With all the agencies that it has at its disposal, with the brains that it can command, and with the data that it possesses, it ought to be able to precede anything that could be done by a private company. Why should the Mines Department follow private enterprise in one phase of business?
    Further, I should like to put a few questions. I should like to know the amount of coal that has been displaced by oil in the Navy and the mercantile marine and in industrial and domestic use. We cannot get a commission apparently, but we want some data. Technical journals are throwing this, that and the other into our faces every other day, and we find it very difficult to get reliable data in respect of these things. We should like to know the amount of coal that can be used where oil is now used. We should like to know how much financial assistance would be required to establish large-scale plant to deal with the synthetic treatment of coal, and whether the Government are prepared to face up to the financing of these things. You will not obtain any finance from private enterprise. There are very few men in the country who have any confidence in the coal trade and they are not prepared to speculate in this way. There are very few men who are prepared to do anything except put their money into gilt-edged securities. Whatever may come of these treatments of coal, we cannot help

    337
    to develop them on a large scale, and we are asking the Government how much it would cost and whether they are prepared to do it.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: What treatment in particular?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Particularly hydrogenation. The other experiment is going on with the Cunard Company, and I understand the Department are watching it.
    Mr. FOOT: In touch with it.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Perhaps it will be less necessary to deal with that phase of it, though we should like to know what can be done in that regard. We believe an export levy to be essential to help to bring some revival to the export trade. A national board is essentially necessary in order to co-ordinate all the conflicting elements in the industry, and a minimum wage in order that it may become a determinant for uniformity of prices. They will vary as per quality and as per class. Anthracite will not sell as steams, and steams will not sell as bituminous or house coal. Prices will vary, but wages will be a great unifying factor in each. Further, improved wages will of themselves mean an increase of purchasing capacity. That will bring something like solace to the mining communities, which are faced with despair. That is the gravamen of our case. We are hoping that the Department will face up to it. We trust that the Department will not look upon the termination of this Debate as the end of our protestations or agitations. I have here a report of university students who have been to South Wales, and they say there are 30,000 miners there who can never be reabsorbed. That is the state of affairs we are faced with in our constituencies, the self-contained communities where there is no outlet for the people to obtain alternative employment. I should be out of order in dealing with the means test and all the contemptible things that are being done to destroy the manhood and the very souls of our people in the coalfields. I hope the Minister of Mines will reply cogently to the questions we have put and will, with all the zealousness, sincerity and enthusiasm that he possesses, face the gravity of the problem and help the mining communities.
    Mr. R. T. EVANS: I intervene in the Debate in order to repeat to the Minister the questions which have just been put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams). There is much I should have liked to have discussed relating to the milling industry, the need for international agreements and the question of quotas. There is much information I should have liked from the Minister with regard to the possibilities of employing on a larger scale Part I of the Act, and to the present position in respect of the representations made to him and to his Department from all sides of the Committee concerning the hardships of those suffering from silicosis and anthracosis. I will pass these things by, because in the two Debates practically the whole ground has been traversed with great competence by hon. and right hon. Friends across the Floor. I will therefore content myself by stating the position with regard to the deputations referred to by the Minister in his opening statement.
    The first deputation to the Lord President of the Council arose out of the desperate conditions in Cardiff and in South Wales, and it embraced almost every phase of life in the industrial community. Shipowners, coal exporters, mineowners, representatives of the Miners' Federation, the whole community were welded together in making representations to the Lord President of the Council. It is some 10 weeks ago, and there is the gravest disappointment—it might even be described as a mute kind of anger—in South Wales that no reply has been given to the very urgent representations. It was a request that the Government should institute some sort of inquiry either by a Royal Commission or a small Select Committee. I do not think they were particularly concerned as to the form of the court of inquiry, but they wondered whether, seeing the export market restricted beyond all hope perhaps of expansion, with electricity and oil fuel taking the place of coal, something could be done within the ambit of our own capacity to increase the demand for coal. They made a request to the Government to inquire into the possibilities of the Navy reverting from oil to coal. Frankly, I think they made their appeal on rather too narrow an issue. I do not think that a subject of that character is one which lends itself to the

    339
    kind of inquiry a Royal Commission is equipped to institute. At the same time, what really did matter was that South Wales was united—every phase of the industrial community was united—in pleading with the Government for action.
    I can well understand the Lord President of the Council or the Minister for Mines on behalf of the Government turning down such a request. I think that the deputation, seeing that they were composed of men of substance, of outstanding ability and achievement, deserved a rather larger measure of courtesy than was meted out to them. Anyhow the Welsh Members, again representing all parties, those who are loyal supporters of the Government, those who are equally invincible opponents of the Government and those who like myself might be called selective supporters of the Government, combined and again made representations. We did not insist upon any set form, but we wanted an inquiry into the larger issue of the scientific utilisation of coal. I think that the Minister rightly made a rather mild protest that the unofficial conversation which Members of that deputation had with him last night had been described in the Press as a formal deputation. No one who was present believed that it was other than a friendly conversation with regard to the possibilities of the situation. If any hurt has been caused to the Minister by the publication of the matter, I think that an apology is due to him, and I am sure that I can speak on behalf of all those Members when I say that no harm what-ever was intended. We apologise to him.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I have not the slightest complaint to make, but I thought it was necessary to make a correction. There were some protests from the country, and I wanted to make it clear that no decision was asked for or given.
    Mr. EVANS: I think that it would have only postponed the protest from the country by 24 hours, because the speech of the Minister this afternoon was clearly indicative of a refusal by his Department to recommend investigation. I believe that the greater part of his speech was a justification for his refusal to recommend a Royal Com-
    340
    mission. The protest was simply brought forward 24 hours. I believe that the protest would have reached him tomorrow morning with equal facility and anger. The Government in speeches in the House, when we have been discussing the coal problem or any industrial problem, put up the case of the world situation; and we are told about restrictions of international trade and currency dislocation and so forth. I seriously suggest that the country is getting a wee bit tired of these lectures on the international situation. The country is asking for a Government not of people who can see through things but who will see things through. I do not think that it is proper to have specific industrial problems of this country brushed on one side by a reference to some cataclysmic event on some other side of the world, by talk of dislocation and so forth, and for you to say: "Oh, well, once you settle your Reparations problem and the problem of international debts things will begin to hum again." No one has been paying on account of Reparations or international debt for over 12 months, and the situation is no better.
    I suggest that the time has come to take up these specific issues. I am conscious of the need of having an international background, and I appreciate the potency of international factors, but we who represent South Wales constituencies are not prepared to be fobbed off upon the question of an inquiry into the scientific utilisation of coal. I want to know if it is a fact that the only thing which stands in the way of a large-scale production of motor fuel by means of hydrogenation is one of whether the particular trade concerned specialising in the process should have extended to it something like the Trade Facilities Act. It is common knowledge that to produce on a very considerable scale a substitute for the petrol which is brought into this country from overseas would cost something like £7,000,000. What are we paying on account of transitional benefit and public assistance in the mining areas? How much money has been squandered in the last few years in investments in derelict undertakings? Money for Austria, money for Hungary and for all the small countries of South-East Europe. Hundreds of millions of pounds have been available to enable other countries to

    341
    remain on their feet. Far be it from me to deny that it is the duty of Britain to help other countries to remain on their feet, because they are potential markets, and I have not become insular in the matter of finance, but if these hundreds of millions of pounds are available, surely we are not asking too much when we ask for a guarantee of £7,000,000 to put one of the basic industries of this country on its feet.
    I do not want to know about research. I have a tremendous respect for the scientists of Britain. I think they are the finest scientists in the world. They are not as flashy as the scientists of other countries, but for solid investigation, steadily moving forward from hypothesis to test, steadily moving towards the horizon of realities, we have about the best equipped body of scientists in the whole world. I would not for one single moment cast any kind of reflection upon the scientists who are members of the Fuel Research Board or of the General Industrial Research body. I am not making any charges, but I do seriously suggest that the research mind is very seldom the most dynamic mind when it comes to policy. I could show the Minister a considerable number of reports by the Fuel Research Committee. He will be told that a certain retort yields a certain result. He will find a description of the retort and an analysis of the products. I can show him one report, which is in my locker now, which contains this sentence:
    "We are not competent to express an opinion as to whether this is a commercial possibility."
    The only thing that matters to the mining community is whether a certain scientific process can be made one of commercial possibility. With regard to colloidal fuel, the Government were directly engaged in this matter years ago. In 1918–19, when our oil supplies were menaced in consequence of the submarine attacks on tankers and it was necessary to economise in the use of oil, the American Submarine Defence Association and the British Navy undertook large scale experiments in colloidal fuel. Why were they dropped? Was it because of the sudden enthusiasm for having a holding in the Anglo-Persian Company? Was it because of the development of a vested interest in the Middle East? Why was the very encouraging result which had
    342
    been achieved during those experiments suddenly abandoned? With regard to hydrogenation, I seriously suggest without making any reflection upon the Research Board, probably the best equipped, scientifically, in the world, that this is no longer a matter of chemical research, no longer a matter of laboratory tests, but a matter of Government policy. We do not want to know what the board thinks about the I.C.I. Hydrogenation process. What are the Government prepared to do to utilise that process in order to provide work for many thousands of unemployed miners? It has become a matter of Government policy.
    I throw down a challenge to the Minister. Hydrogenation as a process for supplying the bulk of this country's requirements in the matter of motor fuel depends no longer upon scientific investigation but upon the Government's policy. A large number of issues of that character are in need of investigation. Before the Government give their "no" to the representations made to them for some sort of inquiry to bring hope again to many of these rather gloomy areas, I want them to think once, to think twice and to think thrice before they turn down the suggestion made to them by people who are desperately anxious to see the prosperity of the industry restored. I want them to consider again, and I want the Minister to consider before he makes the final recommendation of his Department to the Cabinet, whether the issues are not really far too big to be fobbed off by a eulogy of an excellent scientific body. The Government will receive not from one party, not from one class in South Wales but from the whole community very severe censure unless they yield to the representations made to them to grant us some form of inquiry into the scientific utilisation of the nation's coal resources.
    Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: We have had three speeches from the South. One of the speeches from the South of England, which was made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Slater), was exceptionally pleasing to us on these benches. I never expected to 8.30 p.m. listen to any hon. Member for Eastbourne making such a contribution to the mining problem. There was very little in his speech with which any of us on these benches dis-

    343
    agree. There were certain portions of his speech to which we might have taken exception but, as a whole, we were almost in entire agreement with it. The same remark applies to the last two speeches. We felt in regard to the hon. Member for Eastbourne's speech that he appreciates the problem. We sometimes doubt whether coalowners appreciate the problem, but we have no doubt about the hon. Member for Eastbourne, after his speech to-night. He made it clear that his conception of the coal problem was very much akin to ours. I should like to thank him for the well deserved compliment he paid to my hon. Friend the Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) for his opening speech. Whoever heard that speech will agree that the great compliment was well deserved.
    We asked for this day to debate the mines question, for obvious reasons. In winding up the previous Debate the Minister told us that he would go into the suggestions that had been put forward. and see what could be done. We thought that nine or ten weeks was a reasonable time for him to have made up his mind on some of those suggestions, and we thought that we ought to give him an opportunity to say what he thought of the suggestions. The hon. Member for the Don Valley said that it was an opportunity for him to show his courage. I realise that the present Secretary for Mines has courage. There is no need for any Debate to be arranged in order for him to satisfy me that he has courage, but I think he needs more courage than he has shown. There are certain Members of the present Government who will compel him to take a certain stand, a very definite stand, and I am afraid that they will require him not only to accept a reduction of salary but to lose his salary if he is going to see through what he thinks ought to take place in connection with the coal industry. He will find very serious opposition inside his own Cabinet. Knowing the Secretary for Mines as we do, we are anxious to give him all the encouragement to stand for what he considers is the right method of handling the industry.
    Some things have happened since the last Debate which have occasioned us a little uneasiness. We were not altogether
    344
    impressed by the Debate on the Mines Bill. We had reason to doubt whether the industry as a whole would pursue a better course in the future than it has in the past, and we thought that we ought to give the Secretary for Mines an opportunity of proving that some of our fears as to what might take place were groundless. For instance, we feared an indefinite postponement of ratification of the Convention. I appreciate the case put forward by the Secretary for Mines. We also feared that there was a tendency to minimise the importance of Part IV concerning the National Industrial Board. We on this side place tremendous importance on that aspect of the question. We feel that Part IV ought not to be amended, but as negotiations are going on we have no desire to hamper those negotiations. We want an effective Part IV which will prevent in 12 months' time districts being locked out because they refuse to accept a reduction in wages. We do not object to Part IV being amended if it gives us that security.
    The main importance of all Debates on the mining industry is to make it better for all engaged in it. The Secretary for Mines has told us that he is afraid that the policy pursued during the last few years may endanger the industry itself. We are anxious therefore to prevent that and to secure a restoration of prosperity. He complained, and I thought rightly, that the hon. Member for the Don Valley asked him to do more than he had power to do. I am not asking that. All we ask is that the tremendous powers vested in the Secretary for Mines should be utilised to the full to make conditions better for all engaged in the industry and for the consumers of coal as well. I regret the absence of the hon. Member below the Gangway who seems to pose as a great authority on the mining industry and who when he has delivered his pompous speeches always makes a bee-line for the door.
    As regards Part I, we in Lancashire are naturally in a different position from the exporting districts. We realise the advantages which have accrued to Lancashire from Part I and the disadvantages which may have been suffered by some of the exporting districts. I have been reading a speech delivered by Mr. Joseph Ramsden, Chairman of the Manchester

    345
    Collieries Limited, on the 25th June. He said:
    "Part I, as doubtless you know, deals not only with the regulation of output but also with prices, and has been in operation since 1st January, 1931. The operations of Part I have during the last 18 months undoubtedly benefited this company and have, in our opinion, prevented a disastrous drop in prices. Nevertheless, the Act as it stands to-clay has many defects."
    And this is his reference to the exporting districts:
    "We see no insurmountable difficulty in dealing with Part I. Let us take the exporting districts compared with the inland districts. Provided that safeguards can be made that the exporting districts should not demand extra quota because their exports go up, we see no reason why the inland districts should not contribute a levy to subsidise the exporting districts to enable them to recover their trade; but it is obvious that if the inland districts help them by a subsidy to increase their exports the inland districts must have a corresponding increase in the share of the home market."
    There you have the director of the biggest amalgamation of colliery companies in Lancashire stating quite definitely that Lancashire has benefited from Part I, that he is afraid that the exporting districts may have suffered, and also stating that to the extent they have suffered he is prepared to suggest that the inland districts should help the exporting districts out of their difficulty. I hope that such speeches as this will not he overlooked by the Secretary for Mines. My hon. Friend the Member for the Don Valley emphasised the fact that there is no longer any problem of production. The Secretary for Mines need not waste a minute on that aspect of the problem. The problem now is one of distribution and utilisation; and they should occupy the whole of his time. In regard to the problem of a central agency to deal with distribution, Mr. Ramsden in the same speech from which I have already quoted, dealt with the costs of distribution; and it is a passage which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), who is always delivering tremendous speeches on the importance of increasing prices, should read. He said:
    "I do not advocate the indiscriminate raising of prices, even if it were practicable, but, as I told you last year, there are many directions in which economies in distribution can be effected, and I look forward to the time when very much closer co-operation will exist between the collieries and the distributors. I am glad to think that the matter has not escaped the notice of owners and distributors, and that already certain
    346
    discussions have taken place, and I say to you that drastic reforms are needed. The cost of distribution, not only of our commodity but of all commodities throughout the country, requires the fullest investigation. In the main the cost of distribution remains far too high, and the differences between the cost of production of most commodities and the selling price to the consumer are too great and require the close attention of all industrialists."
    We ask that the Secretary for Mines should bring pressure on the coalowners and distributors in order to show that the manner in which they are handling the coal produced is most unfair to the producer and consumer. Whoever touches coal, after coal has left the pit-top, gets more from it than anyone who touches it before it gets to the pit-top. We hope, and with justification, that the Minister will use what pressure he can bring to bear on this very vexed problem. I know that the reorganisation and amalgamation question has been treated with something approaching contempt by some Members of the House. I have here a publication that I am constantly getting through the post—I have not yet bought it—the "News-Letter," the National Labour Fortnightly. If those behind this have any Members in this House why do they not say a word or two on the mines problem sometimes? Why keep informing us of their attitude towards the mining problem by sending this publication to us free of postage? This is what the "News-Letter" says:
    "In the meantime one aspect of the present Bill must not be overlooked. It will afford the industry an opportunity of giving a fair trial to the far reaching schemes of reorganisation set on foot by the Labour Government.. Thus we hope to see the Reorganisation Commission which was appointed under the Act of 1930 expediting the amalgamations of which the industry still stands in such need. It is time the same Acts national wages boards were effectively in operation. We may perhaps add that the new Secretary of the Miners Federation, Mr. Edwards, has already shown welcome and genuine powers of leadership in his handling of this question."
    The finest compliment that can be paid to a leader is sometimes to accept some of the suggestions that he makes. I am very pleased that the Secretary for Mines disclaims any responsibility for this publication.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I do not know who wrote the article. I cannot be responsible for what is said in any paper that is published. The hon. Member looked at me so hard.
    Mr. MACDONALD: I am very pleased to know that. We are anxious to know who is behind this publication. We never thought that the Secretary for Mines was, and he tells us that he knows nothing about it. On this question of amalgamation I have another publication which is very interesting. It happens to be by a member of the Reorganisation Commission. He tells us of many advantages which will accrue from amalgamation.
    "It now remains to consider this summary in relation to the avowed objects incorporated in amalgamation proposals which have been submitted to the Railway and Canal Commission for confirmation. They are:

    (1) Common buying and selling.

    (2) Standardisation of equipment.

    (3) Joint pumping, drainage and power generation.

    (4) Elimination of barriers and adjustment of boundaries.

    (5) Regulation of production in relation to demand.

    (6) Pooling of wagons.

    (7) Common technical and research organisations.

    (8) Fusion of retail depots and office staffs.

    (9) Financial regulations."

    The document is entitled:
    "The Yorkshire Mine Workers' Association. The need for Reorganisation in the Yorkshire Coal Industry. By Joseph Jones."
    When a member of the Reorganisation Commission gives to the world particulars of nine substantial advantages that will accrue from reorganisation and amalgamation, his statement should carry some weight and should show that the contempt poured upon this proposal by some Members of the House is unwarranted. We have heard a lot also about what is to happen in the future. There are one or two questions that I want to put to the Minister. We are a little bit concerned about Ottawa. We are not in any way holding the Minister responsible for the policy at Ottawa, but the hon. Member for Neath (Sir W. Jenkins) a few days ago asked the Lord President of the Council whether he would see that someone directly representing the coal industry was at Ottawa to safeguard the coal industry, and the answer was that there would be people there who would look after the interests of the industry. We are very dissatisfied with that answer. We very much fear the consequences of any rearrangement of trade at Ottawa at the expense of endangering the future of
    348
    the coal industry. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), in a very powerful speech on the Vote of Censure, said:
    "Let me take the example of the coal trade, which is of vital importance to this country. Taking the first four months of 1930 and 1932, the export trade fell from 19,500,000 tons to 13,000,000 tons. The sole Dominion exporter on any scale is Canada, apart from the Irish Free State, which imported about 750,000 tons, so far as one can find from the trade returns, Canada in 1930 took 118,000 tons, and in 1932, 200.000 tons. That is a mere drop in the ocean. How are we to revive the coal industry in this country by taking away or diverting trade in, say dairy products, from Scandinavia to New Zealand? Scandinavia is one of the best customers for British coal. Practically all the British export coal is being sold either in South America or on the Continent of Europe. To take coal as an example, how are we to arrange any tariffs whatever at Ottawa which will in any way assist the development or re-development of the coal export trade of this country? On the other hand, they may have a vitally detrimental effect upon that trade. Trade channels which are naturally aligned between this country and Scandinavia, or any other foreign country, may be diverted by arrangements with regard to certain goods, with the result that the coal trade will lose its customers without any corresponding advantages.
    We should like to know, particularly as regards the coal trade, what ideas the right hon. Gentleman has as to the possibility of any compensating advantage at Ottawa for any diversion of trade from countries which are at present absorbing our coal. That is a matter of prime importance."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June, 1932; cols. 528 and 529, Vol. 267.]
    We would like to know what ideas the Minister has as to the possibility of any compensating advantages at Ottawa for any diversion of trade from countries which are at present absorbing our coal. That is a matter of prime importance. The mining industry is of vital importance to the country. It has suffered tremendously for years on end. The Secretary for Mines made that very clear in presenting his Estimates. I will conclude by quoting a few sentences from his speech:
    "The man who keeps them all going by his work, who has made possible practically every victory of British arms in the last century, who has made possible the going to and fro of the ships upon the sea, the man who, day and night, has been face to face with peril, is very often forgotten. He is literally taking his life in his hands, and often, unfortunately, has to work for a pitifully small wage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1932; col. 985, Vol. 265.]
    Mr. CLARRY: I would like to carry the Committee back for a few moments to the subject of an inquiry or commission into the wider utilisation of coal, and to associate myself with some of the observations made by hon. Members in different parts of the House. I regard this as a matter of national and entirely non-party interest. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. R. T. Evans), who concluded a very able speech by remarking that the Minister was antagonistic to the idea of an inquiry or committee. I rather concluded that the Minister was receptive of something of the sort, if it could be proved to him that something would come out of it that would be of advantage to the coal industry. I would like the Minister to appreciate that what those who have spoken on this subject have in mind goes far beyond the subject of utilising coal for the purposes of the Navy. It has developed beyond such bounds and goes into all kinds of phases. I would like to draw attention to this point. Although, as we are all aware, there is a considerable amount of data at the Ministry, although we have the results of the work which has been carried out by the Fuel Research Organisation, and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, although the carbonising industries have got a lot of information and private industries have also done a great deal of research and experimental work, yet there is no means of collecting and co-ordinating all that data for the purpose of presenting it to the coal consumers of the country in a form in which the information can be easily assimilated.
    It is with that object in view that we ask for something in the nature of an inquiry or commission. Personally, I do not mind what form it takes as long as the result is the collection of this information so that it may be put before the coal users. The Secretary for Mines referred to gas and petrol used during the War in motor vehicles and the comparison between the two, though he did not give actual comparative figures, and he then promptly referred us to a conference of the Institution of Gas Engineers for information upon the subject. That is exactly the sort of information that we want to have provided by this commission or inquiry or whatever it may be. To be quite frank the position in this
    350
    country is that we have a vast quantity of imported oil coming in every year. In 1930 we spent upwards of £40,000,000 which was sent abroad for imported oil. Last year the amount was less, probably owing to trade depression. The oil is marketed in this country by expert salesmen with a spectacular commodity and there is no corresponding reply to them.
    I think it is reprehensible that the coalowners have not the requisite propaganda for dealing with this situation. As a result of that expert salesmanship to which I have referred, good British money is going out of this country and British capital, in the form of collieries, plant, and the requirements associated with the transport of coal, is lying idle, causing immense unemployment, not only among miners, but in other industries. As the work is not being carried out by the coalowners themselves, who are the proper authorities for the purpose, I want the Government to regard themselves as custodians of our greatest national asset, namely, coal. It is the basis of our industrial activity in every sphere. On those grounds alone there is cause for urging upon the Minister that something ought to be done in the direction that I have suggested; and if he does not agree with the idea of a commission, some other means of collecting the requisite information ought to be brought into existence.
    As regards publicity and drawing the attention of the coal consumers to the situation, the Secretary for Mines said that publicity might be over-9.0 p.m. done. I quite agree, but the case which he gave of premature publicity in connection with a low temperature carbonisation process was not publicity for the purpose of selling coal or the products of the process. That publicity was "put-over" for the purpose of getting capital into that company, which is quite a different proposition. I do not think that we can give enough publicity to the value which is to a large extent lying dormant in this country, because we do not utilise our opportunities of presenting the situation to the coal consumers in the proper manner. I am aware that any propaganda in favour of the wider utilisation of coal necessarily involves the question of greater efficiency in the use of coal, and such publicity might, at first, have the effect of reducing the consumption of coal, but if its ultimate object is to reduce our dependence

    351
    on imported foreign oil, which is a vital matter, then I think that would be a very great object to achieve.
    From the Minister's remarks I take it that he is not unreceptive to some proposal of this kind and perhaps he will consider the suggestion that his Department might without increasing State expenditure—for we are all out in these days for economy and not for extending Government Departments—do the very work which we want done and achieve the object on which we are insisting; I use the word "insisting" advisedly. If the Minister feels that he can do this work with his existing Department and staff, I shall be quite happy, but there must be some reply in this country to the expert salesmanship of imported oil if we are to protect our own interests. We should have wider publicity, coordinating technical and commercial information and reasons, and giving comparisons of fuel values—all put in easily readable form, and not in volumes of 200 or 300 pages which ordinary commercial people cannot be expected to read. If such information were made available it would be a great service to the country, and I feel confident that if we embark on some measures of that kind without delay we shall recoup ourselves by the increased consumption of coal and the greater prosperity arising therefrom.
    Mr. CHARLES BROWN: I have no wish to follow the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Clarry) nor do I propose to enter into the general questions raised in the course of this Debate. I wish to refer to one or two matters specially affecting the area from which I come. I represent a mining constituency in what is supposed to be a favoured part of the British coalfield as compared with the North-East Coast or South Wales, but we are beginning to feel very severely the depression which is now spreading through the coal industry. In addition, we have troubles of our own. In the admirable survey of the industry which the Secretary for Mines gave on 3rd May he referred to the inspectorate and described the duty of the mines inspector in the following words:
    "The real duty of the inspector is not to be the prosecutor. He is not there as a potential prosecutor. The inspectors are not there as the outposts of departmental
    352
    inquisitions. The inspector is there for the purpose of friendly consultation and assistance, so that his experience and his acquired skill can be at the command of the whole industry, owners and men alike." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1932; col. 978, Vol. 265.]
    I do not think that anyone would be disposed to quarrel with that admirable description of the functions of a mines inspector. The hon. Gentleman said, of course, that that was the ideal relationship between inspectors, owners and men, but it is notorious that we all fall far short of the ideal and I think we may include inspectors as well as others in that generalisation. Far be it from me to make any general condemnation of the Mines Inspectors, and perhaps the matters to which I wish to refer may be due to the abnormal conditions obtaining in the North Notts coalfield in particular. Those conditions were referred to in the Debate on the 3rd May by my hon. Friend the Member for the Broxtowe Division (Mr. Cocks). If workmen are to preserve anything like decent standards of life and working conditions, some form of organisation is necessary to protect their interests. Those interests cannot be left, in this competitive system, either to the philanthropy or to the humanitarianism of employers, and I am prepared to grant that the conditions in Notts are rather abnormal.
    We have in the county some 50,000 miners, of whom perhaps 10,000 are in an organisation known as the Miners' Industrial Union and perhaps another 10,000 are in the Notts Miners' Association. The remaining 30,000 men in the county are unorganised. I do not wish to express any dissent from the general sentiment in regard to co-operation between the men and the employers, but in Notts we have a very curious kind of co-operation in one of these organisations. In the Minister's speech on the 3rd May, he called attention to the steadily increasing mechanisation of the industry, and reminded us that in 1931 we had 77,000,000 tons of coal cut by machine, as contrasted with 24,000,000 tons in 1913. In addition to that, 47,000,000 tons of coal was transported underground in that year by mechanical conveyors. It is obvious that this process of mechanisation is revolutionising working conditions, and I do not wish to express any dissent from the principle of throwing increasingly the burden of

    353
    the world's work on to machines, but everybody knows that with hand-got coal the conditions of those who had to get it were slavish in the extreme, and we are told by the men who are now working in places where mechanisation is taking place that the conditions are more slavish still. As this process goes on, there inevitably develop circumstances where, if the men have not the protection of strong organisations, their conditions become more slavish than ever.
    On the 16th June I asked the Secretary for Mines a question about a particular colliery in Nottinghamshire where overtime had been worked by men on conveyor faces since the re-opening of the colliery. It was closed a fortnight from the 5th April, and the answer of the Minister was that, of the 2,207 employés at the colliery who were given notice on the 5th April, 1,283 had been re-engaged, and 61 were at that date under notice. I put some supplementary questions, but one cannot deal with a matter like this in that way, and that is why I am raising it now. In the case of those 61 men to whom he referred, I had in my pocket a letter telling me that those men had been interviewed by the manager and had been told that unless they joined what is known in our area as the Spencer Union, their work would terminate at once. I know that technically that may not be a breach of the law, but all the men who were re-engaged at that colliery after the supposed reorganisation were compelled—there is no other word that I can use—to join this organisation as a condition of re-employment; and the 61 men who had failed to do that were called into the office and told that unless they did join that organisation, they would be dismissed.
    That has had another reaction. There was trouble at this colliery after the 1926 strike or lock-out. On that occasion a check-weigher was appointed against the wishes of the men employed, and he was removed from his illegal appointment by an injunction that was taken out by one of the men employed at the coal face, and the check-weighers whom the men desired were allowed to function. They functioned till this colliery was temporarily closed a fortnight from the 5th April last. Four days after the colliery had closed down, a small, packed meeting, consisting of no more than 70 men, called illegally—the notice was shorter
    354
    than the Act required—appointed a new check-weigher, displacing the two men to whom I have referred. I think I have a right to ask the Secretary for Mines if he will not see to it, as the administration of the Check-weigh Acts is under his control, that these Acts are carried out in this area in strict accordance with the law.
    I return finally to the question of overtime. The Minister asked, when I put this question, if I would give him specific facts, and my answer is that I could give names and dates and places, but, frankly, I tell him that I dare not do it, because if I did, the men involved would be dismissed at once. Consequently, I think we have the right to ask the Minister to see to it, in regard to overtime under these new conditions in some of these collieries in North Notts, that the regulations applying are not broken, because I am convinced—I have indisputable evidence—that it is going on, and I have every right to ask the Mines Department to check these illegal practices.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I have been trying to get in all day, and I represent hundreds of skilled men about the collieries of this country, namely, the engineers. The hon. Member who has just sat down touched a point to which I shall be unable to do full justice, and that is the mechanisation of the mines. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) asked the Secretary for Mines to increase the inspectorate about the mines. The men whom I represent are all out for that, and I submit that the new inspectors ought to be men who have had training in engineering, because of the danger to life due to the slackness, as far as engineering is concerned, in the fitting-up of conveyors, the working of coal-cutters, the working of wire ropes, etc., down below where nobody sees it. A lot of slipshod work goes on which would not be tolerated if it were seen, but it is not seen because it is down below. I want the Secretary for Mines to have regard to that fact when he is appointing new inspectors, and to see that they have some knowledge of engineering. My trade union, the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, are prepared to send a deputation to the Minister to explain the position to him. The chief complaint comes from their members in South Wales.

    355
    The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) and the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dickie) deplored the fact that they were afraid to face their constituents during the Recess. What are they afraid of? They are afraid, because the Government have done nothing for the miners. The conditions of the miners are worse. It is all very well to pay tribute to the Secretary for Mines. Every Secretary during my 11 years in the House has had tribute paid to his sincerity, ability and determination, and the same tributes have been paid to the present Secretary. I could pay tributes to the hon. Gentleman as a man, but that is not the point. The question is, what is the policy of the Government? What are they going to do? it is no use year after year paying tributes to the Secretary for Mines. We should worry him and get him to go before his Cabinet to let them know the position—that is, if he has these outstanding qualities. I have challenged every Government in my time with lack of courage, and I am told to-day that at last the prophet has arrived and that he is a man of courage. We will see; they who live longest will see most.
    The hon. Member for Consett seemed to resent it because my colleagues on the Opposition benches tried to say something to him. He is like the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). Nobody dares say a word when he speaks. It is a case of "Let no dog bark," and it is developing among the undergraduates now. I want to tell the hon. Members for Morpeth and Consett that we on this side speak for the miners more than they do. We are having a miners' demonstration in Consett shortly, and the miners have selected the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), Sir Charles Trevelyan, and your humble servant as the national speakers. They have not chosen any Liberals or Tory speakers. That is because at the last General Election the Liberals and Tories hoodwinked the working-classes. When the next General Election comes they will never be back here.
    What are the Government going to do with the tens of thousands of young miners, strong, vigorous virile men, than whom there is no finer material in the world? They will never work as miners
    356
    again. What is the Secretary for Mines going to do with that problem? What have the Government done for them? They have reduced their unemployment benefit. From all parts of the House Members are fond of saying how gallant the miners were during the War, and that there were no abler and truer men than they; yet here is how the Government treat them. They are starving them in every coalfield in Britain. We say that they should be taken out of the means test. There is no way out but that which has been advocated from these benches, and preached by us throughout the country for years. The Minister should go to the Cabinet and let them know that there are tens of thousands of miners who will never work again. He cannot find work for them. The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs could not find work for them, and he was given the sack and his job was done away with because he could not find work for them. The Government have tried and failed. There is no work far them to do. Therefore, we suggest that the Minister should go to the Cabinet and say that the way out is to give a £1 a week to these men, with 10s. for their wives and 5s. for each child. The Minister can come here and be as nice, as suave, and as obliging as he likes, but that will not alter the situation. The only way out is to increase the purchasing power of the miners, both those who are unemployed and those who are working.
    Sir ADRIAN BAILLIE: I only intervene at this late hour because I would like very much to support certain views which have been expressed, and, in particular, that put forward by the Noble Lord the Member for Down (Viscount Castlereagh) in regard to what the attitude of the coalowners should be in the very near future. I have listened very attentively to the speeches which have been made, and I feel myself to a large extent in agreement with the speech of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) who moved the Amendment. A notable speech was also made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Slater). I found in all these speeches a general consensus of opinion that there must be some form of co-operation from the top. I listened with feelings of expectation to the speech delivered by the Secretary for Mines, and I thought

    357
    I detected in that speech the possibility of a new departure in the policy of the Ministry. I also agree with the speech of the hon. Member who said that he was disappointed at the results achieved by the Ministry since its inception. I have always felt that if the Ministry was going to justify its existence, it should be to a very large extent capable of being a guiding influence to the industry as a whole. I thought I caught a slight indication in the speech of the Minister that in the future, instead of attending to the mere details of a Government Department, he and the Ministry were going to devote their attention to the broader needs and interests of the coal-mining industry as a whole, and, furthermore, that he had in view the necessity of constant efforts in the direction of anticipating the causes of trouble in the industry.
    In that regard, I feel that the Minister has put his finger on a very probable cause of trouble and dispute and of possible stoppage in the industry in 12 months' time. In the meantime, additional points have been brought up in a discussion in the House this afternoon. There are new scientific methods in the industry for utilising coal which should afford opportunities to the industry to rehabilitate itself. Reference has been made to colloidal fuel which has recently been tried out on the steamship "Scythia," the reports upon which seem to be entirely satisfactory. If these new methods for the utilisation of coal are going to be seized by the industry a long period of peaceful adaptation to these new conditions is essential. We in this House all remember the 1926 stoppage and the disaster which that stoppage was not only for the coal industry, but for the country as a whole. I fear that a similar stoppage which might occur in 12 months' time might very well put another 250,000 miners permanently out of employment. I cannot help saying that, to my mind, the 1926 stoppage was entirely unnecessary. It was the result of silly and even criminal obstinacy on both sides, and I am alarmed lest another manifestation of such short-sighted obstinacy should lead us to-day into another 9.30 p.m. stoppage in 12 months' time, For instance, I feel that the owners' refusal to nominate six members on the Coal Commission's National Industrial Board under Part IV of the
    358
    1930 Act is nothing short of a foolish evasion of their responsibilities. There has been much doubt expressed in this House as to why the owners should have so refused to come in under Part IV of that Act. For my own part, I do not believe they are afraid of meeting the Miners' Federation; I believe that they are much more fearful of meeting each other. However that may be, I feel at the moment that the failure on the part of the owners to regard the industry as a whole must almost certainly lead to trouble and jeopardise the employment of hundreds of thousands of miners in the industry. I am not, to use a common expression, particularly sold on Part IV of the 1930 Act. I realise some of its provisions may be restrictive or too binding, and I am prepared to sympathise with the owners when they dislike to operate provisions which they think have been ill-drafted, but in any case it is the fact that Part IV is unworkable because of the attitude of the owners.
    I submit that some other means of reaching a basis of agreement should be found. I think a national round table conference as between the Miners' Federation on the one hand and the mine-owners on the other is essential if peace in the industry is to be Maintained. At the present time it is the fact that mass psychology is being built up among the miners, and in mining districts throughout the country that psychology can only be checked if the owners show reason. It is within my personal knowledge that the leaders of the Miners' Federation to-day are as anxious as any human being could be to keep peace in the industry and to secure a reasonable agreement, but how on earth is it possible to expect the leaders of the Miners' Federation 'to persuade their men to come to some compromise when they have already adopted a slogan which merely represents a one-sided point of view. We all remember the famous slogan of Mr. Cook:
    "Not a penny off the pay, not a minute on the day"—
    and we remember the results of that. I submit that once mass psychology has a hold and some such slogan as that is in the minds of the miners, not the most reasonable miners' leaders in the world would be able to call their men off without a fight. Therefore, I suggest to the owners in this House as well as to those outside

    359
    that if they persist in their obstinacy and in holding aloof, then necessarily the men in the industry will be forced to form their own ideas without adequate guidance.
    Mr. PIKE: Does the hon. Member really suggest that the owners in the country should abolish entirely the settlements with the districts in order to go back on a national basis of agreement so that they may elect six representatives to serve on the committee under Part IV of the Act? Does he really suggest that the owners working under district agreements can appoint these six without alteration or differentiation in the present position.
    Sir A. BAILLIE: In reply to the interjection I say teat I suggest nothing of the sort. I submit to the coalowners that there is no necessity whatever to upset district arrangements and district agreements, but that there is an absolute need for a national board or conference where both the owners and the miners can sit round the table, and that that board should be responsible for guidance, cooperation and advice. The owners have nothing to lose by coming together and discussing their difficulties with the Miners' Federation, but they have everything to lose by opposing that suggestion and by helping to bring about in twelve months' time a stoppage which may well become inevitable unless they are prepared to soften their hearts, and, in a spirit of reconciliation to discuss their troubles with the Miners' Federation in order to find a solution. To my mind that is the only way in which peace can be secured in the industry.
    Mr. JOHN: I understand that it is desirable that a vote on this question should be taken at about half-past 10, and therefore I rise to make a closing speech in the Debate from this side. In view of the wide range of subjects covered and the high character of the Debate I feel there is no need for the Opposition to apologise for having asked for this Vote to be put down to-day. There has been a tremendous change in the character of this Debate compared with previous ones, and probably the Secretary for Mines is largely responsible for the departure. In the past it has been the practice to give a resumé of the conditions in the industry, the Secretary
    360
    justifying either the expenditure or the saving of his Department, giving us an outline of the reports of inspectors of mines regarding accidents and adding a little homily to the miners on how to prevent accidents in the future. To-day, in addition to a consideration of the safety aspect of the question, there has been a very comprehensive survey of the mining industry in its economic, technological and commercial aspects, together with its future possibilities and probabilities.
    Not much has been said this evening regarding safety in mines, and it is not my intention to deal with that phase of the question in detail, not because we do not regard it as important, but because it was largely covered in the last Debate. We agree with the Secretary for Mines that it is very gratifying to find that accidents in mines have been reduced in comparison with the immediately preceding years, but at the same time the number of accidents is. still very alarming. In 1930 there were 859 fatal accidents, 3,304 serious accidents, and 140,000 accidents involving absence from work for more than three days. When we consider that the average number of days worked in the mines is less than five per week— 4.58 to be precise—we find that 588 accidents took place daily, or 80 for every hour worked. Fourteen men were seriously injured every day and four fatally injured. Two were killed or seriously injured every hour of the day. That is a very serious toll in one industry, and the miners who are called to face these tremendous dangers are amongst the worst paid of workers. Evidence is not wanting to prove that the low wages paid at the present time are in some measure accountable for these accidents. The inspector of mines for South Wales stated quite definitely in 1929 that in his opinion the only explanation of the rise in the accident rate was that the low wages might have had an effect on the vitality and the alertness of the men. He said:
    "I myself have personal knowledge of the fact that some men have been going to their work insufficiently nourished and such a state of things will not conduce to that sense of vigilance which is necessary to those conducting haulage operations."
    That is a terrible condemnation of an industry and a system—that the miners cannot earn a wage which will ensure that they have sufficient physical strength and mental alertness to avoid accidents in

    361
    carrying out their daily occupation. These deplorable conditions do not exist by reason of Socialism; they are existing under private enterprise and capitalism. I suggest to the Secretary for Mines that, having regard to the report of the Chief Inspector for South Wales, he should get into touch with the safety committee that is in existence and which is responsible for the policy of issuing maxims for securing safety in mines. They draw up maxims such as: "Examine your working place," "Beware of the rope," "Examine your lamp." I would suggest that the Secretary for Mines should instruct the Safety Research Board to get out maxims for employers as well. One maxim that I would suggest for the employers to be placed, in bold print, in the directors' board room, in the colliery office and on the pit heads is: "To prevent accidents, pay adequate wages."
    The need for paying attention to the question of accidents is more important to-day than on former occasions, because more energy is expended by the miners at the present time in preventing accidents than ever before. This is accompanied by an increased expenditure of energy in the direction of an increase in output. The output at the present time is 21.61 cwts., or 1.39 cwts. more than the output under the eight hours. The wages of the miners in 1920 were, on the average, £224 per year; in 1930 the figure was £111 10s. The reduction, taken on a weekly basis, was from £4 6s. to £2 3s. In 12 years, the miners have contributed £1,000,000,000 in order to reconstruct the mining industry of this country.
    There is another phase of safety in mines which has not been discussed, and that is the question of the introduction of electricity in mines, but before coming to that question, I should like to direct the attention of the Secretary for Mines to another very dark picture in regard to accidents in mines, and that is as it applies to boys under 16 years of age. The ratio of accidents to boys under 16 years of age is much higher than the ratio of accidents to the whole of the miners employed. The number of boys employed in the mines who were under 16 years of age in 1929 was 29,000, and the ratio of accidents to them was 251 per thousand. In 1930, there were 24,397 employed and 8,000 of them were on night shifts. I cannot give the number of accidents to boys on the night shift,
    362
    but there is the report of the inspector for the Yorkshire area for 1930, which gives a glimpse of the tragedy in the lives of boys under 16 years of age. He says:
    "The number of boys killed and seriously injured per thousand in 1930 was 6.60, compared with the general rate of all persons employed, of 4.14 per thousand."
    He says further that those figures demonstrate that the accident rate for boys is far higher than it ought to be, having regard to the fact that boys are practically excluded from coal faces where most of the accidents from falls occur.
    In Yorkshire last year six fatal accidents and 48 serious accidents occurred to boys between 14 and 15 years of age, when in fact they ought to have been in school. There were 251 per thousand boys under 16 years, maimed on the threshold of life, crushed and bruised at a young and tender age, and now probably facing 50 or 60 years more of life. I should like to emphasise to the Secretary for Mines the necessity of devoting a certain time to this question. I understand that in Durham and Northumberland and the Northern coalfields, this question is more acute, so far as boys under 16 working on the night shift are concerned. It is beyond comprehension that we permit boys under 16 years of age to work on the night shift underground, when they are not permitted to work on the surface above the collieries. If it is unsafe for boys under 16 years of age working on the surface, it is surely unsafe for them to work underground on the night shift. In Northumberland and Durham, boys under 16 are getting up at 3, 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning. How, from a common sense point of view, can you expect a young lad to be out at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, and to be alert? How are you to get an old head upon the shoulders of a young man? It is impossible for him to realise the necessity of getting sufficient rest. Without developing that phase of the question any further, I would like to emphasise the necessity that the Secretary for Mines should devote some attention to it.
    Constant modernisation is going on in the collieries by the introduction of machinery and the use of electricity, which tends to increase Accidents. The alarm with which miners view the extension of electrical machinery is not because

    363
    of prejudice against the introduction of machinery, nor is it because, as the Secretary of Mines said, they are "of a conservative nature." Miners 'are rapidly arriving at the conclusion that until this element can be better controlled, or the production of gas rendered innocuous at the point of issue, this highly dangerous force should be prohibited in the coal face. A tremendous increase has gone on in Great Britain in the introduction of electrical machines. There is 'at the present time about 900,000 horse-power in Great Britain, and in the fiery mines of South Wales there is 180,000 horse-power. Evidence is not wanting to prove that explosions have occurred consequent upon the introduction of electricity in the coal-pits. Take, for instance, the explosion that occurred on the 10th July, 1929, at the Milfraen Colliery, in Monmouthshire, when it was contended that the explosion was caused by electric sparking, though this colliery was one of the least fiery seams in South Wales. The electrical expert of the Mines Department, in his evidence at the inquiry, stated that the interior of the coal-cutting machine is covered by a lid fastened by screw-bolts And nuts, and that, if firedamp entered the enclosure in explosive proportions, it would be ignited by the switch, pass out of the machine, and cause an explosion by igniting an explosive mixture in the surrounding atmosphere. When this coal-cutting machine, which requires great care, which is as sensitive as a watch, which generates great power, which is open to 'a great deal of rough usage and a great deal of jolting, is introduced into the coal face, it may happen that, as the result of rough usage, or as the result of jolting, a nut or screw may be loosened so as to cause a small aperture about a sixteenth of an inch across, permitting an explosive mixture, if such be present, to come into contact with the electric spark, causing an explosion as a result of which hundreds of miners 'are hurled into an untimely grave. That is the reason why the miners are alarmed at the introduction of electrical machinery.
    Reference has been made to the number of inspectors. Is the Secretary for Mines satisfied that there are sufficient competent inspectors in the coalfield at the present time to look after the interests of the employés so far as the introduction of electricity is concerned?
    364
    The Chief Inspector for South Wales, in his report, for 1930, after referring to the considerable increase in the use of electricity and eulogising the work of his own sub-inspectors, says:
    "There is a good deal of detailed work—questions of safe construction and maintenance—to which my staff have no time to give attention having many other duties to perform, and I welcome, therefore, the appointment of Mr. Robinson as junior electrical inspector to work in my division."
    What does his division cover? It covers Breconshire, with 24 pits; Carmarthenshire, with 53; Glamorganshire, with 303; Monmouthshire, with 125; Pembrokeshire, with four; and the Forest of Dean with 45. The division covers 554 pits, and there is only one junior electrical inspector to cover the whole area. I submit to the Secretary for Mines that it is impossible for one junior inspector to do justice, so far as inspection is concerned, to the safeguarding of the interests of the miners with respect to the introduction of electrical machinery.
    The objection to this introduction of mechanical appliances is not to be attributed to what the Secretary for Mines called the conservative nature of the miners. They have cause to be alarmed. Their lives depend upon the unscrewing of a nut or the unloosening of a bolt, and their lives are 'much too 10.0 p.m. precious to depend upon such slender threads. Scant progress is being made by the employers with regard to the introduction of machinery of all kinds. They are very slow in regard to the setting up of a National Industrial Board. If it is a question of the introduction of machinery into the mines in order to increase output, it is speedily adopted, but, if it is a question of the introduction of machinery in order to save lives, then it has to be considered, it has to be sent from one committee to another, and three, four, or five years pass before they come to the conclusion that its introduction is essential.
    The Mechanical Appliances Committee of the Mines Department are not entirely blameless in this matter. Certain appliances have been submitted to the committee, one of which I know very well. It was introduced by the late right hon. Thomas Richards. A great deal was said in the last Debate about accidents from falls of roof in mines, and the purpose of this appliance was to safeguard

    365
    life when there is a fall. Frequently there is a fall which covers two or three men, and this appliance was for the purpose of rescuing those men without risk to the rescuers. When the matter was brought before the Mechanical Appliances Committee, they said that it would take 10 or 15 minutes to erect it, and that by that time the fall would have occurred. Supposing that it took half an hour to erect it, if the appliance was a good one, and if it could have served the purpose of saving the lives of those under the fall and the prevention of an accident to those rescuing them, the half-hour would be well spent. Therefore, I again commend to the Secretary for Mines the necessity for speeding up his own committees, and for trying to create interest on the part of the employers with respect to some of the appliances that are already on the market, as well as with respect to gas detectors, to which reference was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams).
    A good deal has been said with regard to the general economic situation of the mining industry, and the Secretary for Mines, in his reply earlier, referred to Part IV, to the question of a national board, to the scientific extraction of oil from coal, and to the Geneva Convention. I want to ask what progress has been made with respect to the Geneva Convention since the Debate in the House on the Coal Mines Bill. It was clearly understood then that that matter was to be further discussed, and the President of the Board of Trade gave a pledge that, when the seven principal countries that were mainly concerned in producing coal had ratified the Geneva Convention, Great Britain would be prepared to agree to the hours being reduced from seven and a-half to seven and a-quarter. I would like to know what progress has been made since then. There was a meeting in January; that meeting was postponed until April; and I understand that the meeting which was to have been held in April was cancelled at the request of the Secretary for Mines. Has another meeting taken place? If not, what is the cause of the delay? If so, what progress has been made? In view of the fact that the miners of this country accepted the terms at their conference, on the ground that great steps had been taken to get the Geneva Convention ratified, and the
    366
    wages were guaranteed for 12 months, I think we are entitled to know whether the Mines Department has taken any steps to ratify the Geneva Convention.
    With regard to an international agreement, I think the Act of 1930 was passed because Parliament realised the need of some steps being taken to remove the mining industry from its primitive conditions to a more modern and scientific mode of working. We realised that the main factor in the re-establishment of the coal industry on a sound economic basis was its internal organisation, its technology, its commercial direction, and the labour interest. What has been done with respect to furthering the labour interest as regards a national board? To argue that the employers and the miners ought to meet in order to ascertain whether it is possible for a settlement to be arrived at with regard to an industrial board is all right.
    The Secretary for Mines and his Department and the House had a great deal to do with the terms of the last settlement and a pledge was given by the President of the Board of Trade and implemented by himself, and it was also clearly understood that the question of an industrial board was to be a matter for further discussion. Have the mine-owners and the Miners' Federation written to him about it, and, if so, what was the nature of the correspondence? Was it asking the Mines Department to assist to bring about the establishment of an industrial board? Have the owners taken any part in this matter at all? Have they given any intimation that they are prepared to meet either the Minister or the Miners' Federation separately or jointly? I think there is some obligation devolving upon the hon. Gentleman not only to express a desire that the two sides should meet, but also to do everything he possibly can to use his good offices and his powers in order to bring about a strengthening of the industrial board.
    What steps has the Secretary for Mines taken to make it possible for an international agreement to be brought about as quickly as possible? Neither the hon. Gentleman nor the Government can say they have no responsibility. During the last three years the Government and the Mines Department have participated in the work of an organisation which has attempted to bring about an international

    367
    agreement. In 1929 an economic committee was set up at Geneva at which this Government was represented in the person of Sir Sydney Chapman, who was the chief economic adviser to the Government. They consulted a committee of experts. They agreed that international organisation is absolutely necessary. What have the coalowners done in respect of that? Have they facilitated the international organisation or have they attempted to wreck it? Is it not true that they refused to send a representative to the Convention? Is it not time for the Secretary for Mines to do something in the direction of attempting to introduce to the coalowners the essentiality of this international agreement? It is necessary so far as the international economic conditions of the industry are concerned and also so far as the national economic conditions of the industry are concerned. The miners now are all right for 12 months so far as wages are concerned and for five years as far as hours are concerned, but we cannot adopt a policy of delay. Twelve months will very soon pass. We do not want to have a scramble at the end of the 12 months, and we do not want an economic war. It is possible to avoid all that, provided that an essential organisation, national and international, can be brought into existence and there is no reason to believe otherwise than that for years to come the industry will have a certain sense of security.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I understand it is desired that, if possible, this Debate shall come to an end at about half-past ten and I want to get in, if I can, in twenty minutes what reply I can make to the points that have been raised in the course of a very interesting discussion. The hon. Member who has just spoken, who makes a well-informed contribution to these coal discussions, spoke about certain questions of safety. Once or twice he has mentioned what I said in the last Debate about the conservatism of the British miner. I think he has given that phrase far too general an application. I only used it when I was speaking about my desire to see established some protective equipment for the miners, and I ventured the opinion that at some time a successor of mine would be standing at this Box justifying compulsory orders relating to protective equipment to be used
    368
    by miners. I said, if they were not so conservative, I thought a good deal of that equipment would have been adopted years ago. I did not hear anything in the discussion last time that convinced me that we ought not to proceed upon the lines of making further inquiries and I hope we shall be able soon to report upon the results of some successful experiments.
    I should like to take right away the question of electricity in the mines. There is no doubt that the dangers arising from electricity cause grave apprehension to a great many of the workers. The most conspicuous danger is that of explosion from an electric spark. This rarely happens more than twice a year but, when it does happen, the results are very serious. Last year was a particularly bad year in this respect. There were only two explosions caused by electricity but they killed 18 persons and injured three others. The collieries concerned were the Bowhill Colliery in Fife-shire and the Newdigate Colliery in Warwickshire. In 1930 there were three such explosions in which three men were killed and 13 injured. I have the figures for the earlier 'years, and if any hon. Member of the House would like to put down a question I shall be happy to have the figures given in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am anxious, if possible, to meet the apprehensions which I know exist in some parts of the coalfields. While we have had two or three very bad years, averaging the good years with the bad, the number of deaths arising per annum has been four to five over the period with which I am dealing which extends for about 20 years.
    We realise our responsibility in this matter, and His Majesty's Inspectors have been exercising, as far as I can gather, great vigilance in controlling, and, if necessary, prohibiting the use of electricity in districts liable to gas. There has been too a careful inspection of electrical plant. There is a special staff of five electrical inspectors devoting their whole time to such work to reinforce the activities of the general inspectors upon whom the main responsibility must rest, and also an official testing of electric apparatus where necessary to ensure that it shall be flameproof, that is proof against the risk of causing an explosion. Every effort has been made to ensure that

    369
    the economic advantages of electrical power shall not be used at the cost of men's lives. Upon the use of electricity a great many pits depend, and the suggestion which was made that we might almost prohibit its use can hardly be contemplated in the industry.
    Mr. JOHN: Only at the coal face.
    Mr. FOOT: Certainly that is a matter which, I hope, will be watched by us all. There is no reason why every effort should not be made to avoid accidents as far as possible by skill and ingenuity so that men should not be exposed to this danger. Another question was mentioned earlier in the Debate by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). Hon. Members will recollect when we were discussing the matter on 3rd May I drew attention to the heavy accident rate in the statistics relating to accidents to boys. There are a great many reasons for this. I have been trying to ascertain the reasons. Responsibility rests to some extent upon older men working in the mines. I think that most can be done by them, and that care and teaching can be given by older men to young boys who are inclined to be indifferent to danger. But there is this fact which is rather surprising, that a boy is prohibited from working upon the surface at night, but is allowed to work underground at night. That, of course, is an anomaly on the face of it. Apparently, there was a special exception made when the Convention was effected at Washington in 1919, and the argument is that a shift team consists of a certain number and the boy takes his place with the rest, and if he is not able to take his place when the shift comes around to work at night it means dislocation and disturbance.
    I have been trying to find out the difficulty, and I have enlisted the help of the Miners' Federation on the matter. I want to know the number concerned, and whether or not the arguments which had weight in 1919 are now just as cogent with the introduction of machinery. I think that the onus rests upon those who want this work to continue. On the face of it a boy under 16 years of age ought not to be working in the mines at night. It is not for those who are opposed to it to prove the case, but the onus rests upon those who want boys under 16 to work at night. The proper place for a boy if he has to work, is at home. I would
    370
    not like any younger member of my family to be exposed to those risks and dangers, coupled with the risks and dangers to health which affect boys so much more than adults. These inquiries are being made and it will need very strong argument to convince me that that employment is necessary. We are waiting for the information and I hope that it may be for me later on to suggest that the House may have to take that reform into consideration.
    The question of the Geneva Convention has been raised. We are in touch with the International Labour Office upon that matter and we have been informed by the deputy director, who is now the director, following upon the lamented death of Monsieur Thomas, that no purpose would at present be served in endeavouring to get into communication with the two countries who still are opposed to simultaneous ratification. I should have liked to have been in a position to place before the House the consent- of the two countries which in January said that they were unwilling to take part in simultaneous ratification. I am not sure what the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) thinks that I can do in this matter. He asked me to use my powers. In as much as the meeting in January was not a public meeting I do not think that I can go beyond what was said in the earlier Debate. There were three countries out of the seven meeting on that occasion who declined to join in simultaneous ratification. One of the countries that declined at that time has since come into line and has agreed to the principle of simultaneous ratification, but the two other countries, both very important coal-producing countries in Europe, declined because of the serious political uncertainty that prevails throughout the Continent, and as far as I know from the latest information nothing has moved them from that position.
    Mr. D. GRAHAM: Can the hon. Member give us the names of the countries that refused to ratify, and the name of the country that has agreed since?
    Mr. FOOT: I think I must not be pressed as to names. It was agreed when the meeting started in January that, except for the communication which was to be made, it should be a confidential talk. I expect that my hon. Friend will

    371
    have no difficulty in getting the information, but I am not going to mention the names on the Floor of the House. If I did so I might be criticised on that ground. The hon. Member for Don Valley suggested that I had power. I do not know what power I possess.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The point I raised was that if the hon. Member remains in this country and does nothing with regard to the convention until the two recalcitrant countries make up their minds, and they do not make up their minds for the next 25 years, we shall remain where we are. My suggestion was that the hon. Member should not be content to allow the matter to be postponed indefinitely but that he should consistently keep on the doorstep. Perhaps another meeting might inspire the two countries to agree to ratification.
    Mr. FOOT: As to the powers of persuasion, supposing a man is very anxious to marry a woman and she persists in her refusal. He may wait on her doorstep for a very long time. It is no use anyone suggesting that the problem could be met by coercion.
    Mr. JOHN: Could the hon. Gentleman not knock at the door?
    Mr. FOOT: We have knocked at the door. Why did the countries concerned meet? They met in January at the invitation of this Government. That was knocking at the door; and we have been in touch with them since. Short of coercion nothing can be done except by persuasion; and I am hopeful that the Debate in this House, and the emphatic and unequivocal declaration of His Majesty's Government that they are in favour of the principle of this convention, will have its effect on the two countries concerned. The suggestion that there has been an indefinite postponement has no foundation. I want to see it carried through; but there is a limit to the power which we can exercise.
    The question of the inspectorate has been mentioned. Let me give the House a few particulars in regard to that matter. The inspectorate was reorganised by the Labour Government in 1924, and they worked on the figures for 1922. In 1922 there were 2,911 mines; in 1931 there were 2,243 mines. The numbers employed had gone down from
    372
    1,162,754 in 1922 to 867,864 in 1931; a very substantial reduction. But the Labour Government considered that 12 additional inspectors met the situation as shown by the 1922 figures. If the number was sufficient then, and as we have fewer mines now and a smaller number of men employed, I should think the fact that six additional inspectors have been added shows that we are complying with the need for inspectors. Further, inspections of mines increased from 18,941 in 1922 to 22,989 in 1931, an increase of 21 per cent., while the number of mines had decreased by 23 per cent. Short of taking over the management of the mines, a policy which has more enthusiastic support on the other side of the House than on this, I do not know what more could be done. A question was raised as to special kinds of inspectors. No new appointments are to be made, but when they are to be made I shall be happy to enter into communication with the hon. Member who has expressed some apprehensions on this point.
    We have had some discussion about central selling agencies. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Slater) spoke of some of the difficulties which have occurred since the Act was passed. We are watching the matter day by day. The Mining Association is in touch with its members now as to amendments which they think necessary. They are doing everything they can to ascertain their opinion upon these grave questions of policy affecting the working of Part I. Many of our difficulties would be overcome by co-ordination; many of our difficulties would be solved by central selling agencies. I am not going to enter into the question of an export levy. That matter has been discussed already by this House and will have to be discussed again. There are two other matters which must come up for consideration in pursuance of the undertaking I gave when the Bill was before the House, and I hope that I shall be excused from entering into the details of the matter. I share a great deal of the apprehensions expressed by the hon. Member for Eastbourne upon this very important matter. I hope that when these questions do 10.30 p.m. arise in relation to the working of Part I and its Amendment, every side of the industry

    373
    will be called into consultation. It may be true that the Amendments which will have to be carried through will not involve any legislation but can be done within the limits of the existing Act.
    I have heard all that has been said to-day as to the necessity for setting up a Commission. I shall certainly take into the most careful consideration what has been said upon that line. The only reason why I am myself not prepared to advise the appointment of a Commission is that I am not satisfied that such a Commission would hasten the cause in which we are all interested. As a matter of fact I think that, with the methods that Commissions generally adopt, it may delay matters rather than expedite them. My suggestion is this: Take the five members who did me the honour of waiting on me last night and giving me their views. Will they come to the Department and see what work we have in hand, what information we are getting, information which, as far as I know, covers every one of the four points raised by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Edward Williams), and when they have seen that they can tell us if they still wish to press their claim. Let us see if we cannot come to some agreement, because we are all concerned about this question. We do not want to hinder any investigation that is going to help the industry. But let them see what information we have at our disposal, and then perhaps they will either withdraw their request, modify it, or it may be renew it. If it is renewed obviously an answer has to be given.
    I am sorry that in one instance the suggestion was made that the Lord President of the Council has been guilty of discourtesy. The Lord President of the Council, as I know very well, from 21st April, when he said he would make representations to the Prime Minister, has had the matter under his constant consideration. Members know that there have beer difficulties since, as far as the Prime Minister is concerned. Other questions have arisen. That is a position that cannot be met without taking into consideration all the relevant circumstances. I would not like to go unanswered any statement that the Lord President of the Council had been guilty of arty discourtesy to a deputation, a very powerful and representative deputation, very much moved by the circumstances and the de-
    374
    pression in South Wales, and it is only because of the exceptional difficulties which have since arisen that an answer could not be given. I hope that those from South Wales will not lend any support to the suggestion that there has been a failure in courtesy to those who so courteously put their representations before us.
    As to the matter upon which I dwelt in my opening statement to-day. I am very thankful to the hon. Members for Down (Viscount Castlereagh) and Linlithgow (Sir A. Baillie), who supported my plea that there shall now be some conference between owners and men in the industry. My mind would be immensely relieved if that problem were out of the way. We are troubled by the apprehensions that are resting upon certain parts of the coalfields. I do not want the men to have apprehensions as to what may happen at the end of 12 months. The representatives in this House cannot lift those apprehensions. They can be lifted by those who are immediately concerned. There is no hope of removing the apprehensions apart from the conference for which we have asked. I am very hopeful that if we achieve nothing else as the result of the Debate to-day, we shall convince those concerned as to what is the mind of the House of Commons upon what is a very important matter.
    I did not in the earlier part of this discussion deal with the more constructive part of the industry, but the Committee will remember that I said that f intended to dwell only upon those aspects of the industry upon which I have touched. The other subjects which have been raised in the course of the Debate are constantly in our minds, and I would like to assure the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), whom I congratulate upon a helpful and constructive speech, that what powers we have we shall be very anxious to use. He will forgive me for not going in any detail into the question which he raised about the automatic gas detector beyond saying that inquiry is going on and that committees have been set up in connection with three mines, details of which I can give to the hon. Member or to any other Member of the Committee. On those local committees workmen, managers and owners will be represented, and also the local inspectors. These committees will

    375
    report to a co-ordinating committee and, if we find that the experiment is justified by actual experience, under ordinary working conditions, the obligation will rest upon us to see what further action should be taken.
    Mr. D. GRAHAM: Will the hon. Gentleman take cognisance of the points which I raised?
    Mr. FOOT: The hon. Member mentioned two points which raise legal difficulties. The old "butty" question—I am not sure if that is the right technical name—has been a long standing difficulty in Lanark. In regard to the question of ventilation, I cannot deal with a general suggestion that there is a failure to carry
    out the law in relation to ventilation, but I shall be happy to deal with any particular case which the hon. Member may bring to my attention. Perhaps he will help me upon that point, and if there is any instance in which it is thought that the law is being broken, if he will give me full particulars, we shall be happy to make such inquiries as we can. My concern is that the law, especially in so far as it relates to the protection of men's lives, shall be adhered to rigidly and impartially enforced.
    Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £144,495, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 39; Noes, 289.

    Division No. 281.]

    AYES.

    [10.38 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Maxton, James

    Batey, Joseph

    Healy, Cahir

    Milner, Major James

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

    Hirst, George Henry

    Parkinson. John Allen

    Buchanan, George

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Price, Gabriel

    Cape, Thomas

    John, William

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Kirkwood, David

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Dagger, George

    Lansbury. Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

    Edwards, Charles

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Lunn, William

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Groves, Thomas E.

    McGovern. John

    Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr.

    Duncan Graham.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Chalmers, John Rutherford

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

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

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

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Christie, James Archibald

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Apsley, Lord

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

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

    Colman, N. C. D.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Colville, John

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Gibson, Charles Granville

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Copeland, Ida

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Earclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Gower, Sir Robert

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

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Graves, Marjorie

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Greene, William P. C.

    Bernays, Robert

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Blindell, James

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

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

    Boulton, W. W.

    Crossley, A. C.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Curry, A. C.

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

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Dickie, John P.

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Dixey, Arthur C. N.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Brockiebank, C. E. R.

    Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Hales, Harold K.

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

    Donner, P. W.

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

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Hammersley, Samuel S.

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

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

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Eady, George H.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Harbord, Arthur

    Burnett, John George

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Carver, Major William H.

    Eimley, Viscount

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur F.

    Castle Stewart, Earl

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Hepworth, Joseph

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybrldge)

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Salmon, Major Isidore

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Salt, Edward W.

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Hewitt. Dr. Alfred B.

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

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

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Scone, Lord

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Munro, Patrick

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Nall, Sir Joseph

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

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

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

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

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    North, Captain Edward T.

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Nunn, William

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

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

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Ker, J. Campbell

    O'Nelli, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Somerset, Thomas

    Kerr, Charles (Montrose)

    Ormiston, Thomas

    Somerveil, Donald Bradley

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Knebworth, Viscount

    Pearson, William G.

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Knight, Holford

    Peat, Charles U.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

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

    Penny, Sir George

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

    Leckie, J. A.

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Stones, James

    Lees-Jones, John

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Storey, Samuel

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Petherick, M.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

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

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Potter, John

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

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

    Templeton, William P.

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Pybue, Percy John

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

    Mabane, William

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Thomas. James P. L. (Hereford)

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

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

    Thompson, Luke

    MacAndrew. Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

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

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Ramsden, E.

    Train, John

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Ray, Sir William

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    McKeag, William

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

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

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    McLean. Major Alan

    Remer, John R.

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Magnay, Thomas

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.

    Mailalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Roberts, Aied (Wrexham)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

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

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Robinson, John Roland

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Rosbotham, S. T.

    Womersley, Walter James

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Millar, Sir James Duncan

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough. E.)

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Milne, Charles

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)

    Major George Davies and Lord

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

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    Erskine.

    Original Question again proposed.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.— [Captain Margesson.]
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    REPORT [4TH JULY].
    Resolution reported,

    IRISH FREE STATE (SPECIAL DUTIES).
    "That (i) the Treasury, if it appears to them that any failure of the Irish Free State to implement their obligations has
    378
    resulted or is likely to result in a loss to the revenue of any public fund of the United Kingdom or in an additional charge on any such fund, may make an order charging duties of customs on articles of such classes or descriptions as may be specified in the order which are either imported from the Irish Free State into the United Kingdom or exported from the Irish Free State to any other country and thence brought into the United Kingdom.
    (ii) The duties to be charged as aforesaid on any articles—

    (a) shall be such duties as may be specified in the order not exceeding one hundred per cent. of the value of the articles;

    (b) may be charged by reference to value or to -weight or any other measure of quantity, as may be provided in the order;

    379

    (c) shall be chargeable in addition to any other duty of customs for the time being chargeable on the articles.

    (iii) Articles chargeable with the duties to be charged as aforesaid shall not for the purposes of the Import Duties Act, 1932, be deemed to be chargeable with a duty of customs by or under any enactment other than that Act.
    (iv) Any Act of the present Session for giving effect to this Resolution may include all such incidental and consequential provisions as may be necessary or expedient in connection with the duties to be charged as
    aforesaid, and in particular may include provisions for authorising the making of regulations for the purpose of preventing evasion of the duties aforesaid in the case of articles brought into the United Kingdom from a country other than the Irish Free State, or otherwise for carrying the said Act into effect, and for amending any enactments relating to customs."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    The House divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 39.

    Division No. 282.]

    AYES.

    [10.52 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Donner, P. W.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverrl, W.)

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

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

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Allen. William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Dunglass, Lord

    Kerr, Charles (Montrose)

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Eady, George H.

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Apsley, Lord

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    Knebworth, Viscount

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

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Leckie, J. A.

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Eiliston, Captain George Sampson

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Elmley, Viscount

    Lees-Jones, John

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

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

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Beit, Sir Alfred L.

    Essenhigh. Reginald Clare

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Bernays, Robert

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

    Blindell, James

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Lioyd, Geoffrey

    Boulton, W. W.

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Lockwood. John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Bowyer. Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Mabane, William

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Ganzonl, Sir John

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

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    George, Megan A. Lioyd (Anglesea)

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

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

    Gibson. Charles Granville

    McCorquodale. M. S.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Gledhill. Gilbert

    MacDonald. Malcolm. (Bassetlaw)

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

    Gluckstein. Louis Halle

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    McKeag, William

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Gower. Sir Robert

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Greene, William P. C.

    Maclay. Hon. Joseph Paton

    Burnett, John George

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    McLean. Major Alan

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Grimston. R. V.

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Magnay, Thomas

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

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

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Carver, Major William H.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Castle Stewart, Earl

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

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

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Hales. Harold K.

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Chalmers, John Rutherford

    Hamilton. Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

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

    Hammersley, Samuel S.

    Martin, Thomas E.

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Christie, James Archibald

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Merriman. Sir F. Boyd

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Millar, Sir James Duncan

    Clayton. Dr. George C.

    Harbord, Arthur

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Milne, Charles

    Colville, John

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

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

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    Mitcheson. G. G.

    Cook. Thomas A.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Copeland, Ida

    Hepworth. Joseph

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Munre, Patrick

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Nail, Sir Joseph

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

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

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Crossley, A. C.

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    North. Captain Edward T.

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Nunn, William

    Curry, A. C.

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

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

    Oman. Sir Charles William C.

    Dickie, John P.

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

    O'Neill. Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Dixey, Arthur C. N.

    Jenson, Major Thomas E.

    Ormiston, Thomas

    Dixon. Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Rothschild, James A. de

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

    Peat, Charles U.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Petherick, M.

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tslde)

    Templeton, William P.

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

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

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

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Salmon, Major Isidore

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Salt, Edward W.

    Thompson, Luke

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Potter, John

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

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

    Scone, Lord

    Train, John

    Pybus, Percy John

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

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

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

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

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

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

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Ramsden, E.

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Ray, Sir William

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

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Reed. Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield. Hallam)

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

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

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Smithers, Waldron

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Remer, John R.

    Somerset, Thomas

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Somerville. D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Womersley, Walter James

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Roberts. Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

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

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Robinson, John Roland

    Steel-Maitland. Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Rosbotham, S. T.

    Stones, James

    TELLERS FOR THE.AYES.—

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Storey, Samuel

    Sir George Penny and Major

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    George Davies.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Maxton, James

    Batey, Joseph

    Healy, Cahir

    Milner, Major James

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

    Hirst, George Henry

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Buchanan, George

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Price, Gabriel

    Cape, Thomas

    John, William

    Salter. Dr. Alfred

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Tinker. John Joseph

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Kirkwood, David

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Daggar, George

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Davies. Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

    Edwards, Charles

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Lunn, William

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Groves, Thomas E.

    McGovern, John

    Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr. Duncan Graham.

    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. J. H. Thomas, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Chamberlain, and Mr. Runciman.

    IRISH FREE STATE (SPECIAL DITTIES BILL),
    "to provide for the imposition of Customs duties on goods imported directly or indirectly from the Irish Free State with a view to making good any loss incurred by, or any additional charge imposed on, any public fund of the United Kingdom by reason of any failure of the Government of the Irish Free State to implement their obligations; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 118.]

    IMPORT DUTIES ACT, 1932.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I beg to move:
    "That the Additional Import Duties (No. 2) Order, 1932, dated the 8th day of June, 1932, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the 10th day of June, 1932, be approved."
    The two Orders on the Paper tabled by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have a closely related subject matter and I trust that Mr. Speaker will agree that we may discuss them together. The Orders are accompanied—
    Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: On a point of Order. Will that enable us to take the Votes on the two Orders separately?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Oh, yes. We can take two Votes on the two Orders. It has been the practice in the past to take one discussion on the two Orders.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I was suggesting that I might consult the convenience of the House. The Orders are accompanied by reports from the Advisory Committee, and several minor modifications are suggested in the scheme originally proposed and approved by this House. The reasons for those minor modifications are given in the reports which I have mentioned. They are all based either upon experience or upon convenience, and it would be redundant to make any further observations upon them. Two branches of manufacture besides iron and steel, with which I shall deal in a moment, are selected for additional duties. One is the transparent cellulose wrapping industry, which has made such strides that the Committee feel satisfied in suggesting that it should be put within the range of those articles enjoying a 20 per cent. duty. The other is the safety razor blade industry, which developed very rapidly during the period when it enjoyed Safeguarding. The Committee make this significant observation, so relevant to modern industrial tendencies:
    "In the case of mass-produced articles of this character, successful competition is dependent on the maintenance of a large output, and, in order to justify the capital necessary to secure sufficient output, some assurance as to the continuance of the duty is required."
    Accordingly, the Committee suggest giving the industry that assurance for a period of five years, and imposing a duty of 2s. a gross in addition to the 20 per cent. duty which now prevails. But the main purpose of these resolutions is to, give to the iron and steel industry an opportunity—the greatest opportunity ever enjoyed by any great industry—to readjust itself to modern conditions. The House will recollect that, in the first Report of the Advisory Committee, this phrase was used:
    "We are satisfied that the maintenance of a prosperous iron and steel industry in the highest degree of efficiency is essential to the economic progress of this country, while from the point of view of national security it must still be regarded as vital."
    We therefore proceed from that assumption, that the iron and steel industry and its maintenance are indispensable. The
    384
    Committee, at the time that they made this report, had had no time even to sketch out a framework of a permanent scheme, and they therefore asked that the iron and steel industry should enjoy for a period of three months a duty of 33⅓ per cent. During that period of three months, which is due to expire on the 25th July, Sir George May and his colleagues have interviewed the leaders of the industry, and have persuaded them— I do not know that much persuasion was necessary—to agree to undertake their own salvation. Those leaders of the iron and steel industry have established a National Committee and a series of regional and sectional committees, and the Advisory Committee are now in a position to report that they are facing the issues involved with energy and determination. While they are drawing up their plan, and, if possible, forcing it through to execution, a further period of protection is required, and the Committee again ask for three months—not that I would lead the House to believe that it will not he necessary to continue that period still further; it depends, of course, on the progress made by the industry itself. But, when the Import Duties were under discussion, even those who opposed those duties, or many of them, stated that they would be reconciled to them if a condition were made that there should be reorganisation and reconstruction. That is the course which the committee has pursued.
    Why is the iron and steel industry selected for special treatment? It is an industry which consumes the products of other industries on a very considerable scale—coal, ore and limestone. It is itself basic to almost every other industry, including engineering, building, and ship construction. It has on its hooks 200,000 registered employés, and £160,000,000 of capital is sunk in it. That is the importance of the industry. Why does it require exceptional treatment? I will endeavour in a few words to explain that to the House. Before the War, we were producing 7,000,000 tons of steel a year. Last year, we produced 5,000,000 tons. But it is when these production figures are looked at in connection with the export and import position that they give ground for grave reflection. We imported 2,000,000 tons of steel a year in the years immediately preceding the War. Last

    385
    year we imported 2,900,000 tons, despite the decline in the demand. We were exporting, before the War, 4,700,000 tons of steel a year. Last year we exported 2,000,000 tons, and, in the previous years, when conditions were more normal, we were exporting considerably less than before the War, so that last year we reached the position, for the first time in our history with the exception of 1926, the year of the general stoppage, of importing more steel than we exported.
    That is the serious condition in which the industry finds itself. What are the reasons? Is the industry to blame for this condition? The reasons are various. One of them is that during the War we expanded our plant in a shapeless manner. We had before the War a productive capacity of 8,000,000 tons and we extended it to 12,000,000 tons and in an unsymmetrical way, so that each unit was not related in proper proportion to the next. Vast capital was attracted into the industry as it amorphously expanded. After the War our Continental neighbours were able to wipe off most of their prior charges, owing to inflation or reparations. Starting from highly protected markets and agreeing from time to time amongst themselves under a cartel to eliminate Continental competition, they were table to send their surplus production here below cost. If anyone should require proof of that, I would direct his attention to the last report made to the shareholders of the great French combine, the Comité des Forges de France, in which they say they have been obliged to sell in this country at 30 to 40 per cent. below cost of production. Those are the obstacles with which the iron and steel industry has had to deal.
    It is not only the quantity of the imports, but the character of them, and anyone who analyses the import position of steel in this country is bound to see the strategy of our continental rivals. The iron and steel industry is a sequence of productions one related to the following. What our foreign competitors have been doing is this. They have been destroying the basis of our industry stage by stage. First they will sell billets below the cost of production—cheaper than they can be produced here or anywhere else. The roller of rods rejoices. He says, "I will buy my billets cheap." Then he finds that, having got his goodwill and
    386
    established relationship with him, the continental exporter next attacks the rod. The maker of wire gets his rods cheaper and, of course, that is to his immediate advantage. Then wire is sent to this country and so, stage by stage, every process of production is conquered. We still have in this country the supremacy in finished products. The independent tinplate maker buys the bar from which he makes his plates abroad. He gets a temporary advantage, but by buying that bar abroad he dislocates the whole sequence that I have described, from the blast furnace to the making of the ingot, from the bloom right up to the final stage, and so our industry is being progressively conquered, not by fair competitive methods, but in pursuance of a set policy of selling in this country below the cost of production.
    I say that these are new conditions, and that if we are agreed with the Advisory Committee that the steel industry is worthy of preservation, and, indeed, is essential of preservation in peace and in war, we must endorse the findings of the Advisory Committee. You can regard the iron and steel industry as a number of separate and isolated manufactures, or you can regard it as a whole, but I warn the House that if we become progressively dependent upon foreign supplies, however cheap, to the destruction of supplies in this country, the foreigner will not continue to sell below the cost of production. Therefore, the Advisory Committee have looked at this matter as a whole, and at the industry as a whole, an inseparable whole, from the blast furnace to the finished product, and that is why they have recommended the inclusion of pig iron. Will the committee which has been appointed carry out or fulfil the hopes that have been expected of it? I do not know. Their duty is to eliminate surplus plant and to get rid of dead capital, and to make the industry the most efficient steel industry in the world. That is their duty. The Advisory Committee, fulfilling and carrying out what we desired it should do, namely, to give tariffs on condition of reorganisation, has given them an opportunity. What industry or what man can ask for anything better than an opportunity? They have an opportunity here.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: One of the disadvantages of this procedure in tariff legis-

    387
    lation is that at a very late hour one is expected to embark upon a discussion of vitally important matters. I do not propose to go over again the many arguments which have been put forward from this side of the House against an attempt to regulate competitive industry by means of tariffs. The hon. Member the Parliamentary Secretary has given us a very vivid picture of the capitalist system. Cut throat competition, whether it be international or national, is, we believe, the wrong way of organising industry; and he is apparently beginning to realise that at least as far as international industry is concerned.
    There are one or two specific points I want to raise with regard to the two Orders before the House. Firstly I desire to get rid of the small point as regards safety razor blades and blanks. The hon. Member did not explain to us why it was thought necessary to protect an industry in which at present the wholesaler is making 450 per cent. profit, according to the findings of the Committee. One might have thought that a 450 per cent. profit was a fairly decent profit in hard times and that that industry should not particularly complain. At least before putting a tax upon the goods coming into the country it was incumbent upon the industry and the distributors to see that those profits were very materially reduced. They draw attention at the end of their report, in page 3, to this fact. They say:
    "We see no reason why this duty should result in any increase of the retail prices of British blades—indeed there would appear to be margin for reduction—as these are already very high in relation to the prices realised by the manufacturers. For example a brand of blade now being retailed at l½d. each is, we understand, being supplied in bulk to the wholesale merchants at.…⅓d. each"—
    a profit of something like 450 per cent. I do not understand the argument which permits the hon. Member to recommend that these people who are so carrying out their trade to-day should be given a further privileged position, so that they are enabled to make, apparently, larger profit out of the sale of safety razor blades.
    A very serious point which is raised by this Report (No. 3) of the committee is the question of the powers of the May Committee. They said in the second
    388
    paragraph under the heading "Iron and Steel Products":
    "Since the date of that report."
    That is, their last report on this matter—
    "We have, after a careful review of the situation, appointed a national committee with area and sectional sub-committees to prepare a scheme of reorganisation of the industry and the complicated issues involved are being faced with energy and determination."
    Later on they said that when the scheme has been prepared—
    "its examination and possible modification in consultation with other interests affected will necessarily occupy our attention for some time."
    I should like the hon. Member to explain to the House how it comes about that the May Committee are assuming this power of reorganising British industry. When the Import Duties Act was before the House, we suggested, and I think one of the hon. Members for Stockport also suggested, that a certain Amendment should be introduced giving power to the Board of Trade to carry out the reorganisation of industries before tariffs were allowed to be put upon the products of that industry. We were assured, I think it was by the hon. Member himself, that such a thing was quite impracticable. Now we find that this commitee, which has no such power under the Act which sets it up, and which has no authority, are starting to set up reorganisation committees which, apparently, are being looked upon with favour by the Board of Trade and the Treasury. We should like to know what this reorganisation committee is. How are the workers represented on it'? Are the Government responsible? Is the President of the Board of Trade prepared to answer questions regarding its procedure? What control have they over it? How does it fit into the legislative procedure which this House has set up for the purpose of imposing tariffs? These are very serious questions. It is one thing for this House to take steps to instruct one of the Ministers to proceed with some scheme which may be considered here, but it is an entirely different proposition when the triumvirate take into their own hands powers to order the reorganisation of industries—reorganisations which are not being carried out as part of any publicly conceived scheme, reorganisations which cannot be questioned and in which particular interests may suffer.

    389
    It may be possible under these schemes to wipe out whole townships by shutting down particular works for the convenience of the steel industry, and neither this House nor, apparently, the President of the Board of Trade nor the Treasury, nor anyone else will be able to say one word, provided that Sir George May and his colleagues are satisfied. It was not for that purpose that this House, as appears from the whole course of the Debate on the Import Duties Act, set up this Commission. Let me call attention to the provisions of the Act, because it is only in the Act that you can find any of the powers of this Statutory Commission. It has no powers apart from those given to it by the Statute which set it up. Section 2 of the Act says:
    "For the purpose of giving advice and assistance in connection with the discharge by the Treasury of their functions under this Act, there shall be constituted a committee."
    That is the whole purpose for which this committee was set, to give advice and assistance to the Treasury in discharge of their functions under the Act, and the functions of the Treasury under the Act are to put duties on various classes of goods. It is only in order to advise the Treasury as regards the imposition of tariffs that this committee was brought into being, or has any power. In Subsection (3) it says that the committee shall take into consideration the provisions of the Act, nothing else and
    "any representations which may be made to them with respect to matter on which, under the provisions of this Act, action may be taken."
    On three separate occasions it is emphasised in this Section that the powers of the committee are strictly limited to those laid down in the Act. In Sub-section 6 (b) of the same Section, the only delegation of powers allowed to the committee is a delegation of its functions to a subcommittee consisting of members of the committee. There was a Debate on the point as to whether they should be allowed to delegate their powers to persons not members of the committee, and the Government took the view that such powers would be wrong in these special circumstances. It was so important a matter that the committee must act by its own members,
    390
    and must not be allowed to delegate any of its functions. In Sub-section (2) of Section 3 we have a provision as regards what the committee should take into account in deciding what recommendations, if any, they are to make. It says that they shall have regard to the advisability in the national interest of restricting imports into the United Kingdom, and in the interests generally of trade and industry in the United Kingdom, including those industries which are consumers as well as producers of goods.
    There is not a single provision in the Act which can possibly be said to confer upon this committee the power to enter upon such matters as they are, apparently, entering upon. Sub-section (5) of Section 2, which makes provision for the expenses of this committee, only covers the expenses they incur in carrying out the duties put upon them by the Act of Parliament, and nothing further. Yet we understand that they are going to occupy a considerable amount of their time and attention in considering a scheme for the, national reorganisation of the steel industry—a thing for which they have absolutely no power whatever. It is the strongest evidence that we were right in saying that the steel industry requires reorganisation. The Committee have said so in no uncertain terms but that reorganisation should not be carried out in a secret manner under the control of this Tariff Committee, but should be carried out in public and under the control of the House of Commons. [Interruption.] An hon. Member opposite laughs. He will laugh, I suppose, at some future date when three people outside the Rouse of Commons are setting up a reorganisation of the social basis of the whole of the industries of this country; and perhaps his second laugh will be more bitter. This raises the question of undertaking State action through a body which has no responsibility whatever. That is, to some people at any rate, a serious 11.30 p.m. consideration. It is a matter which should not be allowed to pass without the public and the Members of this House realising what they are doing. It may be that the hon. Mem-

    391
    ber thinks it wise to do it in this way. If he does he must get authority from Parliament first. He has no authority at the present time. He has not only no authority on the face of the Act, but from the very Debates which took place, when he was pressed to put in some provisions enabling the Board of Trade to do something of this sort, which he strenuously rejected, he is convicted out of his own mouth of now permitting something which is wholly illegal.
    Mr. LEWIS JONES: After the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary I hardly thought it would be necessary for anyone connected with the industry to say anything on the matter. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has, I think, rather amazed the House by some of his statements. I think I am right in saying that this is the first time we have heard him so completely misunderstand a document that has been placed before the House. He has complained bitterly that the iron and steel industry is facing reorganisation. During the whole of the discussion on this question the one complaint of the official Opposition and some of their friends was that the iron and steel industry was badly organised. I never claimed that we had 100 per cent. efficiency, but I did condemn this continual whining on the Floor of the House about what is supposed to be the inefficiency of the industry. It was suggested that these duties should not be given except on conditions, and those conditions should be reorganisation. I personally supported that plea, and stated that I was in favour of safeguarding the industry, with safeguards for the producer, for the consumer and for the State. That was why I differentiated myself from the mere Protectionist. There was laughter at my argument. What has happened? We knew, and every sensible man knew, that the very moment this Advisory Committee recommended to the Treasury that certain duties should be placed on imported iron and steel some conditions would be forthcoming. The only difference between the Home Secretary and others on these benches was that he wanted reorganisation first and the duties afterwards, while others wanted duties first and then reorganisation.
    392
    What have Sir George May's Committee done? They are not reorganising the iron and steel industry. They have no authority and no business to do it. All that the Advisory Committee have done is that they have invited members of the industry to meet them, and Sir George May has told them, "You have had your duties, but remember that you must not remain in your present state. The country believes that the industry can be better ordered and people within the industry believe that that is possible. We are prepared to give you these duties for three months conditionally upon your facing this question of reorganisation." The position in the industry is not lack of efficiency in its individual plants. It is redundant, as the result of over-building, if you like. The industry has been called together to discuss the whole situation as suggested, and to take upon itself the task of reorganisation and to appoint regional committees. I know what I am saying because I am a member of one of these regional committees, which will be meeting on Thursday morning to deal with reorganisation in South Wales. We will make our plans and, when we have completed our schemes—which will take some time—for dealing with redundancy and the other matters which I have mentioned, we will go back to the Advisory Committee and justify the confidence which they have placed in the industry in giving us these duties for a specified period. But the House must not run away with the idea, and hon. Members opposite must not believe, that Sir George May has taken upon himself the reorganisation of the industry.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Perhaps the hon. Member has not read what Sir George May said. He said:
    "Since the date of that representation we have appointed a national committee, with area and sectional sub-committees, to prepare a scheme of reorganisation."
    "We"—that is Sir George May and partners—have appointed the committee. That is what I said.
    Mr. JONES: The hon. and learned Member must give me the credit of having read the report very carefully. Sir George May has asked that this committee should be formed.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: He has appointed it.
    Mr. JONES: All right. Sir George May was at the meeting—was in the chair—and the meeting resolved itself into a national committee. That report says that he has appointed regional committees. Two or three representatives from each district were appointed at the meeting. Sir George May did not appoint the regional committees. [HON. MEMBERS: "He says he did!"] I do not mind what he says. What I want to point out, in regard to these regional reorganisation committees, is that the committee for the reorganisation of the South Wales industry, for example, was appointed by the steel trade in South Wales. I was appointed secretary of that committee by the steel trade, not by Sir George May. When we have completed our scheme of reorganisation we shall report to our own national committee which is representative of the national steel trade of the country. When they have completed their investigation, they will report to Sir George May as to the reorganisation scheme which they are adopting, in the hope that he will be satisfied that, for the continuation of these duties, the steel trade has carried out its part of the bargain.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: I do not take exception, materially, to the speech of the hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Lewis Jones). I agree with the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) that these words certainly suggest a power, which obviously the committee do not possess, but, as far as this committee of three do use whatever power is vested in them to bring pressure on industry to reorganise itself, I am in favour of that course. As a matter of fact the setting up of these reorganisation committees does not appear in the Order. It has not the authority of the House of Commons. It is merely a recommendation by the committee of three and as I interpret it, the understanding is that if reorganisation cannot be carried out, if the industry cannot come together, the whole position will be reconsidered after three months' time and, perhaps, this protection will be withdrawn. I do not intend to discuss Order No. 3 because
    394
    only three months ago we had a very full discussion when it was first put before the House. I am not going to follow my hon. Friend in surveying the whole industrial problem. We had a day on iron and steel and a very full discussion, and we do not want to discuss it again till two or three in the morning. But I want to discuss No. 2 Order, dealing with pig-iron. It is different in form and character and different in wording from the other Orders. They say:
    "We have received representations from various quarters"—
    It does not say from whom—
    "in regard to the scope of this temporary duty, and in some respects the economic conditions have changed since those recommendations were framed."
    It goes on to say—and this is very significant:
    "Although the annual production of pig-iron in this country had fallen from an average of about 9,340,000 tons for the four years before the War to 7,160,000 tons in 1924 and 6,060,000 tons in 1930 (in part owing to the increased use of scrap in steelmaking), British production still provided all but a very small proportion of the pig-iron consumed, as such, in this country."
    It then goes on to justify putting a duty of 33⅓ per cent. on this essential raw material, this fundamental raw material of the iron and steel trade, in the following very curious words:
    "In the last few weeks, however, quotations of Continental pig-iron have fallen to such an extent as to constitute in present circumstances a grave menace to the continuance of home production in certain areas even at the present low level. These low prices have not as yet been in force sufficiently long for their stimulus to foreign importations to be apparent in the published trade returns, but we are satisfied that with this threat of foreign undercutting to follow upon the absorption of the excessive stocks which are now being held, the risk of blast furnaces in these areas closing dawn is sufficiently definite to warrant the extension of the temporary duty to pig-iron."
    It goes on next to say:
    "In making this recommendation we are fully alive to the danger of adverse reactions on some sections of the iron and steel industry from a marked increase of the price of pig-iron."
    It does not say on what evidence they have based that conclusion, but merely makes the statement that they think there may be a reaction; and it continues:

    395
    "With possibilities of future variations in the price of raw materials and with the very different trading results of individual firms it would be unreasonable to expect any general guarantee from the industry that prices will in no circumstances be increased during the period of the temporary duty, but we propose to watch the position and we shall not hesitate to recommend the immediate removal of the additional duty, should it appear to us to be operating unfairly against the users of pig-iron."
    We are now going into Recess, and we may not reassemble for four or five months. We are therefore going to hand over the future of this vital industry to these three gentlemen, with no power of control or supervision on our part. We are going to-night to push through this Order, at a quarter to 12, and it is possible that the Government recognise that it may operate unfairly against the users of pig-iron. They see the dangers, and they realise them.
    It is very interesting to look at what has been happening during the first five months of this year. The home production, I am informed, works out at something like 1,624,000 tons and the imports at only 80,000 tons, of which forge and foundry pig-iron constituted 16,000 tons, of which again no less than 7,735 tons came from India—[Interruption.]—I have the figures here. I attach more importance to the three gentlemen constituted by Parliament as the authority than to the private figures of the hon. Gentleman who interrupted. The importation of pig iron was only something like 5 per cent. of the home production. I doubt whether the Parliamentary Secretary is right when he says that there is an organised attack on this country and that all the countries of the world have got together to ruin Great Britain by pouring in materials; but, if it be really true that this country is going to enjoy pig iron at a very much lower price than any other country in the world, it will act as a big bonus to the other industries, more labour will be employed, and more profit will be given to the producers. The Parliamentary Secretary may know of a sinister organisation, but he ought to give a little more evidence before making these bald statements.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I read to the House an extract from the shareholders' report of a French company, in which that is admitted.
    Sir P. HARRIS: I happen to have a statement by a firm which is fairly familiar to hon. Members. It is William Jacks and Company, a distinguished firm of which the late Mr. Bonar Law was a member. They say:
    "The majority of our blast furnaces are out-of-date, obsolete in design, and of too small a capacity to be operated on an economic basis. It is largely this fact which is responsible for the competition of foreign and Empire pig iron…Britain, after all, derives less profit from the production of pig iron and semi steel than from the higher priced specialities of which crude iron and steel are the raw materials."
    They rightly point out that one of the troubles in this industry is the increasing use of scrap, both in steel furnaces and iron foundries, and that that has reduced the consumption of pig iron:
    "The modern steel furnace, however, can perform miracles of alchemy. With a 50 per cent. charge of scrap can he produced high tensile steel of the finest quality, and scrap has been so abundant and cheap that there has been every inducement for the steel maker to use as large a proportion as possible."
    In other words, the depression in the pig iron industry is universal, and is due to the larger use of scrap rather than to the highly organised conspiracy in which the President of the Board of Trade apparently believes. This tariff will interfere with the highly organised industry of steel production and the 'hundred and one industries that are dependent on cheap steel and abundant raw material. As the President of the Board of Trade so well pointed out last December, you employ half-a-dozen or ten men for every one employed in the more primary sections of the industry. Therefore, I am going to vote against both these Orders without any hesitation.
    As regards safety blades, it is pointed out by the committee that they intend to give this protection for five years. They say:
    "In the present instance, subject to the adequate development of the industry and the pursuance of a strongly competitive policy, we do not contemplate recommending any alteration in the rate of duty now proposed for a period of five years."
    I might remind the House that that period does not appear in this Order. Here is a practical example of how these three pundits, conscious of their own importance, are taking authority far beyond that which the House originally intended. They cannot give such security; it can

    397
    only be given by the House of Commons, and they are misleading the industry by the suggestion that they can offer this protection for five years. The last Order deals with what may appear to be a very small and insignificant matter. The Committee say:
    "Transparent cellulose wrapping, manufactured from wood pulp by a, chemical process, is being used to an increasing extent for wrapping purposes."
    In other words, here again you have an important raw material of industry, used in a great number of trades and of importance to our export trade. The committee point out that it is not at present subject to any additional duty, and they go on to say:
    "For some time supplies came entirely from abroad, but after a lengthy experimental period it is now being manufactured in this country to a substantial amount."
    The interesting thing is that this industry has come into prosperity without a tariff or safeguarding. The committee do not suggest it is being subjected to unfair competition, but recommend that it should be protected by a 20 per cent. duty. There we see the operation of this new machinery, and I am not satisfied that it is fulfilling the intention for which it was appointed.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I think the Government must regret very much that there are no articles of steel and iron imported from the Irish Free State, because in that case the scruples and difficulties felt by hon. Members opposite would have been entirely removed. However, I have not risen to call attention to this renewed outbreak of disunity in the ranks of the Liberal party, which prevents them from repeating the unanimity shown on the last Vote, but to ask the Government to explain the discrepancy between the account of the proceedings with regard to iron and steel given by the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. L. Jones) and that contained in this White Paper which we have before us. The hon. Member for Swansea painted a picture of the meeting of the committee, with Sir George May in the Chair, pointing to the very serious condition of the steel industry and submitting schemes. We have to take the hon. Member's account. He was there; he knows all about it. What becomes of the extraordinary account which the Government gave us over the signature of Sir George May? He said noth-
    398
    ing of the sort. He says: "We appointed a National Committee? Either Sir George May and his friends appointed it, or it was appointed by the trade. We want to know by whom it was appointed, because this is a very important matter.
    Let me recall to the House what happened to the hop industry, when the question of reorganisation came up under the Agricultural Marketing Act. In Committee upstairs the Members of the Conservative party were very careful to put in safeguards, to see that all interests were represented and to keep things under the control of this House. In regard to the iron and steel industry there is to be no public inquiry, so far as we can make out. Sir George May and his friends appointed a committee. The hon. Member for Swansea, West, can tell us who is on that committee. I should like to know whether it includes any representatives of the workers. They are vitally concerned in the reorganisation of the industry, particularly in regional organisation. Also, I should like to know what trades are represented. There may be other interests affected which should be consulted. Otherwise, it is an extraordinary way of reorganising a trade.
    We are putting very great power in the hands of these three gentlemen. I am not attacking them, but at the same time I do think it is time the House began to assert itself. Yesterday the Secretary of State for the Dominions came down and, without the slightest excuse, proceeded to hand over the taxing power of this House, a most jealously guarded prerogative, to the Treasury. That proceeding evoked protests from hon. Members in all parts of the House. To-night we are to hand over the reorganisation of an industry to three commissars. The Russian model is always followed by the Tory party! I say it is time the House of Commons asserted its rights. Of course, if this document is entirely wrong, as appears from the speech of the hon. Member for Swansea, West, the Government had better withdraw it, and let us have a true account of the proceedings of these three gentlemen, because there is at present direct conflict over the facts. The hon. Gentleman says the industry is reorganising itself, is appointing its regional committees, is doing everything itself. Sir George May says he did it all, that he appointed them and

    399
    that they will report to him; that he is going to examine the scheme, that he is going to modify it. Which is right? It may be quite right to leave this matter to the trade, it might even be right to leave it to these three gentlemen—though I do not think we ought to go outside this House in matters of this sort—but at any rate we cannot have it both ways. I hope we shall have some explanation of this extraordinary statement, from the Government. I have never before seen a statement put forward by a person in the position of Sir George May which has been so directly contradicted by an hon. Member who was apparently present at the proceedings.
    Mr. PEAT: I want to say two things. One is that the industry, although it is prepared to say, "Thank you very much for what we have received," 12 m. at the same time feels a little disappointed that the three-monthly period should be continued again and should be put on at a time when the present duties are going to expire. We are now told that we have another three months to reorganise and to get rid of redundant parts. The Home Secretary, some months ago when we had the first Order said that he would see what would happen at the end of three months. Now we have another three months. The House must be perfectly well aware that a great industry like the steel industry cannot possibly complete its reorganisation, scrap its redundant plant, and bring itself into a complete state of efficiency at the end of three months. I appeal to the Government, if they can see their way, to give this industry more generous treatment in tariffs and duties. It would help us to reorganise if we 'had some certainty that these duties would continue for at least a fairly definite period of years.
    May I make one further statement, and use my humble voice to allay some of the doubts of the Opposition, that they apparently have, that this reorganisation of industry has been brought into existence by some magical power of the Advisory Committee? The machinery was in existence, and has been in existence for many years, and the Advisory Committee have merely used that machinery which was to their hand and ready. This industry, which over a period of
    400
    years, with intense energy and increasing knowledge, has tried its level hest to bring itself into a state of efficiency, at last has the opportunity. I hope that that opportunity will not be curtailed or spoiled by a too-limited period being given to the industry in which to reorganise itself.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Might I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to tell us what really are the facts, and whether this committee was appointed by Sir George May and his committee. Or is it a mistake in the document? It may be a matter for joke to the right hon. Gentleman, but two hon. Members have given slightly different versions about the committee. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Peat) has told us that the committee have been in existence a long time and that they are simply starting to work over again. The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. L. Jones) who was present, says that the committee were appointed. I am within the recollection of the House—
    Mr. L. JONES: I want to make myself quite clear. I was not at the first meeting in London, but I was at the meeting in the Swansea area. I did not say that I was at the first meeting; I did say that I was at the meeting which appointed the South Wales regional committee. I also did say that the meeting convened by Sir George May was converted into a national committee. When the South Wales committee met, three members were appointed at the meeting in London and met the South Wales committee in Swansea.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I understand now that the hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. L. Jones) was not present at the meeting with Sir George May.
    Mr. JONES: I never said I was.
    Mr. LANSBURY: The OFFICIAL REPORT will settle that question. The point which we want cleared up, and which is of vital importance to the House, is whether this committee has or has not exceeded its statutory duty. If the committee is carrying out work which it had no statutory, legal right to carry out, we want to know. If not, we want someone to explain what the words in the Memorandum really mean, and I think the Financial Secretary to the Treasury ought

    401
    to tell us. [Interruption.] I know the hour is late, but that is not our fault, and so far as this matter is concerned we are prepared to sit till the morning. If these gentlemen are responsible to anyone, they are responsible to the Treasury, and the Treasury ought to answer.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is making much ado about nothing. The report states clearly that the committee is asked to prepare a scheme. There is no question of a charge on national funds. There was a committee, presumably, already in the iron and steel industry, and the Opposition, with the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), urged again and again that some special treatment should be adopted in the case of that industry. Sir George May and his colleagues, finding that there was an organisation in the industry, called them together and urged them to get down to this work at once, stating that the duty was a temporary one, dependent on whether the industry was reorganised. That seems to be so clear and obvious that I should have thought it was not worth while to continue to discuss it in this House. An hon. Member who all his life has been one of the strongest opponents of this policy commenced by saying that he strongly approved of Sir George May's procedure in asking this committee to prepare a scheme, and I should have thought that what we really want is to get on with the job. The only point about which the House might feel a little anxious is the shortness of the time for which the duties will extend, and it is to be hoped that something of this kind may be made permanent for the steel trade.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): I rise out of courtesy to the Leader of the Opposition, who has asked me what is the exact position in regard to the committee. Surely the exact position is as has been stated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. Sir George May had power to appoint a committee, and has appointed a committee. [Interruption.] The steps which Sir George May has taken to provide himself with advice are steps which Sir George May has to consider for himself. What we have to con-
    402
    sider is from whom we are to take advice. We take advice from Sir George May, and we stand the racket. The advice is given to us by the Advisory Committee set up under the authority of the Import Duties Act to provide us with advice, and on that advice we act. To whom Sir George May goes to get the advice which he provides for this House is, of course, a matter for Sir George May. No one pretends that Sir George May, out of his inner consciousness, is completely capable of producing all the information which he desires on this extremely complicated subject—
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be good enough to point out the power in the Act under which Sir George May can set up or appoint such a committee?
    Major ELLIOT: That is a further point. I shall be glad either to go into it myself or, if the hon. and learned Gentleman desires it, to have a legal opinion given by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. I am merely, as a layman, giving my opinion to the House on the general position. This is a Treasury Order. The Advisory Committee has provided us with advice, and on that advice the Executive is taking executive action. Where the Advisory Committee get their advice is a matter for the Advisory Committee, and the goodness or badness of the act is the goodness or badness of the conclusions which are come to by this House. The Executive of the day is bringing forward recommendations to this House. Finally, this House and the Executive of the day are responsible. We have no desire to shirk that responsibility.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: There has been a good deal of confusion in the matter. The Parliamentary Secretary seems to have all the enthusiasm of a convert. I wondered how long he had been in the House and my mind went back. He has been in the House at least five years. If his wonderful enthusiasm and knowledge of the steel trade and its need of a tariff come at the end of five years, I wondered how long it has taken him to find it out. I am shocked at the way Sir George May's name has been bandied about. He has been trusted by all parties in the House and has been entrusted with all sorts of commissions and committees and now people seem to think his work is not

    403
    proper and his recommendations are not right. I am beginning to wonder what has happened. We are almost coming to challenge his word. It is not fair and it is not right. This man is too great for that. Some people think it is his committee that has done this and others think it is not. The Financial Secretary says, "I do not care whether there is reorganisation or not. I have given Sir George May a job to do. We have asked him to look into the question and we are prepared to take his recommendations no matter what they are." When he was asked whether he 'had power he said, "We do not care whether we have power or not." He has not attempted to justify reorganisation. He could not. He has too sound a logical mind to do it. On what basis has Sir George May acted? I question if the industry needs reorganisation. Sir George May cannot say it needs reorganisation without examining all the facts and hearing evidence, without knowing what the employers have to say and what the industry has to say. Suddenly Sir George May says to the employers, "Set up a committee to deal with re-organisation," although he himself, great man as he is, cannot say whether the industry needs it or not. You cannot defend Sir George May on logic. You cannot say he has made out a case for re-organisation. All you can say for him is that certain Members of the House of Commons have asked for it and in consequence of that he is asking a committee to be set up. I ask hon. Members to apply their minds to the problem whether re-organisation is necessary or not.
    Before you can find out whether it is necessary or not evidence must be explored. What evidence has Sir George May explored? He has explored none. [An HON. MEMBER: "HOW do you know?"] He has had no time to do so. Everybody knows, even the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) recognises, that three months provide no time for the job. No one in his senses thinks that it is sufficient time,
    and yet he has handed the matter over to the employers for them to go into it. The procedure seems to be almost farcical. If Sir George May had said that the steel industry, the employers, and may be the workmen too, felt that they were not getting a fair and square deal, that tariffs were necessary and that he felt that we could not resist their demands, it would simply have been the position which is taken up by every tariff reformer. Every Member of the House knows that when we get the re-organisation it will not make the case for tariffs any the more necessary. I happen to know something of the steel trade in my part of the country. It is not only well organised but extremely well equipped. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) knows as well as I do the place and the plant. I am sure that he has visited the place. It has a wonderful organisation. The case for tariffs stands or falls apart from the re-organisation scheme. I regard the re-organisation with grave misgiving. Whether under a State inquiry or not, or a quota, or under the scheme of Sir George May, I view the matter with grave misgiving. Under all re-organisation, whether it is done by a Board of Trade scheme or under any Government scheme, only one section suffers. It is the section of workers permanently thrown out of work because of the shutting down of the redundant places. The Government, on all these matters, ought to take their courage into their hands. Instead of having a fictitious inquiry, they ought to come courageously to the House of Commons and say: "We feel that this industry must be protected with high tariffs." I think that to any decent Parliamentarian with anything like the mind of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who shows a love for logic and straight dealing, this "throwing about" and tinkering is belittling the House of Commons, and, above all, is showing a contempt for its views.
    Question put.
    The House divided: Ayes, 224; Noes, 42.

    Division No. 283.]

    AYES.

    [12.20 a.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

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

    Allen, sir J. Sandemam (Liverp'I, W.)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Blindell, James

    Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

    Balley, Eric Alfred George

    Boulton, W. W.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Apsley, Lord

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Bateman, A. L.

    Bracken, Brendan

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Pybus, Percy John

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

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

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

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

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

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

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

    Ramadan, E.

    Browne, Captain A. C.

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

    Ray. Sir William

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Burnett, John George

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

    Carver, Major William H.

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Chalmers, John Rutherford

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

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

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

    Robinson, John Roland

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Leckie, J. A.

    Rosbotham, S. T.

    Christle, James Archibald

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Rose, Ronald D.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Lees-Jones, John

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Clayton Dr. George C.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Liddell, Walter S.

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Colman. N. C. D.

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffleld,B'tside)

    Copeland, Ida

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Salmon, Major Isidore

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

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Mabane, William

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Cruddas. Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

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

    Scone, Lord

    Davidson. Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

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

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Dickie, John P.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Donner, P. W.

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    McKie, John Hamilton

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

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

    McLean, Major Alan

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Dunglass, Lord

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Somerset, Thomas

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Magnay. Thomas

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Eden, Robert Anthony

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

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Elmley, Viscount

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

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

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Stones, James

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Layton, E.)

    Storey, Samuel

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Milne, Charles

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Sugden. Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Gibson, Charles Granville

    Munro, Patrick

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Giuckstein, Louis Halle

    Nail, Sir Joseph

    Templeton, William P.

    Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

    Nation, Brigadier-General.J. J. H.

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Thompson, Luke

    Graves, Marjorie

    North, Captain Edward T.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Greene. William P. C.

    Nunn, William

    Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Train, John

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

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Ciement

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Ormiston, Thomas

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Palmer, Francis Noel

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

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Hales, Harold K.

    Pearson, William G.

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

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

    Peat, Charles U.

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Penny, Sir George

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Headiam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Womersley, Walter James

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Petherick, M.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Hepworth, Joseph

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

    Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

    Pike, Cecil F.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Potter, John

    Sir Victor Warrender and Captain

    Horebrugh, Florence

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

    Austin Hudson.

    NOES.

    Adams, D, M. (Poplar, South)

    Greaten, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Bernays, Robert

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Lunn, William

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

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Buchanan, George

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Hirst, George Henry

    Mallaileu, Edward Lancelot

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Maxton, James

    Dagger, George

    John, William

    Milner, Major James

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Edwards, Charles

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Kirkwood, David

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    George, Megan A. Lioyd (Anglesea)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Price, Gabriel

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Lawson. John James

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    406

    407

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Rothschild, James A. de

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Duncan Graham.

    Resolved,
    "The the Additional Import Duties (No. 2) Order, 1932, dated the 8th day of June, 1932, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the 10th day of June, 1932, be approved."
    Motion made, and Question put,
    "That the Additional Import Duties (No. 3) Order, 1932, dated the 1st day of July, 1932, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the 4th day of July, 1932, be approved."—[Mr. Hore-Belisha.]
    The House divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 42.

    Division No. 284.]

    AYES.

    [12.29 a.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Mitcheson, G. G.

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

    Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Graves, Marjorie

    Munro, Patrick

    Apsley, Lord

    Greene, William P. C.

    Nail, Sir Joseph

    Aske, Sir Robert William,

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

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

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    North, Captain Edward T.

    Balley, Eric Alfred George

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Nunn, William

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Hales, Harold K.

    O' Donovan, Dr. William James

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

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

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Bateman, A. L.

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Ormiston, Thomas

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

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Blindell, James

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Pearson, William G.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Peat. Charles U.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Hepworth, Joseph

    Penny, Sir George

    Bracken, Brendan

    Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Braithwaite. J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Petherick, M

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

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

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

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Potter, John

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

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

    Burgin. Dr. Edward Leslie

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

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Burnett, John George

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

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

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

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

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Ramsden, E.

    Carver, Major William H.

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Ray, Sir William

    Chalmers, John Rutherford

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

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

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Reid, James S C. (Stirling)

    Christie, James Archibald

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

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

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Cochrane. Commander Hon. A. D.

    Leckie, J. A.

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Lees-Jones, John

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Robinson, John Roland

    Copeland, Ida

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Rosbotham, S. T.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Ross, Ronald D.

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

    Lister. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliff-

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Russell, Albert (Kickcaldy)

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

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Dickie, John P.

    Mabane, William

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sherld, B'tside)

    Dixon. Rt. Hon. Herbert

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

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    Donner, P. W.

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Salmon. Major Isidore

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

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

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Dunglass, Lord

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Scone, Lord

    Eastwood, John Francis

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Waiter E.

    McLean, Major Alan

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Elmley, Viscount

    Magnay, Thomas

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

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

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

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Somerset, Thomas

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Gibson, Charles Granville

    Milne, Charles

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

    Stones, James

    Thompson, Luke

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Storey, Samuel

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Strickland, Captain W. F,

    Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

    Womersley, Walter James

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

    Train, John

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Wragg, Herbert

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Sutcliffe, Harold

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Sir Victor Warrender and Captain

    Templeton, William P.

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Austin Hudson.

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Milner, Major James

    Bernays, Robert

    Hirst, George Henry

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Buchanan, George

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Price, Gabriel

    Daggar, George

    Kirkwood, David

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Roberts, Aied (Wrexham)

    Edwards. Charles

    Lawson, John James

    Rothschild, James A. de

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Tinker, John Joseph

    George, Major G. Lioyd (Pembroke)

    Lunn, William

    Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

    George, Megan A. Lioyd (Anglesea)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Mallaileu, Edward Lancelot

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Maxton, James

    Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. John.

    Bill read a Second time.

    Resolved,
    "That the Additional Import Duties (No. 3) Order, 1932, dated the 1st day of July, 1932, made by the Treasury under tile Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the 4th clay of July, 1932, be approved."

    MALTA CONSTITUTION BILL
    [Lords].
    Order for Second Reading read.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I beg to move, "That the Bill he now read a Second time."
    We are now passing to something on which the whole House is in complete agreement. This Bill, which comes from another place, is to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The whole language question is, of course, entirely disposed of, and this Bill merely deals with the judges, the police, and certain amendments as to the Trades Union Council. It follows in all respects the recommendations of the Royal Commission. First, as regards the judges, they remain a reserved service as regards appointment and remuneration, and they are given that security of tenure which all colonial judges hold. With regard to the police, the proposal that there should be power at any time to make them a reserved service is embodied in the Bill. Then there is a proposal with regard to the Trades Union Council, which follows the suggestion made by the Labour party
    410
    in Malta to the Royal Commission and is fully carried out in this Bill. Clause 4 gives to criminals the right to vote when they come out of prison. It does not exactly follow the recommendations of the Royal Commission, but it puts criminals in the same position as they are in this country. Clause 5 deals with the validity of Letters Patent, Orders-in-Council, Ordinances, and Acts. Clause 6 and the Schedules, which look very long, merely write this Bill into the Letters Patent, so that the whole of the Constitution may be comprehensively in the Letters Patent. That is the whole of the Bill.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I do not want to detain the House, except to say that my friends in the other place and ourselves here only hope that the passing of this Bill will bring peace.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I entirely agree.
    Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.]

    EXTRADITION BILL [Lords].
    Order for Second Reading read.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

    411
    It is thought to be as uncontroversial as the last Bill and luckily even shorter. The simple practical point is that the passage of this Bill will enable us to ratify a treaty which has been made with America for the extradition of offenders against the drug laws of either country. At the present moment offences against the laws relating to dangerous drugs are not included in the extradition treaties. This Bill, which is a two Clause Bill, will have the effect of putting offences against the Acts relating to dangerous drugs into the Schedule to the Extradition Act, 1870, a Schedule which contains a large number of offences for which offenders may be extradited. The House will agree that, in view of the fact that the drug traffic is now so world wide, this new treaty is an advantage, and I hope that the House will agree to the Motion.
    Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Stanley.]

    GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 AND 1929.
    Resolved,
    "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Newcastle-under-Lyme Corporation, which was presented on the 2nd day of June and published, be approved."
    "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Rotherham Corporation, which was presented on the 13th day of June and published, be approved."—[Mr. Hore-Belisha.]
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Seventeen Minutes before One o'Clock.

  IRAQ (ASSYRIAN LEVIES).
  IRAQ (ASSYRIAN LEVIES).
TRANSPORT.
  BRIDGE SCHEMES.
  BRIDGE SCHEMES.
  LEVEL CROSSINGS.
  LEVEL CROSSINGS.
  TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS (EXPENSES).
  TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS (EXPENSES).
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.
  ADMINISTRATION, LANCASHIRE.
  ADMINISTRATION, LANCASHIRE.
  COMMITTEES.
  COMMITTEES.
  HOUSING (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  HOUSING (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  SMALL-PDX.
  SMALL-PDX.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  POTATOES (IMPORT).
  POTATOES (IMPORT).
  CZECHOSLOVAKIA.
  CZECHOSLOVAKIA.
  HIDES AND SKINS (IMPORTS).
  HIDES AND SKINS (IMPORTS).
  CANADA (WOOLLEN GOODS, IMPORTS).
  CANADA (WOOLLEN GOODS, IMPORTS).
  NEW UNDERTAKINGS.
  NEW UNDERTAKINGS.
  ARGENTINA.
  ARGENTINA.
  MERCANTILE MARINE (HELM ORDERS).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (HELM ORDERS).
  WOOLLEN INDUSTRY (EMPLOYMENT).
  WOOLLEN INDUSTRY (EMPLOYMENT).
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (MEDICAL REFEREES, GLASGOW).
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (MEDICAL REFEREES, GLASGOW).
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACTS (COKE AND PATENT FUELS).
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACTS (COKE AND PATENT FUELS).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD ESSENDON.
Sir Frederick William Lewis, Baronet, having been created Baron Essendon of Essendon in the County of Hertford—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD RANKEILLOUR.
The Right Honourable James Fitzalan Hope, having been created Baron Rankeillour of Buxted in the County of Sussex—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LEVEN BURGH EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
GAS UNDERTAKINGS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (ELHAM VALLEY WATER AND HERTS AND ESSEX WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER (HAILSHAM WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HENLEY-ON-THAMES WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with certain of the Amendments made by the Lords agreed to, certain other Amendments agreed to with Amendments, and certain other Amendmets disagreed to, for which disagreement the Commons assigned Reasons.
BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered and agreed to.
SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: The said Amendments considered and agreed to.
WOKINGHAM DISTRICT WATER BILL.
Received 3a, and passed.
CHESTERFIELD AND BOLSOVER WATER BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

ROTHERHAM GAS ORDER, 1932.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Motion standing in my name in reference to the Rotherham Gas Order be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LIVERPOOL ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1932.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, with reference to the Liverpool Electricity Extension Order, 1932, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.— (The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SEA FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER (WATFORD) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

HIRE PURCHASE AND SMALL DEBT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 7 [Amendment of law as to imprisonment on small debt decree for delivery]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendments standing in my name upon the Paper. These are purely drafting and are intended to correct errors which crept in in the amendment of the Bill during Report stage in the House of Commons. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Clause 7, page 5, line 33, leave out ("owner") and insert ("pursuer")
line 34, leave out ("hirer or purchaser") and insert ("defender")
line 37, leave out ("owner") and insert ("pursuer").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Bill passed, and referred to the Commons.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 6:
Preparation or adoption of schemes.
(2) A resolution passed under the foregoing subsection shall not take effect unless and until it is approved by the Minister….
Provided that nothing contained in this subsection shall prevent the Minister from approving a resolution adopting a scheme in the case of land described in this paragraph proposed by the owners of not less than two-thirds of that land and approved by not less than three-fourths of the owners of that land.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in the proviso in subsection (2), to leave out "in the case of land described in this paragraph" and insert "comprising land in respect of which he is not satisfied that the conditions specified in this subsection are complied with, if the scheme has been." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is merely a drafting Amendment to the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Phillimore that was inserted in Committee. It is felt that the wording of the clause as it stands in the Bill is somewhat ambiguous. Otherwise the intention in this Amendment is absolutely preserved.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 3, leave out ("in the case of land described in this paragraph") and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the Amendment to this clause in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 15, leave out ("which") and insert ("who").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Notices in relation to the making of, or under, schemes]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Lords, my Amendment to this clause also drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 37, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8:
Approval, validity, coming into effect, variation and revocation of schemes.
8.—(1) A scheme prepared or adopted by a local authority or joint committee shall require the approval of the Minister, and the Minister may approve any scheme either with or without modifications:
Provided that, where the resolution passed by the local authority or joint committee in pursuance of Section six of this Act was a resolution to prepare a scheme, the draft scheme prepared in pursuance of the resolution shall, before submission to the Minister, be adopted by resolution of the local authority or joint committee at a meeting specially convened for the purpose:
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in the first proviso in subsection (1), to leave out "specially convened for the purpose" and insert "of which special notice indicating the business to be transacted has been given to each member." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I think the object of the mover of the original Amendment in Committee was to make certain that the members of the authority would have an opportunity of knowing the scheme in detail, and of forming a view of the facts which that scheme might contain. I think that is referred to in column 227 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. It is felt that this object would be fully secured if a special notice of the meeting and of the business to be transacted is sent to each member. If a special meeting is to be convened it is thought that it might involve a great deal of unnecessary trouble and expense to the members of the authority and perhaps unnecessary expense to the ratepayers. The intention which I think the noble Marquess had in mind might, if I may so describe it, be dodged. I think the noble Marquess will agree to this.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 35, leave out ("specially convened for the purpose") and insert ("of which special notice indicating the business to be transacted has been given to each member").—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, my noble friend the Marquess of Linlithgow who moved the original Amendment is not in
544
his place, but as I supported the Amendment I should like to say a word or two. I must take this opportunity of making a protest because we have only received many of the Government Amendments within the last few hours. I myself only received the printed paper at two o'clock this afternoon, and I have had no time to go through the Amendments. During the discussion on this question in the Committee stage I said that I thought it would be a very good thing if the local authority had to hold a special meeting to deal with town-planning schemes, and I reminded your Lordships that that is what county councils have to do when dealing with matters under the Local Government Act. Now I understand my noble friend Viscount Gage proposes simply that the local authority should put on the agenda notice that a town-planning question will come up at the meeting. Of course, that will not give it anything like the same amount of attention as if a special meeting were called for the purpose. It will be taken amongst all the other business and probably rushed through. However, as my noble friend the Marquess of Linlithgow is not here, I shall not do more than enter my protest.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the Amendment standing in my name is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 32, after ("who") insert ("appear or").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10:
Interim development orders.
The decision of the Minister on an appeal under this subsection shall be final and conclusive and shall have effect as if it were a decision of the authority.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in the last paragraph of subsection (5), to leave out "and conclusive." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, if my noble friend Viscount Gage refers to Murray's Dictionary he will find that "final" means "putting an end to something; putting an end to strife or uncertainty; not to be undone, altered or revoked;

545
conclusive." If he looks at "conclusive" he will find it means "final." Therefore the words which I propose to be left out are unnecessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 33, leave out ("and conclusive").—(Viscount Bertie, of Thame).
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, as usual I am persuaded by my noble friend. I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, after subsection (6), to insert:
"(7) Where expenditure is necessarily incurred on buildings or works in order to comply with a condition confirmed or imposed by the Minister on an appeal to him under this section, and the condition was imposed in anticipation of the reservation of land for a public purpose or the execution of works under the scheme, then if the scheme as proposed to be approved by the Minister does not contain a provision for such reservation or execution of works, and the Minister, on representations made to bite, is satisfied that the expenditure which has been so incurred is wholly or partly abortive on that account, the scheme shall provide that the person by whom the expenditure was incurred shall be entitled, if he makes a claim in that behalf within twelve mouths from the date on which the scheme comes into operation, to recover as compensation from the responsible authority so much of that expenditure as is abortive."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this subsection is proposed to meet a point made by my noble friend the Earl of Radnor. I think he has had an opportunity of examining this proposed subsection which protects the owner in a case where expenditure has become abortive through failure of the authority to carry out work. I think he will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 8, at end insert new subsection.—(Viscount Gage.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I think this meets the point I made in Committee, and I am very grateful to my noble friend Viscount Gage for proposing this new subsection.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Power to permit building operations pending the coming into operation of a general development order]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the Amendment I have on the paper is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 36, leave out ("and conclusive").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17:
Power to make orders for preservation of certain buildings.
(4) Nothing in an order made under this section shall be construed as requiring the consent of the council to the taking of proper measures for the protection, preservation, or maintenance of a building.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the Amendment standing in my name is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 39, leave out ("and conclusive").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment consequential on the omission of the power to restrict alterations of historic buildings. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 42, leave out subsection (4). —(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19:
Power of Minister to exclude compensation in certain classes of cases.
(2) The Minister shall not approve the insertion in a scheme of a provision excluding compensation under the last preceding subsection or himself insert in a scheme such a provision—
(ii) if the provision in respect of which compensation is to be excluded is such a provision as is mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d), or (g) of the said subsection, unless the scheme contains also provisions satisfactory to him for securing that—
(c) a new building so substituted as aforesaid may be used for any purpose of the same or a similar character as that for which the previous building was last used before its destruction or demolition, notwithstanding that its use for that purpose would be contrary to the provisions of the scheme, unless such a use is declared in the scheme to be both contrary to the provisions thereof and also seriously detrimental to the neighbourhood
(iii) if the provision in respect of which compensation is to be excluded is such a provision as is mentioned in paragraph (f)

547
of the said subsection, in so far as that provision—
(c) prohibits or restricts as respects any land so reserved the winning by surface working of minerals, which, or the right to win which, had before the material date been acquired by some person for the purpose of winning them or had before that date devolved upon any person desirous of winning them;
(4) Notwithstanding the insertion in a scheme of such provisions satisfactory to the Minister as are mentioned in paragraph (ii) of subsection (2) of this section, if and in so far as the continuance of any existing use of an altered, extended or substituted building is not in conformity with or contravenes any provisions of the scheme, nothing in that subsection shall be construed as precluding the responsible authority from exercising at any future time their powers under Section thirteen of this Act in respect of that use, subject, however, to payment of compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (2) (ii), to insert:
"(a) existing buildings may be maintained and their existing use continued."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment and later Amendments are moved to fulfil a pledge given to the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. They are intended to make it absolutely clear that the owner of an existing building has an absolute right either to maintain his building and its existing use or to receive full compensation and that the Minister has no power to lessen or qualify this right under Clause 19. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 17, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in subsection (2), at the end of paragraph (ii) (c), to leave out "seriously detrimental to the neighbourhood" and insert "of a noxious or otherwise offensive character." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is moved in consequence of a rather important concession which I am glad to have obtained from my noble friend. It puts it out of the power of the local authority to use the general words "seriously detrimental to the neighbourhood" and substitutes words which I believe have a definite legal meaning. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 43, leave out ("seriously detrimental to the neighbourhood") and insert ("of a noxious or otherwise offensive character").—(Lord Phillimore.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, we accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (2) (iii) (c), to leave out "which or the right to win which" and insert "if the Minister is satisfied upon representations being made to him that the minerals or the right to win the minerals." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is necessitated by the acceptance of an Amendment moved by my noble friend the Earl of Radnor to insert a reference to any person upon whom the minerals or the right to win minerals had devolved and who is desirous of winning them. The question whether a person is desirous of winning minerals is one which can only be answered by the person himself. Accordingly, it is necessary to secure that at the date when the scheme is made the Minister's attention is directed to the point. Hence, the words "upon representations being made to him," which correspond with similar words in paragraphs (iv) and (v) of the subsection, have been inserted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 14, leave out ("which or the right to win which") and insert ("if the Minister is satisfied upon representations being made to him that the minerals or the rights to win the minerals").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 18, leave out ("any") and insert ("some").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The next two Amendments, in subsection (4), are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 30, line 19, leave out ("use of an") and insert ("building or of any existing use of an existing").
line 26, after ("provisions") insert ("of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Section eighteen").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 20:
Exclusion or limitation of compensation in certain other cases.
(3) Where any provision contained in a scheme could immediately before the scheme came into operation have been validly included in a scheme, order, regulation or by-law by virtue of any other Act, then—
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the next two Amendments on the Paper, in subsection (3), are intended to fulfil a pledge which I gave to my noble friend Lord Cranworth to make it clear that the "other Act" mentioned in subsection (3) of this clause must be an Act in force when a scheme under the Bill comes into operation, and accordingly cannot cover the local Acts which are to be repealed by the Bill and will therefore have disappeared from the Statute Book long before any scheme under the Bill can be made. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 31, line 12, after ("before") insert ("the date on which").
line 14, after ("Act") insert ("in force at that date").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 21:
Recovery of betterment from owners of property increased in, value.
(2) Where a notice has been given in respect of any property under the last preceding subsection the responsible authority shall be entitled to make a fresh claim against the person who gave the notice—
(c) in the ease of property which was at the date of the original claim used for the purposes of any business or industry, and in respect of which there has not within the period of five years next after the date of the service of the notice been made any claim under paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection, at any time within a period of twelve months after the expiration of the said period of five years:
Provided that no claim shall be made—

(i) under paragraph (b) of this subsection in the case of property used at the date of the original claim as arable, meadow or pasture ground, or as market gardens, nursery grounds, orchards or allotments, or for a plantation or a wood or for the growth of saleable underwood, or as allotment gardens within the meaning of the Allotments Act, 1922, or (being land which exceeds one quarter of an acre) for the purpose of poultry farming, if the new use of the property is a use for one or more of those purposes; and

550

(ii) under paragraphs (b) or (c) of this subsection in the case of property belonging to a statutory undertaker.

(5) In assessing the amount of any sum payable under this section in respect of any property account shall be taken—
(b) of any gift of land, or money, or any concession made by any person against whom the claim under this section in respect of the property is made or his predecessors in title with a view to facilitating the making or carrying into effect of the scheme.
(6) Any sum recoverable under this section may be paid either immediately or by such instalments spread over a period not exceeding thirty years as may be agreed or determined under this Act, and where payment is made by instalments interest at such rate as may from time to time be fixed by the Treasury shall be chargeable on the aggregate amount of the instalments for the time being outstanding.
(8) A claim made on a disposition of property taking effect or on a change taking place in its use shall be made not later than the expiration of twelve months from the date on which notice is given to the responsible authority under subsection (7) of this section of the disposition or change of the use or, where particulars are demanded by the authority, the date on which the particulars are furnished to the authority.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in subsection (2), after "fresh claim" to insert "in respect of any increase in the value of property due to the coming into operation of any provision contained in the scheme, or by the execution of any work by the authority under the scheme." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is proposed with the idea of making it quite clear that the profits of a business or industry are not to be taken into account in the recovery of betterment. The words are agreed to by my noble friend Viscount Gage. By the insertion of the word "property" the question of profits is taken out of consideration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 32, after ("claim") insert the said words.—(Lord Phillimore.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept our wording? There is a very slight difference, but the Amendment following is in almost precisely the same words.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords. I am afraid I had not appreciated that there

551
was this alternative Amendment. If it is not too late I am willing to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (2), after "notice" and immediately before paragraph (a), to insert "in respect of any increase in the value of the property due to the coming into operation of any provision contained in the scheme or by the execution by the authority of any work under the scheme." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is the Amendment to which I have just referred.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 32, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 37, leave out ("in the") and insert ("of").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in the first proviso in subsection (2), to leave out "in the case of property used at the date of the original claim," and insert "if the new use of the property is a use." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment was put down to meet the point that park or garden was not covered by the clause. I think I said it was covered, but perhaps there is some slight possibility of misapprehension, and we have placed this Amendment on the Paper to make it clear that if any land is converted to those purposes it would not be liable for betterment.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 7, leave out from ("subsection") to ("as") in line 9 and insert ("if the new use of the property is a use").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 17, leave out from ("farming") to ("and") in line 18.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the next two Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 33, line 35, after ("change") insert ("of use of property")
line 35, leave out ("in the use of property").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (5) (b), to leave out "land or money" and insert "property whether real or personal." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these words were inserted in the Coal Mines Bill to cover every conceivable money's worth in the case of reserved funds. The Amendment is, I understand, accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 10, leave out ("land or money") and insert ("property whether real or personal").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (5) (b), after the first "may," to insert "or any works executed under arrangement with the responsible authority." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is an Amendment put down to make it absolutely clear that in assessing betterment the arbitrator is not to take into account any works which the owner may do under arrangement with the planning authority. It is doubtful whether the words are necessary, but the Government is prepared to insert them to meet fears which have been expressed.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 11, after ("made") insert ("or any works executed under arrangement with the responsible authority").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to add to subsection (6):
"but notwithstanding any such agreement the person from whom such instalments are due may, on giving not less than six months' notice to the authority of his intention so to do, pay to them the whole of any outstanding instalments, together with any interest accruing due thereon to the date of repayment."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the sum recoverable by the authorities is in the nature of a mortgage and I submit that the person from whom they are due should be in the same position as the mortgagor. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 23, insert the said words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, we accept this Amendment. We do not consider it very probable that the authority would not accept an offer, but as the clause stands there would be no legal obligation and there seems to be no harm in imposing the obligation.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the first of the next two Amendments is drafting and the second consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 34, line 41, leave out ("user") and insert ("use").
Page 35, line 2, leave out ("taking place in its use") and insert ("of use taking place").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved to insert at the end of subsection (8):
"Provided that where a disposition is by way of lease or tenancy agreement for a term of less than seven years, the claim shall be made not earlier than the expiration of the seventh year from the date on which the said term commenced."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is in answer to an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, who pointed out that if an assessment was made in relation to a lease which did not run for a long time it would be impossible to determine accurately how much of the increased value was due to the scheme. By this Amendment we make it clear that betterment cannot be levied until at least seven years after the lease has been made. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 8, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the next two Amendments are respectively drafting and consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 35, line 10, leave out ("in the") and insert ("of").
line 13, leave out ("in the") and insert ("of").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved to add to the clause:
"(12) For the purposes of this section a change of use of property shall not be deemed to have occurred if the character of the new use is similar to that of the previous use."
554
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this again is an Amendment put down to meet a point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame, in Committee. I explained that the noble Viscount's words were not very suitable and we hope that those we have now put down will meet his complaint.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 43, at end insert the said subsection (12).—(Viscount Gage.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Viscount for the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Acquisition of land to which scheme applies]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the Amendment on the Paper in my name to this clause is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 23, after ("purchase") insert ("any").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36:
Power of Minister to require preparation or adoption of scheme, and to require execution of scheme.
36.—(1) If the Minister is satisfied after the holding of a local inquiry that a scheme ought to be prepared by any authority as respects any land, he may by order require the authority to prepare a scheme and to take such other steps as may be necessary for bringing it into operation, and the order of the Minister shall have the same effect as a resolution to prepare a scheme for the area to which the order relates passed by the authority and approved by the Minister.
(2) If the authority fail to prepare a scheme to the satisfaction of the Minister within such time as may be specified in the order, or to take any other steps which they are required by this Act, or by regulations made thereunder, or by order of the Minister thereunder, to take, the Minister may himself act in the place and at the expense of the authority, or in the case of the council of a rural district, or the council of an urban district which for the time being contains, according to the latest published return of the Registrar-General, a population of less than twenty thousand, may, if he thinks fit, and after consultation with the council of the county in which the district is situate empower that council so to act.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved to leave out subsection (1) and (2). The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment

555
was put down in Committee by Lord Phillimore and not moved, and your Lordships will remember that we discussed the question of the removal of this clause entirely from the Bill. I have put down this Amendment again at this stage because, as I stated in the discussion on the proposal to delete Clause 36, if this clause, or the whole of it, remains in the Bill, the Amendment to Clause 52 that we passed, which renders the question of the preparation of schemes optional as it stands, now becomes more or less inoperative because of subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 36. The Minister has those powers virtually in his hand, to compel local authorities to prepare schemes whether they want to or not. It is absolutely compulsory in that way. The point has been put to me that it is necessary to have these subsections in the Bill in the ease of a small authority within an area which refuses to have anything to do with a scheme, and stands out of it, but if you will turn to Clause 4 you will find that the Minister has plenty of power to compel the local authorities who stand out of a scheme, to the detriment of a scheme, to come in under a joint committee. The final subsections of this clause, subsections (3) and (4), and so on, are probably necessary to the Minister in order to insist on the carrying out of any schemes which have the force of law in actual fact, but I cannot see that subsections (1) and (2) are necessary. In fact, I think they are extremely undesirable in the Bill, as the Minister has power under the rest of the clause to compel a defaulting authority.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 35, leave out subsections (1) and (2).—(The Earl of Radnor.)
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Radnor has quite rightly stated the situation as regards Clause 36. I remember that on the Committee stage, when there was an Amendment moved to delete the whole of Clause 36, I suggested that that would not be advisable. I did not see my way to taking out the whole of the clause, but the Amendment now is to leave out subsections (1) and (2), leaving the Minister with plenty of power under the remaining subsections of dealing with many events. I think we could quite well do without subsections (1) and (2), for the reasons that have been stated, and I hope your Lord-
556
ships will support my noble friend in deleting these two subsections.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, certainly it was a very curious matter to many of us who had followed the Committee stage of the Bill and the Amendments put down, suddenly to find, without any notice to those who were interested in the matter, that two of the Amendments were withdrawn at the last moment, and I shall be very anxious to see, if we go to a Division, in which way the noble Lord who put his name to the Amendments in the Committee stage is going to vote when we insist upon a vote being taken on the first two subsections of this clause. If I may say what occurs to me about the Bill it is this. On the Committee stage the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill referred to this clause many times as a default clause, and he said it was necessary in this Bill to have a default clause. If I may say so I entirely agree. You must have a default clause; but if your Lordships will look at Clause 36 you will find that while subsections (3) to (8) may be properly called a default clause, subsections (1) and (2) may not. They are a totally different thing. They do not relate to any question of default by any local authority. They relate to the question whether the Minister chooses to say to himself that anything they have done has not been done under the Bill, or has not been done to his satisfaction, and if so he can take it into his hands to do something else. That is not default. That is a power given to the Minister to say that if he does not agree with the local authority he can take it upon his own shoulders to do something else.
The noble Earl who has moved this Amendment is quite right. I would like humbly to congratulate the people who thought out Clauses 3 and 4. If your Lordships will consider them I think you will find that they are most carefully thought-out and carefully arranged, so that you will not have any impediment between two adjoining authorities. They can be put together as a joint committee. If there is a little odd bit of land belonging to a third authority there are powers for the Minister to insist upon that third authority coming in, and so you will get a prepared and reasonably thought-out scheme. I suggest that we do not want subsections (1) and (2), be-

557
cause they are trying to get in the Bill something entirely different, and that is ministerial bureaucratic power over-riding the local authority. I do not want to weary your Lordships, but later on we shall come to Clause 51, which used to be Clause 52. You will find that there are two Amendments standing in my name, which I believe are nothing more than drafting Amendments, because the Amendment passed by your Lordships on the Motion of Lord Strachie deleted that clause, and if you are going to delete that, and leave in subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 36, you are going to reverse what you have already done.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, as the person who put down the original Amendment to delete subsection (1) and (2), and as I have been challenged to give my reasons for withdrawing my Amendment, I am very happy to state them. They are these. I became convinced on further study of the Bill that my Amendment was in the nature of a wrecking Amendment; in other words, that if my Amendment were passed it would seriously deprive the Bill of its powers for seeing town-planning carried through. Secondly, I was assured that in all Acts effecting local government the residuary power had to be left to the Minister, to see that the Act was in fact carried into execution. Whether that is so or not it is not for me to instruct your Lordships, but because of that I withdrew my Amendment, and at present I am still under the same impression, and I think my reasons hold good.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I think perhaps it might have been more convenient if this matter had been debated in Committee, when I think the opportunity presented itself. The Amendment of Lord Phillimore was withdrawn by leave of the House, and I think the noble Earl was in his place at the time. I only mention that because I think the Amendment should be considered in relation to the general debate on the whole clause. Your Lordships have been reminded that strong arguments were put forward for the omission of the whole clause, and in reply we submitted that it was necessary for the Minister to have default powers to act in the case, and only in the case, of obvious and gross neglect on the part of a local authority. We also submitted that there was nothing in the least unusual in
558
the granting of these powers, that they had existed under the Public Health Acts for very many years and had recently been reaffirmed by Parliament in the Local Government Act, 1929. We submitted that these powers had never been abused by a Minister and that there was no reason to suppose that they would be abused in the future. In the Division Lobby your Lordships supported that view, and I think that Lord Dynevor went so far as to say that without these powers the Bill would be perfectly useless.
LORD DYNEVOR: Was I not referring to the whole clause?
VISCOUNT GAGE: I admit that, but was going on to show your Lordships that what the noble Earl proposes to do is to limit the power of the Minister to act, not only in cases where there has been gross and obvious neglect of the local authorities, but also in cases where the owners were sufficiently public spirited and sufficiently capable to propose a scheme of their own. No doubt the noble Earl has had experience of attempting to prepare town-planning schemes, but my experience certainly is that it is no easy matter, even where one is provided with expert advice. I think there would be many cases where you would find, not large owners but quite a number of small owners in the case of whom organisation would be very difficult; and you might have absentee landlords or large areas of land held by trustees, who could hardly be expected to take the initiative in matters of this sort.
It seems to me that if a principle is right, as your Lordships have agreed that it is, it is really somewhat illogical to exclude from the scope of that principle cases where local authorities are lazy and neglectful, and also owners who are lacking in energy or for some reason are unable to make a scheme of their own. I suggest that in that combination of circumstances there arises exactly the kind of ease where default powers would be very valuable, and we should regard it as a very serious matter if the Minister's powers were limited in that regard. Mention has been made of Clause 4. That really raises an entirely different point, and I do not think there is any reason, when we are considering a default clause like this, to presuppose that there might be another contiguous area where a scheme was in force. I do

559
not think that is a consideration which really need apply in this particular case. I hope my noble friend is satisfied, because I think nobody could accuse us of being unreasonable in the conduct of this Bill. We have conceded freely, and I think that in this matter, which we regard as very necessary to the Bill, the noble Earl might agree with our view.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I am rather frightened of supporting the Government in resisting this Amendment, in case I should strengthen the opposition against them, but I only want to say that I do support the noble Viscount in the view he holds, and that we on this side of the House regard this as a very essential part of the Bill. We should not like to see the powers of the Minister further diminished, as they would be if these two subsections were taken out. The Bill has been rather dangerously emasculated in Committee and we should certainly divide against this Amendment if it were pressed.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I ought to have explained when I moved the Amendment that it was my own ineptitude perhaps which failed to prevent Lord Phillimore from withdrawing his Amendment. I was not quick enough in the uptake. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for the concessions he has made so far to the Amendments that I and others associated with me have moved. They have been extremely helpful and we are very grateful. But on these two subsections the reply that I have had has been to the effect that powers in case of default are necessary to the Government, and I confess that they are necessary to any Government Department in a Bill of this nature. I do not want my Amendment to be in any way a wrecking Amendment, as Lord Phillimore said it was. But I think that these two subsections go a great deal further than giving the power to the Minister to deal with cases of gross neglect by local authorities. After all, if you read the first few lines of subsection (1):
"If the Minister is satisfied after the holding of a local inquiry that a scheme ought to be prepared by any authority …"
you will see that within those words the Minister has all the powers that have been deleted from the Bill by your Lord-
560
ships' House under the old Clause 52, which is now Clause 51. I do not know whether the noble Viscount can suggest any possible alteration of the words so as to give the Minister the necessary powers in case of difficulty with a local authority, without giving him the wider powers that there are in these two subsections, and can put down an Amendment for Third Reading? If he can do anything of that kind I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment, but if he cannot I am afraid I must insist on carrying my Amendment to a Division.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I must say I very greatly regret the attitude of the noble Earl. I think the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, was quite convincing, not only as to the equity but as to the convenience of the course proposed in this clause. The idea that the Ministry of Health tramples upon local authorities is really one of the most fantastic ideas that could be advanced. No Government Department is—I will not say more scrupulously fair, but more scrupulously timid, in its dealings with the local authorities, and they cannot proceed under this clause until a local inquiry has been held. They do not propose—the terms of the Bill show it—to proceed under this clause until default has actually occurred. The object of this is to prepare or to adopt a scheme; that is to say, to carry into execution something that the local authority, in spite of the Statute, has refused or has failed to carry into effect. That is called the default clause. But they can do nothing until after a local inquiry.
Everybody knows how tiresome to a Government Department a local inquiry is. Every conceivable grievance against the Government, relevant or irrelevant, is aired at such an inquiry, and no Government Department wants a local inquiry involving all this inconvenience. The normal obligation of every progressive and self-respecting authority in this country is to prepare a town or country planning scheme. The proper obligation of every such authority is to take its share in the greater regional scheme, but in a primary scheme the duty of the local authority to deal with this matter is as great and implicit in my opinion as it is to look after its public utilities, its drainage, lighting and so forth, and, where there is a default, to deny, as Lord

561
Radnor proposes, the right of the Government to intervene, seems to me to cut the whole root of the modern view of the obligation which a local authority has to see that the planning of its area is carried out with dignity, with good sense, and with propriety. This is the existing law. Nobody has risen in your Lordships' House to say it has been abused, and I hope the subsections will not be cut out, because, as Lord Radnor admits, it would be in the nature of a wrecking Amendment.
LORD BANBURY of SOUTHAM: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to my noble friend Lord Craw-
Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the Amendment down in my name to this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 12, leave out ("is") and insert ("are"). —(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
Clause 40 [Power to refer certain disputes to arbitration or to Minister]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I have a drafting Amendment to leave out "and conclusive." Owing to carelessness I have not put down an Amendment to leave out the same words a few lines further on. I beg to move to omit the words in both lines 18 and 21.
ford. Let me point out what may happen. A local inquiry is held. The result of the local inquiry is that they hold that the local authority ought not to promote a scheme. Then the Minister comes down and says: "I do not agree with you. I think you ought to promote a scheme." Thereupon the Minister promotes a scheme against the result of the inquiry and against the wishes of the local authority. I shall certainly vote with my noble friend.
On Question, Whether subsections (1) and (2) shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 8.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Mersey, V.

Mamhead, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mount Temple, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Phillimore, L.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Buxton, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Cavan, E.

Addington, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

De La Warr, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Redesdale, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Remnant, L.

Plymouth, E.

Clwyd, L.

Rhayader, L.

Stanhope, E.

Danesfort, L.

Rochester, L.

Strafford, E.

Desborough, L.

Snell, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Somerleyton, L.

Allendale, V.

Gainford, L.

Stanmore, L.

Exmouth, V.

Hampton, L.

Templemore, L. [Teller.]

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Hailsham, V.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Woodbridge, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

Banbury of Southam, L.

Strachie, L.

Radnor, E. [Teller.]

Clinton, L.

Wavertree, L.

Dynevor, L.

Wharton, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendments moved—
Page 49, line 18, leave out ("and conclusive")
line 21, leave out ("and conclusive").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 41 [For the protection of statutory undertakers]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in the proviso, to leave out ("is") ["the Ministry of Health is"] and insert ("are"). The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is an Amendment I had put down in Committee but the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, frightened me out of it because he said the grammar was wrong. If your Lordships will turn to pages 42 and 81 of the Bill you will see that the Government "treats" or "treat" a Department as plural, and what the powers that be say to-day I ex-

563
pect your Lordships will have to accept to-morrow. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 40, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 45:
Powers as to the preservation of trees.
"—(1) The provisions to be inserted in a scheme with respect to securing amenity and the protection of existing amenities may include provisions for the preservation of single trees and groups of trees, and in addition may specify areas of woodland as areas to be protected under this section.
(2) Where an area is so specified, the scheme may impose an obligation on the owner, if any part of the woodland is felled or otherwise destroyed, to undertake siuh replanting as would be in accordance with the practice of good forestry, but save as aforesaid the scheme shall not impose any control over forestry operations in the area.
(3) If any question arises between the responsible authority and the owner whether any replanting of land carried out or proposed to be carried out by the owner is or would be in accordance with the practice of good forestry, it shall, on the application of either party, be determined by the Forestry Commissioners, whose decision shall be final."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a new clause that we are asking your Lordships to insert in place of the old Clause 46 removed from the Bill in Committee. I have been in close consultation with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, on the matter, and I understand that this suggestion meets his views. I think that the clause was criticised on the ground that an owner was not free to fell timber in woodlands when he thought fit and that that restriction might prevent the raising of money, for example, to pay Death Duties. I think the new clause meets that criticism. It provides as regards woodlands that the only obligation is to replant according to good forestry—that is to say, as good forestry requires and not just tree for tree. I do not know if it is necessary to say any more, as I think my noble friend will accept the proposed clause. I should add, however, that the words "and conclusive" which appear at the end of the new clause on the Paper should be omitted to conform to the drafting of other clauses consequent on the Amendments moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie,
564
which have been accepted. I therefore beg leave to move in that form.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 45 insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, I am very much obliged to my noble friend for proposing this new clause. Your Lordships will recollect that during the Committee stage we took very strong objection to the power to be exercised by local authorities over woodlands which practically would prevent any owner from carrying out the ordinary rights of ownership without their consent and would make it exceedingly difficult for him to carry out the most ordinary forest operations. I think this clause meets that point very fairly. Full rights remain with the owner subject to the condition that he should replant if he fells. I think that it is an exceedingly reasonable condition to make in the circumstances and I personally am quite in agreement with it. There was one point raised in the debate on the Committee stage as to what was meant by the practice of good forestry, and it was suggested that in certain cases there might be some difficulty and very likely disagreement among foresters, who are perhaps not more ready to agree than other experts. This clause, however, only applies to replanting. What happens in such cases is that the owner who wishes to replant applies to the Forestry Commissioners for a grant for replanting and when that is agreed to the Commissioners lay down, in agreement with the owner, what is the proper method of replanting. I do not think any difficulty can occur.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, I hope I shall not be thought ungrateful for the new clause which has been proposed, but I want to raise one point which I think is of some substance. Subsection (2) of the new clause reads:
"Where an area is so specified, the scheme may impose an obligation on the owner, if any part of the woodland is felled or otherwise destroyed, to undertake such replanting. …"
I think it is quite right and proper if an owner for his own profit chooses to cut down trees that he should be obliged to replant, but suppose, as sometimes happens, trippers go into the woods, make a fire and the woodland is largely destroyed owing to the action of tres-

565
passers. I think it is a little hard on the pecunious landlord that he should be bliged to replant in those circumstances. Probably he has not insured his trees and he will not only lose his trees but will have to find money for replanting. I would like to ask the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill whether he has considered that point, because I think there is a possibility in certain cases of great hardship.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: My Lords, I think it is quite possible, as my noble friend says, that cases of hardship may be involved. Perhaps the noble Viscount will agree to consider the point between now and Third Reading. I think there is substance in the point raised by my noble friend Lord Mount Temple.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I will certainly undertake to consult my advisers on this matter and see if it is likely that any hardship will be placed upon owners in this way. It was not intended that there should be such a hardship, but I will undertake that the matter shall be reconsidered before Third Reading. I think the point is covered, but I will undertake to look into it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 46 [Powers with respect to advertisements]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the Amendment standing in my name is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 33, leave out the first ("or") and insert ("of").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 [Expenses of, and borrowing by, local authorities]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the Amendment standing in my name is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 4, leave out ("and conclusive").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 50:
Compensation to officers.
50.—(1) Every officer of a council who, in consequence of the relinquishment, delega-
566
tion, or transfer of any powers or duties of that council under any provision contained in Sections two to five of this Act, suffers any direct pecuniary loss by determination of his appointment or by diminution or loss of fees, salary, or emoluments, and for whose compensation for that loss provision is not made by any other enactment for the time being in force, shall be entitled to recover compensation under this Act for that loss from that council.
(2) For the purposes of this section an officer of a council by or from whom any powers or duties are so relinquished, delegated, or transferred—
(b) whose appointment is determined or whose salary is reduced within five years after the said date because his services are not required or his duties are diminished, and not on the ground of misconduct;
shall be deemed, unless the contrary is shown, to have suffered a direct pecuniary loss in consequence of that relinquishment, delegation, or transfer.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had given Notice to move in subsection (1), after "Every officer of a council who," to insert "immediately before the coming into operation of the scheme had held office under that council for a period of not less than two years, and who." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I understand that there are difficulties in the way of accepting this Amendment, and therefore I do not propose to move it as I never like to be obstructive, or not too obstructive, anyhow.
But I propose to move my Amendment, at the end of subsection (2) (b), to insert "or inefficiency." It seems to me that if an employee is inefficient he ought not to get compensation. For that reason I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 39, at end insert ("or inefficiency").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, on behalf of the Government I should like to express thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie. This is a point which we ought to have seen ourselves. I am obliged to the noble Viscount for drawing attention to it and we accept his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 51:
Duty of certain councils to prepare schemes.
51. The council of every county borough or urban district containing a population according to the census taken in the year nineteen hundred and twenty-one of more

567
than twenty thousand may before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, or such later date before the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, as the Minister may in any case allow, prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme in respect of all land within their district in respect of which a scheme might have been so prepared and submitted under Section one of the Town Planning Act, 1925, if this Act had not been passed, and containing provisions with respect to such matters as may be prescribed.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved to leave out Clause 51. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is really in the nature of a drafting Amendment. When Clause 52, as it then was, was debated in Committee there were two Amendments on the Paper. One was moved by my noble friend Lord Strachie and was accepted by your Lordships. The effect of that Amendment was really exactly the same as leaving out the whole clause. It has been represented to me that it would be better that the Bill should pass with the omission of this clause, which is now meaningless. For that reason I beg now to move the Amendment which stood in my name but which I did not move in Committee, to leave out this clause.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 51.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, we agree with the noble Earl in thinking that the clause as it stands in the Bill is entirely superfluous. Of course the question of principle does not arise at this moment. That was thoroughly debated at the Committee stage. As this is now really only a drafting Amendment we agree to it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 53:
Interpretation.
53. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them respectively, that is to say:—
"Existing building" and "existing work" mean respectively a building or work erected, constructed or carried out before the material date, and include also a building or work—

(iii) erected, constructed or carried out in accordance with the terms of an interim development order, or of permission granted under such an order:

VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the first Amendment standing in my name is drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 27, leave out ("Improvements") and insert ("Improvement"). —(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in paragraph (iii) of the definition of "Existing building" and "existing work," after "order" to insert "whether made under this Act or any Act repealed by this Act." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is proposed in order to make it quite clear that owners who have developed in accordance with consents given under the existing law will retain the safeguard which they have secured when the existing law is superseded by this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 15, after ("order") insert ("whether made under this Act or any Act repealed by this Act").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 2, at end insert ("whether made under this Act or any Act repealed by this Act").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 54:
Repeals.
54.—(1) The enactments mentioned in the Fifth Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule, and, subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of Section fifty-three of this Act, such of the provisions of any local Act as modify the provisions of the Town Planning Act, 1925, in its application to a particular locality are also repealed:
Provided that—
(a) nothing in this repeal shall affect any appointment, scheme, order, regulation, or agreement made or any approval, consent, permission or notice given under any enactment repealed by this Act, and any such appointment, scheme, order, regulation, agreement, approval, consent, permission or notice may be enforced and carried into effect as if this Act had not been passed, but may be amended, varied, repealed or revoked under this Act;
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (1), after "local Act," to insert "including any local Act passed on the

569
same day as this Act." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to meet the case of a local Bill, the Bury Bill, which I think is to be submitted for the Royal Assent on the same day as this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 26, after ("Act") insert ("including any local Act passed on the same day as this Act").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The next two Amendments on the Paper are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 64, line 33, leave out ("permission")
line 36, leave out ("permission").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved to add to subsection (1):
"(e) except as expressly provided in the section of this Act of which the marginal note is 'Special provisions as to the Surrey County Council Act, 1931,' nothing in this Act shall repeal or affect any provisions of the Surrey County Council Act, 1931."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to lead up to the next Amendment on the Paper dealing with the Surrey County Council Act. Perhaps it would be convenient if I made the remarks I have to make in reference to that on this first Amendment. There are a number of provisions in the Surrey County Council Act, which is a general Act dealing with matters in addition to town planning and in regard to which it is impossible to say with certainty whether they fall within the repeal clause of this Bill or not. In other local Acts it is clear which are town-planning provisions and which are not, but in the Surrey Act there are some provisions on the border line between town planning and other subjects. The Surrey Act also sets up a Committee called the Surrey Joint Planning Committee which consists of representatives of the County Council and the local authorities. This Committee is empowered to discharge certain functions connected with planning, arterial roads, open spaces and so forth, and the County Council is anxious to extend the scope of that Committee to functions under the new Bill. I understand this is agreed between the Ministry and the Surrey County Council.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 25, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, after Clause 54, to insert the following new clause:
Special provisions as to the Surrey County Council Act, 1931, 21 & 22 Geo. 5. c. ci.
".—(1) Sections seventy-three to eighty-one and Section eighty-three of the Surrey County Council Act, 1931 (in this section referred to as 'the Surrey Act'), are hereby repealed:
Provided that the repeal of Section eighty of the Surrey Act shall be without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (2) of Section fifty-two of this Act.
(2) So much of subsection (1) of Section ninety-seven of the Surrey Act as relates to any of the sections repealed by subsection (1) of this section and subsections (2) and (3) of that Section ninety-seven are also hereby repealed.
(3) In the Surrey Act (except in Section one hundred and seventy-four thereof) references to a town planning scheme or to a town planning scheme made or approved under or in pursuance of the Town Planning Act, 1925, shall be construed as including references to a scheme under this Act, and the words 'whether under the Town Planning Act, 1925, or the section of this Act of which the marginal note is "Extension of powers of local authorities to make or adopt town planning schemes "' in paragraph (a) of subsection (6) of Section sixty-eight of the Surrey Act are hereby repealed.
(4) In subsection (8) of Section ninety-six of the Surrey Act references to a joint committee appointed under Section two of the Town Planning Act, 1925, shall be construed as including references to a joint committee appointed under this Act.
(5) The following section shall be substituted for Section eighty-two of the Surrey Act:
'(1) A local authority may with the consent of the Surrey Joint Planning Committee constituted under Section ninety-six of this Act delegate to that committee, with or without restrictions, any of their powers and duties in connection with the preparation or adoption of a town planning scheme, other than the power to borrow money or levy a rate, and shall pay any expenses incurred by the said committee in the exercise of any powers and duties so delegated.
'(2) (a) Where two or more local authorities are desirous of acting jointly in the preparation or adoption of a scheme, they may, with the consent of the Surrey Joint Planning Committee concur in delegating to that committee with or without restrictions any of their powers and duties in connection with the preparation or adoption of a town planning scheme, other than the power to borrow money or levy a rate.

571
'(b) The expenses incurred by the said committee in the exercise of any powers and duties delegated under this subsection shall be paid by the local authorities who have concurred in the delegation, or some or one of them, as they may agree, and if any question arises as to the local authorities or local authority by whom, or the proportions in which, any such expenses are to be paid, that question shall be determined by the Minister.
'(c) The provisions of Section fifty-eight of the Local Government Act, 1894, with respect to accounts and audit shall, with any necessary modifications, apply in relation to the expenses incurred by the said committee in the exercise of any powers and duties delegated under this subsection as though the said committee were a joint committee of which the local authorities who have concurred in the delegation were constituent authorities.'
(6) A scheme applying to land in the administrative county of Surrey may, with the consent of the Surrey Joint Planning Committee constituted under the Surrey Act, provide that the said committee or a body consisting of such number of members of the said committee to be nominated by the said committee for the purpose, as may be specified in the scheme, shall be the authority responsible for enforcing and carrying into effect all or any of the provisions of the scheme, and where a scheme provides for a body consisting of such persons as aforesaid being the responsible authority for any of the purposes of the scheme it may authorise that body to co-opt additional members, so however that at least three-fourths of the members of that body shall be persons who are members of the said committee."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 54 insert the said new elapse.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule:
FIRST SCHEDULE.

PART II.
Provisions as to the Validity and Date of Operation of Schemes.
5. Except by leave of the Court of Appeal no appeal shall lie to the House of Lords from a decision of the Court of Appeal under this Part of this Schedule.

PART III.
Provisions as to the Validity and Date of Operation of Compulsory Purchase Orders.
4. Except by leave of the Court of Appeal no appeal shall be to the House of Lords from a decision of the Court of Appeal under this Schedule.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the Amendment standing in my name on this Schedule is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 24, leave out ("an") and insert ("any").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out paragraph 5 of Part II. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. Paragraph 5 says:
"Except by leave of the Court of Appeal no appeal shall lie to the House of Lords from a decision of the Court of Appeal under this Part of this Schedule."
I do not see why your Lordships who are the highest Court in the Realm should not have an appeal allowed to it. This Bill is going to cause a considerable amount of change in the holding of property and in town planning, and I think it is necessary that your Lordships, or rather the Court of your Lordships' House, should have the opportunity of considering appeals from the lower Courts. I take some interest in observing what takes place in His Majesty's Courts of Law, and though I do not say that this is invariable I find it often happens that in the High Court a decision is given, the Court of Appeal alters it, and your Lordships' House alters the decision of the Court of Appeal. If you do not accept my Amendment you are going to say to the Court of Appeal, whose decisions are often altered by your Lordships' House: "You are not to allow an appeal to the highest Court of the Realm unless you wish it yourself." That seems absurd. I feel almost certain that the Government will accept my Amendment. This provision, so far as I know, is quite unusual, and if it is necessary to have an appeal from the Court of Appeal it should certainly lie to your Lordships' House.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 28, leave out paragraph 5.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE of THAME: My Lords, I also have this Amendment on the Paper, but I put it there for a different reason. If you turn to page 70, lines 36, 37, and 38, you will see exactly the same words covering the whole of the section. Therefore the paragraph under discussion is redundant.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, m sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, but I think then he has heard the explanation he will desire to withdraw his Amendment with a two-fold object. One of those objects is, I know, extremely dear to his heart. I suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn, first, in the interests of economy and, next, in the interest of the private litigant. The paragraph which he proposes to omit provides that without the consent of the Court of Appeal there is to be no appeal to the House of Lords from decisions to which Part II of the Schedule relates. Your Lordships all know that we are endeavouring to get some reform in the law of England and especially to get final decisions quickly and without expense. As Lord Chancellor a very large number of communications reach me and I should think that 99 out of a 100, certainly nine out of ten, complain of the mutiplicity of appeals, and especially in those cases where a private litigant is proceeding against some Government Department as would be the case here. I beg Lord Banbury of Southam to consider the interests of the private litigant who is being—I do not like to say dragged from Court to Court, but being taken from Court to Court by a Government Department.
May I say one word on the procedure? This is no new paragraph. It follows the line adopted by Parliament in similar Schedules in the Housing Act, 1930, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930. It saves expense to litigants, but at the same time it enables cases involving issues of special importance to be taken to the House of Lords. But I particularly recommend it bearing in mind what people say with regard to the multiplicity of appeals. This paragraph is particularly appropriate to the kind of litigation which will take place between an individual landowner and a planning authority who will frequently be a powerful local authority with more or less unlimited rate resources at its back. The fear of being taken to the House of Lords frequently acts as a deterent against embarking on litigation no less with local authorities than with the Crown. This is really a great reform of the law. It is in the interests of the private litigant; it does not do away with the right of appeal, as the Court of Appeal can give
574
leave to appeal; and it is not, as Viscount Bertie of Thame suggests, redundant. I beg your Lordships to allow this small endeavour to prevent expense to be made in the law. The Government will certainly oppose the Amendment and I can hardly think that the noble Lord means it.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Lord Chancellor for his kindness in making a very clear statement. He says I have been in favour of economy. It is true I have been, but nobody has paid any attention, and I might just as well not have been for all the attention that has been paid to me. The Lord Chancellor says that two Acts passed in 1930 have the same effect. That does not appeal to me, because in 1930, according to my view, we had about the worst Government we have ever had, and it did about the worst things that have ever been done. Therefore an argument based on what took place in 1930 does not very much appeal to me. What does appeal to me is this, that I think we are going to put a little brake upon the power of the Minister. If I understand the Lord Chancellor aright, he says that the Minister, or a local authority, with command of the rates, could appeal against an unfortunate person like myself who has no money and cannot afford to go to the expense of an appeal. I am afraid that is the case not only with Governments from the other side of the House but this Government too. They sometimes do appeal to the House of Lords on points which are absurd, in the hope that the unfortunate individual will be afraid to defend the appeal. In the circumstances I do not press my Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord proposes to withdraw his Amendment, and I am entirely in favour of that. I rose only to refer to an observation made by Lord Bertie of Thame, who drew attention to the fact that there is another Part of the Schedule, and that paragraph 4 of Part III says that no appeal shall lie "under this Schedule." That refers apparently to the whole Schedule, whereas this paragraph 5 refers only to "this Part of this Schedule."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Marquess is quite right, and I

575
am perfectly prepared to leave out the words in paragraph 5 "under this Part of this Schedule."
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): If I might suggest it, it would appear to me that that would be going a little too far.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think on reflection that it does perhaps go a little too far, and if the Amendment is negatived I will move to insert, in Part III, paragraph 4, the words "this Part of."
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 38, after ("under") insert ("this Part of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule [Matters to be dealt with by schemes]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to insert:
"4. The reservation of sites for places of religious worship or for residence houses or burial places in connection therewith and preservation of sites held for any of those purposes."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have been asked to move this Amendment on behalf of Earl Grey. It was moved by him in Committee and withdrawn, on the understanding that the Government would consider the matter and be prepared to deal with it at this stage. The object of the Amendment is twofold. First, it is to secure that in all schemes involving housing development on a large scale opportunities shall be given to the representatives of all denominations to secure suitable sites for building places of worship; and, secondly, to ensure that where the authorities of these denominations, by foresight, have secured such sites beforehand, they shall not be lost to those denominations by reason of a town-planning scheme being produced.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 6, at end, insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, I would venture to recall to his mind what passed in Committee the other night. It was rather late, but still I have a clear recollection of what passed. The real point is this, that unless it is quite clearly
576
recognised by the local authority that this provision for places of worship really essential in any building developments in this country, a great wrong w be done to a great number of His Majesty's subjects. My noble friend will remember that it is not new that in our legislation special recognition is given to places of worship, and they are treated as a particular case which has to have special regard paid to it. There is an Act called the Places of Worship Sites Act, under which places of worship get special provileges for securing sites, and rating relief is also granted to them as such, because they belong to what in this country is deemed to be essential for the people of the country.
In this particular case we are considering what particular directions schemes may provide for, and Lord Grey suggests that places of worship ought to be included in the list. It may be said, of course, that the matter is dealt with generally in the Second Schedule, but that is unfortunately not the case, because you will see that in paragraph 4 special provision is made for aerodromes. If you are going to have special provision for aerodromes I think places of worship stand in quite as good a position, and indeed in a far better position. I hope your Lordships will realise that as the Bill is framed this is not a coercive provision. It does not follow because these words are inserted in the Bill that in every case the local authority will be bound to make provision for places of worship, because under Clause 11 it is only what they deem to be expedient that is to be included. Therefore, it is permissive in the accurate sense of the word.
At the same time the fact that this Amendment appears on the face of the Bill, as a deliberate provision of Parliament, is of the greatest importance from the point of view of places of worship, because then a local authority, when approaching the subject of a scheme, will see that this is a matter which is not to be lightly passed by or ignored but to which Parliament has specifically directed their attention. They may for good cause think it inexpedient to make provision in a particular case, but the matter will never be ignored. It is with a view to that situation that my noble friend Lord Grey, who unfortunately cannot be in his place this afternoon, put down the

577
Amendment. I hope that my noble friend on consideration will see his way to accept it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, we have the greatest sympathy with this Amendment and we think that words which carry out the intention of the Amendment ought to be inserted and I am perfectly ready to insert them. The noble Marquess on the last occasion was good enough to refer us to the Places of Worship Sites Act, 1873, and so we looked into that and adopted the words of the Act of Parliament to which he referred. He is quite right in saying that the Second Schedule contains matters to be dealt with by schemes and we are of opinion that this is one of the matters which ought to be included. We do not think it is possible to accept the last few words of the Amendment:
"and preservation of sites held for any of those purposes."
I have the words here taken from the Places of Worship Sites Acts, 1873, and I shall read them to the House:
"The reservation of sites for places of religious worship or for houses of officiating ministers or burial places in connection therewith."
Those words will carry out exactly what the noble Lord wants. It is impossible to put in the last words of his Amendment, which are really not wanted, and, if he will move his Amendment in that form, I shall have the greatest possible pleasure in accepting it.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his offer and have pleasure in moving the Amendment in that form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 6, at end insert
("4. The reservation of sites for places of religious worship or for houses of officiating ministers or burial places in connection therewith.")—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, this Amendment has only appeared on the Paper this afternoon and seems to deal with a complicated matter off-hand. It creates and acknowledges a claim on the part of any religions denomination in any scheme, even in a regional planning scheme, in any part of the country, whether urban or rural, to a site for a
578
burial place, a parsonage or ministerial residence. That is a right which the existing Statutes do not confer. These are not mentioned in the Schedule but neither are schools nor hospitals. You cannot set out in the Schedule the individual types of buildings for which these schemes ought to make provision. Here alone we lay down the right of any denomination to exercise its claim to three sites, one for the church, one for the burial ground, and one for the vicarage house. It is very objectionable that religious bodies should have a right in these schemes to claim a site for a burial ground. We do not want burial grounds scattered all over Great Britain. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has said that aerodromes are included, but aerodromes are specific things and are mentioned but churches are not. It is very obvious that you can easily find a site for a church or a vicarage. It is not easy, on the other hand, to find a site for an aerodrome which occupies one or two hundred acres.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Or for a burial ground.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: A burial ground can be put on a hillside but not an aerodrome. An aerodrome has a special geographical and stratigraphical connotation which these places have not. I thought it was very objectionable in the legislation we are passing about cinemas to put upon local authorities the duty of deciding whether a cinema should be opened on Sundays or not. Here you place upon a local authority the duty of accepting or refusing or fighting the scheme of any denomination which may apply for a burial ground or vicarage or place of worship. I am sorry that so controversial a matter should be inserted in this town-planning scheme, which I hoped was outside the area of controversy. Another point that has just struck me is that there should be a time limit. It is not right to give these people the right of sterilising ground for the purpose of these sites and yet not insist that, if they do not occupy the ground, they must surrender it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 25, leave out ("money or property") and insert("property whether real or personal").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule:
THIRD SCHEDULE.

PART I.
Provisions as to the Compulsory Acquisition of Land.
3. The modifications, subject to which the Land Clauses Acts and the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, shall be incorporated in the order are as follows:
(ii) No person shall be required to sell a part only of any house, building or manufactory, or of any land which forms part of a park or garden belonging to a house, if he is willing and able to sell the whole of the house, building, manufactory, park or garden unless the arbitrator determines that in the case of a house, building or manufactory such part as is proposed to be taken can be taken without material detriment to the house, building or manufactory, or, in the case of a park or garden, that such part as aforesaid can be taken without seriously affecting the amenity or convenience of the house, and, if he so determines, he shall award compensation in respect of any loss due to the severance of the part so proposed to be taken, in addition to the value of that part, and thereupon the party interested shall be required to sell to the responsible authority that part of the house, building, manufactory, park or garden;
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in paragraph 3 (ii), after the first "park," to insert "pleasure ground," The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have some recollection that in recent Bills where parks were mentioned pleasure grounds were also mentioned. I regret that I cannot quote any Bill but I think that, where parks are mentioned, pleasure grounds which are not parks should also be included.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 42, after ("park") insert ("pleasure ground").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the Government must at last make a stand against the drafting zeal of the noble Viscount. The words "park or garden" are wide enough to cover all likely cases. The objection to including these words is that the Bill as drafted follows a
580
well recognised code. The same provision is in the Housing Act, 1930, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1931, and the effect of inserting "pleasure ground" may be to limit the meaning of "park or garden" in the other Acts.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, I am not quite satisfied with the answer of my noble friend. In the first place, although, like my noble friend Lord Bertie, I cannot call to mind a specific case in which the words "pleasure ground" appear, I have a recollection that in Mr. Lloyd George's Land Tax proposal those words played a very prominent part indeed on the question as to whether or not they should be exempted. In any case, surely, there are parcels of land which appertain to a mansion in the country other than a park or a garden. A garden may be a kitchen garden or a flower garden, while it is obvious what a park is. There are, however, many places of quite considerable area which are certainly not parks because they are enclosed in a comparatively small compass. They have no flowers or fruit and they are what I call shrubberies. I do think that if you are going to try to keep for the owner, and not oblige him to sell compulsorily, the land round his house it would be a good thing to put in "pleasure ground." I can see no objection to doing so. It seems to me that if the Government really want to make the wording water-tight they ought to agree to my noble friend's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the Amendment I now move is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 11, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, has referred to the fact that in another Amendment of a similar character to this I took objection to his emendation of the grammar. I have been scratching my head about it and looking at it again, and I still think that I am right. Just let me read part of the sentence. It says:
"but the Minister, before giving his decision … shall, where any Government De-

581
partment other than the Ministry of Health is concerned. …"
That is perfectly intelligible. Where any Government Department other than a particular one is concerned the Minister has to consult. That is quite clear. But the noble Viscount proposes to make it read thus:
"but the Minister, before giving his decision …shall, where any Government Department other than the Ministry of Health are concerned. …"
Surely if he says are, "Government Department" is wrong. "Department" ought to be "departments."
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I think the attitude of the Government is expressed by the phrase Quis custodiet ipsos custodies? We have accepted a good many grammatical Amendments of the noble Viscount, and if they prove to be wrong I do not know where we stand. Actually my instructions are to accept the Amendment. But the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, have great force. The only trouble is that we have accepted similar Amendments in previous cases. I suggest that we should accept this Amendment and leave it to the Government draftsman to consider the whole matter.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Might we have the opinion of the Lord Chairman of Committees?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I suggest that it be referred to the member for Oxford University, and then we could decide what to do on Third Reading.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I cannot help thinking that Lord Ullswater is right, but it is a terrible blow to think that the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, is capable of making such an error, because I take it for granted he is right every time he has an Amendment, and I agree that we ought now to start the proceedings again and go through all his Amendments.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Are we in this and future Acts of Parliament to treat a Government department as a plural? If not, why should we here?
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I am simply following out what the Government have put in this Bill and other Bills. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, must not think I am always right;
582
very likely I am often wrong because I try to follow the Government. But I cannot understand why, if the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, disagrees with this Amendment, he does not, on page 42 and page 81, put "Government department" with a singular verb, because in this very Bill the Government draftsman has treated it as a plural.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, may I suggest that we follow the advice of Lord Gage and leave it to the draftsman and the grammatical authorities to put their heads together and see that this is put right? I think we have accepted Lord Bertie's Amendments before, and if we follow the other course now we may get into difficulties. On Third Reading, with the advice of all the eminent authorities, we might get it straight.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: My Lords, I think we might console ourselves with this thought. This matter will come before the Courts. It will then go to the Court of Appeal, and, with the leave of the Court of Appeal, it will come before your Lordships' House, and your Lordships in your judicial capacity will give your final decision.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Sixth Schedule [Adaptations and modifications of this Act in its application to Scotland]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the next two Amendments are drafting or consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 82, line 41, leave out ("which") and insert ("whom").
Page 83, line 10, leave out ("(4) and (6)") and insert ("and (5)").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I have a drafting Amendment here.
Amendment moved—
Page 85, line 34, leave out ("and conclusive").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 85, line 38, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 2, leave out ("which is") and insert ("who are").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the four next Amendments are consequential or drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 88, line 3, at end insert:
("S. 54.—Paragraph (e) of the proviso to subsection (1) shall be omitted
S. 55.—The section shall be omitted ")
Page 89, line 16, leave out ("is") and insert ("are")
line 40, leave out from ("bridge") to the first ("or") in line 41, and insert ("by which a highway is carried over or under any railway, canal or navigable water")
Page 90, line 11, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 9 agreed to.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ROCHESTER)THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ROCHESTER) moved, after Clause 9, to insert the following new clause:
Repeal of s. 44 (7) of 15 & 16 Geo. 5 c. 70.
.—(1) Subsection (7) of Section forty-four of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, (which subsection relates to the reckoning, for certain purposes, of insurance in Northern Ireland and contributions paid in that country) is hereby repealed.
(2) For the purposes of any financial adjustments to be made under Section thirty-three of the said Act, this section shall be deemed to have come into operation on the same date as the reciprocal arrangements first made between Great Britain and Northern Ireland under the said Section thirty-three.
The noble Lord said: It will not be necessary to detain your Lordships many moments, but a point has arisen affecting Northern Ireland in connection with the National health Insurance and Contributory Pensions Bill and the Amendment on the Paper. I think I can best explain by saying that subsection (7) of Section 44 of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, which it is proposed to repeal, provides that in the case of an insured person who has a period of employment in Northern Ireland the weeks of insurance in Northern Ireland and the contributions paid into the National Health Insurance Fund of that country in respect of him shall count as weeks of insurance and as contributions paid in respect of him for the purposes of the statutory conditions under the Contributory Pensions Act.
At the time when the Act of 1925 was introduced it was not known whether a similar scheme would be set up in Northern Ireland, and this provision was accordingly made in order that an insured person might not be prejudiced by the fact that he had worked for a time in that country. But as soon as the Bill of 1925 was published the Government of Northern Ireland announced that they proposed to have a similar scheme. That being the position, the right course obviously was to make provision in the schemes of both countries for the institution of reciprocal arrangements under which periods of insurance, contributions paid, and residence in one country should, for the purposes of qualification for pensions in the other country, count as weeks of insurance, contributions paid, and residence in that other country. A Government Amendment, which became Section 33 of the Act of 1925, was accordingly introduced for the purpose of authorising the making of reciprocal arrangements and any necessary financial adjustments in connection therewith.
The inclusion of this provision rendered unnecessary the special provision made by subsection (7) of Section 44, but that provision was by inadvertence allowed to stand. Reciprocal arrangements have been in operation since the Acts came into force in the two countries in January, 1926, but the question of financial adjustments in connection with the arrangements has only recently been taken up. So long, however, as sub-

585
section (7) of Section 44 is in existence, the scope of the financial adjustments which can be made under the reciprocal arrangements is severely restricted, and it is desirable for the equitable working of the reciprocal arrangements between the two countries that the restriction should be removed. That is the reason for this Amendment. I therefore move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 9, page 9, line 19, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Title:
An Act to amend the enactments relating to National Health Insurance; to amend the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, by making provision for the payment of pensions thereunder in respect of the insurance of persons who cease to be insured within twelve months before death or before attaining the ago of sixty-five, and by modifying the statutory conditions applicable to such pensions in the case of persons who, after, ceasing to be insured, again become insured; and for purposes connected therewith.
LORD ROCHESTER LORD ROCHESTER moved, after "become insured", to insert "to repeal subsection (7) of Section forty-four of the said Act." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequent upon the one which your Lordships have just accepted. I
586
suggest that it is necessary to insert these words. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
In the Title, page 1, line 11, after ("become insured") insert ("to repeal subsection (7) of Section forty-four of the said Act"). —(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, before the House adjourns, I would like to express if I might my regret that your Lordships should have been invited to meet early this afternoon when business, as it turns out, could have been finished at the ordinary time. I would like to explain that the Committee stage of the Town and Country Planning Bill took two sittings, including one till nearly midnight, and the fact that we have been able to get through the Report stage so expeditiously is largely due, I think, to the manner in which the. Ministers in charge were able to meet the critics of the Bill and to reach an accommodation, which only took effect very late yesterday evening. I should not like your Lord-ships to imagine I was inviting the House to sit unnecessarily early without some grounds for doing so.
House adjourned at five minutes before five o'clock.