Sitting of 20 June 1932

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Oakham Gas and Electricity Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Sidmouth Water Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
South Metropolitan Gas Bill [Lords],
Read a Second time, and committed.
Humber Bridge Bill (by Order),
Third Reading deferred till Monday next.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Watford) Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
London and North Eastern Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
London Midland and Scottish railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read a Second time; and ordered to be considered To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    REFORMED CONSTITUTION (POLICE FORCES).
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India is in possession of the views of the inspectors general of police in Indian regarding the position of the police forces under a reformed constitution?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): So far as I am aware, the Government of India have not consulted the inspectors general of police as such, but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I have con-
    754
    stantly made it my business to inform myself of the feelings of the Services in general and the police in particular as to their position under a reformed constitution.

    BURMA.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELLasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware of the feeling in Burma that, in view of the nature and extent of the omissions, the course proposed by the Government of revising the existing electoral rolls in Burma is inadequate; and whether he will take steps to ensure that, in order that the forthcoming elections on the constitutional issue are as representative as possible, new electoral rolls shall be drawn up?
    Sir S. HOARE: I will amplify the answer which I gave to a similar question on 30th May. The electoral rolls were prepared from the rolls of assessment to the various taxes liability to which is a qualification for the vote. All persons whose names appeared in any one of these assesment rolls were automatically included in the electoral rolls, together with all other persons who appeared to possess the other qualifications specified in the Electoral Rules. It is surely evident that lists of voters so comprehensively composed in the first instance, when amended, as the Government of Burma have arranged shall be done, by the inclusion of any additional persons who can satisfy the enrolment officers that they possess the necessary qualification, will be no less complete than rolls prepared afresh on the same qualifications.

    SITUATION.
    Sir JOHN WARDLAW - MILNEasked the Secretary of State for India the latest information he has as to the situation in India?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for India the latest information regarding the political situation in India?
    Sir S. HOARE: Nothing of outstanding importance has occurred during the past week.

    CENTRAL AND PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES.
    Major MILNERasked the Secretary of State for India if he will give an

    755
    indication as to when the Government hope to be in a position to make an announcement concerning, their provisional decisions in regard to the proportionate representation of different communities in the central and provincial legislatures under the new constitution?
    Sir S. HOARE: I am unable to make any statement at the moment.

  CHINA (BRITISH LOANS).
  Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUELasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information as to whether the Japanese Government is arranging that the proportionate amount of the Manchurian Customs required for the service of the loans raised in Britain by the Chinese Government shall be remitted to those hitherto responsible for the collection and service?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): My latest information is that the revenue collected at three of the six Customs stations in Manchuria is being remitted normally to Shanghai and that at the other three stations the surplus revenue is being paid into a special suspense account. The question of the foreign obligations secured on the Chinese Customs revenue is engaging our most careful attention and so far there is no reason, to believe that their security has been impaired. As regards the responsibility of the Japanese Government, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer returned to him on 13th June.
  Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Does the action of the Japanese Government conform with the 1907 agreement which arranges that the Dairen Customs should be part of the Chinese Customs?
  Mr. EDEN: If my hon. Friend will turn to the answer to which I have referred him, he will see the Japanese Government's assurance to us on the general matter clearly set out.

  BRAZIL (BRITISH INVESTORS).
  Mr. WEST RUSSELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will inquire of the Brazilian Government the specific reasons for the
  756
  continued delay in bringing to an agreed settlement the default of the State of Rio de Janeiro in its obligations to British investors who have relied upon the good faith of that State?
  Mr. EDEN: My right hon. Friend understands that the delay in settling this default is due first to the falling off in internal revenues, and second to the great difficulty experienced in securing the sterling exchange required to meet the interest and sinking fund charges on the external loans issued in London. As was stated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey and Otley (Mr. Gibson), on 25th April last, the State of Rio de Janeiro made towards the end of April a deposit of 3,000 contos of milreis, in its own name, with the British Bank of South America, as a currency deposit pending the completion of an arrangement regarding these loans, and my right hon. Friend is informed that since that date further sums have been deposited for the same purpose. While the Federal Government of Brazil have shown themselves helpful in these negotiations, they do not accept responsibility for the debts of the various States, and my right hon. Friend does not consider that an inquiry of the nature proposed would serve any useful purpose.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (UKRAINIAN MINORITY).
  Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action was taken by the Council of the League of Nations at their May session with regard to the petition lodged by Colonel Suszko protesting against the ill-treatment by the Polish authorities of political prisoners of the Ukrainian minority in Poland?
  Mr. EDEN: A committee of three is in process of examining this petition, but has not yet completed its task.

  ANGLO-ARGENTINE TRAMWAY COMPANY.
  Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ascertain from the Argentine Government its attitude towards the investment of British capital in the Anglo-Argentine tramways; and

  757
  will he point out to the Argentine authorities that the treatment of British capital in this company discourages further investment of British capital in public services in Argentina?
  Lord SCONEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now able to make a further statement on the position of the Anglo-Argentine Tramway Company?
  Mr. EDEN: I understand that negotiations are still proceeding between the company and the Argentine authorities, having as their basis the emergency tariff scheme, to which reference was made in the reply given to my Noble Friend the Member for Perth (Lord Scone) on 27th April last. The chairman of the company, the Duke of Atholl, is at present at Buenos Ayres, and is in close touch with His Majesty's Ambassador. I do not consider that in the circumstances further representations of the nature suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle) should at present be made.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: As this is a matter of extreme importance, will my hon. Friend pursue his investigations and endeavour to arrive at a conclusion?
  Mr. EDEN: As the chairman of the company is actually at Buenos Ayres and is in touch with our Ambassador there, I think that we had better wait for the moment for any further developments from there.
  Mr. HANNON: Are we to assume that the Government have instructed our Ambassador at Buenos Ayres to give all necessary assistance to the Duke of Atholl in his negotiations with the Argentine Government?
  Mr. EDEN: Certainly.

  UNITED STATES (BRITISH SUBJECT'S DEATH).
  Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any inquiries have been made from the parents of the late Miss Violet Sharpe, who live at Beenham, Berkshire, for evidence to 'help the investigation being made in America into her death; and whether he will press this matter in the interests of justice?
  The UNDER SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I have been asked to reply to this question. No inquiries have been made from the parents of the late Miss Violet Sharpe. I am, however, informed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that, at the request of the New Jersey State Police, inquiry has been made of Miss Edna Sharpe, a sister of the dead girl, as to her knowledge of the Lindbergh case. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the 15th instant.
  Brigadier-General BROWN: Is my hon. Friend aware that the parents, owing to letters that they have had from their late daughter, are quite convinced that, owing to the methods of investigation that have been pursued, she committed suicide and that they are very anxious in the interests of justice that the whole case should be investigated? Has no investigation been made from the parents themselves?
  Mr. STANLEY: What my hon. and gallant Friend says has not yet been brought to my notice. Now that we have that information, we will certainly consider what we can do.
  Brigadier-General BROWN: May I show my hon. Friend a letter?
  Mr. STANLEY: I shall be pleased to see it.

  CHILE.
  Mr. HANNONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make any further statement on the present situation in Chile in relation to the British interests affected by recent changes in the Government of that country?
  Mr. EDEN: A counter revolutionary movement broke out on the night of 16th June and was successful. The movement was composed of military units of the Santiago garrison, who were joined later by the Air Force, in co-operation with civil elements headed by Senor Davila, a member of the Junta which assumed power on 4th June. A new Junta of three has been formed, including Senor Davila, and the extremist elements in

  759
  the capital and the provinces are being controlled. The Army and Navy have declared their loyalty to the civil administration and their rejection of Communism.
  Mr. HANNON: Does my hon. Friend contemplate recognition of this new form of Government?
  Mr. EDEN: Not at present.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    COTTON INDUSTRY (CANADA).
    Mr. HAMILTON KERRasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his attention has been called to the difficulties which have arisen in the discussions between the representatives of Lancashire textile industries and Canadian traders; and, if so, whether he will suggest that the good offices of his Department might be used to assist these negotiations as a preliminary to the Ottawa Conference?
    Mr. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The Department of Overseas Trade, through His Majesty's Senior Trade Commissioner in Canada, is giving all possible assistance to the discussions which arc now taking place between the representatives of the Lancashire and Canadian cotton textile industries.

    EXCHANGE RESTRICTIONS.
    Captain WATTasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the number of countries that have imposed restrictions on the payment of external commercial debts?
    Mr. COLVILLE: I beg to refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Joel) on 8th June, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Captain WATTasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what the effect has been and is on our trade of the restrictions on payment imposed by the Government of Hungary?
    Mr. COLVILLE: For the period January to March, 1932, imports into Hungary from Great Britain were 42 per cent. less than in the corresponding period of 1931, while exports to Great
    760
    Britain fell by 63 per cent. The corresponding figures for trade with all countries show a reduction in total imports into Hungary of 40 per cent. and in total exports from Hungary of 45 per cent. These marked decreases are due not only to the exchange control, but also to the difficult economic situation in Hungary.

    DENMARK (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).
    Mr. CAPORNasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware of the restrictions placed upon the importation into Denmark of the products of a certain cycle company; and whether any attempt is being made to improve the position in view of the pains the firm have taken to cultivate that market?
    Mr. COLVILLE: I am aware that the Danish Government has restricted the volume of the total imports into Denmark for the period January to August of this year, and I have received a statement from a cycle company of the effects of these restrictions upon their efforts to develop their business in the market. I am now in communication with His Majesty's Legation at Copenhagen on the subject, and I will communicate the results to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. CAPORN: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a very strong feeling among the workers of this country that steps should be taken to obtain a better balance of trade between this country and Denmark?
    Mr. COLVILLE: I am aware of that feeling, and I would point out that in the early months of this year the balance has been improved, and that now, instead of being five to one in favour of Denmark, it is three to one.

    CANADA (SCOTTISH TRADE MISSION SHIP).
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he can make any report of the result of the recent visit of the Scottish trade mission ship to Canada?
    Mr. COLVILLE: The Duke of Mont-rose, who led the mission, reported that it was successful and that everyone was satisfied with the good busines results. This view is shared by His Majesty's Senior Trade Commissioner in Montreal. A number of agency arrangements were concluded, direct sales were effected, and

    761
    a considerable volume of inquiries received. Good publicity was obtained for Scottish manufactures. Some 32,000 persons visited the ship and several thousands were unable to board her owing to considerations of space. I consider that the Anchor Donaldson line, which conceived the idea, deserves much credit for its enterprise.

    EXPORT CREDITS (RUSSIA).
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the total amount repaid on account of credits for exports to Russia from 1st August, 1929, to the 31st May, 1932, and the total amount outstanding at the later date?
    Mr. COLVILLE: The total amount of credits in respect of exports to Russia which the Export Credits Guarantee Department had contracted to guarantee from 1st August, 1929, to 31st May, 1932, was approximately £15,400,000. The maximum liability assumed by the Department under these contracts was £10,000,000 and up to 31st May, 1932, bills for £6,100,000 had run off without any call being made on the Department's guarantee.
    Colonel GRETTON: Can my hon. Friend state the periods of the remaining credits; are any of them for as long a period as 20 months, or are they for less periods?
    Mr. COLVILLE: No credits have been granted by the present Government for longer than 18 months, but there still remain to mature some which were granted before for a longer period. The longest periods granted by the previous Government were 30 months.
    Mr. SMITHERS: Can my hon. Friend say why the continuance of credit is necessary at all, considering the large favourable trade balance which Russia has in this country?
    Mr. COLVILLE: It is impossible immediately to turn over from long credit to immediate cash, but the policy of the present Government is to reduce the period of time, and that is what we are doing.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the amount of the export credits guarantee in relation to the purchase of British
    762
    goods by Russia in each of the years 1929, 1930 and 1931, and the amount of the premiums received by the Government in respect of such guarantees in each of those years?
    Mr. COLVILLE: The amount of the contracts issued by the Export Credits Guarantee Department for credits for exports to Russia during the three financial years 1929, 1930 and 1931 was approximately

    £

    1929

    …

    …

    …

    1,300,000

    1930

    …

    …

    …

    5,000,000

    1931

    …

    …

    …

    8,400,000

    It has never been the practice to give detailed information in regard to premiums for transactions with particular countries, but the Advisory Committee have followed a policy of building up a reserve fund for these risks.

    RUSSIA.
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether there has been any improvement in the balance of trade with Russia during the last six months?
    Mr. COLVILLE: The answer is in the affirmative. For the six months ended 30th April last the visible balance of trade in favour of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics was approximately £4,500,000 as against £14,000,000 in the same period last year.

    MEAT MEAL AND BONE MEAL (IMPORTS).
    Captain ALAN T0DDasked the President of the Board of Trade the amounts of imports into this country from foreign countries and from the British Empire, respectively, of feeding meat meal and 'bone meal for the years ended 1st May, 1930, 1931, and 1932?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARYto the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I regret that information regarding the imports of feeding meat meal and bone meal is not available, as these commodities are not separately recorded in the trade returns of the United Kingdom.

    GERMANY (BRITISH COAL QUOTA).
    Mr. MARTINasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered the communication sent to him from the Mining Association asking the Government to use the Import Duties Act as a

    763
    weapon with which to persuade Germany to remove the restrictions placed on the import of British coal; and whether he is prepared to take action on these lines?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Isaac Foot): My right hon. Friend has been asked to receive a deputation of representatives of colliery owners and coal exporters on this subject, and in his absence I am arranging to receive them. I shall, of course, give careful consideration to any representations that they may make.
    Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Can the hon. Gentleman give us the date?
    Mr. FOOT: I am hoping that it will be during the present week.
    Mr. BATEY: Is that an answer to the question on the Paper?
    Mr. FOOT: The question as to what action should be taken ought to stand over until there has been consultation following upon the interview for which the Mining Association has asked.
    Mr. BATEY: Did not we understand when tariffs were proposed that there would be bargaining? Have they been used for that purpose?
    Mr. FOOT: What was understood during the Debate on the question of bargaining depended on the outlook of each individual Member.
    Mr. LAWSON: Can we have a guarantee that this question is going to be treated as matter of first-rate importance by the Government? Do the Government really understand the terrible position in the North of England as a result of this?
    Mr. FOOT: No one is better acquainted with the distress in the North-East of England than those in the Mines Department.
    Mr. LAWSON: In that case, how does the Secretary for Mines explain the somnolent condition of the Government in respect to this matter?

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    OVERSEAS TRADE DEPARTMENT (STAFF).
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department
    764
    the total numbers of the staff employed at the Overseas Trade Department in the year 1931, and the total amount of their salaries?
    Mr. COLVILLE: The peak number in 1931 was 479. The number employed continuously throughout the year was 449, and the total amount paid in salaries was £147,501. This sum, however, includes £6,273 in relation to staff of the British Industries Fair, which amount is recoverable from Fair funds.
    Colonel GRETTON: Can my hon. Friend say whether the Overseas Trade Department employs any staff abroad; and are they included in this statement?
    Mr. COLVILLE: No, Sir. The figures I have given are for the staff employed in this country. There is an overseas staff, too, but I think that the question of my hon. Friend relates to staff employed by the Overseas Trade Department for this country.
    Colonel GRETTON: May I put down another question?
    Mr. COLVILLE: I shall be very glad to give my hon. and gallant Friend the information.
    Captain ALEXANDER RAMSAY: Is my hon. Friend aware that the services rendered by the Overseas Trade Department are held in the very highest regard by industry and commerce in Europe?

    MINISTRY OF HEALTH (KETTJRNS).
    Sir PERCY HURDasked the Minister of Health, for the year 1913 and the latest available year, respectively, the number of forms sent by his Ministry to local authorities for the purposes of returns, and, approximately, the staff employed in dealing with these forms and returns?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): The number of forms sent to local authorities for the purposes of returns was approximately 38 in 1913, and 47 in 1931. My right hon. Friend regrets that it is not practicable to give even an approximate figure of the number of staff specifically engaged on these returns, as they are dealt with in the various divisions of the Ministry in conjunction with other work.
    Sir P. HURD: Can the hon. Member tell me what becomes of this mass of material that comes in from all over the country?
    Mr. BROWN: A good deal of it is used in order to supply answers to questions put by Members of Parliament.
    Sir P. HURD: Is that felt to be wholly in the public interest?
    Mr. BROWN: Hon. Members must be the best judges of that.

  AGRICULTURE.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Mr. LIDDALLasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is now able to state the Government's policy for dealing with pigs, meat, barley, and oats?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): I would refer my hon. Friend to the announcement I made in the House on 11th February last, and to subsequent statements with regard to the Government's agricultural policy, to which I am not at present in a position to add.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is not my right hon. Friend aware of the serious condition of the meat trade and pig trade; that breeding sows are being killed off wholesale; that while the raw material is taxed, the finished article— bacon—comes in free; and will he not take some immediate action?

    IMPORTED RUSSIAN POULTRY.
    Mr. REMERasked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been called to the continued importation of chickens from Russia which are being sold wholesale at 5d. a pound; if he is aware of the injury caused to the British poultry keepers; if he has ascertained whether these cheap wholesale prices have been passed on to the consumer by the retailers; and if he will represent those facts to the Import Duties Advisory Committee for their consideration?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Imports of poultry from Russia in recent weeks have been on a greatly reduced scale and have been much smaller than for the corresponding period last year. My information is to the effect that the bulk of these imports consist of hens; that the average whole sale price is in excess of that quoted by
    766
    my hon. Friend, and that they are purchased mainly by hotels and caterers. While I do not propose to take the steps suggested in the last part of the question, the situation will be closely watched.
    Mr. SMITHERS: Why is it necessary to have any imports of poultry at all from Russia?

    CEEEAL PRICES.
    Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Minister of Agriculture the present prices of wheat, barley, and oats paid to farmers in the United States of America and the prices paid to Canadian farmers for the same cereals?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The estimated prices received by producers in the United States for wheat, barley, and oats in April last, the latest month for which this information is available, were 43.1 cents, 37.1 cents, and 22.8 cents per bushel, respectively. At the rate of exchange then current these prices would be equivalent to 4s. 3d., 4s. 7d., and 4s. 3d. per cwt., respectively. I regret that I have no comparable figures in respect of Canada.

    BARLEY (IMPOST DUTY).
    Mr. R. W. SMITHasked the Minister of Agriculture what machinery is being used to ensure that the 10 per cent. duty on barley falls with greater severity on the brewing and malting quality than upon the feeding portion of barley?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The 10 per cent. duty on foreign barley automatically results in the collection of a larger amount of duty on higher priced barleys, which for the most part are used for brewing and malting. On the other hand, barley from Empire sources which is largely of feeding quality is admitted free of duty.

    MUSK RATS, SURREY.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Minister of Agriculture the result of the inquiry by the Ministry of Agriculture as to the existence of musk rats in Surrey?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The presence of musk rats has been definitely established at Wonersh Park, near Guildford, and one animal has been found and shot. An officer of the Ministry visited the locality last week and the owner of the property is co-operating in an endeavour to exterminate the animals.

  POST OFFICE.

    PARCELS POST.
    Mr. HALESasked the Postmaster General whether he is aware that certain parcels containing liquid gold, posted in Germany, have taken from 15 to 18 days in reaching their destination in North Staffordshire; and whether he will take steps to discover the reason of the delay and arrange for a quicker delivery in future of such parcels?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): If the hon. Member will be good enough to give me further particulars of the parcels, including the name and address of the recipient and the approximate date of arrival, I shall be pleased to look into the matter.

    TELEPHONE FACILITIES (MEMBEES OF PARLIAMENT).
    Mr. HUTCHISONasked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider allowing Members of Parliament the free use of the telephone for six minutes on each weekday when the House is sitting, so that they communicate direct with their agents at specified numbers with the object of facilitating the transaction of their Parliamentary duties?
    Sir K. WOOD: I regret that I can see no sufficient justification for acceding to my hon. Friend's suggestion which, presumably, he proposes should be effected at the expense of the telephone service.

    TELEPHONE KIOSKS (THEFTS).
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Postmaster-General the amount of money stolen from telephone kiosks during the last six months; the number of boxes pillaged; and the number of convictions during this period or to the latest available date?
    Sir K. WOOD: I regret that the information asked for in the first two parts of the question cannot be given for the country as a whole. Figures, however, which are available, indicate that nearly £1,300 was stolen from about 700 boxes in London and the neighbourhood during the six months November, 1931—April, 1932. Nine convictions have been obtained since 1st January, and seven persons charged with offences of this character are now before the courts.
    Mr. McENTEE: Is the Post Office taking steps to introduce anything of a. mechanical nature to prevent this?
    Sir K. WOOD: Certain steps are being taken, but a number of these offences arise through the destruction of the receptacles by crowbars and implements of that kind. Therefore I am afraid that the hon. Member's suggestion would not be very helpful.

  LIGHTHOUSES AND LIGHTSHIPS.
  Mr. DAVID ADAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider taking steps to co-ordinate into one service the services administered by the Northern Lights Commissioners, the Irish Lights Commissioners, and the Trinity House in so far as lighthouses and lightships are concerned?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This proposal was considered in 1908 by the Royal Commission on Lighthouse Administration, which reported against it. The grounds of that opinion have not been invalidated by the experience gained since that date.

  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, MILNROW AND ROCHDALE.
  Mr. SUTCLIFFEasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that numbers of operatives in the Milnrow and Rochdale area who went to sign on at the Employment Exchange on Tuesday, 24th May, after the Whitsuntide holiday, were informed that the Exchange had been open on the previous day, which resulted in a new qualifying period being in many cases necessary; and whether, in view of the fact that no public notification of such opening had been given, he will cause an investigation to be made?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The facts are as stated in the first part of my hon. Friend's question. The practice followed that of previous years. Posters instructing applicants for benefit to attend on Monday, 23rd May, were prominently displayed in the waiting rooms and windows of the Exchange for some time previously, and were acted upon by large numbers of claimants. The Court of Referees decided that there was no reasonable excuse for the failure to attend on 23rd May, and therefore refused to ante-date the claims in question.

  KENYA (LORD MOYNE'S REPORT).
  Captain CAZALETasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the report recently made by Lord Moyne will be published?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Robert Hamilton): Arrangements have been made for the report to be published simultaneously in this country and in Kenya on Friday, 24th June.

  COLONIAL GOVERNORS' CONFERENCE.
  Captain CAZALETasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information as regards the recent Governors' Conference at Dar-es-Salaam; and what arrangements have been made for setting up a permanent secretariat for Governors' Conferences in the future?
  Sir R. HAMILTON: The conclusions of the conference have now been received and are under consideration, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies is not yet in a position to make any statement with regard to them.

  CANADA (UNOCCUPIED FARMS).
  Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he has any information as to the number of unoccupied farms in Canada arising from the continued depression?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I regret that the information is not available in my Department.

  BRITISH ARMY (CEREBRO-SPINAL FEVER).
  Mr. GROVESasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the two men in the second battalion Scots Guards at Aldershot, who recently died of spotted fever, were originally diagnosed as suffering from that disease or from smallpox?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The cases were diagnosed as cerebrospinal fever from the beginning of the illness.

  ECONOMIC SITUATION (PRIVATE EXPENDITURE).
  Mr. REMERasked the Prime Minister if he will initiate a national campaign to emphasise the injury caused to the State by unnecessary private economy by private individuals; and if he will take steps to make it widely known that it is the duty of everyone to find work for the unemployed out of their private resources wherever possible and that such employment, by reducing unemployment insurance, reduces expenditure and makes it possible to reduce taxation?
  The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I do not think that the occasion has arisen for a national campaign on this subject. I am glad, however, of an opportunity to reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has stated, that it is the imperative duty of private citizens and employers to maintain, so far as is possible, the ordinary employment which they give to labour, and that wise and courageous expenditure by private citizens where their incomes will bear it should be regarded by them as an obligation which they must not avoid.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE (SPECIAL CONSTABLES, INSTRUCTION).
  Mr. GROVESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that members of the A Division Metropolitan Police are expected to instruct on beat members of the special constabulary, and that this instruction is confined to the ordinary duties of a constable and not emergency; whether such orders and duties meet with his approval; and whether, as special constables are only to be utilised for emergency duties, he will issue instructions that police constables are not compelled to instruct specials in the ordinary routine?
  Mr. STANLEY: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend in the Debate on the Police Vote. A limited number of special constables are being given an opportunity of learning something of ordinary police duty so that in emergency they may be able to do some of the work of the regular police if the main body of the force has to be employed elsewhere on more important duties.

  TRANSPORT.

    ROAD ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Minister of Transport what statistics his Department keeps of the causes of road accidents?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): Returns as to the causes of road accidents throughout the country are made by chief officers of police to the Home Office. In the London Traffic Area, under the London Traffic Act, 1924, the Coroner notifies me if it is alleged that a fatal accident was due to the condition of the road or a mechanical defect in the vehicle. Further, in the case of serious accidents throughout the country, which are reported in the Press and which appear to be due to one or other of the causes mentioned above, my Department obtains such particulars as are available. The results of these inquiries are published in the Annual Report of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee and the Annual Report on the Administration of the Road Fund.

    TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS, SCOTLAND (STAFF).
    Lord SCONEasked the Minister of Transport details of the staff under the direction of the traffic commissioners for Scotland (Northern area)?
    Mr. PYBUS: The staff employed under the traffic commissioners for the Northern Scotland area consists of: one clerk to the commissioners, 13 clerical assistants, five typists, two cleaners. There are also employed in the area one certifying officer and seven public service vehicle examiners.
    Mr. R. W. SMITH: Is it likely that the staff will be reduced, or does the hon. Gentleman expect to retain the same number?
    Mr. PYBUS: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the Noble Lord on 16th March.

    WATERLOO BRIDGE.
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Minister of Transport if he can make any statement on the negotiations with the London County Council about Waterloo Bridge?
    Mr. PYBUS: Discussions are taking place between the Government and the
    772
    London County Council, but have not reached a stage at which I could usefully make any statement.
    Mr. McENTEE: Can the Minister of Transport say when he is likely to be able to make a statement?
    Mr. PYBUS: I can add nothing to the answer I have given.

    RAILWAY ACCIDENT, GREAT BRIDGEFORD.
    Mr. HANNON(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Transport whether he can make a statement on the accident to a train travelling from Crewe to Birmingham which took place on the London, Midland and Scottish Railway at Great Bridgeford on Friday night in which one Birmingham citizen lost his life and several were seriously injured?
    Mr. PYBUS: I am not in a position to make any statement with regard to this regrettable accident, except that I have appointed the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways to hold an inquiry into the circumstances and to report thereon.
    Mr. HANNON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the inquiry will take place?
    Mr. PYBUS: It is to be opened on Wednesday next.

  LITIGATION (COSTS).
  Mr. McENTEEasked the Attorney- General,, in view of the demand for cheaper law, the reason for the retention of the War-time impost of 33⅓ per cent. addition to solicitors' bills of costs?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE (Lord of the Treasury): The matter to which the hon. Member refers is being investigated by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. At present I am not in a position to say more than that.

  ST. MARY'S SHIPPING COMPANY, CARDIFF.
  Mr. GROVESasked the President of the Board of Trade under what powers an order was made on 19th December, 1927, to examine the affairs and trading accounts of the St. Mary's Shipping Company, Cardiff; who was the inspector appointed by his Department to carry out the investigations: and when the report was delivered to the parties concerned?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The order to which the hon. Member refers was made by virtue of the powers conferred upon the Board of Trade by section 109 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908. The inspector appointed was Mr. Gilbert D. Shepherd, F.C.A., of Cardiff, and his report was forwarded to the applicants and to the company on 1st June, 1928.
  Mr. GROVES: Has the hon. Member read the report? If not, will he do so if the report contains matters of vital importance?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is not one of my statutory duties to peruse this report.
  Mr. GROVES: Will the hon. Member do so?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It would not be a pleasure.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE (FOREIGN OFFICERS, TRAINING).
  Mr. D. GRENFELL(for Mr. PRICE) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of foreign officers receiving training with the Royal Air Force and the estimated income from fees; and whether the income covers the whole cost of the training?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): Eight such officers are receiving training. The amount taken in the current Air Estimates for receipts in respect of foreign officers is £6,500, and for all officers other than those of the Royal Air Force itself £20,700. The standard fees for such training are fixed so as to cover the whole of the extra expenditure incurred; in approved cases, however, the charge is confined to the cost of maintenance of the officers.
  Lieut.-Colonel MacANDREW: May I ask whether our officers are trained in the same way?
  Sir P. SASSOON: It is the same training.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ATTLEE: Will the Lord President of the Council tell us the purpose for which the Motion suspending the Eleven o'clock Rule to-night is to be moved, and
774
whether he intends to sit late on the Hire Purchase and Small Debt (Scotland) Bill?
Mr. BALDWIN: The Motion to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule is put down in order to secure the Report stage of the Hire Purchase and Small Debt (Scotland) Bill, and as this is the second day on which we shall discuss the Estimates of the Ministry of Transport, and also bearing in mind the fact that the speed limit has been removed from the roads, I hope it will be possible to get all the business.
Ordered:
"That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken this day, before Eleven of the clock, and that the Proceedings on the Hire Purchase and Small Debt (Scotland) Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
STANDING COMMITTEE C.
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Mr. Conant, Mr. Llewellyn-Jones, and Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Boyce, Mr. Lewis Jones, and Mr. Lennox-Boyd.
Report to lie upon the Table.

ESTIMATES.
Second 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.
  [14TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1932.

  SUPPLY.
    CLASS VI.

      MINISTEY OF TRANSPORT.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £45,964, 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 Ministry of Transport, under the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919; Expenses of the Railway Rates Tribunal under the Railways Act, 1921; Expenses under the London Traffic Act, 1924; Expenses in respect of Advances under the Light Railways Act, 1896; Expenses of maintaining Holyhead Harbour; Advances to meet Deficit in Rams-gate Harbour Fund; Advances to Caledonian and Crinan Canals; and for Expenditure in connection with the Severn Barrage Investigation."—[Note.—£60,000 has been voted on account.]
      Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
      The Lord President of the Council, a few moments ago, indicated that, because the speed limit had been removed off the roads, the discussion on the Ministry of Transport Vote would occupy but a comparatively short time this evening. Apparently he has forgotten that the speed limit has not been removed from the Ministry of Transport because a perusal of the record of the Ministry during the last six months indicates that they must be working under some superimposed restriction as to the velocity with which they are to work, and this has militated substantially against the Minister being able to present a record of achievement while he has been in office. In suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman has nothing very satisfactory to record in respect of his Department I apply to him the same test which the right hon. Gentleman himself applied to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, Miss Susan Lawrence, in the late Labour
      780
      Government. If the Minister of Transport will substitute the word "transport" for that of "housing" in the following passage and apply it to himself, he will feel that it is remarkably appropriate. Addressing Miss Susan Lawrence in respect of the record of the Ministry of Health which he was then discussing, the present Minister of Transport said:
      "I am bound to say one does feel that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Treasury Bench as a whole show a certain amount of complacency regarding the housing problem, as though it were made by the Almighty and entirely incurable. As far as I can gather, it is a form of original sin! These backward boroughs are incurable. The facts are that there are hundreds of thousands of building workers out of employment and hundreds of thousands of people who require houses. Then why is it that work cannot be put in hand? Why are the boroughs so reluctant to proceed? Is it through any lack of advocacy on the part of the Ministry, through, any lack of explanation of the terms on which housing schemes can be carried out? If we find somebody who wants something very much and somebody else who is offering to provide it, but it is not accepted, then one is driven to the conclusion that there is something wrong with the offer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 80th June, 1930; col. 1670, Vol. 240.]
      When he has substituted the word "transport" for the word "housing" in that passage, he will find that it applies with remarkable accuracy to his own record at the Ministry of Transport. I am not saying this unkindly to the right hon. Gentleman, because he, like other Ministers, is called upon to improvise a Government policy, and as the Minister in charge I am quite sure that he is prepared to justify and defend the policy of the Government.
      I want to ask a number of questions in regard to the Estimates, and I will do so very briefly. I am sure that the Minister of Transport will agree that his address to the House on this Vote some weeks ago was extremely short and somewhat inadequate considering the importance of the problems with which the Department has to deal. It was somewhat cursory in character and did not, therefore, adequately deal with some important points covered in the Estimates. I am interested, as a representative of a Welsh constituency, in the present position of the Severn Barrage investigation, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell me what is the present posi-

      781
      tion in regard to this matter. It is a highly important inquiry from the point of view of shortening the route, the lines of communication, between the vast industrial area of South Wales and the West of England. I am sure the Minister will understand that in my part of the country a very lively interest is taken in this proposal because of its potential value to the people of that area, as affording a means for the better exchange of commodities and goods.
      3.30 p.m.
      There is another matter to which I wish to direct the hon. Gentleman's attention and which I do not think was discussed in any detail when this Vote was last before us. Can he give us some idea of the policy of the Government on the very difficult, complex and perplexing problem of the respective merits of road and rail transport? I am sure that is a matter which has been very present to the hon. Gentleman's mind during his occupancy of his present office and it is becoming increasingly important. Scarcely a meeting of railway magnates passes nowadays without a wail of despair arising from those who are in charge of railway policy concerning the incursions of road transport into what they regard as the special preserves of rail transport. I am not attributing blame to either side. Far be it from me to do so, but I am sure that every Member of the Committee will agree that this is a matter on which we ought to be vouchsafed some little information, particularly concerning the mental approach of the Government to the problem.
      Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would also be good enough as to give us some idea of what measure of progress is being made by the Transport Commissioners in the work which they have undertaken. Obviously we know that some progress has been achieved but we should like to know to what degree the Commissioners have been able to get on with their task of investigating appeals and the coordination of transport throughout the country. As an adjunct to that question I should like to ask the Minister also what he has to say regarding the complaints which we have heard to the effect that there is a tendency to drive the smaller transport concerns off the roads in favour of the larger and financially stronger concerns. Such complaints have been made in the House of
      782
      Commons from time to time, and it is felt that some of those complaints are well-grounded. Doubtless there is something to be said in this case in favour of strengthening those who are already strong, rather than bolstering up the weak. On the other hand the facilities-for earning a livelihood nowadays for many people are limited and if a man has embarked on the undertaking of providing a means of transport in a given area it seems a little unjust—it certainly will seem so to him—if he is pushed off the road to make way for a more powerful competitor. We should be glad to know what is the experience of the Minister in regard to that question.
      We are discussing this Vote to-day in the presence of a problem which is still extremely difficult—I would almost say is becoming increasingly difficult— namely, the problem of unemployment. In connection with this matter I am not blaming the hon. Gentleman personally. In what I have to say I am speaking of him as the exponent of the Government's policy and the head of this particular Department. I am quite convinced that the policy which is being followed by his Department as well as by other Departments of the Government, of economy for economy's sake, is not only inimical to the interests of individual workmen but in the long run will prove to be uneconomical from the point of view of the community at large. It is almost a truism to say that there is a form of spending which is saving and a form of saving which is spending. I venture the opinion for what it is worth that the economy upon which the Ministry of Transport has embarked in connection with some of its activities, is economy of the second order. It is saving which is really, in the worst sense, spending the resources of the nation.
      In the June number of the Ministry of Labour Gazette, which hon. Members of the Committee doubtless have had during the week-end, there will be found on page 226 a table under the general heading "Poor-relief in May, 1932." Under that heading is the record, which is given month by month, of the condition of affairs in 47 boroughs throughout the country. The singular fact which one is bound to observe in connection with that record is that the number of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief on a given date in May, 1932, shows

      783
      a substantial increase upon the number of people in a similar category in May, 1931. That is to say, that there has been a substantial increase in the number of insurable people who have been driven from dependence upon another form of public support on to the public assistance committees. I said a moment ago that in my judgment the Ministry's policy of positive economy was of the sort in which there was an apparent saving, but, in fact, a spending. What do these figures disclose? They disclose the fact that, as a direct consequence of this fetish of merely saving money, and of being able to record to the House of Commons from time to time that national expenditure has been reduced by a given sum, we have driven people on to the resources of the localities through the medium of the public assistance committees. That is not economy at all.
      Take the question of roads. Almost a generation ago, Parliament, visualising the new development in transport, established financial resources whereby road transport was to be facilitated. Expenditure was to be made from those resources upon the roads, north, south, east and west, in our land. There was not a very heavy burden falling upon the resources for a considerable time, on account of the interruption by the War. Therefore, when the War ended, there was a substantial sum of money available out of this pool provided in 1909 whereby road transport could be facilitated on a national scale. But in 1920 we came face to face with this great problem of unemployment, and from then on Government after Government have been driven, willy nilly, to make some sort of provision to help the unemployed, morally as well as financially, by reason of the fact that the more occupation we can give to idle hands, the less the deterioration in the morale of the individuals that inevitably takes place. For years, therefore, Government after Government have tried to provide means to provide for these various road developments.
      That provision has been made on a substantial scale, I will admit. It is no part of my argument to deny that very substantial sums of money have been spent upon this form of provision for the sake of our road transport development, but we are now face to face with a policy
      784
      which is followed by the Ministry and defended by them, as I understand it, on the ground that the resources to which I have referred have now not only been dried up, but have also been mortgaged, as it were, and on that account, to prevent an increase in this indebtedness, the Government have embarked upon a policy of reversing the engines. I submit that that is a most unjust proceeding. It is unjust to localities themselves, and in the long run it will prove to be uneconomical from the point of view of the State as a whole. I can very well understand individuals living in areas where the roads are what they ought to be and where all possible road development has been completed coming to the conclusion that this kind of effort should be slowed down, but some of us belong to areas where, however great may have been the expenditure in the past, they are still acutely conscious of the fact that there is still great need for development in those areas, and they are areas that are suffering most acutely from this grave industrial depression. Take my own particular area as a case in point. I am not complaining that my area has not had its fair "look-in," if I may use the expression, with other areas in different parts of the country.
      Mr. MACPHERSON: My constituency has not.
      Mr. JONES: That is the first time Scotland has ever suffered in comparison with England. Here is a condition of affairs where there is only one industry, the coal mining industry, where depression increases daily its tragic hold upon the neighbourhood, where therefore tens of thousands of men, taking the county of Glamorgan as a whole, are unemployed, and unemployed in this condition, that the industry whereby they have normally earned their livelihood is condemned for a considerable time, if not for ever, not to be able to reabsorb all these thousands of men. Do the Government contemplate allowing these thousands of men, all active, virile people, splendid citizens in every sense, to remain out for the rest of their natural lives, without anything at all to do? Has the Minister of Transport come to regard this as an act on the part of the Almighty? He accused Miss Susan Lawrence as having regarded the housing problem as an act on the part of the

      785
      Almighty. Has that conviction reached his constituency now? He said then, "Is this housing problem a sort of indication of original sin"? Is this unemployment problem in my part of the country also an indication of original sin in his view nowadays?
      What is the view of the Government? What are the Government going to do? Surely they cannot contemplate sitting supinely there, ineptly doing nothing at all, allowing these men to deteriorate in morale and physique, becoming a danger to themselves and to the community in which they live. It seems to me that if there is a case at all for the expenditure of public money upon anything- as a temporary expedient to relieve unemployment, surely the case is above all manifest in connection with road development. I do not say—I have no technical ground upon which to express an opinion upon the matter—that these people who have followed some other line of avocation would be the best type of worker in normal times to apply to this particular kind of job, but I am sure of this, that, whether they be efficient or inefficient, it is far better for the community that they should be doing this job than doing no job at all. Not only so, but it is not entirely a loss. In the days when the hon. Member opposite was sitting here, not 12 months ago, he was associated with a party which was demanding the expenditure of £250,000,000, I believe it was, upon road development, and the figure tripped off their tongues as lightly and easily as saying "knife." But surely it is in the highest degree desirable and defensible that some money should be spent, and that greater expenditure should be embarked upon in connection with roads than is now being adumbrated by this Vote, because in the long run none of it is lost.
      If we spent £20,000,000 upon roads this year it may be hard for us to find the money, but we shall not lose it. We shall have something to show for it. What have we to show for the expenditure of money on the unemployed? While we spend tens of thousands of pounds per week in unemployment benefit and transitional payments, what have we to show? Nothing at all, except that we who live in the distressed areas can show the obvious signs of physical and other types of deterioration. That is where this
      786
      policy is, in the long run, hopelessly uneconomic from the standpoint of society. I think therefore that the policy upon which the Government have embarked is ill-conceived. It is not in the truest sense even economy, nor, in point of fact, is it true to say that there is no actual financial return from the expenditure upon road development. Let me give a simple fact. It is unchallengeable that in 1929, 9,000,000 tons of quarried material for road development was carried upon our railways. That enabled the railway concerns in that year to present a balance sheet that would otherwise have been more unfavourable than it was. Moreover, the production of that material directly and indirectly created employment. I, therefore, beg the hon. Gentleman to call a halt in this fatal policy of merely saving for savings sake.
      I can cite the views of an individual who is not associated with us politically, and who is acquainted with the day-to-day problem of road development. Mr. Rees Jefferies, Chairman of the road Improvement Association, said in December last —that is, within three months of the hon. Gentleman taking office—that the records of his association showed that over £20,000,000 worth of road work, which had been sanctioned by the Ministry of Transport, the finance for which had been arranged, had been stopped. In addition, the local authorities, in their zeal for economy, had held up work of repair and maintenance. The hon. Gentleman, no doubt, listened with care to the pronouncement of the Lord President of the Council this afternoon concerning economy. The hon. Member for Maccles-field (Mr. Remer) asked the views of the Government about private economy, that is to say, the habit upon which individuals have embarked of cutting down expenditure here, there and everywhere. The Lord President of the Council administered a well-phrased and well-conceived rebuke to those ill-advised individuals who, in the belief that the mere cutting down of expenditure is economy, have involved large numbers of workmen in loss of employment. If the pronouncement of the Lord President of the Council meant anything at all, it was an appeal to individual employers to avoid wherever they could the shutting down of work or the cutting down of expenditure because of the inevitable adverse consequences upon social conditions.

      787
      What right had the Lord President of the Council to administer a rebuke of that sort to private employers when the Government themselves are worse offenders than anybody in this matter I Not only have the Government been guilty of it, but they have compelled local authorities to embark upon a similar procedure. What sort of consistency can be attached to the Government who ask individual people to spend wherever possible, while they themselves are embarking upon a policy of restriction far beyond the defensible limits of economy? The cutting down of expenditure upon road development, while of course it enables the Government to show in their balance sheet a saving of £20,000,000 or £30,000,000, means that in the end, in three or four or five years hence, they may find the policy of cutting down to-day will involve them in the re-establishment of a similar degree of expenditure, and even in a greater measure of expenditure than they might otherwise be called upon to face.
      Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman has said that nothing is lost in the expenditure upon roads. Suppose a road is built and the commodity prices of materials fall by 50 per cent. two years afterwards and never regain their former level; is not that amount of capital expenditure on the roads irretrievably lost?
      Mr. JONES: It may be true in the case that the hon. and gallant Gentleman mentions, but I thought that our trouble now was that the cost of commodities was at an extremely low level.
      Captain BALFOUR: It may go lower.
      4.0 p.m.
      Mr. JONES: Let us hope not. I thought that the policy of the Government was to raise prices. Not only are materials at a very low price level, but there is also this consideration: If you have to borrow for this expenditure today, you do so at a time when money is cheap, and financial conditions are favourable. You can borrow money today at a much cheaper rate than for a very long time past. Therefore, again, it seems to me to be wise economy to spend now when money is cheap rather than later when money will be dearer. Moreover, it is indeed a grave injustice to
      788
      local authorities to hamper them at the present time in this development, seeing that money is so cheap. I know what dear money can mean to local authorities. I remember being associated with a local authority before the War and before I came to this House. We had to embark on an expenditure of about £500,000 for waterworks. That scheme was stopped on account of War restrictions. When the War was over we had to spend nearly £2,000,000 for the same waterworks, and we had to borrow at the rate of about 7 per cent. That burden was a very substantial sum falling upon that neighbourhood, and it has to be borne to this very hour. If we were now able to embark on schemes of social development we would be able to embark upon them at a time when borrowing would be much easier than it has been for some years past. I feel that the policy of the Government, justifiable as it may be, in regard to other Departments—I am not arguing that at all—is least justifiable in this Department, because whether we are "railites" or "roadites" we cannot be blind to the fact that for another generation at any rate the development of transport on the roads is going to increase year by year. If our motor manufacturers are to be stimulated to cheapen their products so as to make them available to a greater number of people, and if they succeed in that policy, clearly our roads are going to become more and more crowded than they are even now. It seems to me that we really ought to reconsider the merits of this policy of further road development.
      We have been told in the report of the May Committee that the Road Fund has come to be regarded by successive Governments as a convenient means of financing grandiose projects without the inconvenience of obtaining Parliamentary approval. I hope I am a fairly good House of Commons man. I am fully alive to the necessity for safeguarding control by this House over all expenditure. But I take leave to question whether there is still not ample ground for the Ministry of Transport to visualise the future development of road transport, and to prepare for it by way of well-considered programmes in advance, rather than to depend upon a year-to-year provision as it were. I do not accept the dictum of the May Committee that grandiose schemes have been embarked upon. I

      789
      imagine that the people who use the roads of this country, of whom I am not normally one, must feel that the money that has been spent in the last decade or so on road development has been money well spent on the whole. The roads may offend our aesthetic taste in this respect or that, but what is that compared with the social advantage which this great road development has brought to the community at large?
      For my part I take the view that it is false economy to cut down road development expenditure; secondly, that the consequential effect of this false economy is to impose an unjust burden upon local authorities, very hard put to it already to meet the necessities of their more distressed citizens. In areas like my own in particular, when 100 or 500 or 1,000 extra people fall upon Poor Law relief funds of the neighbourhood, it means a very terrible burden indeed upon the local rates, and that burden is not borne by industry, for industry has been relieved of three-quarters of its rates, but is borne mainly by business men and individual ratepayers in the neighbourhood. On these grounds, therefore, on the ground that the Ministry has failed to look after the best interests of the nation as a whole, and has embarked upon a policy of false economy and is acting in a way that is detrimental to the best interests of local authorities, I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
      Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I rise to make a few brief remarks on the speech to which we have just listened. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) has advanced his contention. He was not foolish enough to advance it on the ground simply that if we built a larger number of roads we should employ more people. He realises that that argument by itself is absurd, that it would justify the blowing up of the existing roads and the laying of them afresh. Therefore he has argued his case on the basis that nothing can be lost at the present moment in a great programme of road development, and that that is above all things a capital asset which our country wants at the moment.
      Mr. MORGAN JONES: I was wondering whether the Noble Lord should have used the expression "above all things."
      Lord E. PERCY: At any rate the hon. Member thinks it is a capital asset which
      790
      is among the most important that this country requires. The hon. Member's speech is proof that the Socialist policy of the future will be no more carefully planned than the private enterprise development of the past. His speech was exactly what any madcap railway developer in the United States or in Canada, in the heyday of railway speculation 50, 60 or V0 years ago, might have said. At that time it was thought impossible to build too many railways in the United States. It was thought impossible to build too many trans-Continental railways in Canada. It was said that Canada could build three trans-Continental railways very well indeed, and that the great future development of Canada would easily carry the capital charges involved in those three railways. That was pure madcap, speculative, private enterprise. Here we have the hon. Member speaking in the name of national planning, going bald-headed for roads in precisely the same way.
      What is the truth? It was necessary for the economic development of this country after the War, that we should have a great scheme of arterial through roads. We have spent a great deal of money on making those arterial roads, but probably it has been worth while. But within all that justifiable development we have been squandering money by the carload on Toads which have fulfilled no purpose but to facilitate the joy-riding of the upper and upper-middle classes. The hon. Member referred to his own district. How much, through traffic that is in the economic interest of this nation has passed over that great road between the main Rhondda and Afon Valleys. Has that paid for itself? Is it likely within any foreseeable future to pay for itself? Has it even contributed considerably to the amenities of the miners there, as it was intended to do?
      Mr. MORGAN JONES: If the Noble Lord had lived in the area instead of having merely passed through it he would know that the second question is easily answered in the affirmative. As to his first question, surely he would not be so unfair as to expect economic returns from that road in a time of grave industrial depression in South Wales.
      Lord E. PERCY: In other words, the road might have been justifiable when there was no longer economic depression,

      791
      but the capital expenditure has been undertaken at the very moment of economic depression. It has been undertaken and loaded on the country at a moment when the whole nation was on the verge of a precipice of economic depression, and the hon. Member in effect justifies it by saying, "Well, when times are better, when the mining industry in these valleys is as prosperous as it used to be, the expenditure will bring a return." The hon. Member took a part in the setting up of a committee to consider the future needs of South Wales, in view of the inevitably permanent decline in its heavy industries. Does he really think that there is going to be a revival in those areas sufficient to justify that expenditure?
      Mr. MORGAN JONES: I hope so.
      Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member hopes. It was "hopes" that made three trans-Continental railways in Canada. What we want is belief and planning, not hope, from the Socialist party. Are we going to spend money on more hopes? I have given an instance which is prima facie far more justifiable than a great part of the road work which has been going on throughout the counties during the last few years. It is charged against the Government that at the present moment they ought to spend very much more on roads. That argument has been advanced by the hon. Member on no ground except that wherever money is spent on roads it must be good expenditure. On the contrary, I ask the Government to recognise that since the War the expenditure from the Road Fund has been wholly beyond both the capacity and the needs of the country. The time has come when we must plan arterial through-development suited to our economic needs, but must ruthlessly abandon, or at any rate postpone, all other read development.
      Mr. SIMMONDS: I wish to say a few words on this Vote from the point of view of economy and of safety. The Vote is for only £105,964, but if we look at this matter from the beginning to the end we see that in fact a very much larger sum is involved when we discuss the Ministry of Transport. There is, first of all, the self-balancing expenditure, amounting in the current financial year to no less than £22,910,000, advances to
      792
      the Road Fund £2,750,000 and the total expenditure under this Vote of £500,000, making altogether a sum of more than £26,000,000. Although the way in which these accounts are presented to us may be perfect from an accountancy point of view, I think that a certain Parliamentary camouflage ever since the War has led this House to spend a great deal more than it otherwise would have done. Even this £26,000,000 is not all, for the Ministry of Transport, which was born in the immoral period just after the War, when the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was politically cohabiting with all and sundry, has turned out to be one of the worst seducers in our public life, and, together with the Ministry of Health and the Board of Education, has very definitely ravaged the financial chastity of the local authorities. It has done it to a degree which makes the little affair which some bright young Romans had with the Sabine women a comparatively innocent episode.
      Under this seductive procedure, whereby the Government pay £60 for every £40 which the local authorities themselves find, it is quite conceivable that the £26,000,000 I have mentioned may drag in with it yet another £17,000,000 from the local authorities, and so, in effect, we are discussing this afternoon an expenditure of anything between £30,000,000 and £40,000,000 of public money, as large as the Army Vote and twice as much as the Vote for the Royal Air Force. Let us see how this 60–40 plan works. A local authority thinks it requires a new bridge or a by-pass road. Plans are got out, and the architect indicates that one particular plan, costing a little more, certainly, would be so much preferable for the general amenities of the neighbourhood. Possibly the chairman of the local authority feels that during his year of office this addition to the local amenities would be a very great thing from his personal point of view. So the expense gradually creeps up, until we have the grandiose schemes to which the Noble Lord has referred in his very able speceh. But what do the apologists say for this system? They say, "Never mind what the local authorities do. The Ministry of Transport scrutinises carefully every scheme submitted to it." Let us see how this scrutiny works. I thought

      793
      we had a very good example the other night when we were discussing Waterloo Bridge on the London County Council Bill. Did the Minister of Transport say on that occasion, "My experts have looked into this matter from this angle and from that, they have considered it with immense care and in great detail, and as a result of all those investigations I say to the Committee that I endorse this plan"? Not a. bit of it. This is what the Minister said, reading from the OFFICIAL REPORT:
      " It must be clearly understood that in the case of a great body like the London County Council, with experts of their own and experts specially briefed for this purpose, we should naturally rely on them that the Estimate given was fair and could be achieved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st June, 1932; col. 1258, Vol. 266.]
      So we see, that, effectively, there is no technical scrutiny in the Ministry of Transport, at any rate on some of the proposals submitted for grants. The Ministry might well say, "Well, we will not trouble to look into this matter from the technical standpoint, but we will study it carefully from the point of view of policy." Turning again to the OFFICIAL REPORT I find this is what the Minister actually said:
      "The House will agree that the council, with their close and intimate daily knowledge of this bridge and its problems, charged by Parliament with the responsibility for its maintenance, is a great and responsible body, conscientiously endeavouring to discharge a great duty. It is surely not possible for Parliament, having charged the London County Council with that responsibility, to withhold from them by intervention the necessary authority to carry it out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st June, 1932; col. 1268, Vol. 266.]
      In other words, although the taxpayer would have to find 60 per cent. of the total cost of this scheme and of many other schemes, it was a matter of common decency that we should not so much as raise our voice in discussion of the London County Council plan. I do not want to suggest a personal criticism of my hon. Friend for the view he took in these two instances, because I think he was there a doughty and an able champion of the traditions of his Department; but the fact remains that during that Debate he really let out of the bag a cat of a supreme stature, which we ought to bear in mind when considering Road Fund schemes. The whole system of percentage grants depends on the most careful and
      794
      detailed scrutiny by the Ministry of Transport of each proposal submitted to them by the local authorities, and if the attitude which the Ministry adopted to that one scheme of the London County Council is typical of their attitude to the schemes of other local authorities, I fail to see how we are effectively watching the expenditure of public money. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to show how, if Waterloo Bridge is a fair sample of the methods adopted by the Ministry in dealing with these applications, the demands for economy are really being met.
      Next I wish to say a few words on the subject of safety. The recent figures given to the House by the Home Secretary were ghastly in the extreme, and I think I recollect the Minister of Transport making several speeches in which he tried to indicate how this terrible state of affairs might be improved. Those speeches were to the effect that there was carelessness on the part of pedestrians and recklessness on the part of motorists, but I cannot recollect ever having heard of the responsibility which the Government and the local authorities have as regards safety on the roads. Each of the schemes for which my hon. Friend agrees to pay public money to the local authorities is regarded as an approved scheme, and the question I would like him to answer is this: Is his approval concerned solely with the finance of the scheme, or does his Department take into consideration the safety of the scheme from the point of view of road and pavement users?
      I will give one or two examples of what I have in mind. At the present time the Surrey County Council are making a large number of roundabouts or circuses at the junctions of their main roads. In London, as I believe is the case throughout the country, when you approach these roundabouts you see a notice "Turn Left." The Surrey County Council put up a notice, although it is on the near side kerb, "Keep Left." I think my hon. Friend will bear me out that the instruction on the road "Keep Left" means "Keep to the left of this Notice," but if you do that in Surrey you immediately come on to the pavement, particularly when you have a road bearing round to the right as you approach a cross-road. At night it is highly dangerous, particularly so in foggy weather, to have illuminated

      795
      notices "Keep Left" when a motorist who does keep left of them immediately goes on to the pavement and sometimes down into the ditch. I would like to know whether, in any of these schemes, which I believe were approved schemes, this question was taken into consideration I If so, no doubt the Minister will look into the matter. If not, it would seem that as there is no central authority except his Department for dealing with these matters—because the Home Secretary has no jurisdiction out in the country, and away from London— there is a missing link in the Safety First campaign upon the roads.
      4.30 p.m.
      Another point to which I would draw attention is the illumination of traffic controls at night. Only the other night on leaving this House "free from all alcoholic content" as the analysts would say, I ran in my car right past a policeman on point duty, and the reason was that the policeman was standing in between the headlights of an oncoming vehicle, and thus was completely obscured from my view. Then, three nights ago, when leaving this House, I saw a similar incident in King's Road, Chelsea. There the policeman had to hop and skip to save his life. I stopped because I thought that probably the motorist who had overrun that policeman would, in due course, be getting into serious trouble. When I spoke to him he said, "Oh, don't worry. We are two plain clothes police officers." There you had two police officers endeavouring to observe the sign of their brother officer, and entirely unable to do so because he was so placed in reference to the general illumination that he was virtually invisible.
      I would like to remind the Minister that certain provincial centres, by means of spot lights and coloured lights, are illuminating the points where traffic controllers stand. If he intends to adopt mechanical traffic controls, I imagine that there must be a large number of points where policemen or scouts will have to be retained, and I hope, in those circumstances, he will investigate the position to see whether something better can be done. The Home Secretary, in reply to a question of mine a few weeks ago, informed the House that in the last three years in the Metropolis alone over
      796
      100 policemen were injured while on point duty after sunset. May I, therefore, close by reaffirming that economy in money and economy in lives are the two main demands upon the Minister at the present moment. I trust that when becomes to reply he will be able to assure the Committee that these two matters are safe in his keeping.
      Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I should like to say a word to the House about a subject upon which I have spoken on every occasion that it has been open to me to do so since I have been a Member of the House, and upon which I shall probably speak as long as I have the privilege of being a Member of this House, and that is the subject of noise. It is a truism that there has been during the last 20 years an immense development of mechanical transport over the land, over the water, and through the air, and that transport has been accompanied by an immense increase in the amount of noise. There is one particular form of nuisance that accompanies transport at the present time, and that is the vibration and noise that attach to very large motor vans and motor cars that are so common in our midst to-day. All over the country we have old cities and old towns with a few roads that were never made for motor transport, and were never intended for the passage of large wagons. These roads are traversed by large motor vans and wagons, and one result is that in many of these old cities much damage has been done to the houses and the buildings on each side of the road by the vibration.
      In the City of Lichfield which I have the honour to represent people have asked me into their houses on the main road through which the principal amount of traffic passes, and they have pointed out to me cracks and breakages in the walls which have resulted from the passage of large motor vans along the road. That is very hard on people who own their houses and who have lived in them for many years, and who from no fault of their own, find their houses depreciating in value and rendered less comfortable to live in. The have no remedy as things stand at present. I asked the Minister of Transport recently if he was aware of the amount of damage that was done by large motor vans passing through the streets and roads of old

      797
      cities and towns, and whether he could suggest any remedy. The remedy that he suggested was the greater use of rubber tyres. He went on to say that the Government were promoting the use of rubber tyres. Rubber tyres can do something to reduce vibration, but they cannot do everything. Something more than rubber tyres is necessary. There must be rubber roads.
      I am taking this opportunity of urging upon the Minister the propriety of considering the suggestion of rubber roads. I am told that there is now a new science which devotes itself to investigating the effect of vibration on roads. I ask him to give his attention to this new science. Rubber roads have been tried, and they have been very successful. There is a rubber road in New Bridge Street, in the City of London, and it is proving extremely successful by preventing vibration and noise from motor vehicles. There is, I believe, in Newcastle a rubber road which is a success, and I am told that either in Glasgow or Edinburgh, or in one of the large Scottish cities, there is a rubber road which is also proving successful. I urge, therefore, upon the Minister, if he thinks that rubber tyres prevent vibration, also to make an addendum that rubber roads should be traversed by the rubber tyres. I press upon the Committee that it is a wrong that so many people should, through no fault of their own, be compelled to spend money in repairing damage to their houses by vibration, and that it is a matter which calls for the urgent attention of the Minister of Transport. I suggest to the Minister that he should follow this matter up, and seriously consider whether something cannot be done to promote the use of rubber roads to prevent such damage to property.
      Although there are a good many methods affecting transport to which I should like to call attention, I do not wish to be unreasonable, and I will confine my remarks to mentioning one other matter, and that is the great increase in the use of dissonant motor horns. Anybody going about the City must have observed the great increase within the last few years of horrible, shrieking horns. They are most injurious to health. A sudden shriek in the ear has very much the same effect on the physical system as a blow, and if you are going down the street and
      798
      hear 10 dissonant shrieks, it is like receiving 10 blows. I have been reading in the reports of medical congresses that doctors says that the children who live in big cities are growing up with impaired nervous systems because of the constant noise to which those who live in great cities are subject. I ask the Minister to give some attention to this matter, and see if something can be done. Cannot he fix standards confining the noises made by motor cars within certain ranges? It is quite unnecessary to have shrieking horns. Coming from Piccadilly to-day I heard shriek after shriek, which increased my desire to speak in the House of Commons this afternoon, and to impress the Minister on this subject. I can assure him that there are many other things about which I would like to speak, but I urge upon him those two matters—consideration of the surface of roads, so as to prevent vibration that is doing so much injustice, and the noise caused by motor horns in the streets.
      Mr. J. JONES: Some of us are not so much interested in discordant noises as we are in the carrying out of great schemes of public improvements. The noise of a motor horn is sometimes more attractive than the voices of some Members of Parliament. In this particular case I would like to congratulate the leader of the new economy group on his action. We were told in the daily Press a few days ago that a new economy group from the back benches of the Government was going to put the brake on national expenditure in matters of roads, education and the public services generally, and that the time had arrived when this Government must be called to order by their own supporters. Of course in this we do not count; we are only the orphans of the storm.
      An ex-President of the Board of Education has made himself the advocate of economy. He wants to know why we want these great improvements in public roads. As a matter of fact, some of us who live in the Eastern Counties and who represent constituencies there, know full well that there is a large amount of useful public work that could be done in the development of the arterial road system in this country. In spite of all that is being done, and of the millions of pounds that have been spent, there are still culs-de-sac and bottle-necks on

      799
      the roads. These may cost a lot of money to remove, and it is said that the nation cannot afford it, but it can afford other things. Take the case of the well-known main road from Aldgate to Yarmouth and look at the number of culs-de-sac and bottle-necks there.
      The hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) does not want to cut down expenditure upon the Air Force or the Army or Navy which may or may not be necessary—I cannot speak as an expert—yet we must cut down the services which are of the greatest possible utility to the mass of the people of the country. The burden of economy seems to fall upon the things that are necessary for the lives of the people. We must not spend money on them, but upon the things that are not essential we must be prepared to spend more money. We must not even practice economy upon the things which do not matter. I come from a district where we have done a little bit, and I am very pleased to congratulate the Minister of Transport in this respect, for he has met us, and so did his predecessor, in connection with developments in the dock areas. I claim that the development of our dock areas and of our water services is not an extravagance, but an investment. It means the development of the Port of London and not really of the Port of London, but of the regions beyond. We claim, therefore, that anybody who wants to arrest the development of our greater national services in the matter of road services is simply trying to prevent the natural developments of the economic forces of this country.
      We are going to Ottawa, and there we shall discuss Dominion and Colonial trade and trade development. How are we to develop trade with our Colonies if we are not to have economy properly developed by means of transport, both by water and by road? I represent a constituency which is closely connected with the Colonies, and where we have all the main steamship lines dealing with the Colonial Empire, and they are anxious that development should take place. When we come to discuss economic arrangements between the Colonies and the homeland, one of the great points that we ought to attend to is the development of our transport services by road, by sea and by air. The money that we
      800
      are now spending is not an extravagance. I can understand its being considered so by those who come from, say, the North-East Coast, or by those who come from Hastings, which is a seaside resort having no means of development except by taking money from the people who earn it in the industrial centres. The rates in Hastings are, of course, a very important matter; but, after all, if the people in the working-class districts of London and the South and East of England do not earn the money, they cannot spend it in Hastings, so that what the people of Hastings gain on the swings they lose on the roundabouts. Therefore, this talk about economy on the things that matter is simply an attempt to throw dust in the eyes of the people. I believe in economy; I have to practise it, because I cannot afford to do anything else. My greatest extravagance is a thing that most people do not like —[Interruption.] It does not matter what you call it; you can call it what you like so long as you know that I like it. Tell us what you really mean by economy. Does it mean stopping expenditure? Real economy is the spending of money properly for the possibilities of the future.
      You talk about the local authorities. I do not know of a local authority—and I happen to be a member of one—that asks the Government to subsidise a scheme in regard to which it is not prepared to take its share of responsibility. West Ham is not a very rich place; it is mostly occupied by poor people. The people who make their money out of it take very good care to live out of it too. We have never proposed a scheme to this or any other Government in regard to which we were not prepared to accept our share of responsibility. We have accepted our share, and schemes have been carried out in that district because of the fact that successive Governments have agreed that great schemes of reconstruction should be carried into effect. What would have happened in this country if it had been said that this could not be done, and that could not be done? What would have happened if local authorities had not been prepared to accept their share of responsibility? Their own people would have been up against it. Therefore, I would ask hon. Members who are talking about economy to get down to brass

      801
      tacks and tell us what they mean by economy. Do they mean stopping every scheme of public importance? That seems to me to be the policy that some of them are advocating. As regards road schemes, who wants to make a road down to nowhere I We want to make roads to everywhere, and we want to make them of such a kind that they will lead to development of the country, so that it may be possible to make life brighter and better for the great mass of the people. I have had an opportunity of going on an omnibus ride through some parts of Essex, twisting round corners that ought never to exist. If we had a real scheme of national development, we should have roads fit for the people to walk along, and fit for the people to ride along. Now we have this new scheme that economy is the order of the day, and economy only at the expense of the convenience of the common people.
      If you want economy, start at the top. Let the people who have more than they can afford to spend for the time being pay their bit towards national economy. They have paid nothing up to now, but they have grumbled about taxation. As a matter of fact, they are not being taxed half as much as the ordinary workman. They have never yet been taxed as much as they ought to be; if they were they would grumble. As regards this proposed economy in national road making and schemes of transport, the Minister is "in the cart;" he cannot help himself. We have been appealing to him to allow us to carry through schemes, but, of course, he cannot agree, and, when he has agreed, he has been rapped over the knuckles by some of his friends who belong to the National Government, while at the same time they are going to other countries to ask them to agree to great schemes of reconstruction, national and international. Why do they not agree, in spite of their economy proposals, to a, great scheme of national reconstruction? They tell us that we cannot afford it, that the nation, is too poor; but I discover every morning, when I read my newspaper, that, if people who want money can show some possibility of a profit, they can always get all the money they want. There is plenty of money for the people who want to get more; there is nothing for the people who have not any. Economy is the order of
      802
      the day, and when it is a question of a public improvement for a national purpose, it has to be turned down. As an. ordinary back-bench Member of the House, the whole thing seems to me to be preposterous. The Minister's Vote does not contain all that I should like to see it contain, but it contains just as much as we expected, and blessed are they who expect little, for they shall not be disappointed.
      Lord APSLEY: Except for the speech of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser), I think that my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport looks like spending a very unpleasant afternoon and evening. He has been assailed from all sides. From one side he has been charged with ravishing the nation's purse, while others have said that he is not spending anything like enough, and so is causing more unemployment. However, I expect that ray hon. Friend is a sufficiently experienced Parliamentarian to sail safely between Scylla and Charybdis. He may have a rather rough, passage, but I have no doubt that he will be able to explain clearly and persuasively that he could not spend more because he was not allowed to spend quite so much, and that he has spent more than he ought to have spent because it was so necessary that we should spend a bit for the sake of relieving unemployment, and that the Ministry will be able to carry on doing exactly the same as they have always done before.
      That would be very well if we could afford it, but I am afraid that a great many Members of this Committee are very genuinely concerned about what is going to happen to the taxpayers and ratepayers of this country. Economy, as has just been said by the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), must begin at the top, and that is where it is beginning. Men's incomes have been cut down to half what they were before the War, and the rates and taxes are suffering in consequence; and that is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is afraid of as regards all the excellent schemes which every one of us would like to promote if he had the money to do so. This country was given a warning last September, which it would be unwise to forget. It is as though a man in the prime of his strength were suddenly to develop an unmistakable symptom that there was some-

      803
      thing wrong with his heart, possibly due to strain in his youth. He goes to his doctor, and his doctor tells him that he cannot expect to go on living at 40 in the same way as he used to do at 25. If that man were to neglect the doctor's opinion, he would be a fool, and if this country neglected the warning given in September it would without doubt be a most dreadful disaster, not only for this country, but for the world. We may get another opportunity. The doctor may come again, perhaps in the autumn, perhaps in January of next year, and tell us whether it was indeed a symptom of heart attack or whether it was only heartburn. We have that time before us, and I have no doubt that the Government are hanging on that time and hoping that we shall be able to carry on in the same kind and generous way as we have been doing, with, perhaps, a few minor economies, and that drastic methods will not be required. We shall hear the verdict; it will have to be given; and I would ask my hon. Friend what preparations are being made in his Department, as in others, for the possibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer telling us in September or January that not only Departmental economies are required, but a drastic revision of the whole order of administration and Government. Are preparations being made in my hon. Friend's Department lest that event should take place?
      5.0 p.m.
      For my own part, I spent a short time in the Ministry of Transport, and T see in his plane my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon), who spent a great deal longer time there, and possibly will be able to tell us more. I came away with the very clear idea in my head that the work of the Ministry of Transport was necessary, and was being efficiently carried out, but I was not sure that it was being carried out in the right way. T came to the conclusion that there were two ways of conducting the transport system of this country economically. One was by doing away with the Ministry of Transport altogether, and dividing its various activities—which by no means represent the whole of the transport industries of this country—among other Ministries. For instance, road traffic, in regard to which there is constant duplication with the Home Office, might well be
      804
      given over entirely to the Home Office. Rail transport and bridges might be given over to the Board of Trade. There is no doubt that, if the Ministry of Transport did not exist, as was the case before the War, its activities could be spread over other Departments without any further duplication of work by the Ministry of Transport itself. The other way would be to increase the Ministry of Transport and make it a Ministry really representing all the transport interests and activities in this country. That is what I believe is done at the present time in Germany, where they have a real Ministry of Communications. I have the words "Communications" and "Transport," however, and would rather have an English word to represent them. Such a Ministry would represent, not rail and road transport only, and electrical power, which for some reason or other is now included, but it would represent all the various branches of transport—sea, air, road and rail—and deal with them under one head, so that no duplication with other Departments would be required. It seems to be somewhat illogical that while goods are going as far as the docks they should fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transport, but that, as soon as they leave the docks and are placed on a ship, they should come under the Board of Trade. A pilot belonging to the United Kingdom Pilots' Association is under the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade; if he were one of the Bristol pilots belonging to the Transport and General Workers' Union he would come under the Ministry of Transport. What logical reason is there for that? Why does not the Ministry of Transport deal with the sea as well as the land? And why should it not deal with air communications as well? There is a great feeling among aviation experts at the present moment that the time has come when aviation should be freed from the jurisdiction of the Air Ministry, excellent though the Air Ministry is, and well though they have supervised it. It would appear, they think, that aviation can now stand on its own legs—or rather, fly on its own wings. After all, the groundwork of aviation is by far the most important part of the whole. What counts is not only the time when you are flying in the air; it is the preparation before the start, and the arrangements which you have

      805
      made for the time when you will come down, which are by far the most important part of civil aviation. Many hold that civil aviation might well come under the Ministry of Transport, or even under the Home Office in matters of regulations and of licence, and those various small matters which could be infinitely reduced, compared with what they are under the present organisation. I do hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has considered these points, or that if he has not, that he will be able to assure us that they are being considered.
      I do not expect that he will get up and tell us that he would rather be done away with altogether—that that is the alternative which he would prefer. If he had an alternative, perhaps he would rather be increased in stature, and take in those Departments of the Board of Trade and of the Home Office which deal with transport, leaving the Home Office to deal with police matters entirely—all the road traffic organisations, police on point duty, scouts, and every other form of road transport organisation, so as to avoid duplication. No doubt he would like that; but I should like to hear what he would like when he replies, and whether he thinks that that would be a more economical way of running the road transport of this country. I should like to know, in the same way, whether he would rather take over the railways and the ships as well as the docks; or whether he would like even to have the Post Office under his Department—a very progressive branch of industry which would leave him with a nice little profit at the end of the year to add to what he gets from the Road Fund? But there is in my mind no possible doubt, and there is a growing feeling in the minds of all the electors of this country, that there is duplication and waste. It is not only a question of the salaries of the staff. Heaven knows they are not so big as all that, and, indeed, we are told that they are underpaid. But there are too many men doing the same work, and the mere fact that they are doing the same work means endless expense and endless trouble. The whole administration of many Departments of the State is using up their energies entirely in internal friction, and there is no doubt whatever that some reorganisation will have to take place. I hope that my hon. Friend
      806
      the Minister of Transport has considered this matter, or is considering it, and will be able to give us some assurance on the subject this afternoon.
      Mr. McENTEE: There are one or two questions which I should like to put to the Minister, and, if possible, I should like to have some answer in regard to the matters which I propose to raise. In the first place, I put a question to the Minister of Transport to-day in regard to the negotiations which are now taking place between the London County Council and his Department, and the reply which I got was to the effect that those negotiations have not yet reached a stage when any statement can be made in regard to the matter. I should like to ask the Minister a definite question in regard to that: whether it is true that the London County Council, at any rate, have definitely made up their minds in regard to Waterloo Bridge, and whether it is true that they have intimated to the Minister that, as far as they are concerned, they do not propose to declare any policy on their own behalf in regard to that bridge, but, in fact, have asked the Government and the Minister of Transport to declare their policy; in other words, whether it is true that the London County Council have definitely said, "When the Waterloo Bridge Bill was going through Parliament, you did not give us that support which we had a right to expect. You did not put on the Government Whips. You allowed us to be defeated, although giving us nominal support, and, as a consequence, you have left us in an impossible position. We therefore,, say to you that the future policy with regard to Waterloo Bridge will have to be determined by you? Will the Minister tell us whether that is actually the position to-day, as I believe it to be; and, if it is so, will he tell us what is the Government policy in regard to Waterloo Bridge? Is the matter to be talked about and hung up for another few years, as it has been talked about in the past, and are we to wait until another Government come in with an active Minister of Transport—an active Government determined to do something with regard to the bridges now going over the River?
      Then will the Minister give us some information in regard to a subject which used to be talked about a good deal in

      807
      this House and in London generally, but which appears to have been dropped almost entirely recently, that is, the position of Charing Cross Bridge? We had discussions in this House on many occasions,, we had discussions in the London County Council, and there were a very considerable number of articles in the Press dealing with Charing Cross Bridge and with Charing Cross Station. Recently the whole matter appears to have been dropped, and, so far as the public are aware, no further action appears to be likely to be taken. The Minister might inform the Committee just what is the present position with regard to Charing Cross Bridge. I suppose he is also aware of the position in regard to the removal of the station itself in conjunction with the Charing Cross Bridge project. I should like to know whether he can give us any information in regard to that matter generally.
      I wish to say a word also in regard to roads. I do not suppose that there is a Member of the House to-day who is not aware of some road scheme, or some bridge scheme or some similar scheme in his own area which has not been turned down by the Ministry of Transport since the last General Election. My own constituency has suffered probably to the same extent as many other constituencies, if not all the constituencies, in the United Kingdom by the new policy determined on by the Government of reducing expenditure, and, as a consequence, cutting out those useful work schemes which would have put many thousands of men into work had they been carried out. The plea, of course, is economy, but I want to question the wisdom of a type of economy which throws men—human beings—on to the street which compels many of them to live for long periods of time on a merely starvation basis, and which causes very serious suffering to the people depending upon them—their wives, their children and in some cases their parents—as a consequence of their lack of employment.
      I want to ask the Minister what his view is, and perhaps he can declare what the Government view is, in regard to the effect of economy on the lives of those people. Is it nothing to the Government? Do they not care whether the health of those people is suffering in consequence of the lack of employment, and are they
      808
      of opinion that the mere saving of money is of more importance than the health of the people who are suffering as a consequence of their policy I Apparently the only thing which troubles the present Government is a desire to save money in one way to enable them, according to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Budget Day or in the day or two following Budget Day, to decrease the Income Tax, as he said he contemplates doing at as early a date as it is possible for him to do it. The only thing which appears to be troubling Ministers at the present time is that they shall economise at the expense of the health of the people generally, at the expense of their well-being, and at the expense of their comfort, so that a fund can be created out of the savings of those very poor people to enable the Super-tax payer and the Income Tax payer to get a reduction when the next Budget Day comes round.
      I should like to ask the Minister of Transport for his opinion in regard to that. A speech of his was quoted to-day in criticism of the Labour party when they formed the Government and it was pointed out that that speech could very well be used against him to-day. I think he will admit that that is true; and I think it is equally true to say that when he was in opposition his general policy was at any rate a progressive policy generally in regard to the comfort and the well-being of the people of this country. To-day he has unfortunately, I think, allowed himself to be placed in a position of inferiority to the position which was held by his predecessor, who, after all, was an extremely active Minister of Transport, who had the courage to insist that his Department should be treated in the way in which, in my opinion, it ought to be treated even to-day, and who had Cabinet rank. He dealt in a drastic manner, but in an active manner all the time, with all those large problems of transport with which London particularly, and also other parts of the country, are concerned.
      I should like to ask the Minister of Transport what is the policy of the Government in regard to the London traffic question. Is it going to hang about for ever? Is he content that it shall hang about for ever? Is he content to allow matters to drift, and to take no action

      809
      with regard to this problem, which was stated by the whole of the great London Press, and in fact by almost every Member of this House, to be a problem of great magnitude and of imperative importance? That was only a few months ago. Now, a few months later, we hear nothing at all about the London Passenger Transport Bill; we hoar nothing at all about the policy of the Government or the policy of the Department in regard to traffic in London; we hear nothing about all those things which have already been mentioned and which I do not want to repeat, with regard to railway and road traffic; we hear nothing, in fact, of any problem of magnitude inside the Department or within the realm for which the Minister himself is responsible.
      The Minister of Transport himself is a very nice gentleman who apparently likes to sit on the Front Bench and to take things nicely and quietly, but personally I would be very much more attracted to him if he would put up a fighting policy against those people who are destroying his Department. They are destroying the efficiency of his Department, they are destroying all those high ideals for which his Department did stand a year or two ago, and a suggestion has even been put forward by the speaker who preceded me, the hon. Member for Central Bristol (Lord Apsley) that his Department might very well be broken up. I hope the Minister is not going to allow himself to be jockeyed into a position like that by the hon." Gentleman, who apparently represents that new group of amateur economists who meet occasionally in this House and tell us how we can chop off everything of which they do not happen, for the moment, to be in favour—how we can cut everything down, particularly at the expense of working-class people who, as a consequence, are suffering.
      A few weeks ago I made some reference in this House to the number of men out of work in my constituency and in the area which I represent, and I made a statement which was not accepted by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The statement which I then made was that as a consequence of men being thrown off transitional benefit, they were going on to the public assistance committees, and receiving relief from them. The right hon. Gentleman contradicted that statement; he said that it was im-
      810
      possible that it could occur, and he gave reasons why in his opinion such a thing could not occur. I have taken the trouble since then to make definite inquiries in the area where I live, and I find that not only can it occur but that in fact it did occur, and that there are considerably over 600 people in that area at the present time who are now receiving Poor Law relief, who had been receiving unemployment benefit and for a period, transitional benefit, who were denied transitional benefit any longer, and who, as a consequence of being denied transitional benefit, had reached the stage of practical starvation before the public assistance committee were compelled to step in and to give them a measure of outdoor relief rather than allow them to die of sheer starvation. There were in that area a week or two ago over 600 people, and there are possibly even more now, receiving Poor Law relief because they have been thrown off unemployment benefit and are not allowed any transitional benefit.
      The CHAIRMAN: I do not know how the hon. Member connects this with the Ministry of Transport.
      Mr. McENTEE: I was illustrating that the policy of throwing men out of work by refusing to sanction necessary road, bridge and other schemes, results in a greater number of men seeking unemployment benefit, and, as a consequence of that, the time is bound to be reached, and is being reached day by day, when these men, having drawn all their unemployment benefit, reach the transitional stage and, being refused transitional benefit, they are thrown upon the public assistance committees. Many of them are refused that public assistance payment, but many of them also get it, and I am arguing that the consequence of the Minister's policy is not the saving that he appears to anticipate but, in fact, a mere shifting of the burden from the taxpayer on to the local ratepayer. I am complaining against this policy because in my own area we have been refused sanction for road schemes and, consequently, the lack of employment is increasing the rates. I hope the Minister will stand up against this policy. It is not economy in any real sense of the word. I plead with him to bring the Department up, instead of allowing it to be lowered until it is almost of no im-

      811
      portance. I should like to see him put some of the fight into it that was put into it by his predecessor, and stand up for the Department and all that it represents. In doing that, he will be doing far more for the nation than in giving way to the false economy cries which come from the back benches and from his colleagues.
      Mr. ALBERY: I wish to draw attention to a matter that is causing considerable concern, especially in the rural areas. The Minister is probably aware by now that, not only in my constituency but probably in many others, there is very considerable dissatisfaction with some of the decisions that have recently been given as regards local omnibus services, and it is difficult to trace that the Ministry has any definite policy, or broad lines of principle, in dealing with these cases. I think the Transport Commissioners very often have an extremely difficult task, and it is impossible for them to decide these cases in a satisfactory way unless they have some very definite guidance on lines of broad principle. In a case which I recently brought to his notice a rural area in my constituency had been served by one of the more important omnibus companies, which had given an insufficient service. A local company was started and supplemented that service. This resulted eventually in the usual case before the Transport Commissioners, and a decision was given by which the local service was refused permission to continue. Probably the Transport Commissioners gave their decision fairly on the evidence that they heard as between the two companies. It was eventually confirmed by the Ministry.
      The matter that was really of the greatest importance was the usefulness of these services to the public, and in this case three local authorities asked that the local service should be retained. In spite of that, it was put off the road. It is a most remarkable thing that, in coming to a decision of that kind, the views of local authorities, duly elected, representing the people they speak for, should be completely ignored and a decision given against their views. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some idea of the broad lines on which these cases are decided, and to say that definite in-
      812
      structions will be given as an aid to the Commissioners in deciding them. I think we have already made a great mistake in that direction. It seems to me that it would be far more appropriate if the bigger companies were given a preference in running those services that run along either main roads or important secondary roads, and if the local companies, those that are organised in the villages, were given a preference for the running of purely local services. They understand the needs of the people more, they are far more in touch with them, they are much more elastic in their services and they know the changes that are constantly happening.
      There is another point which rather joins this up with the present troubles on the railways. It has always amazed me that the railway companies, when they began to find that road transport was really hitting them severely, allied themselves to the big main road transport companies, which were naturally their biggest competitors, and they appear to have joined with them in using any influence in. their power to exterminate or, at any rate, greatly to limit the activity of the smaller enterprises. I should have thought an exactly opposite policy was the desirable one. What the railroads need more than anything else to-day are feeders, and there is no body of persons who, if they had been tackled in the right way, if they had received some assistance from the railway companies instead of being opposed by them, could have done more to help the railway companies in their present difficulties. They cover all the adjacent areas which are not covered by the railway companies. If some arrangement had been made by which the railway stations and yards were made available to these people on certain conditions, instead of adding to the present difficulties of the railway companies and helping their competitors, they might have been of the very greatest assistance to the railroads themselves.
      My noble Friend the Member for Bristol Central (Lord Apsley) seemed to take a rather pessimistic view about the administration of the Ministry generally. In what I am going to say I want my hon. Friend to believe that I am not directing my remarks against him personally. In fact, if the hon. Gentleman opposite had moved a reduction, not as against the present Minister but as against the

      813
      Ministry since it has been in existence, I should have been inclined to go into the Lobby with him. There is no Ministry, in my view, which has had such a remarkable opportunity presented to it for doing something really useful and big. After all, transport is a problem that has been growing in importance and varying in its nature to a most remarkable extent ever since the War. Anyone who goes on our roads to-day can admire them only in one single respect, and that is their wonderful condition. That, I am inclined to think, is not due to any particular Minister of Transport. It is due to the unemployment from which we have suffered and to various other causes which have, rightly or wrongly, led to our spending a great deal of money on roads.
      When you see, as you can any morning on the main roads out of London, the dangerous circus of large coaches which rush out generally about 9 o'clock in all directions, one on top of the other, sometimes two abreast, sometimes three abreast, when you go into our country lanes and meet, as you constantly do, an omnibus coming in the opposite direction of such a size that no other vehicle can possibly pass it without stopping and drawing into the side, when you go down a country lane for a walk with your dog and find some motor car, which has no need to go there except for a similar purpose, either to admire the country or to go two or three miles off the main road to get to a country house, and which is allowed to tear along at 40 miles an hour, you cannot help thinking that there are many things that we might make much better and more comfortable for everybody without doing any harm to any one in particular. I hope the present Minister may occupy his office for a long time, and I believe there is no office that has such scope for achievement, I trust that, before he quits office, he will be able to claim that he has brought real order out of what in many respects is merely a state of chaos which, instead of getting better, is steadily getting worse.
      5.30 p.m.
      Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Several statements have been made to-day that have interested me very much. With regard to the proposal of the Noble Lord the Member for Central Bristol (Lord Apsley) to amalgamate the Ministry of Transport, the Board of Trade and the Home Office I would venture the opinion that it does
      814
      not follow, when you amalgamate two institutions that you of necessity reduce expenditure. I have seen amalgamations in Various spheres of life and I have seen expenditure going up almost at once in consequence. I cannot conceive how the Home Office could possibly undertake part of the work that is now performed by the Ministry of Transport. The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) thought the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) indicated a Socialist policy of the future like the madcap policy of the railway companies of the United States and Canada years ago. I cannot conceive that Socialist policy will ever be like the railway or any other capitalist policy at any time. He said that we have been squandering money for the purpose of joy-riding. I have not got up to deal with proposals for constructing new roads, and I am not very much concerned at the moment with repairs to roads already constructed. I have in my division a road which is very nearly completed, and it has been stopped. I have done my level best with the present Minister to see whether he can do anything at all to complete the job. The Blackrod by-pass road is about two miles long and when completed it will avoid one of the narrowest thoroughfares in Lancashire through a little village called Blackrod. An hon. Gentleman said that he would not mind at all if we spent money upon main thoroughfares. He objected to spending money on side tracks, as it were. The road of which I am speaking is one of the main roads of Lancashire. It runs from Manchester, through Bolton and Chorley, and on to Preston and Blackpool. I wish the hon. Gentleman could do something towards completing this road, because I assure him it would be the means of avoiding a number of very nasty accidents in the village of Blackrod. Moreover, it would open out a new avenue entirely for the great volume of traffic from Manchester through Bolton and on to Blackpool. I can safely appeal for the completion of the road because the cost will not be very great. Here is a road nearly two miles long completed up to 65 per cent., situated at the foot of a hill, and unless something is done to it soon the whole of the expenditure already incurred will very probably be thrown away and

      815
      wasted. Whatever other argument may be employed this afternoon about economy, I am sure that there is not a Member of the Committee belonging to the Conservative or the Liberal party or the National Government who will argue that it is not economy to finish a task which has proceeded up to 65 per cent.
      When I have dealt with this matter the hon. Gentleman has always turned me on to the Lancashire County Council. I want to know from him, therefore, what is the responsibility of the Lancashire County Council in connection with this road? I can imagine the Lancashire County Council, if I raise the issue with them, turning me on to the Ministry of Transport, and making me into a shuttlecock between the two. I protest against the attitude adopted of transferring the responsibility, when it suits the Government, to the local authority, and the local authority in turn saying that it has no responsibility at all. I am convinced —and I do not wish to offend the hon. Gentleman—that the trouble lies in the fact that the present National Government have reduced the status of the Ministry of Transport. If the hon. Gentleman had been a Conservative he would probably have been in the Cabinet and consequently the Ministry would have had its proper status. I dislike the suggestion made, that because the hon. Gentleman happens to be a Liberal his Department must be abolished and the job handed over to the Home Office. But even if the work were handed over and divided between the Home Office and the Board of Trade it would still be in the hands of the Liberal party, and accordingly the Conservative element in the House of Commons would not get what they want. What they really want is to deprive a Liberal Minister in this Government of his salary. [Interruption.] Oh, yes. An hon. Gentleman just now argued that we ought to amalgamate the work of this Ministry with that of the Board of Trade and the Home Office, but he forgot that the two Ministers of the Departments named are also Liberals, and that therefore the work would not be handed over to any Tory Minister of the Government. I believe that that is at the bottom of all the trouble. I feel sure that I am right.
      816
      Let me analyse the situation. The President of the Board of Trade has not suffered such a cut in his expenditure as that which we have experienced in regard to this Ministry. It is the one Ministry above all which the Government have centred upon to reduce expenditure. I would not be surprised, speaking offhand, if the reduction in the expenditure of this Department is as great as the reduction in all the other Departments combined. An hon. Gentleman speaking from behind me said a most remarkable thing. "Just imagine," he said in a surprising voice; "we are spending twice as much upon roads as we are spending upon the Air Force." Just imagine an hon. Member saying that with surprise! At any rate, many more people walk the roads than fly. According to the use made of the roads and the use made of aircraft we ought to spend a million times more upon roads than upon aircraft. I know what is wrong. The hon. Gentleman wants a big Air Force, a strong Army and a mighty Navy, and all the rest of it, but we ordinary folk who use the roads are very seldom in a battleship or an airship or in the Army.
      I wish to dwell for a moment or two upon the argument so forcibly put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly about unemployment. I do not know whether the Minister of Transport has ever been in Lancashire, but if he looks at the map he will see Black-rod by-pass road is nearly completed, and that just about a mile from the road is a small urban district called Aspull. In that district there is a population of about 5,000, and as far as I am aware— and I know the district fairly well—there is hardly a soul working in the whole of that township. All factories and mines have been closed for years, and still we have this road left derelict so near a spot where there is so much unemployment. I wish that Members of all parties would regard the roads of this country as more in the nature of social services. There is nothing more important than a good road. I have been in a country where there are hardly any roads at all. I have said this before in this House, and I do not think that I shall be doing wrong by repeating it, that I wish that hon. Gentlemen who complain about taxation for road purposes would take their beautiful cars to parts of Poland where very little money has been spent on roads at all. I am

      817
      sure that if they took a trip of 20 miles in parts of Poland in their cars they would not complain again about expenditure upon roadways in this country.
      I have been questioning the Minister for months and I have written him several letters. He is always very gentle and courteous, but courtesy and gentleness will not complete the Blackrod by-pass road. The local people are now asking whether that road can be opened for pedestrians, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to say whether the road can be used for pedestrian purposes. At any rate, that would be better than closing it and allowing it to go derelict. I ask the hon. Gentleman whether there is any hope of completing this road during the lifetime of the present Government. I will give this Government another 18 months or so. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to put me off by saying that the Lancashire County Council are responsible, and make it possible, when I make inquiries of the county council, for them to say that the fault lies with the Minister. I want the hon. Gentleman to be quite frank this afternoon and tell me exactly what is going to happen with regard to the Blackrod by-pass road.
      Mr. JAMES REID: My purpose in addressing the Committee is to add my voice to the voices of those who seek to forward the cause of economy. I welcome —and I think we all welcome, apart from the Opposition—the very considerable economies which have hitherto been achieved, and I think that the Minister deserves great credit for those economies. But I do not think that the matter can stop there. It was suggested by the hon. Member for West Wathamstow (Mr. McEntee) that the economies hitherto made by the Minister in some sense endangered the Ministry and threatened to destroy it. I would say, on the other hand, that unless further economies are made the life of the Ministry may be endangered because a distinction must be drawn between economies in this Department and economies in many other Departments. It was suggested by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) that in some sense expenditure upon roads must be regarded as expenditure upon, social services. I disagree with that entirely. There is a great deal to be said for being extremely careful in the
      818
      cuts which you may make on truly social service expenditure, because the last thing one wants to do is to cut down anything which directly affects either the health or the welfare of the people. But nobody can say that expenditure on roads has any direct—indeed it has little indirect effect—upon the welfare of the ordinary working man or upon the people as a whole. Roads are things which we can afford and upon which we ought to spend money in good times, but they are the first thing upon which we ought to economise in bad times.
      I do not wish to dwell upon this question of general policy, but to seek some information. I find the utmost difficulty —it may be any fault—in discovering exactly how much money is going to be spent upon the roads of this country during the coming year, and, in particular, I find great difficulty in distinguishing whether the expenditure is to be upon maintenance or upon new capital works. One can see great justification for continued expenditure upon maintenance, although we must be careful in that direction, but when it comes to expenditure upon capital works there is no justification for proceeding with new capital works unless there are some very exceptional circumstances involved. I think that the public would be enlightened and gratified if the Minister could tell us just how much of the national money is to be spent during this year, firstly, upon maintenance, and, secondly, upon new construction. If he could add to this, in order that we might have a complete picture, similar details with regard to local expenditure—which I know it is more difficult to get accurately—I think that the public would be in a very much better position than that in which they stand to-day. I do not think that I am alone in saying that I have great difficulty in discovering from the national accounts and from answers to questions how the money which we vote is being spent. I have no doubt that the Minister rightly believes that the money is being spent properly, but it would be in the interests of the Department as well as the Committee to have a somewhat detailed statement upon this question.
      I will give two reasons why capital expenditure should be avoided at the present moment. In the first place a good deal of the excuse for capital expenditure in the past has been that we are

      819
      fitting the roads to a new class of traffic. While at the present moment matters are in the air as between rail and road, I think that that fact cannot possibly be advanced as a justification for further expenditure. I would hope to see all the heavy traffic which is now on the road taken off and put on rail, where it properly belongs. If that were done it would avoid a great deal of the justification for further capital expenditure. Whether that is the ultimate policy of the Government or not, where that work cannot be done during the period of uncertainty it would be foolish to go on spending money which may ultimately turn out to be unnecessary expenditure.
      The Government have told us, with, I believe, complete conviction, that they support and will continue to support economy. The one thing which the ordinary man in the street sees when he goes out of his house, when he goes for a walk, or in his car, is expenditure on roads, but no one will believe that this Government really mean economy if they see more and more expenditure on building bigger and bigger roads, and getting rid of perfectly good corners day after day. I think it was the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) who said that his ideal, apparently, for this country, was that we should have perfectly straight roads. I shudder at the prospect. A great deal too much has been done already in removing corners where it was unnecessary. One could refer to places where tens of thousands of pounds have been spent unnecessarily during the last few years in getting rid of corners which did no one any harm. There were many corners which were much safer in their primitive form than they are now, the curve having been altered. I think the Minister of Transport has the best opportunity of any Minister in impressing the Government with the fact that the Government really mean economy, by closinf many schemes which are going on at the present time.
      May I add a few words on the subject that was raised by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) with regard to the licensing of omnibuses? We want to know in greater detail what are the principles underlying the licensing system. It would be for the convenience of everybody that that should be made known.
      820
      I do not put forward my ideas in any dogmatic spirit, but it seems to me that a very clear distinction must be drawn, and I think in most parts of the country is drawn, between the man who has had a service in the past, and a new man. I feel sure that no one wants to deprive the man who has had a service in the past, of that service, and I trust that we shall be assured that that is not being done, without very grave reasons. The invasion of an established route by a new man is a very different thing, and I hope we may take it that a very clear distinction is drawn between these two classes. I am certain that the large omnibus companies do not want to drive off the roads the small man who is already established; if they did, I should be entirely against them; but one can see that those who have built up a traffic do deserve certain protection, so long as they do not abuse that protection. Whether it will be necessary ultimately to have some further measure of control than we have at the present time I do not know. It seems to me that we have a pretty fair measure of control at the present time, and if it is properly used we ought to be able to' see that those in possession get a fair trial before anybody else is allowed to encroach upon their route, without good reason. One sees many cases where one route is only part of another route, and one gets great difficulties for that reason. It would set at rest the minds of many people if the Minister could see his way to make a general statement of the policy which is being followed in the licensing of motor omnibuses.
      Mr. CHORLTON:I should like to refer to the Minister's opening speech, where he pictured or tried to describe to us the work of his Department, so that we might readily understand it. I join with other hon. Members in the feeling that he has not been clear enough in his description of the work of the Department. Despite what has been said with regard to economy, this is an exceedingly important subject and his Department ought to be an exceedingly important Department. I join issue with certain hon. Members in the sense that the economies suggested are, apparently, to cut down expenditure. That is merely saving for to-day and losing for the future. Therefore I am anxious that the Minister should describe in more detail

      821
      what his policy is for the future. If we are to reduce expenditure, then the work clone must be made more efficient. It is obvious that if we are to have more stringent economy, the efficiency will have to be proportionately increased. I suppose that the capacity of the country in regard to transport in his Department has been expressed in diagrammatic form. I presume that each road is shown by the thickness of the lines and their relative capacity estimated in that way. I presume also that the same principle is followed in regard to the railways and possibly the canals.
      If the expenditure is going to be used wisely it is only fair to expect that it will be concentrated upon the narrow channels where the bottlenecks are. That is why one would like to hear in a little more detail how the Minister proposes to tackle the problem. There is one bottleneck which is known to all, and that is the country bridge, and also bridges nearer towns. What is the bridge policy of the Department? What is the use of having wide roads unless you remove the bottlenecks? If there is a bridge policy it would not only carry work on the roads but it would go back into other industries. That is something in which a good deal more could be done wisely than by merely cutting off in bulk large sums of money. In regard to the administration of the Department I should like to know what course is pursued by the expert staff of the Ministry in their contact with other staffs.
      Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: Can the candles be brought in? It is very dark.
      Mr. CHORLTON: What is the plan by which the Minister's staff make contact with the staffs of the boroughs and the counties? The Minister has an expert staff of engineers and others who look after the roads. I see great risk of duplication at a time like the present when economy is in the mouth of everybody, and I should like to know how the contact is made and whether work done in a county or in a municipality is duplicated in any way in his Department? I should like also to mention one further point, and that is in regard to research. No one is keener on research than I am. I believe research to be our insurance for the future, something upon which we can wisely spend to-day, be I do not
      822
      know why the Minister still retains a separate department of research. When the Road Board began, the research work was carried out in the National Physical Laboratory, and therefore the original machines for testing road surfaces and generally the engineering work in connection with the roads were developed and tried. That Departments was moved and the Ministry established a research department of its own. In times of economy like the present, the question is whether the Ministry is getting full value for the country's money in keeping on a separate research department. I suggest that some combination with some of the other research organisations would be better. The Minister would get his work carried out just as efficiently and very probably more cheaply.
      I should like to join in the appeal made by the hon. Member for West-houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies). He pleaded for a little road in his constituency. I would plead for a road in my constituency. It is a very little road, but it is dangerous in connection with the roads near to it. If the Minister is feeling generous, I hope that he will not forget, when he is considering the road in Westhoughton, a little road in Platting which has existed in a crossway for many years, and nothing has been done to it. Can I have sympathetic consideration for that?
      Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: We have heard this afternoon a great deal about economy. This Vote is different from any other because the money that goes to the Ministry of Transport is motorists' money. It is not Imperial taxation. It is money that comes from the motorists, to be spent on one definite thing, namely, the roads. If the Government come to the conclusion that they are going to spend less money on the roads, they have to make a case to the motorists why they are not going to reduce the taxation upon their cars. If they are going to keep on the same taxation and to spend the money derived from the motorists upon Imperial taxation, let them say so. That would be definitely a change of policy. When the Road Fund was inaugurated, against the wishes of the Treasury, it was understood that the tax was a voluntary one to be paid by motorists for the benefit of the roads. A speech of the local paper type was made by the hon. Member for Silver-

      823
      town (Mr. J. Jones), which seemed to me very indelicate. He sought to make a speech about the taxation of the rich and the poor and quite forgot that the money derived from motorists is to the extent of £5,000,000 going to be spent upon a road in the East End of London. I hope the Minister will tell us what is the policy of the Government. The motorists have always paid this tax voluntarily on the understanding that it was for roads, and nothing else. If the Government are going to cut down the expenditure on the roads, then the first thing is to cut down the taxation of the motorists, or explain why.
      I came here to-day thinking there would be a universal demand for the sweeping away of the Ministry of Transport and my hon. Friend the Minister. I am very pleased to say that that demand has not been made. Had it been made I was going to rally to my hon. Friend's side. He is attacked from both sides. He gets the sort of attack that was made by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery). It is seldom I disagree with the hon. Member for Gravesend. He represented a district next to a constituency which I represented for years, and we have fought together side by side. He complains that he cannot take his dog down a side road because of motor omnibuses and that they should be regulated. If the poor Minister of Transport tries to regulate motor traffic he is immediately criticised for interfering and doing things wrongly. The hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Chorlton) made a speech in which he referred to research. When I was at the Ministry of Transport we spent £50,000,000 on roads but were not allowed to spend 5s. on research, and it was only after a Bill was passed, which was introduced by the Department, that we were able to spend money on research.
      The roads in England are torn between three great vested interests, first, the great cement interest; second, the great bitumen interest, which is a by-product of oil; and the great tar interest, which is a by-product of the gas industry. We have these warring forces. Year after year we build roads and the next year we' produce a vehicle to knock them out. So it goes on. We started with four inches of concrete, and then we built a vehicle which would pound it to death in
      824
      eight months. Then we went on to six inches of concrete and now to 12 inches. I build vehicles which are going to knock out our present roads. Every year the vehicles become heavier.
      6.0 p.m.
      Nothing could be more economic than to spend even more money on research work to-day. We do not know what is the right type of road. I have never seen a road in England banked yet. No one knows what is the right surface from the point of view of skidding, and most of the accidents, which we deplore, are not really the fault of motorists, but are due to a lack of knowledge as to what is the best road surface. We know that our climate makes things greasy and wet, but we do nothing to make a non-skidding road, or very little indeed. You constantly see bitumen sweating on the top of a road. That is a lubricant, and anyone who puts bitumen on the top of a road makes it slippery, and in the case of an accident is equally as culpable as a negligent driver. There is the notable case of the Maidenhead road, where we put down two kinds of road surface in order to test one against the other. During the last eight years the traffic has always been on the one side. Cannot we one day run down the other side and test it? What is the use of it, if we are not going to make use of it? I hope that we shall spend more money on research, because in my opinion our roads, considering the amount of money we spend, are not very good. Let us be told by experts what is best to be done, but to go on spending money as we do year after year without any real policy of research, without any guidance as to what is the best surface, and without any attempt to stop heavy vehicles going over roads which will not stand the traffic, is not economy but very grave extravagance.
      Mr. PARKINSON: I want to consider several schemes from the point of view of giving employment and not from the point of view of saving money, because I think we may save money in ways which are not in the best interests of the country. The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), speaking as a superior person, said that the Socialist policy of the future would not be carefully planned. I wonder how he knows that. In referring to the great railway systems of Canada the Noble

      825
      Lord said that it was mad capitalism. If he is comparing what will be done by a Socialist Government with what has been done under the capitalist system in the past there is not much hope for the country. The question of roads requires careful consideration from the point of view of what we shall need in the future. I think it would be wise policy to spend money now in order to be prepared for our transport needs in the future, but at the same time every Government of modern times has had to deal with the question and therefore with the question of finance. Various schemes have been proposed. I think that the creation of the Minister of Transport was a step in the right direction, but I cannot understand why the Minister of Transport should so quietly acquiesce with the Cabinet, who are compelling the Department at the moment to keep so closely to the prescribed lines of economy, instead of taking the wider view of what may be our requirements in the future.
      We have, of course, been troubled by increasing unemployment. The Government between 1924 and 1929 did not take any notice of it whatever. They allowed matters to drift along, without doing anything, and eventually the Labour Government which took office in 1929 had to tackle the question of unemployment. It was a minority Government, and pressure was brought to bear upon it by Liberal Members of the House, who did all they could to push certain schemes on the Labour Government. They complained bitterly about the speed at which the Labour Government was proceeding, and launched one or two schemes of their own, on paper, which they thought the Labour Government should adopt. The Liberal party is now part of the present Government, and we have only to look at the Chamber to realise the interest which the Liberal party takes in this question today. The Minister of Labour is an isolated Liberal Member listening to this Debate. During the whole discussion there have never been more than one or two Liberal Members in their places. As a matter of fact, the Liberal party has now been absorbed by the National Government. We must suppose that when they launched their scheme and brought pressure to bear on the Labour Government that Liberals were really sincere. At the same time, it is the fact that the
      826
      Labour Government, until it came to an end last year, did all it could to meet the situation, and did more in the way of providing employment than any other Government. Let me read one or two sentences from the Liberal manifesto in which they set out to solve the question of unemployment.
      "The special proposals which we urged on the attention of the public some eighteen months ago for a programme of road work which would be alike desirable in itself and the means of utilising unemployed labour, may be summarised as follows."
      Mr. HANNON: This is the Liberal party?
      Mr. PARKINSON: Yes, and as they are part of the hon. Member's party now I suppose he accepts their programme. There is no question that the Labour Government did all they could to find work for the unemployed, and, on the question of roads, to meet the requirements of the future. I think it is false economy that this policy should now be dropped. Is this money being wisely saved? The unemployed are now going to the Poor Law authorities in tremendous numbers. They are not working, and they must be supported, and they have to be supported without giving any return in labour. I suggest that it would be much wiser to consider some of the more important Schemes in order to find work for these men, who would thus not be such a great charge on the national exchequer. It would provide employment and useful labour, for which these men would be paid, and it would mean that useful schemes could be carried through. In my opinion there are many schemes which should be carried through at the earliest possible moment, not only in the interest of national economy but in the interests of the country as a whole. The hon. Member for Stirling Burghs (Mr. Reid) has referred to the straightening of awkward corners. This is not altogether necessary, he says. I do not know where the hon. Member lives, but if he lived in Lancashire he would find a large number of corners which required straightening. We have scores of them in Lancashire.
      A large number of schemes have been submitted to the Government; and I want to ask what has been done in connection with some of them. I should like to know whether anything had been done in con-

      827
      nection with the Everton Tunnel, a very important matter for Liverpool. This is a work which will have to be undertaken in the future. It cannot be delayed indefinitely. Have the Ministry of Transport done anything at all to meet the views of the Liverpool Corporation in order to carry out this work? I know it is an expensive undertaking and would employ a large amount of labour. It would connect the Manchester and Liverpool road with the Mersey Tunnel, and serve a most useful purpose in many ways. Then there is the Great North Road in Durham. I wonder whether this is still proceeding, or whether it has been postponed, like many other schemes. It was also intended to build one or two bridges over the Caledonian Canal. Has anything been done in that matter, or has the work been stopped? There is also the question of the Queen Ferry Bridge and the Elephant and Castle and Vauxhall Cross Roads.
      These are works which would employ a large amount of labour, and they are works which cannot be indefinitely postponed. This is also an opportune time for taking them in hand because the price of materials is low and the available supply of labour is greater now than we hope it will be when more prosperous times arrive. In quite a number of places work has been postponed or cancelled and one has only to read the reports in the "Municipal Journal" and local papers, to understand what is taking place. In the "Municipal Journal" of 8th January, I find an article on "Uneconomic Economy" which states:
      " While the construction of new roads can be postponed without much inconvenience to traffic, it is unwise economy to cut down maintenance, and it is dangerous to postpone reconstruction of bridges. The Royal Commission on Transport found that there were 7,000 bridges in the country which required reconstruction as they were inadequate to the needs of modern transport. Section 25 of the Road Transport Act lays it down that thousands of bridges, often carrying main road traffic, should be closed to all vehicles in excess of six tons gross weighty This provision seems to put a responsibility on the Government to assist in the reconstruction of these bridges, but according to a report submitted to the York City Council, the Unemployment Grants Committee has declined to give further grants to help schemes of road making and bridges for the relief of unemployment."
      That is a definite statement from a source which is neither National Govern-
      828
      ment, Liberal nor Labour. That is a statement on behalf of the great municipal authorities. Then we find that in Cheshire, of the sum of £2,949,373 previously approved, works costing £1,605,254 are to be deferred for two years. In deferring these works the Government are holding up money which ought to be in circulation, and I contend that they are not showing that consideration for the manual labourer of this country which he deserves. If work has to be done then it ought to be done in the greatest period of depression, and when the greatest need of the greatest number applies. There has never been a greater need for work of this kind than there is at this moment. In the northern part of the country especially there are great numbers of unemployed who are particularly adaptable to bridge building or road making, but no opportunity is presented to them. I also see that in Middlesex schemes estimated to cost £1,361,878 are to be deferred. That is the kind of policy which is going to make things very awkward indeed, and I find the same course is being followed in Norfolk and indeed in practically every county.
      I want the Minister to take up this matter with the Cabinet Committee. We have too many people in the country at present on the verge of starvation, and all the time this work is urgently needed. It may be said that we cannot find the money. The Cabinet is divided, one half being pessimists and the other optimists. One half say that the country is going to collapse and the other half that the bright sun is shining just round the corner. I do not know which side is right, but surely the proper thing at the present time would be to bring money into circulation. Hoarding gold in the cellars of the Bank of England is no good. You might as well hoard bricks. It is only there as a kind of guarantee, and it ought to be used in the interests of the nation in doing necessary work not only on roads and bridges but on harbours and docks and in other ways. There is a tremendous amount of work waiting to be done and a tremendous number of people awaiting the opportunity to do it. It is up to the Government to do what they can to bring these two factors together and to prepare the country for the era of

      829
      prosperity which some Cabinet Ministers say is lying ahead of us.
      The Minister knows better than I do the resentment felt by many local authorities at the postponement, curtailment and cancellation of schemes which have been approved. Authorities who have been put to considerable cost in preparing schemes, naturally wish to have the opportunity of carrying out these schemes and in every case I believe it will be found that they have had in mind the number of unemployed in their areas. I ask the Minister to take up the struggle with the Cabinet on this question, because it has a far greater importance than is generally attributed to it. We cannot bear to have unemployment increasing month by month with no effort by the Government to deal with it. During the last two months the unemployment figures have increased by nearly 200,000. How long are the Government going to sit still while a stream of this kind is flowing with a stronger current month by month? I appeal to the Government to have regard to the conditions under which these people are living, and bringing up their families. I ask them to realise that it can be said without any boasting or egotism, that these are the people who are and have been the backbone of the nation.
      We have 2,750,000 registered unemployed; pauperism is increasing and suffering is intensified. I ask the Government to give up the cry of economy. Starvation cannot be in the interests of true economy, and starvation is being imposed on large numbers of people. While the Government talk of economy they are withholding money from circulation and holding up necessary works. I do not want them to look at these matters in the manner suggested by a previous speaker who said that we were spending more on the roads than on the Army. We must remember that in spending money on the roads we are only preparing for the future. When times of prosperity do arrive we may find ourselves not in a position to take advantage of them and to deal with commercial propositions in the proper way. I would emphasise on this occasion the need for taking steps now to secure a proper transport system in the future.
      The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): I am sure that both the hon.
      830
      Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) and the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) will agree that in this, the second discussion on these Estimates we have at any rate been able to go very carefully into the question of unemployment which is alleged to have been brought about by a too drastic restriction of road making policy.
      Mr. PARKINSON: Not brought about but intensified—certainly not ameliorated.
      Mr. PYBUS: I was only trying to point out that hon. Members on the Opposition side had had ample opportunity to deal with this matter from the unemployment point of view. But it is of very little use to repeat over and over again the argument that if we reduce the number of schemes there will be fewer people employed on roads and bridges. We all know that more persons will fail to remain employed in future on roads and bridges if the programme has been cut down. If we reduce as we have done the schemes which were in operation when the Labour Government fell, of course unemployment would be increased to that extent, but it is important to remember the true proportions of the employment given in this way in relation to the total number of employed in the country. The number of men for whom the late Government found work under the special roads programme was approximately one-third of one per cent. of the insured working population of this country.
      Mr. PARKINSON: Will the Minister give us those figures again so that we may understand them?
      Mr. PYBUS: The number to whom employment was given by the schemes under the Road programmes was 41,000 out of a total of employed people of 12,500,000.
      Mr. PARKINSON: In the statement made by the late Lord Privy Seal, Mr. Johnston, on the Conservative Motion of Censure on 16th April, 1931, he said that 226,500 workers had been provided with employment on Government schemes, and the number was steadily growing. That meant, directly and indirectly.
      Mr. PYBUS: These are the figures which I have before me, and, with all respect, I submit that they are correct. The number of people for whom direct employment was found at the peak was 41,000, the total number of employed people being 12,600,000 and therefore the amount of employment found was

      831
      only one-third of 1 per cent. of the total number employed at that time. While this small percentage of the total working population was being employed in this way, commitments of no less than £60,000,000 were in existence. In August last, when I entered the Ministry, I found this £60,000,000 worth of commitments consisting of schemes either definitely approved, partially approved or in other ways officially sanctioned. The Government changed that policy. They decided that no longer were the roads or the bridges to be regarded as convenient media on which to base an unemployment policy. They decided that this type of expenditure should be drastically reduced, and under the National Economy Act, 1931, power was taken to give release from commitments arising from orders to treat and so forth, and every effort was made to reduce the amount of the commitments to a minimum.
      6.30 p.m.
      Hon. Gentlemen opposite and some behind me also seem to assume that we were quite reckless in the manner in which we selected the schemes which should proceed and those which should be stopped. Quite the opposite really happened. We called together the county councils and other local authorities, and taking each authority in turn we made a rapid survey with a view to securing a general reduction which we hoped would bring us within the limits which we had imposed upon ourselves. After the preliminary investigation a certain tentative list of works which might proceed was agreed upon. Then we saw how near the mark we were, and we went back again and looked at the schemes from another point of view. We first took the point as to how much money would be spent on land, on compensation, or on the demolition of buildings. Hon. Members, I think, have sometimes little knowledge of the vast sums of money which it had been proposed under the schemes of the late Government to expend either on the purchase of land or the compensation of owners. The hon. Member for Wigan mentioned the Elephant and Castle improvement, a scheme which would cost £2,000,000. Of that no less than 72.3 per cent. was to be spent on property, and only 27.7 per cent. on employment. This was the sort of
      832
      scheme which certainly, looking at it from the point of view of the Government's policy, I, for one, would not adopt.
      Mr. MORGAN JONES: Does not the same condition apply to the Charing Cross Bridge scheme? Was not the proportion of the contribution for the owners there to be very large, which the hon. Gentleman supported?
      Mr. PYBUS: I have not got the figures here, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept the fact that it is nothing near the same relative amount. We decided to review this, I admit, somewhat attenuated list of schemes from the point of view of the employment given and also of the traffic value. We adopted that plan, and as a result we are able to tell the Committee that the total amount of commitments which we inherited in August last has been reduced by a sum between £35,000,000 and £40,000,000.
      The next point which I should like to raise concerns the maintenance of the roads. We have had from the hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Chorlton) and others queries raised regarding the maintenance of the roads and the damage which, it is alleged, is done to them by heavy vehicular traffic. I welcome a discussion on this point, because whether there are too few roads, as hon. Members opposite consider is the case, or whether there are too many roads, I am sure we shall all be agreed that we cannot simply do nothing to preserve the roads of this country and this fine system of highways which we have bought and paid for at so high a cost to the taxpayer and the ratepayer. We cannot allow this wonderful system of roads to fall into decrepitude owing to a lack of proper maintenance.
      We must look at the question of maintenance from two points of view. First, we must examine carefully whether, as is alleged, certain types of heavy traffic passing frequently over the roads are not damaging them unduly and unfairly. The damage by heavy traffic, particularly traffic on solid tyres, is a very insidious thing, as it very often cracks and damages the road-bed itself, which is a very costly and a very difficult form of injury to repair. Then, when we deal with heavy traffic, we must remember that it damages, it is alleged, properties on the sides of the road. The hon. Member for

      833
      Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser) had my entire sympathy when he complained of the serious noise and vibration caused by this very heavy traffic, in some of our towns and cities. We have, as the Committee knows, recently appointed the Salter Committee, a committee consisting of representatives of the railways and of the road interests, and they will bring under review the question as to some balance between road traffic and rail traffic, and when they have made their report and we have further called into consultation the highway authorities and others interested in the roads, we shall, I hope, be in a position to make some suggestions to Parliament with a view to dealing with this very urgent and obviously growing problem.
      There is another type of injury to the roads, and that is to the road surface itself. Hon. Members, I know, are very anxious that economy should be made in the maintenance of the roads as well as on expenditure on new schemes, and I should like to refer to the researches which have been made. The hon. Member for Platting referred to a research station; I should like to refer to the new technique which is growing up all over the world with regard to the improvement of road surfaces. It is a very technical matter, and it necessitates, in my opinion, a new technical inquiry. The same problem is to be found in America, in Germany, and in France, as well as in Great Britain, and while we have already budgetted for a reduction of £1,000,000 this year in the cost of road maintenance, I believe that it should be possible to tackle this problem of maintenance not so much from the point of view of reducing the amount of maintenance as from the point of view of doing the same amount at a less cost. At any rate, I ask the Committee to rest assured that so far as my Department is concerned every step will be taken with a view to improving the maintenance of the roads of this country while reducing the cost of such maintenance.
      We have had a good deal of discussion this afternoon on economy, and I have noticed, both at Question Time in this House and on many other occasions, that there seems to be a difference between economy in the 'abstract and economy when it concerns a constituency of any individual Member. I have noticed that
      834
      most of the speeches this afternoon which referred to economy referred, rather apologetically and just at the tail end, to some scheme in the speaker's division which should be allowed to proceed. It is obviously impossible for rear economy to be secured if it is regarded from the point of view of its being the proper thing to economise in every other division except that represented by a particular Member. Much the same trouble, I think, appears with regard to the work of the Traffic Commissioners and control of public service vehicles on the roads of this country.
      The hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) and one or two other hon. Members inquired on what principle the Traffic Commissioners decide the cases brought before them. The principle was very clearly set out in the Act. The Commissioners were expressly required in Section 72 of the Road Traffic Act to consider, in deciding these cases:
      "the extent, if any, to which the needs of the proposed routes … are already adequately served; the extent to which the proposed service is necessary or desirable in the public interest; the needs of the area as a whole in relation to traffic (including the provision of adequate, suitable and efficient services, the elimination of unnecessary services and the provision of un-remunerative services), and the co-ordination of all forms of passenger transport."
      The Road Traffic Act, 1930, reduced 1,300 separate licensing authorities, all empowered to grant licences to public service vehicles upon the roads, to 13 authorities, and these authorities are granting the licences of the public service vehicles for the whole of this country. But how are we going to get any steady policy if we are to superimpose upon these 13 new authorities which replace the 1,300 local authorities which were doing the work another number of bodies equivalent to the number of constituencies of Members of this House, each bringing Parliamentary pressure to bear on the unfortunate Minister of Transport to settle a case in the Member's own division in a particular way?
      I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the serious amount of time which is taken up, not only my own time, but that of my Department, in dealing with individual cases concerning motor vehicles in one part of the country and another. We have other enormous responsibilities. We are responsible to this

      835
      House for the Electricity Commissioners and for the work of electrical development in which, they are engaged. My Department is closely concerned with the highway authorities in the upkeep of 177,000 miles of highway and of thousands of bridges towards which he grants we have been discussing are made. Under the 1930 Road Traffic Act be have to regulate the vehicles which use these roads and to deal with the problems which arise in connection with the relation between the traffic on the roads and the traffic on the main line railways.
      Transcending everything, in my mind, however, is this great problem of road and rail, and if the Committee wishes the Minister and the Ministry to take a broad constructive line in regard to these great problems which have been entrusted to us, I appeal at any rate to the followers of the National Government, when it comes to deciding traffic appeals, to trust somebody, and possibly it might be fair to trust the Minister whom the National Government have appointed to do the work. I have no wish to shirk criticism, either of policy or of administration, and hon. Members, I am sure, will, as is only proper, continue to raise points of importance in principle which should be ventilated, but as far as possible I feel convinced that hon. Members can be relied on to give us an opportunity to concentrate on these great tasks with which we are faced, which, in my opinion, are of overwhelming importance to the trade and industry of this country.
      Mr. MORGAN JONES: What about the policy of the Government in regard to road and rail transport?
      Mr. PYBUS: The policy at the present moment is in the making.
      Mr. ATTLEE: I intervene for a short time to deal with one point that has been very prominent in this Debate and other Debates lately, and that is the point of economy, or so-called economy, because I should like to try to find out what is really at the back of the minds of hon. Members who talk about economy in respect of matters such as road building, bridge building, and so forth. I think this economy is really a form of insanity, not so much midsummer madness, as May madness, not called so after the
      836
      month, but after the celebrated gentleman who presided over the May Committee. Let us consider what is really happening when you undertake economy of this kind with regard to roads. I suppose we may take it that of all forms of economic activity in this country the roads are essentially a matter of using home-produced materials by home labour. We can build roads and bridges without having to draw on supplies from abroad, and therefore expenditure on that work would not in any way worsen the trade position. We have a number of workers who are willing to work. Even under the administration that we have to-day it is not considered right that people should starve, and the police will stop people going naked; they will also stop them sleeping out. We must agree that the people must have at least a minimum of houses, clothing and food.
      Therefore, with regard to basic needs, this country, taken as a unit, must either produce or import food and clothing whether the people are at work or idle. Taking this country as a unit, therefore, we have to sell abroad sufficient of our products or services to provide clothing and food for our people and to get raw materials for industry, but beyond that every piece of work or service which uses our home-produced materials to supply our needs is an increase in the wealth of the country. Consider the 40,000 people who have been taken from the roads. They are presumably spenders: they are being fed somehow, and they are wearing clothes. They are actually idle. The materials on which they were working are in this country, which has the stone, timber and other materials which are necessary for road-making. Both the workers and the materials, however, are standing idle. If we set these people to work, the only actual expenditure, viewed from the point of view of the nation, would be that which was caused if the wages paid to them increased their demand for either foreign goods or for goods which we had to make out of foreign materials. Apart from that, everything else would be clear gain to the country.
      There is the question of the heavy compensation to be paid when bridges are made. That, again, is not a question of the external trade of this country, which is the problem which we have really to face. It is merely a matter of a distribu-

      837
      tion of purchasing power inside the community. If we want to see this economy argument in its most futile form, we can refer to a transport discussion which we had in the House the other day and look at the argument which the Noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) put forward with regard to Waterloo Bridge. We all agree that the present position of Waterloo Bridge is disgraceful, and anyone concerned with motor vehicles can tell us of the actual loss involved in the slowing down of traffic because of the position. We know that Waterloo Bridge can be produced by materials available in this country and by workers and skilled persons who are in this country, and yet that project was defeated by the economy cry. It was not aesthetics; there are not enough aesthetic people in the 'House to defeat it on that ground. It was an appeal to the simplest and most ignorant economy stunt. I can imagine the Noble Lord showing me a stream in his park and telling me that he cannot take me across because there is no bridge. He says, "I have masses of timber in my park and estate servants whom I have to keep, but if I put them working on the timber to make a bridge across the stream, it would be extravagant." He prefers to keep the Servants idle, to keep the timber lying unused and to continue walking round his park in order to get to the other side of the stream. That is true economy according to the National Government.
      The trouble is, of course, that this is not a National Government. They can never think of the nation as an economic unit. They are thinking all the time of private interests. If the Government were national, it would organise the resources of the country So that we brought into the country the food and raw materials that we needed and paid for them with our services or manufactures; and they would see that all surplus labour and surplus material was used for increasing the wealth of the community.
      The particular point which we are discussing is roads, and I am sure that the Minister of Transport has enough intelligence to know that the economy recommended by the Government is a false economy. Many of those who put it forward are the victims of their age. They are mid-Victorian, and some of them,
      838
      although born out of time, have been provided with Victorian minds. The economy stunt put forward by the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), for instance, is all based on the assumption that in this country there is an urgent demand for capital and labour, that every person employed on public works is taken away from private venture, and that any capital invested on public works lessens the amount available for private enterprise. There are at the present time 2,500,000 people unemployed. The rate of interest is low, and capital is lying idle. In the present state to which the world has been brought, even if private enterprise did start producing goods, the exchange is in such a condition that the world could not buy them. Therefore the Victorian doctrine does not apply in the least. It is Victorian Gladstonian economics, and this Ministry, although containing only a slight mixture of Liberals, are faithful Gladstonians in this matter.
      The only thing in which they are National is the name. If they could conceive of the nation as a unit, if they could look upon the country as a national estate of which they were in charge, they would not fall into these blunders. A well-known economist has said that the reason this country managed to carry on through the last few difficult years, during which the banks were doing their best to ruin the country by a policy of deflation, was that this expenditure on public works kept money in circulation and made a certain amount of purchasing power available. At the present time we have the extraordinary paradox of, on the one hand, the cutting down of every kind of work and the stopping of public work of every kind; and, on the other hand, the Lord President of the Council imploring the people of the country to carry on wise expenditure as 'private persons. At the same time, we have to cut down all public expenditure, wise or otherwise. Despite that, we have the position that while the Government are still calling out for economy, which is in fact deflation, hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway are calling for what they term reflation. They cannot have it both ways, and I suggest that while the Minister, who has given us an account of his stewardship, has done admirably departmentally, it is obvious that he is hampered when it comes to policy. He

      839
      had to confess that there was no policy with regard to railways and roads.
      There never is a policy. We have never had a policy on any subject from the National Government. We have had a series of scare expedients, one making one way and one another. The call for reflation and the cutting down of the road services is only paralleled by the advantages which the country was supposed to gain by going off the Gold Standard and the imposition of tariffs. We have a Government which simply cannot look at things as a whole because it has never been a National Government. It has in its composition a mixture of three different sets of people with different sets of ideals, so that everything they bring forward bears the mark of compromise. The Minister of Transport, in dealing with the important matter of transport, has been hampered by compromise. As long as we have the material and the workers in this country, as long as we carefully watch the exchange position, we increase the wealth of the country every time we put people into useful work. The Government are urging people to keep their gardens going, but the national gardens are to be allowed to go to rack and ruin. We are opposed to that policy; it is opposed to common sense and to economy. It is false economy, and the Minister who is in charge of this Estimate is one of the victims, if not one of the most unfortunate victims, of it.
      Mr. HANNON: The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) spoke slightingly of the madness of the May Committee. It was fortunate for this country that the May Committee presented its report at the moment it did after the extravagance of a Government that had no sense of responsibility to the nation. The hon. Gentleman who vas a Member of the Administration which made all the difficulties in which we are at this moment, has of all people no right to talk of the report of the May Committee as "Midsummer madness." The Minister is to be congratulated on the way in which he has carried out the directions of the National Government in bringing about substantial economies in the administration of his Department. Hon. Members 'will agree that there is still room for substantial economies in the administra-
      840
      tion of the Transport Department. We have been foolishly spending much more money on roads than the financial position of the country justifies, and I hope that with the growing sense of a feeling for real economy there will be introduced further economies in road and bridges expenditure. Hon. Members opposite think that they are doing something for the benefit of the nation if they encourage extravagant expenditure. In conjunction with their right hon. Friend who supported them so loyally in producing gigantic schemes of public expenditure in the last Parliament—
      Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. Member is referring to the present Home Secretary, is he not?
      7.0 p.m.
      Mr. HANNON: I will make the hon. Gentleman a present of the Home Secretary. The fact remains that their notion of relieving unemployment was to spend money indiscriminately upon public works. They never gave one thought to promoting productive employment, to protecting the industries of the people and giving them an opportunity of producing in their own country articles which compete unfairly against them. In all the time I have been in this House, we have not had one constructive suggestion from the Labour party to safeguard the interests of the people. All the time they have been urging us to spend more public money, regardless of the result. They know perfectly well that the indiscriminate pouring out of money on public works with no corresponding result is only loading the country with still further burdens and making future difficulties for the administration of public expenditure.
      I would like to ask the Minister two questions. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) asked what was being done in the way of research by the Ministry. I do not think the Minister answered that question. In view of the immense amount of money spent on reconstruction in this country, there is no Department which requires a really carefully conceived department of research more than the Ministry of Transport, and if the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion is true—and the Minister made no response to it—it is really time that a department of research

      841
      was instituted. How long is that curious phenomenon of road construction between London and Slough to remain? I motor up and down three times a week and I still see a notice which has been there for years, marked on one side "Slough" and on the opposite side "London." The road is carefully railed off. What is the reason for the road and for this particular experiment, how long is it going to be closed to traffic, and what useful purpose has it served? I hope the Minister will continue carefully to watch over economy of administration in his Department, and see that no money will be expended on any structural works, roads, bridges and so forth, which is not really necessary, and that the expenditure of the country will not be increased unless adequate results will follow.
      Mr. HALES: My object in intervening in this Debate is to offer some constructive suggestions which, I think, will appreciably reduce the terrible toll of disaster on our roads to-day. We have heard of practically nothing but economy this afternoon. I propose to leave that severely alone. What I am concerned about is the list of killed and injured on the streets every day. I notice, from the figures given the other day, that between 1926 and 1931 the injuries on the road increased by over 50 per cent., from 133,000 to 202,000. There should be some means of reducing this frightful total. The troubles are due to a series of difficulties—and there is no one suggestion which will meet them—but there is one which I want to emphasise, and that is danger from fire. I do not think the Minister has any special wish to protect the lives of drivers of commercial vehicles and public omnibuses more than the lives of private drivers, but, as the law stands to-day, it is compulsory to carry a fire extinguisher on a commercial vehicle and on a public omnibus, but not on a private car.
      There is little need to labour the point except to say that, while the objection may be made that the private owner can be left to look after his own safety, in many thousands of cases it is a. fact that the private owner employs a paid chauffeur, and if he does not protect the driver the man is left at the mercy of any collision or accident on the road. Therefore, my first suggestion is that the
      842
      Minister should see to it that the same law that applies to the commercial vehicles and the public conveyance should apply to the private car. The other day we read of a terrible accident in which three motor cyclists were burnt to death. Car after car came along, and not one of them had the means of assistance. How different would have been the case if every car coming along had a fire extinguisher with which it could immediately have put out the flames. There is no need for me to say more, for it is self-evident.
      We are certainly to be congratulated upon having a Minister of Transport who is get-at-able. He is a man of a receptive nature. We do not receive from him that stony glare which is so common to Members of the Treasury Bench when they do not recognise hon. Members as they pass them in the Lobby. He is a man who is willing to learn, like myself, and I have to thank him for having adopted on a number of occasions suggestions which I made to him, and which are now the law of the land for the benefit of the community. It did not need much consideration for the Minister and the Parliamentary Private Secretary—whom I include in this, bouquet—to realise the fact that it was in the interest of all to give owner drivers the right to lock the doors of their cars, which in London today is a safeguard against the smash-and-grab raids which are becoming a menace to society. Then it was said we must not let our wives go to market and carry parcels in private cars in any circumstances. That was a terrible crime, but a suggestion was made and acted upon, and now we are able to carry parcels without molestation by the police. We have another problem to deal with, and that is the fact that immediately an insurance company goes into insolvency, every insured motorist under that company breaks the; law the day he takes his car out. While I agree that it is impossible for the Minister of Transport to say that such-and-such an insurance company must be utilised for insurance, surely the insurer could be safeguarded by saying that companies must give certain evidence of solvency so as to avoid the question of a man being left out of cover after paying premiums and finding he is not covered and is at the mercy of the police directly he goes out.

      843
      Now a very few words as to safety on the roads. As a pioneer of the motor industry for the last 35 years, I have made road transport my particular hobby, and it is most instructive to see that with the improvement of the roads, widening and better surfaces, as a paradox injuries and accidents have increased. This is, of course, to be accounted for by two facts, one being the enormous increase of motors on the road, and the other the fact that the motorist takes advantage of the good surfaces and wide thoroughfares to go at a speed which at times may be characterised as a little reckless. You find that the cross-roads provide one of the greatest dangers to-day. It is being counteracted where there is room, by the adoption of the round-about system, but there are some roads too narrow for that, and I suggest where there is a danger spot, a speed limit of not above 10 miles per hour should remain. It might slow down traffic, but far better that and save life than save a few minutes and risk a collision.
      I have very great sympathy with the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser), who dislikes noise. The Committee may be surprised to know that ever since the days of the Red Flag, I have found it unnecessary, in driving thousands of miles—about 500 a week in the days when I was connected with the motor industry—to sound the horn on His Majesty's roads. Thirty-five years without a sound! I am not recommending that hon. Members should all copy my example. It needs a little adroitness at the wheel, and a cool, calculating mind in certain emergencies to restrain the instinct to blow the horn. Nearly every magistrate in a prosecution asks the inevitable question, "Did you blow your horn?" and if he did not, the poor man's number is up. I have had to choose between the alternatives of having an accident and sounding the horn, or acting on my own responsibility, breaking the law and not having an accident after taking the risk. I have done that, and I have not yet scratched a mud-guard. I am not suggesting that is due to any special cleverness; I am simply pointing out the danger of blowing the horn indiscriminately, which becomes a habit and is often quite unnecessary. Far better slow down and let the pedestrian walk across the road.
      844
      I can recall in my long motoring career some distressing accidents on the roads. I have been with drivers who have carried out the law and blown the horn, and yet killed a child. I suggest, therefore, that the Minister of Transport might give my suggestions careful consideration, and particularly that dealing with crossroads, and make a limit of 10 miles per hour, accompanied with a sign of "Caution." One point which the visitor from abroad promptly notices in this country is that here we allow a car to draw up on the offside of the road. When that car resumes its journey it must cross the whole stream of traffic to get to the left-hand side of the road. In India and in other countries it is against the law for any car to pull up save in the line of traffic in which it is, so that when it resumes its journey it continues in the same stream of traffic. If a driver wants to pull up to the right side kerb he must turn round and follow in the proper line of traffic. That may seem a small matter, but at night a car in the wrong position with a couple of dazzling headlights cutting right across the vision of the drivers of approaching traffic is a cause of considerable trouble and danger. I have thrown out a few suggestions which I hope will meet with the approval of my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and I would particularly ask him to give attention to the question of fire extinguishers, because that involves no expense. The law says that a motorist must provide a fire extinguisher in his garage, and it is only a question of putting the fire extinguisher on the floor board of the car in order both to fulfil the law and to make certain that it will be available in case of a fire or explosion occurring while the car is on the highway.
      Sir COOPER RAWSON: A remark was made by the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. J. Reid), and it was inferred by the Minister of Transport, that road making gives employment only to the men who are engaged in making the road. If that opinion does exist it is a misapprehension, because road-making calls for supplies from a great many industries, including the iron and steel industry and the quarrying industry. We have quarries working short time and closing down every week and throwing men out of employment. Those industries are being affected by what I suggest is a little bit of over-economy on the part

      845
      of the Ministry of Transport. Moreover, industries in this country are affected by the importation of foreign slag, which is tarred and then sold in this country as English slag, and put on the roads instead of British material. I hope the Minister will consult his Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut. - Colonel Heneage), who has recently been visiting some of the quarries in this country, and can inform him of the serious condition of affairs there and the amount of unemployment that exists. At present we have in this country no less than 180,000 feet of kerbing which is not being used owing to the importation of materials from abroad, chiefly from Norway and
      Sweden, where the industry is subsidised by the State. We are suffering because the Tariff Advisory Committee, when asked to give a protection of 50 per cent., gave only 15 per cent., which is perfectly useless be the industry. I hope the Minister will seriously consider whether be is. not indulging in a little too much economy, and whether he cannot be a little more lavish in dealing with the local authorities in respect of grants for the purpose of maintaining the roads in a better condition.
      Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £45,864, be granted for the said Service."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 28; Noes, 258.

      Division No. 247.]

      AYES.

      [7.20 p.m.

      Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

      George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

      McEntee, Valentine L.

      Attlee, Clement Richard

      Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

      Maclean. Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

      Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

      Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

      Maxton, James

      Buchanan, George

      Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

      Parkinson, John Allen

      Cocks, Frederick Seymour

      Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Thorne, William James

      Cripps, Sir Stafford

      Hicks, Ernest George

      Tinker, John Joseph

      Daggar, George

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

      Wallhead, Richard C.

      Davies. Rhys John (Westhoughton)

      Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

      Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

      Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)

      Lawson, John James

      Edwards, Charles

      Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Mr. John and Mr. Groves..

      NOES.

      Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

      Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

      Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

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

      Carver, Major William H.

      Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

      Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

      Cassels, James Dale

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

      Albery, Irving James

      Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

      Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

      Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.)

      Chalmers, John Rutherford

      Falls, Sir Bertram G.

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

      Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

      Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

      Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

      Chotzner, Alfred James

      Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

      Anstruther-Gray. W. J.

      Clarke, Frank

      Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

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

      Clarry, Reginald George

      Ford, Sir Patrick J.

      Apsley, Lord

      Clayton, Dr. George C.

      Fox, Sir Gifford

      Aske, Sir Robert William

      Cobb, Sir Cyril

      Fraser, Captain Ian

      Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

      Ganzoni, Sir John

      Atholl, Duchess of

      Colville, John

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

      Atkinson, Cyril

      Conant, R. J. E.

      Glossop, C. W. H.

      Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

      Cook, Thomas A.

      Gluckstein, Louis Halle

      Balfour, George (Hampstead)

      Cooke, Douglas

      Gower, Sir Robert

      Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

      Copeland, Ida

      Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

      Bateman, A. L.

      Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

      Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

      Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

      Cowan, D. M.

      Greene, William P. C.

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

      Craven- Ellis, William

      Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

      Beit, Sir Alfred L.

      Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

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

      Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

      Crossley, A. C.

      Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

      Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

      Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

      Guy, J. C. Morrison

      Sevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

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

      Hales, Harold K.

      Boothby, Robert John Graham

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

      Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

      Boulton, W. W.

      Dawson, Sir Philip

      Hanley, Dennis A.

      Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

      Denville, Alfred

      Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

      Bracken, Brendan

      Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

      Harris, Sir Percy

      Briant, Frank

      Dickie, John P.

      Hartington, Marquess of

      Broadbent, Colonel John

      Donner, P. W.

      Hartland, George A.

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

      Drewe, Cedric

      Harvey, Majors. E. (Devon, Totnes)

      Brown, Ernest (Leith)

      Duckworth, George A. V.

      Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

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

      Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

      Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

      Buchan- Hepburn, P. G. T.

      Duggan, Hubert John

      Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

      Burghley, Lord

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

      Hors-Belisha, Leslie

      Burnett, John George

      Dunglass, Lord

      Hornby, Frank

      Butler, Richard Austen

      Eastwood, John Francis

      Horsbrugh, Florence

      Butt, Sir Alfred

      Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

      Hume, Sir George Hopwood

      Caine, G. R. Hall.

      Elmley, Viscount

      Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

      Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

      Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

      Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

      Campbell, Rear-Admiral G. (Burnley)

      Emrys-Evans, P. V.

      Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

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

      O'Donovan, Dr. William James

      Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

      Jamieson, Douglas

      Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

      Janner, Barnett

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

      Skelton, Archibald Noel

      Jesson. Major Thomas E.

      Palmer, Francis Noel

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

      Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

      Patrick, Colin M.

      Smith-Carington, Neville W.

      Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

      Pearson, William G.

      Somervell, Donald Bradley

      Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stake Newgton)

      Peat, Charles U.

      Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

      Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

      Penny, Sir George

      Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

      Kerr, Hamilton W.

      Percy, Lord Eustace

      Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

      Kirkpatrick, William M.

      Petherick, M.

      Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

      Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

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

      Spencer, Captain Richard A.

      Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

      Pickering, Ernest H.

      Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

      Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

      Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

      Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

      Leech, Dr. J. W.

      Potter, John

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

      Leighton, Major B. E. P.

      Procter, Major Henry Adam

      Stones, James

      Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

      Pybus, Percy John

      Storey, Samuel

      Levy, Thomas

      Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

      Strauss, Edward A.

      Liddall, Walter S.

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

      Strickland, Captain W. F.

      Lindsay, Noel Ker

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

      Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

      Lleweilln, Major John J.

      Ramsbotham, Herwald

      Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

      Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

      Rankin, Robert

      Sutcliffe, Harold

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

      Rathbone, Eleanor

      Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

      MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

      Rawson, Sir Cooper

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

      Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

      Ray, Sir William

      Todd. A. L. s. (Kingswinford)

      McKie, John Hamilton

      Rea, Walter Russell

      Touche, Gordon Cosmo

      Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

      Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

      Train, John

      McLean, Major Alan

      Reid, David D. (County Down)

      Turton, Robert Hugh

      Magnay, Thomas

      Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

      Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

      Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

      Reid, William Allan (Derby)

      Wallace, John (Duntermline)

      Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

      Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

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

      Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

      Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

      Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

      Maynew, Lieut.-Colonel John

      Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

      Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

      Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

      Rosbotham, S. T.

      Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

      Milne, Sir John S. Wardlaw.

      Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

      Waterhouse, Captain Charles

      Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tfd & Chlsw'k)

      Runge, Norah Cecil

      White, Henry Graham

      Mitcheson, G. G.

      Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

      Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

      Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

      Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

      Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

      Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

      Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

      Wills, Wilfrid D.

      Morrison, William Shepherd

      Salmon, Major Isidore

      Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

      Muirhead, Major A. J.

      Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

      Withers, Sir John James

      Munro, Patrick

      Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

      Womersley, Walter James

      Nall, Sir Joseph

      Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

      Worthington, Dr. John V.

      Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

      Scone, Lord

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

      Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

      Selley, Harry R.

      Normand, Wilfrid Guild

      Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      North, Captain Edward T.

      Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

      Captain Austin Hudson and Commander Southby.

      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

      Original Question again proposed.
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

      ROAD FUND.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £2.7.50,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for Advances to the Road Fund."
      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.

  HIRE PURCHASE AND SMALL DEBT (SCOTLAND) BILL,
  changed from
  HIRE PURCHASE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
  HIRE PURCHASE (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Power to hirer or purchaser to terminate contract.)
    Captain STRICKLAND: I beg to move, in page 2, line 24, to leave out from the word "owner" to the second word "the," in line 27.
    Before I speak upon this Amendment, I should like your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to whether we might also speak on the Amendment standing in my name for the insertion of a new Sub-section at the end of line 37 which replaces the words proposed to be left out in this Amendment, and which reads as follows:

    849
    "(2) For the purposes of this section delivery—

    (a) to any person specified by the owner in a notice given to the hirer or purchaser and residing or carrying on business within a radius of two miles from the place where any person who acted on behalf of the owner in connection with the formation or conclusion of the contract resided or carried on business at the time he so acted; or

    (b) if no such notice has been given, to such last-mentioned person,

    shall be deemed to be redelivery to the owner."

    Mr. SPEAKER: I think we had better take discussion on the two Amendments.
    Captain STRICKLAND: Thank you, Sir. Under the Bill as it stands, it is laid down that where a person has entered into a hire purchase contract and wishes to break that contract voluntarily, he can do so in certain conditions. The first of those conditions is that he should redeliver the goods to the owner, and secondly that he should make a payment of money. In the Clause which deals with the return of goods to the owner it is also laid down that the hirer may return the goods to any person who acts as agent on behalf of the owner in the formation or conclusion of the contract. It must be obvious that, from the owner's point of view, and from the hirer's point of view, this Clause inflicts some little hardship. Supposing the original agent has died or gone out of business in the interval between the formation and the carrying out of the contract, and the hirer wishes to conclude his bargain. The hirer has only one person to whom he can return the goods, and that is the owner himself, who may be many hundreds of miles away. That would entail a heavy carriage on the return of the goods to the owner in the absence of the original agent who acted in connection with the formation of the contract. It also has an unfairness from the point of view of the owner of the goods that had been let on hire, purchase. It is quite conceivable that the original agent, who acted for the owner in the formation and conclusion of the contract, has since that time behaved in such a way, for instance, that he has ceased to be the agent for the owner; but this Clause states that the hirer of the goods may return the goods to an agent who is no longer agent for the owner. There is nothing in this Bill to compel that agent either to take those goods when
    850
    they are offered to him, or to be under any responsibility to the owner to return them.
    The Amendment which I have put forward is a perfectly simple one, in that it merely empowers the owner to notify the hirer at any time prior to the breaking of the contract that the original agent is no longer acting as his agent, and that a new agent has been appointed in the same district as that in which the hirer originally contracted the hire purchase, that is, within two miles of the place. The proposed Amendment does give the hirer the chance of returning the goods somewhere locally, somewhere quite convenient to him and near the place where he originally bought the goods. It gives to the owner the opportunity of securing that the goods, being returned, get into the right hands, namely, the hands of the person who is responsible to him for seeing that those goods, which belonged to him during the whole time of the contract, are duly returned to the owner.
    I move the Amendment for the purpose I have indicated, and not in any sense to attempt to destroy the structure of the Bill, with which most hon. Members will generally agree. The Amendment is moved with the idea of making the operation of the Clause a little smoother and easier for this trade to be conducted. It is a legitimate trade and a helpful one to the manufacturers of goods both in this country and in Scotland, and to those who desire to take advantage of the terms of hire purchase.
    Mr. ALLAN REID: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Normand): This is an Amendment which the House would do well to accept, in that it advocates cutting out entirely words which might inconvenience both the hirer and the trader. Without the Amendment the position is that the hirer who seeks to return an article, having terminated his contract, has an option of returning it to the owner who may be at some very distant place, or to the agent. If that agent dies, this Amendment gives the owner the opportunity of nominating someone else who resides near the place where the original agent resided, and to whom the hirer may conveniently return the articles. At the same time, it would be a convenience

    851
    to the owner of the goods, that is to say, the trader, in the case either of the death of his agent or where for some reason the agency has been terminated. It was the intention of the Standing Committee that this matter should be further considered, and that a satisfactory solution on the lines now suggested should be brought forward if possible. For that reason, I commend this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. ALLAN REID: I beg to move, in page 2, line 33, to leave out from the word "which" to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "the respective proportions hereinafter referred to, of the total payments stipulated for in the contract by way of instalment, exceeds the cumulo amount of the instalments due at or prior to the aforesaid date.
    The proportions of value of the article required to be paid on redelivery, in pursuance of the provisions hereof, shall be as follows:
    In respect of articles purchased or hired for sums of fifteen pounds up to twenty pounds four-twelfths, for sums of ten pounds or more and under fifteen pounds five-twelfths, and for sums below ten pounds six-twelfths."
    Before addressing myself to the Amendment, I would wish, as a new Member making his maiden speech, to receive on my own behalf the same kindly consideration and sympathy, which have been extended to all my predecessors, old and young alike. Indeed, I think the old, like myself, need it more than the young, since youth has time to retrieve its errors, and age has not. I would seek to justify the intervention, in this essentially Scottish Debate, of one who was born south of the Tweed, and to placate the feelings of any Scottish Member who might otherwise somewhat resent that intervention, by telling the House that both my parents and likewise all my forebears were Scottish and, that, as I sometimes teasingly tell my English friends, the place of my birth was not my fault; it was my misfortune. But for that, I should be at ease in approaching this subject.
    As a lawyer, I have taken more than a slight interest in this Measure, because when it was first brought up in the House, it became quickly obvious to me that it was necessary, in relation to hire purchase, that something should be done for Scotland in that respect, not only to re-
    852
    dress a very legitimate grievance, but also to afford such facilities in Scotland as have long been existent in hire purchase in England, and so approximating one practice to the other. In England, so far as concerns the right of a hire purchaser to return, in certain circumstances, an article to the owner, the practice has been made the subject of a contract at common law. With regard to imprisonment for debt as such, that is, of course, an anachronism to-day. This Bill seeks to impose a condition in relation to the return of an article to the owner, and give it statutory force, but it seems to me to be very rigid and unyielding, and therein lies the danger. The Committee will agree that the system of hire purchase has come to stay, and has justified its existence, since it is only through the medium of hire purchase that humble folk of very limited means can acquire things, not only desirable to possess, but which in many cases are essentials, for example, a bicycle, which is eminently the poor man's vehicle for easy, and fairly rapid transport.
    In regard to Sub-section (2) it will be observed that, apart from the fact that the hirer must return an article in the same condition as he had it, subject to fair wear and tear, he must also pay something, and in the Bill this figure is a flat rate of a third of the original value of the article. It is in that sense that I can fairly describe it as rigid and unyielding. My Amendment proposes a graduation of the amount which shall be payable by the hirer, having some relation to the value of the article. Taking this flat rate of a third in the case of a bicycle, to borrow an illustration which has been used by my lion, and gallant Friend the Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) a place so intimately associated with this trade, a bicycle is hired for six pounds, and the instalments arc payable at the rate of half-a-crown a week. In 16 weeks the hirer has paid £2, that is to say, one-third of the total value of the article. In the contract made between the owner and the purchaser, save in regard to reasonable wear and tear, there is no limitation of the use of that bicycle, and it might well be that during that period of 16 weeks the bicycle has travelled anything between 1,500 and 2,000 miles. It must be obvious to the House that that

    853
    bicycle, if returned after the payment of only £2 upon it, is of very little use to the owner, and there is also this ironical feature, that the hirer may repeat the process; he may get a new bicycle and likewise use it for 16 weeks on payment of only £2. So far as the English traders are concerned, I have good reason to know that they strongly object, particularly in relation to the lower-priced articles, to that flat rate of one-third, and, indeed, if this Amendment be not accepted, the only way in which they can protect themselves is by imposing, either a more or less substantial payment on deposit., or an increase of the instalments payable over a portion of the period of hire. Perhaps it would be convenient if I read out the Clause as it would stand if amended as I suggest:
    "(ii) paying (a) any instalment due at, or prior to, the date of such redelivery, and unpaid at that date, and (b) the amount, if any, by which the respective proportions hereinafter referred to, of the total payments stipulated for in the contract by way of instalment, exceeds the cumulo amount of the instalments due at or prior to the aforesaid date.
    The proportions of value of the article required to be paid on redelivery, in pursuance of the provisions hereof, shall be as follows:
    In respect of articles purchased or hired for sums of fifteen pounds up to twenty pounds four-twelfths, for sums of ten pounds or more and under fifteen pounds five-twelfths, and for sums below ten pounds six-twelfths."
    It will be noticed that I have kept the denominator of the fractions the same in all cases, so that the provision may be more easily understood by anyone not familiar with the Statute. The result would be that, in a case such as I have suggested, the bicycle would not be returnable until the hirer had paid £3. Even that would not compensate the owner, but it might have the effect of deterring the purchaser from doing what I have described. On the other hand, in the case of more expensive articles, the purchase prices of which might range from £15 to £20, a proportion of one-third, as provided in the Bill, is reasonable, and the increase is very little more in the price of articles midway between the cheapest and the dearest; it means the addition of another twelfth. I submit that the suggestion contained in the Amendment is not unreasonable, but is fair and equitable. If this Bill becomes a Statute, and if it is to be worked in the
    854
    interests, not only of the different trades which supply these articles, but of the hire purchasers themselves, it is far better that every provision of it should be fair and equitable as between the parties, and, if this Amendment should meet with the approval of the House, I would respectfully but strongly urge the Secretary of State for Scotland that he should accept it. As I have said, I think it to be in the best interests of all the parties. If I have been, perhaps, rather insistent or vehement in pressing the Amendment, my excuse must be that I am really anxious that this new departure in relation to hire purchase in Scotland should not only be the success that it ought to be in adjusting difficulties and removing hardships, but that every Clause of it should be fair and equitable. In conclusion, I should like to thank the House for the sympathy, patience and courtesy with which they have listened to me.
    Mr. LEVY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Captain STRICKLAND: I wish to sun port this Amendment, because I think that it is, perhaps, one of the Amendments most needed in the whole Bill. If the original intention, of the promoters of the Bill were carried into effect, and if, in the case of the smaller type of articles, the only possible return that the manufacturer could hope to get in the event of voluntary cancellation of the contract were to be the goods plus one-third of their original value, there would be, according to the; evidence that I have been able to collect from those most interested in the trade, an entire revision so far as Scotland is concerned in regard to the goods which are supplied in such large quantities from this country. I do not know whether the House is aware of the extent of the hire purchase trade and the manner in which it has grown in recent years. I believe that something like 80 per cent. of the pianos sold in this country are sold on hire purchase terms, while over 50 per cent. of such articles as wireless sets, gramophones and other amenities of life are supplied on those terms, and the trade is one which has grown very much of recent years. In this Bill we are not either condemning or supporting the principle of hire purchase; that does not come within the purview of the Bill; but we have to decide whether we are going to take a step to-

    855
    night which must strike a very heavy blow at the trade. I was twitted, in the Committee that examined the Bill, with being an Englishman interfering with Scottish matters. I have not noticed any reluctance on the part of Scottish Members to interfere in English matters, but in this particular instance—
    Mr. MAXTON: British matters.
    Captain STRICKLAND: In this particular instance, the effect of the Bill on the purely English trade is most alarming. My hon. Friend has just quoted a case which, perhaps, affects my own constituency the most—the case of a bicycle. To any business man in this House, indeed, to anyone who cares to give the matter a thought at all, it must be obvious that it would be impossible to carry on that trade with Scotland, whatever may happen in this country, under the conditions of the Bill. To suppose that the manufacturer of a bicycle could let it out on hire purchase with the knowledge that it could be retained for use for four months and then returned on his hands, and that he could have any expectation that he would be able to place it on the market again as a second-hand bicycle and make £4 out of it, is absurd. I am speaking of a bicycle of the value of £6.
    What is going to happen? You will have in Scotland a number of young people just going out to work, who have some distance to travel to their work, and have not sufficient capital to buy a bicycle outright. To them the hire purchase trade comes as a godsend. It enables them, for a small payment of half-a-crown a week, to overcome their transport difficulties and within 12 months to become the possessors of bicycles. But this provision of the Bill must of necessity mean that the manufacturer, in order to protect himself, will have to add to the cost of his bicycles at least 50 per cent., so as to recover for himself at any rate half the original value. That means that, for the sake of the comparatively few people who meet with misfortune and have to break their contracts, the vast number of people to whom hire purchase is of the greatest advantage, and particularly those of whom we hear so often in this House, the poorest of the poor, who are
    856
    only represented, apparently, on the opposite benches—[Interruption.] I said "apparently."
    Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will surely remember that in the Scottish Grand Committee the keenest speakers against the Bill were opponents of his own. He must give them proper credit.
    8.0 p.m.
    Captain STRICKLAND: I was trying to pay a compliment to hon. Members opposite, as appearing to be the only people who represent the poorest of the poor, because of the number of times that we hear that sacred phrase from them. I claim to represent the poor quite as much as hon. Members opposite. If this Clause is passed in its present form, the people who are going to be hit are just the working-class people of Scotland who mostly want this type of hire purchase, because it will mean that, if they want such a bicycle, they will have to pay £9 instead of £6 for it, whereas the graduated Amendment which has been so excellently proposed by my hon. Friend would avoid that, and would give the trade a chance. The same thing applies with regard to other commodities, of which I would like to mention one, as showing the necessity for a change in the wording of this Clause. I refer to such things as wireless sets. Everybody knows that the wireless industry is an industry which is perpetually changing. Improvements are made, and old wireless sets are obsolete in a very short time. What is going to happen under this provision is that a man will be told that he can have a wireless set for £6 or £8, he can keep it for a short time until it becomes obsolete, and he can then return it on to the manufacturer's hands, paying him one-third of the original value, without the manufacturer having the slightest ghost of a chance of placing the set on the market again. To anyone who considers that position for a moment, it must be obvious that it is unfair. One thing which I want to emphasise above everything else is that the hire purchase trade is indeed what it pretends to be; it is a hire purchase; that is to say, a person hires goods for a certain period of time, and whatever payments he makes from time to time, by the month or by the week, are paying for the hire and the use

    857
    of those goods until he has completed a certain period of hire; and at the end of that time usually he purchases the goods by the payment of a small sum; but the advantage is indeed with the hirer in the great majority of cases, because he enjoys the use of those goods, for which he has not had to put down his capital in the first place. He pays the hire, month by month or week by week, for the use of them. When you come to a case of a man who wants to break that contract which he has made, it does seem to mo a little unfair to say that he may break the contract into which he has entered, and which he intended to carry out but possibly has not been able to carry out, by merely returning the goods and paying one-third of their value. I do suggest that unless you want to cut this trade out from Scotland, the House should accept this Amendment.
    I am not speaking without my book; I have here some 20 letters from leading London houses, all of whom proclaim exactly the same thing; that if this Bill is passed in its present form they will either have to cut out the Scottish hire purchase trade up to the value of £20, or they will have to increase their charges over and above those made on the English side of the border. They will have to charge Scotland more than England for the smaller goods, and that charge will hit just the very people whom the hire purchase trade was originally intended to help, such people as the young artisan who has served his apprenticeship, who has earned very little wages during the time while he has been apprenticed, and now wants a set of tools to start in life. He cannot get that set of tools unless he has a chance of getting them through such a system as hire purchase, by which he can pay a small sum per week and start on his work. If you exclude that trade you are going to do an injury not only to those people who find in the hire purchase system a chance of obtaining goods which are of use to them and which add to the enjoyment of life, but you are also going to strike a blow at industry and trade itself, which is very largely dependent upon the hire purchase system.
    Mr. MAXTON: I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General for Scotland is not going to accept this Amendment. We discussed this matter at
    858
    very great length in Committee. On my side of the Committee we had the strongest objection to the Sub-section being there at all. When a hire purchase trader enters into a contract with a customer he weighs up all his difficulties. A man may have failed to make good his contract at some point and failed to pay all the instalments, but he may have paid regularly up to that point. The trader has received those instalments. There comes a point when the customer cannot' continue; and provisions are laid down in the Bill for the way in which the contract can be terminated: The customer has to hand the article back in good condition; and a very large proportion of the articles which we are considering are capable of reconditioning and capable of sale as new. In addition the customer has to pay any instalments outstanding at the date of return; and in addition to that, after very close and prolonged discussion in Committee, we allowed it to go that he should in addition pay one-third of the difference; we agreed to item (b) in the Sub-section.
    I had almost forgotten to congratulate the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Allan Reid) on his first intervention in Debate in this House. I am glad to hear his voice, and I hope that on the next occasion he will get a greater opportunity than the somewhat limited one which was afforded to him here. I hope that on the next occasion he will be on the right side; but I congratulate him on his trial run, and I have no doubt that on the next occasion he will interest the House as much as he has done to-day.
    We agreed in Committee on that one-third, our side of the House agreeing with great reluctance. I think that my hon. Friends on the Labour benches, and some of the Conservative Members also, felt that in granting this item (b) in the Sub-section we were going a very long way in the interests of the trader. The hon. Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) was unfair to the Scottish Members, I think, when he talked about our objection to Englishmen intervening in Scottish affairs. Surely his opportunities in the Scottish Standing Committee, where he was surrounded by Scotsmen, were as great as any Member of this House ever had at any time or at any place, and he certainly had a full opportunity to argue this Amendment to an unlimited extent.
    Captain STRICKLAND: I hope the hon. Member will also repeat to the House the protest which was raised at the very beginning, that while he did not object to Englishmen being on the Scottish Committee, he did very much object to their trying to tell Scotland what it ought to do.
    Mr. MAXTON: I do not remember that protest. I remember several protests from my group, not because of the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry was an Englishman, but because he seemed to be voicing the claims of the trader solely, without regard to the customer. That was the protest which came from our side when he was too voca1 in defence of the bicycle makers. We understood, and excused, but we protested. Here he comes forward again, after we have debated and, as I understood it, reached agreement, and says that one-third is not enough, that it must be more. He is not demanding the whole pound of flesh, but he is not content with four-twelfths; he wants five-twelfths and six-twelfths, respectively. Speaking for my friends, I do not feel that we can agree to that, and I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Solicitor-General for Scotland do not propose to agree, otherwise we will be forced to put up an opposition to the Bill which we had not contemplated at this stage.
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I feel unable to recommend the House to accept this Amendment. The present plan of the Bill is to enable a hirer to terminate his contract upon the return of the article in good condition, and upon paying all the instalments due or one-third of the total sum of the instalments, whichever is the larger. That conforms to the recommendation of Lord Fleming's Committee, which gave this question very great consideration, and all aspects of which they very carefully weighed. The matter came before the Scottish Standing Committee, and while there were Amendments which would have raised, the proportion payable by the hirer, there were also Amendments which would have materially reduced them. The Government in this matter kept what, I think, is a moderate course between the two extremes, and we are here on the findings of Lord Fleming's Committee. It is undoubtedly true that if you deal with a hire purchase con-
    860
    tract which contemplates an even level of instalments throughout the whole course of its currency, any figure, whether it be one-third or one-half, may have unfortunate results for either party. I agree that if you have the case of a bicycle, which rapidly deteriorates in use, so that there is a high rate of depreciation, and if your contract provides that it shall be paid for at the rate of half-a-crown per week for, say, 48 weeks, then if the Contract remains unaltered the trader suffers some prejudice on a breach of the contract.
    But then, what about the hirer in the case of articles which slowly depreciate?. He has to take his risks also. I think it is the duty of hon. Members to consider first of all the interests of both sides to the bargain, and secondly to bear in mind that nothing in this Bill prescribes an even level of instalments during the currency of the contract, and accordingly, as the hon. and learned Member for Derby (Mr. W. Reid) pointed out in his lucid speech recommending this Amendment, what the trader may do, and what he would have to do in the case of bicycle contracts, is slightly to increase the initial instalments. There is no reason either in principle or economics why he should not do so. The hirer of a new bicycle ought naturally to be con tent to pay a rate of hire greater in the ordinary way than the hirer of a bicycle a year old, and if it is truly a hire contract, then it is quite natural and reasonable that the early instalments should be on a higher scale than the instalments towards the end of the currency of the contract. Therefore, there is not only an easy way but a way entirely consistent with the true principles of fair dealing, in which the trader may protect himself. Wherever you draw the line difficulties may arise, but at all events the trader can in every case protect himself against any unfortunate economic effects of such a line.
    I cannot help thinking that there is great exaggeration in saying that this is going to work any great disaster to the bicycle or any other industry. What is the position to-day? You are assuming in these discussions that somebody has entered into a contract which he finds himself unable to fulfil. What happens in such an event to-day? One knows that what happens to-day is that he ceases to pay the instalments and the

    861
    trader gets nothing more except a damaged bicycle. This provides that when a man seeks to determine his contract he shall pay all the instalments due, or one-third of the total instalments, whichever is the larger. I agree that the probability is that there may be cases with which it will be difficult to deal; there may be cases where the hirer declines to pay any more instalments, and the operation of subsequent Clauses which we shall have to consider will have to come into operation. But the essence of the thing is that wherever you draw the line there will be people on each side of it who may have reason to complain if they have a hard-and-fast contract; but if traders desire to enter into this trade they can meet all the difficulties, and therefore I suggest that the Amendment should not be accepted.
    Mr. HANNON: I intervene only for a single moment to ask the hon. and learned Member the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether he has brought his mind to bear upon this point: Under existing contracts for the hire purchase of bicycles—in which I have an interest as representing a division of Birmingham, and also as being a director of a company which is a very large producer of bicycles—is it not a fact that at the present moment, if the hirer ceases to pay his instalments, the vendor of the bicycle, whether it is a company or an agent, can proceed against him in law for the recovery of the balance? Under this Bill, as I understand it, the amount which the hirer, notwithstanding the condition of the article, is called upon to pay, is the amount of one-third set forth in this particular Clause which we are now discussing. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman also say who is to determine the condition of the article when it is returned? If the vendor says it is not in good condition and the man who has used it for four months and got all the excellent qualities out of it says it is, who is to determine between the two?
    The Bill, with this limited provision, will inflict a very severe blow upon English trade in relation to Scotland. We have supplied Scotsmen from time immemorial with English products at the lowest possible price. There is not a Scotsman of this or any other generation who will not admit that this country has
    862
    been conferring perennial benefits upon Scotland, and yet they bring in a Bill to deprive the English vendor of articles supplied to Scotsmen of a fair return for a period of hire of that article if at the discretion of the Scottish hirer, he determines to pay no further instalments. Any Member of this House projecting his mind into the mentality of Scotland can see multitudes of occasions on which Scotsmen will find a good, solid, substantial Scottish reason for seeking to pay instalments. That being so, surely something must be done to safeguard the interests of the vendor. I am certain that, by the limitation imposed in this Clause, you are doing serious injury to British manufacturers of certain articles customarily sold on hire purchase in Scotland. With reference to the interchange of amenities between the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland), I always hold that a Member for an English constituency is perfectly entitled to take part in any Debate affecting |Scotland. Scotsmen have profited so much by association with this country—
    Mr. MAXTON: Will the hon. Member explain what he means by saying that I have profited from my association with this country?
    Mr. HANNON: I was not making any personal allusion to the hon. Member, and I apologise if my remark could be interpreted in that way. I think the House ought to accept the Amendment. It is only a matter of fair play to English manufacturers who provide articles to make the daily life of the Scottish people more comfortable, happy and genial. To place this limitation upon manufacturers in this country for the benefit of persons who refuse to pay hire purchase instalments is an abuse of legislation.
    Mr. J. REID: I rise as a Scottish Member to support the Government and to oppose the Amendment, which seems to me to be entirely ill-conceived, and conceived in the interests of one trade alone. Let me give one example to show how it would work out in practice. We have been told that a £6 bicycle is let out at 2s. 6d. per week. At the end of the first week the person who hires it may find that it does not suit him, or that he does not need it, or that he can-

    863
    not afford the £6. It is true, as has been said, that in the old days that man was in a difficulty, because he either had to go on with the bargain or sacrifice the £6 and the bicycle, unless he could come to an agreement. The object of the Bill is to avoid difficulties and to enable a man in that position to get out of the bargain, I think to the mutual advantage of both parties. As the Bill stands, that man will have to pay, in addition to his first week's hire of 2s. 6d., £l 17s. 6d., which, it seems to me, is quite sufficient to pay by way of a penalty for having rued your bargain. On the other hand, under the Amendment he would have to pay £2 17s. 6d. in addition to the 2s. 6d. It seems to me that that is a most monstrous sum to require him to pay. I cannot believe that my hon. Friend's bicycles axe so bad or so over-priced that after a week's use they have depreciated to half their value. It seems to me that any goods for which hire purchase can reasonably be applied ought to be of a reasonably durable character and, if they are of a reasonably durable character and are not over-priced, one-third fully represents the initial depreciation and, if that is so, the justice of the case is met.
    Mr. HANNON: Will my hon. Friend substitute two or four months for one week? Can he conceive of a Scotsman being tired of a bicycle in a week?
    Mr. REID: My answer is that he ought to be charged a reasonable sum for hire. If an article depreciates rapidly, as bicycles apparently do, to charge only 2s. 6d. a week for a machine that costs £6 is an entirely vicious method of doing business. It means that you are charging too little for even the hire of a bicycle, let alone the purchase.
    Captain STRICKLAND: Do we correctly understand my hon. Friend to be arguing in favour of the workers of Scotland being charged more for what they have enjoyed at a lower price?
    Mr. REID: Certainly not as to total price, but, if a bicycle depreciates at the rate of more than 2s. 6d. a week, obviously the instalment ought to be more than 2s. 6d. a week, but it should not go on for so long. If my hon. and gallant Friend's constituents are getting
    864
    business by spreading the instalments 'over too long a time, that is a vicious system. Hire purchase ought never to be in such a state that the instalments are less than the amount of the weekly depreciation, otherwise the thing is not a proper commercial contract at all. If people choose, in order to get business, to enter into contracts under which they are willing to take smaller instalments than the weekly amount of depreciation, it is their own fault if they do not get paid at the end of it. I do not think that those sellers who trade on proper commercial principles ought to be penalised in order to advantage cycle makers who apparently, in order to get business, are willing to accept too small instalments.
    Mr. JAMIESON: I, too, should like to say a word in opposition to the Amendment. If it is accepted, it seems to me that it will go a long way to defeat two of the main objects for which the Bill was introduced. One was to make sure that, where a hire purchaser had been persuaded to take an article which he could ill-afford to pay for, he should be entitled to return it on fair and equitable terms. The other reason was that people have entered into these contracts and soon afterwards become unemployed and find themselves totally unable to pay. It was in the interests of them as well as in the interests of the trader that Clause 3 was introduced; so that the hirer might be relieved of his contract and the trader might be entitled to get back his article if it was in good condition.
    If the Amendment is accepted it will mean that to a very large extent these two main objects of the Bill will go by the board. In their report, Lord Fleming's Committee said that they were very much impressed by the number of cases which had come before them where at the time the contract was entered into the hirer was actually unemployed or soon afterwards became unemployed. It is to meet those cases that the provision was made for re-delivery if the article was in good repair. The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) asked who was to decide if the article was in good repair? It is very simple. If the hirer tenders an article back and the trader says, "I am not going to accept it; it is not in good order," the latter will sue for his instalments. The defence to such

    865
    an action would be that the article had been tendered back, and it would be for the court to decide whether or not it was in good repair or whether the tender was a good one. The committee recommended that one-third was a fair amount, but it is suggested in the Amendment that in some cases as much as two-thirds should be paid.
    Captain STRICKLAND: No, one-half.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. JAMIESON; I do not think that my arithmetic is at fault. I am afraid I am not up-to-date. As the Amendment was originally tabled I understood that it was a larger sum. But take the case of a person who has a gramophone or a wireless set which he does not want, or for which he cannot afford to pay. If the article is in good condition when the return of it is tendered, surely a third of the whole is a fair amount to pay. if as much as half were exacted it would render the redelivery Clause useless. I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member need be afraid that the English traders will lose their business if the Clause is passed in. its present form. He suggested that the English traders might add 50 per cent. to their present prices. If they do so I think that they will probably find enterprising Scottish traders ready to supply the needs of the country at present prices. It seems to me that the whole of the difficulty can be met by a very slight adjustment of the contract by putting more upon the initial instalments and less upon the later. I would welcome that being done, because I believe that it would be in the interests not only of the people who take the articles but of the traders themselves. It would lead to what I call legitimate trading. Articles would be hired when they were wanted and not because a canvasser had been round and pressed them upon people who did not want them. The result would be that only contracts would be entered into where there was a reasonable chance of their being fulfilled. That would not only be in the interests of the hirers but in the interests of those who wanted to place their goods upon the market. I am glad that the learned Solicitor-General for Scotland has said that the Government are not prepared to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Captain STRICKLAND: I beg to move, in page 2, line 37, at the end, to insert the words:
    "(2) For the purposes of this Section delivery—

    (a) to any person specified by the owner in a notice given to the hirer or purchaser and residing or carrying on business within a radius of two miles from the place where any person who acted on behalf of the owner in connection with the formation or conclusion of the contract resided or carried on business at the time he so acted; or

    (b) if no such notice has been given, to such last-mentioned person,

    shall be deemed to be redelivery to the owner."

    The Amendment is consequential on the first Amendment which I moved, in which we deleted certain words, and therefore I do not propose to take up the time of the House any further.
    Mr. HANNON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Redelivery of article to hirer or purchaser on payment of balance due under contract.)
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I beg to move, in page 3, line 23, to leave out the word "sum," and to insert instead thereof the word" amount."
    This is purely a drafting
    Amendment, Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Decree for delivery in small debt court may include warrant to take possession.,)
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I beg to move, in page 4, line 1,, after the word "person," to insert the words "as owner or tenant."
    The Amendment is to give effect to an undertaking given in the Scottish Standing Committee. It relates to the right of search which the owner of an article may have when obtaining a decree for its redelivery. The right was in somewhat wide terms in the Bill as it originally stood, so that it might be possible to search premises of a person who had a very remote relation with the contract, and accordingly an undertaking was given to consider the precise terms by which it should be restricted. The Amendment gives effect to the undertaking by restricting the right of search to premises occupied by the hirer as owner or tenant of the premises. Unless

    867
    the premises are actually occupied by the person as owner or tenant no decree can be issued for search.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Amendment of law as to im prisonment on small debt decree for delivery.)
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I beg to move, in page 4, line 15, to leave out from the words "moveables," to the end of the Sub-section.
    The Amendment means that the individual hirer would not be in any fear of being put into prison for failure to deliver up the article. The Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General are well aware that this question of putting an individual into prison and keeping them there for a number of days is one of serious importance. Cases were cited during the Second Reading Debate and during the Committee stage where individuals were placed in prison, in one case for 50 days, for an amount outstanding of only a few shillings. The main purpose of the Bill when it was introduced was to do away, if possible, with imprisonment. The question was keenly debated in the Scottish Standing Committee and also the question of recurring sentences, but we think that it is necessary that we should draw the 'attention of the House on the Report stage to this matter just as we did in Committee. It is evident that those who have been in touch with the traders who have been supplying the goods have come re-fortified with information on various points of advantage to the trading section of the community, and it is only right that we should again place before the House the point of view that is held, in the West of Scotland particularly, with regard to the imprisonment that has been imposed upon certain people.
    In Scotland we do not object to any representations coming from other Members of the House who represent other parts of the country, but we do insist that so far as the people of Scotland are concerned they should not labour under disadvantages and that they should be placed on an equal footing with citizens in other parts of the United Kingdom, whether the trading company comes from Coventry or from Birmingham or any other part of England. Whether it be a
    868
    cycle firm, a wireless manufacturing firm, or a furnishing firm, we are unconcerned, but we are concerned that the people of Scotland who, through unemployment or other unfortunate circumstances, are unable to maintain their instalments, should not be put into prison at the behest either of a Coventry firm or a Birmingham firm. Hon. Members from the Birmingham district have been speaking and have endeavoured to make out that the trader is suffering many disadvantages. One disadvantage which the trader does not suffer is that of going to prison. The hon. and gallant Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) produced letters from trading firms to the effect that they may have to stop their trade with Scotland if this Bill goes through. During the Second Reading Debate and in the Committee stage a number of hire-purchase agreements were produced, documents of a most iniquitous character, issued by the hire purchase firms, laying down many onerous conditions and many unscrupulous conditions upon individuals who hired articles from them. It was felt the time had come to bring forward legislation to put a stop to some of the things that have been done by the hire purchase trade.
    If the Solicitor-General cannot accept the Amendment, I hope that he will at least do something to abolish imprisonment by recurring sentences. If he is prepared to do something in that line I may be able to withdraw this Amendment, with the consent of my colleagues, but we do stand definitely against the method of putting individuals into prison for failure to maintain their hire purchase agreements, and we also protest against their becoming liable to recurring sentences of six weeks at the end of every three months.
    Mr. LEONARD: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOT-LAND: I earnestly appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment. If it were adopted, the result would be to make the whole procedure for enforcing the return of an article inept and nugatory. In regard to grants of decree for the delivery of any article, no matter whether a hire purchase article or not, the only sanction and power to enforce resides in the ultimate power of imprisonment. Take that away and the decrees

    869
    for redelivery of articles, whether under a hire purchase system or not, ceases to be of any effect. That is an entirely impossible situation. It may help the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment if I say that I am glad to see a subsequent Amendment standing in the names of hon. Members from all quarters of the House, which would have the effect of abolishing recurring sentences. I respectfully suggest that on the lines of rejecting the present Amendment and accepting the other one, a reasonable compromise might be effected.
    Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: I am sorry that the Solicitor-General has refused to accept the Amendment. I am informed that the custom in operation in Scotland with regard to imprisonment is comparatively new. [Interruption.] That is my information. My information is that until a decision of the Sheriff Court in Glasgow, a few years ago, a man could not be put into prison for failure to comply with a contract of this character. I do not argue that that version is correct, but if it is true it means that imprisonment for this particular offence, which is not a crime, or which ought not to be a crime, has been created by the result of judge-made law and not by legislation.
    The necessity for legislation on the lines suggested by the Amendment has been obvious for some considerable time to everybody connected with the administration of the law in Scotland. The committee was long overdue, and there is no doubt that the conditions to-day are very much worse than they were when the committee was appointed. At least 95 per cent. of the members of the working class who enter into contracts of this kind will keep their contract; at the same time, there is a percentage of the population who are not in a position to do so owing to circumstances over which they have no control. In this matter England benefits to the disadvantage of Scotland. We are much more unfortunate in the matter of unemployment, and what we are attempting to do now is to prevent the hirer having the right to bring a man from Aberdeen to Glasgow. He may be unable to come all that distance, and although he may have a very good defence the Sheriff has no choice but to order him to go to prison. I am pleased to note that the Solicitor-General is in favour of putting an end to recurring
    870
    sentences, but I should have preferred no sentence of imprisonment at all. If the man is in prison he cannot pay.
    Captain STRICKLAND: The hon. Member, I think, is under a misapprehension. Does he wish to convey to the House that a man can be put into prison for not paying; or does he understand that under the Bill the only way is when he willfully defies an order of the court to return goods which are not his? A man can only be sent to prison for refusing to return goods which are not his. This has nothing to do with payment.
    Mr. GRAHAM: But there are a number of men who are quite willing to pay but are unable to pay.
    Captain STRICKLAND: In that case he can return the goods.
    Mr. GRAHAM: If he returns the goods, then it may be a question for the court as to whether they are in a satisfactory condition.
    Captain STRICKLAND: This is not a case where the goods must be returned in a fair condition as to wear and tear. This is a case where the court orders the goods to be returned in whatever condition they are, and the only case in which a man can be sent to prison is if he wilfully defies an order of the court to return what is left of the goods.
    Mr. GRAHAM: If he returns the goods, then the Bill, in another Clause, provides that they must be in a good condition.
    Captain STRICKLAND: No.
    Mr. GRAHAM: We will leave it at that. The man will always be at a disadvantage, inasmuch as the hiring company can employ the best legal service which the man is not able to afford. I enter into a contract and I get a bicycle, which is quite satisfactory. Then there comes a time when I am unable to pay the instalments. I am asked to return the bicycle, but I do not want to do that because I want to keep it; I want to pay the instalments. It is not a question of trying to get out of the obligation. It seems to me that in certain conditions a man who is honestly anxious to keep his contract may find himself in prison. I prefer that the hirer should be put in the same position as any other person or company to whom payments are due,

    871
    and that he should go by civil process and get a return of the money. If that fails, then he can pin the man's goods or his wages. There are any number of ways in which it can be done without the necessity of sending the man to prison.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: In view of the statement made by the Solicitor-General that he is going to do away with one of the obnoxious Clauses of the Bill, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Before the Amendment is withdrawn—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): If the hon. Member wants to speak on it, the Amendment cannot be withdrawn.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to put one point to the Solicitor-General. Suppose a man who has obtained a gramophone or a bicycle on the hire purchase system finds himself in arrears of rent and the landlord puts in a claim. These goods may be taken and the man may find himself in a very awkward position. Can he be sent to prison in those circumstances?
    Mr. NORMAND: My answer to that question is, no. The only way under the Bill by which a man can find himself liable to imprisonment is that by his own wilful action he fails to return the goods on an order of the court.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. GUY: I beg to move, in page 4, line 30, to leave out the words "be proved," and to insert instead thereof the words "appear to the court."
    This Amendment raises the point of the onus upon the owner to prove wilful refusal by the hirer to redeliver the goods. I would like to remind the House that the object of Clause 7 is to make it more difficult for an innocent or an ignorant hirer to be put into prison. Members of the Scottish Standing Committee are aware that one of the main objects of the Bill was to do away with what was admittedly an abuse of the hire purchase system whereby a trader could get a decree for delivery in Glasgow against a hirer in Aberdeen. The hirer, not having carried out that decree, could be put into prison, although he might have had a perfectly good defence, or a
    872
    perfectly good explanation as to why he had not returned the article, if he had been able to attend in Glasgow when the decree was granted. The possibility of that abuse has been swept away by Clause 4 of the Bill and now it is only possible for a hirer to be put into prison, after a decree of delivery has been pronounced in favour of the trader if, after there has been a search of the hirer's house, the hirer wilfully refuses to return the article.
    9.0 p.m.
    I think it has been made clear that the hirer is not to be put into prison in circumstances such as those indicated by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham). I think the hon. Member was labouring under a serious misapprehension in that respect. But let us assume that the case has reached the point at which a decree of delivery has been pronounced and let us also assume that the hirer has paid a substantial proportion of the instalments. That raises a difficult question which I think is not fully covered by Clause 3 and I think that is the kind of case which the hon. Member for Hamilton had in mind—a case where a hirer had paid a substantial amount of the instalments and just held on to the article. He is holding on to this article to which he has no right. Under Clause 7, the owner has to apply to the court for a warrant for imprisonment 10 days after the decree for delivery. If within those 10 days, the hirer returns the article there can be no imprisonment, but if he does not return the article then the trader appears in the Small Debts Court and asks for a decree of imprisonment. But before he can get that decree, as Clause 7 reads now, he has to prove to the court that the hirer is wilfully refusing to return the article and, in the event of the hirer not appearing in court, if there is not correspondence available showing that the hirer is wilfully refusing to return the article it will be difficult if not impossible for the owner to discharge that onus of proof. That might open the way to something very like fraud. I do not like to use the word "fraud," but it might open the way to an abuse of the machinery provided in the Bill. In the event of the owner not being able to discharge the onus of proof the hirer would then be in a position to snap his fingers at the owner, and keep the article and nothing further could be done against

    873
    him. That would be only an exceptional case, but I think that this Amendment would be a reasonable solution of the difficulty. Its effect would be to leave the onus of proof still on the owner, but to make it a lighter onus, because the Clause as amended would read:
    " The court may, if it shall appear to the court; that the defender is wilfully refusing to comply with the decree, etc."
    May I say that the wording of the Clause as it stands is not justified by the report of the Fleming Committee because that report suggested the words "if the court is satisfied," which are much nearer to the words of my Amendment than to the words now in the Bill. The words in the Bill originally were the same as the words in the report but Amendments were put up, on one side rather extreme and of the other side, somewhat more lenient, as regards the onus of proof, and at the end of the day an Amendment containing the words in the Bill was carried. If these words remain in the Bill they will put a very difficult and heavy onus on the owner. I suggest to the Solicitor-General for Scotland that he will not be going against the recommendations of the Fleming Committee if he accepts my Amendment; that he will make the machinery of the Bill work more easily, and at the same time that he will leave a substantial safeguard against the possibility of an innocent or ignorant hirer being put into prison through failure to return an article.
    The Amendment would still leave it open for the hirer to avoid any sentence of imprisonment by coming forward and providing an explanation to the court as to why he had not been able to return the article. He has only to say that the article has been stolen or has been accidentally destroyed by fire, or whatever the explanation may be. That is a simple thing for him to do and is not putting a heavy burden on him or involving him in any hardship. If he can give satisfactory explanation the court would not pronounce a decree of imprisonment.
    Captain STRICKLAND: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I hope the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment which as my hon. Friend has said only carries out the suggestion of the Committee which considered this question of hire purchase in Scotland. The words of the report on this point are:
    874
    "If delivery of the article is not obtained under the decree of the court, the trader should then be entitled to apply to the court for a warrant of imprisonment against the hirer. If he satisfies the court that the hirer is able to implement the order of the court but is wilfully refusing to do so, it will be in the discretion of the court to order the hirer imprisonment for a fixed period."
    It is a most difficult thing to insist on a man's coming into court under the conditions laid down in the Bill and being able to prove that the hirer is wilfully refusing to surrender certain articles, and it has been made all the more difficult by the wording of other Clauses, because in the case of a sheriff officer being empowered to search, the area of search has been considerably curtailed. It came out during the sittings of the Committee that supposing you had a lodger in a house, who entered into a hire purchase contract, and there came a decree of the court to return certain goods, which he did not return, a sheriff's order might be made for an officer to search, but that search must be rigidly restricted to just the one room or rooms actually in the occupation of the lodger. When you come to the case of a son living at home, who is not in occupation of any particular room, it is impossible under this Bill for the sheriff officer to search any part of that house which is in the occupation of the parents of the son living at home, so it is with the utmost difficulty that any trace can be kept of the articles which it is desired by the order of the court to be returned. There is only one person who can know where they are, and whether he is still in possession of them, or whether he has merely shifted them to some convenient place which cannot be searched, and that person is the hirer.
    I do not think anyone would defend the particular hardship under another Clause mentioned by my hon. Friend, which was unquestionably a hardship, namely, that of having to attend a court in Glasgow, say, when the hirer himself might live in the North of Scotland, but now that we have a court held in the district in which the man lives, I submit that it is no hardship to insist on the onus of proof being thrown on to that man to attend his own district court and explain why he has not obeyed the order of the court to return the goods. It may be said that the words "be proved" have much the same meaning as the words "appear to the court." It is easy to

    875
    put words into an Act and to have an intention in putting them in, but I am afraid that lawyers would grow very thin indeed if the intention of the Act of Parliament was so clear every time that there was no need to call upon their services to explain what the words meant, and if there is no difference between these two forms of words, I urge the Government to accept the Amendment. I have certain support, which I should perhaps produce at this point, which was given by the learned Solicitor-General for Scotland on 19th April, when he said:
    "The onus must be quite definitely upon one party or the other. On whom is it to be placed? At present, according to the common law, it would undoubtedly be upon the hirer or purchaser … At the same time, it is useless to disguise that there may be occasional cases of hardship where the hirer or purchaser is a wilful man who knows where the article is but will not tell anyone and the trader has no means of discovering what he has done with it."— [OFPICIL REPORT (Standing Committee on Scottish Bills), 19th April, 1932; cols. 80–1.]
    In view of the fact that the ultimate decision as to whether or not a man is wilfully disobeying is placed in the hands of the court to decide, I submit that if the Amendment were accepted, it would be possible for an owner genuinely seeking to get back his goods to have the hirer himself attending the court to explain why he had not complied with the order. If he is wilfully withholding the goods, I think he should be compelled to attend his own district court and give his reasons for refusing to comply with the order.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I must resist this Amendment. It is moved by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Guy), who recognises that the form of words which he proposes would leave the onus exactly where it is left by the words in the Bill which he seeks to delete. The advantage of the words in the Bill is this, that they are clear and unambiguous and can leave no doubt in the mind of anyone who may be called upon to construe them. The disadvantage of the words of the Amendment is that they are ambiguous. The words "appear to the court" are not appropriate words for this case. If it was dealing with something within the cognisance of the court itself, it would be appropriate to insert such words. In a
    876
    Bill recently before this House dealing with children there were Clauses to the effect that where it appeared to the court that the person before it was a child the court should decide so and so, but this is a matter of proof upon evidence, and the only way in which anything can either appear to the court, or by which the court can be satisfied, or by which the matter can be proved to the court is by competent legal evidence. What we have done is to use that phrase which is the most clear and the most free from ambiguity. The Amendment was seconded in a speech which, if it meant anything, meant that the onus should be on the hirer, not on the trader, but perhaps the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) will be satisfied by the fact that the law in Scotland in this respect will now conform to the law in England.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. JAMES DUNCAN: I beg to move, in page 4, line 40, to leave out paragraph (v).
    I move this Amendment with some measure of confidence, having the support of hon. Members from Clydeside and having listened to the words of the learned Solicitor-General on an earlier Clause. As the Bill now stands, a man who has been wilfully defying the decree of a court can be sent to prison for six weeks, then have three months out, then another six weeks in prison, and so on indefinitely, and this recurring imprisonment seems to me, as a Scotsman who now represents an English constituency, but who tried to represent a Scottish constituency, to be a relic of barbarism, however modern it may be according to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham). Therefore, the suggestion that I make is that, by leaving this paragraph out, there will be one definite term of imprisonment, a maximum term of six weeks. Even with that maximum term which the sheriff may give, there will still be an option on the man who is imprisoned to get out at the earliest opportunity by delivering up the goods.
    Lord SCONE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I confess that in doing so I have a certain amount of hesitation, because while I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington (Mr.

    877
    J. Duncan) that this system of recommittal is rather a relic of barbarism, I am not sure whether the mere sentence of six weeks' imprisonment will be enough to deter that comparatively small proportion of the community which desires to take an unfair advantage of those who supply goods under the hire purchase system. I am of opinion that this is rather in the nature of an experiment, but it is an experiment that is worth making, and I am prepared to see this recommittal to prison brought back upon the Statute Book at a later stage if undue advantage is taken of the concession. I hope, however, that that will not come to pass. The vast majority of those who in the past have been committed to prison for the non-payment of what they owe under an agreement of hire purchase, have been honest people who have fallen into difficulties, and we are not legislating against them. It is better that we should run the risk of a few rascals escaping a large penalty than that a great many honest people who have not been guilty of any dishonest intent should have to go to gaol.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Sir Archibald Sinclair): It is the intention of the Government to ask the House to accept the Amendment, but I want to make clear the circumstances in which this proposal was brought forward. In the first place, a man who might have received terms of recurrent imprisonment would have been a man who ex hypothesi was in deliberate and wilful possession of an article which did not belong to him; it had been proved to the satisfaction of the court that he possessed it and was deliberately refusing to give it up. In the second place, he would not have received recurrent terms of imprisonment merely because he was keeping the article in his possession; he would be receiving them for successive refusals to obey the order of the court, so that morally he would not have been entitled to very much sympathy. In the third place, the real object of this paragraph was to give the sheriff the feeling that he could impose a relatively short sentence. If a man came before him and it was proved that he was deliberately and wilfully keeping an article which did not belong to him, the sheriff might well say, "We will give him three days to show him that we have the power and
    878
    can use it"; and if he were still obstinate at the end of that time, he could give a sentence more appropriate to the offence and give him a longer time to think it over.
    We feared that if there were no power in the sheriff to award this short sentence on the first occasion, a man might get a longer sentence than was actually necessary. On the other hand, it remains true that the man, so long as he is in prison, has his fate in his own hands; he can get out whenever he likes merely by authorising the delivery of the article. A subsequent Amendment which the Government also proposed to accept will make it obligatory upon the trading firm to notify the court as soon as the article has been restored. In these circumstances, we think that there are ample safeguards for a man, even if a sheriff, as the result of our acceptance of the Amendment, does in fact impose heavier sentences than he would have done if the paragraph, had remained in the Bill.
    Mr. JAMIESON: While I recognise that there seems to be a general feeling in the House in favour of the Amendment, I feel that it is making such an innovation into the law of Scotland, an innovation which will have such far-reaching results, much beyond what has been contemplated, that I must enter my protest against it. Two points, have been very much overlooked. The first is that imprisonment following upon a decree of the court for the delivery of an article is not a criminal punishment. It is differently regarded in England, where attachment, as it is called, follows for contempt of court. It is not so regarded in Scotland. It has none of the stigma of criminal imprisonment, but it is the only possible method of enforcing a decree under which the court orders the defender to do something other than the payment of a sum of money. The second point that has been overlooked is that the Clause with which we are dealing is not confined to cases of hire purchase. It deals with decrees for delivery of any moveable article, however it may have come into the possession of the person in whose possession it is. The true owner of it may have lent it; he may have hired it under a contract altogether other than a contract of hire purchase; or, indeed, it may have been stolen from the true owner. By the law of Scotland the

    879
    owner of stolen property is entitled to follow it up and obtain possession of it. no matter in whose hands it may be— differing in that respect from the law of England.
    If the Clause had dealt only with hire purchase, I would not have protested against the Amendment, because a person entering into a hire purchase contract does so with his eyes open knowing what the consequences may be. It is said that if the paragraph stands there will be hardship. I challenge anyone who is in favour of the Amendment to figure any possible case of hardship on any man who is acting honestly. Under the Bill as it stands the ignorant and unintelligent are carefully safeguarded. First of all, the summons for delivery of the article is served. If that is not understood or if it is disregarded, an application has to be made to the sheriff for a warrant to imprison, and that is served on the individual. If he still does not understand the meaning of that, then he may be put into prison for such period, not exceeding six weeks, as the sheriff may decide. That is not a sentence, but he is ordered to be kept in prison for any period the sheriff may decide, up to six weeks. Once he finds himself in prison it would be idle to say he does not know what he is there for, and, if the articles are in his possession he is able to deliver them and if he wants to do so, he them become his own gaoler and can unlock his own prison door. Not only that, but under Sub-section (6), if, after he is put into prison, he is able to show to the court that he is no longer wilfully refusing to deliver the goods, because they may have perished or because for some other reason he cannot deliver them, then he can be liberated.
    It is difficult to see what more wet-nursing the defender could have than that, and it seems to me that it is absurd to say that after all these stages, even if he does not appreciate the position until he finds himself in prison, after he gets there, if he still refuses to deliver, he is acting in any way but dishonestly. Accordingly, the removal of this Subsection is simply going to put a premium on dishonesty. The Government have intimated through the right hon. Gentleman that they are prepared to accept the Amendment. They resisted it when it was
    880
    in Committee. May I read what was said by the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who put it more neatly than I can I He said:
    "They serve the sentence in wilful recalcitrancy for retaining the article in their control and refusing to part with it. If they have been to prison, and they then wilfully refuse to give up the article which does not belong to them, can anyone say that they are entitled to any further consideration, either at the hands of the trader or at the hands of the Legislature? They have again to be brought before the court and it has to be proved against them, after due notice, that they are still wilfully and obstinately refusing to give up the article."
    Then he goes on:
    "It has simply to do with those who are dishonest enough to retain the article. It is fair at this stage, after all the warning and proof which they have had, to say that they are not only wilfully but dishonestly withholding property which belongs to somebody else."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee on Scottish Bills), 19th April, 1932, col. 94.]
    So that against the honest offender the Sub-section in question would never be put into operation, and that was fully recognised by the Solicitor-General in the passage which I have read. What then, is going to be the position? Under the Bill the sheriff has a discretion but does not know when the man comes before him that he going to be dishonest. He sends him to prison, perhaps, for a period of three or, let us say, six days. At the end of that period the man is liberated and he is entitled to retain the article and the true owner can never get it back. Under Sub-section (4), before a warrant of imprisonment is granted the sheriff has a discretion, instead of ordering imprisonment, to order a money payment, but once the owner has taken the course of putting the man in prison—it may be for only three days—he can neither get back his property nor can he recover its value.
    9.30 p.m.
    It does not matter how it came into the possessor's hands. He may have borrowed it or it may actually have been stolen from the true owner, but, as the Bill stands, if the sheriff only gives three or six days or other short period of imprisonment, at the end of that period the possessor of the article can go and flaunt it in the face of the true owner, who has no possible remedy unless he takes the remedy of force.

    881
    This Amendment stands in the name of Members on both sides of the House. It is just as likely that the owner who is being deprived of his property may not be a Noble Lord but one of the poorer class of the community whose cause hon. Members opposite champion with such frequency and vehemence and, as we think, with such mistaken notions. It may be that the owner is a member of that class who can much less well afford the loss of his article and of its value, and who will not bless the day when those hon. Gentlemen put their names to this Amendment. We have to look a little ahead. No doubt we are here dealing with articles under the value of £20, and the reason why this Clause is of general application is because it was thought to be an anomoly that there should be one rule as regards hire purchase contracts and another rule as regards other moveables. It seems to me that this Bill will necessarily only be the precursor of legislation dealing with hire purchase of greater amounts. If that is so, then the same question is going to arise again. If it is right as regards hire purchase that, for an article of small value, the period of imprisonment should be limited, it would be equally right as regards articles of greater value. If it is right that there should not be any difference between the enforcement of a decree in hire purchase for small articles and for other articles of small value, the same thing will apply as regards articles of greater value. The result of this Amendment is simply to put a premium on dishonesty, and I should be very sorry that this House, in a desire to remedy the difficulties which have arisen in hire purchase, should lend itself to something which is going to encourage dishonesty and make it impossible for the true owner of an article to get it back from the dishonest possessor.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Commander COCHRANE: I beg to move, in page 5, line 9,, at the end, to insert the words:
    "and it shall be the duty of any person to whom delivery is made in accordance with the decree or with the provisions of Subsection (2) of this Section to intimate such delivery forthwith to the court."
    Sub-section (6), which I seek to amend, provides for the release of a man who has had the misfortune to get into prison
    882
    when the court is satisfied that delivery of the goods has been made. It does not, however, place any definite responsibility on either of the parties to give proof to the court that the goods have been delivered. I think it is clear that the only person who can provide that proof is the owner, and therefore I am moving this Amendment in order to put upon the owner the definite responsibility of at once notifying the court when the goods have been returned to him.
    Mr. J. DUNCAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I think this is an Amendment which ought to be accepted, for the reasons which have been so lucidly explained by the hon. and gallant Member for Dumbartonshire (Commander Cochrane). The point was discussed before the Scottish Standing Committee, and an undertaking was given then that further consideration would be given to it and, after reflection,, I am satisfied that the Amendment is one which will greatly improve the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: I beg to move, in page 5, line 16, to leave out the words "not be liable to aliment or," and to insert instead thereof the words "be liable."
    The Clause which this Amendment seeks to alter makes an alteration in the general practice, if not the law, in Scotland. When an individual is put in prison because he has refused to deliver up an article which the courts have ruled he must give up, the hire purchase firm which has put him into prison is bound,, either by custom or by law, to pay the cost of his maintenance in prison. This Bill alters that practice, and the maintenance of the prisoner is to fall upon the State. The Amendment proposes that the present law or custom shall continue. We believe that if the present practice is maintained firms will hesitate seriously before proceeding to what one may call a piece of persecution in putting an individual in gaol for a period of six weeks for some small sum which has been left outstanding or for an article of minor value. If they are not liable to maintain the individual while he is in prison, very likely they will have him sent to prison no matter how small the value of the article may be.
    Mr. D. GRAHAM: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I feel that we ought to put the greatest possible difficulties in the way of any hire purchase firm, who are more or less rich members of the community, putting the poorest members of the community into prison, and, after all, it is the poorest people who are affected. With some knowledge of how this hire purchase system is carried on, I think the greatest criminals in many ways are those who go about urging men and women, and particularly women, to enter into hire purchase agreements. Very often the man does not know anything about it at all until after the transaction has been entered into and he is summoned to the court, and then various reasons which have already been stated may be the cause of his refusal to pay. Because a man is so poor that he can pay only 2s. or 3s. a week towards the cost of an article of less value than £20 it does not necessarily follow that he is dishonest, and it would be a considerable hardship on him, and not something of which we should be proud, to put him in prison merely because of his poverty. The power to send him to prison is still there, and it is no use talking about three days or six days, because he will be sent to prison for the full term, and while he is in prison the company from whom he has hired the article should be compelled to pay for his maintenance, as they are called upon to do to-day under Scottish law. I hope the learned Solicitor-General will not agree to what appears to have been an old-established custom in Scottish law being done away with.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am afraid it is impossible for me to advise the House to accept this Amendment, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not press it. It is really not the case that under this Bill a man can be put in prison merely for poverty. There are a series of obstacles which absolutely prevent such a thing. We have ensured that the man cannot be summoned to a court a long way from his home, but that the case shall be heard in a court close to his place of residence; we have prevented a number of oppressive stipulations which have appeared in these contracts being inserted in them in the future, and have said that if they are included the con-
    884
    tract shall be null and void. In fact, we have made it abundantly clear that the only circumstances in which a man can possibly be imprisoned under this Measure are where it has been proved to the satisfaction of the court that he is in possession of an article which does not belong to him and which he is wilfully refusing to deliver up on the order of the court, that is, acting in wilful defiance of the court. In those circumstances, is it right or fair that the man who sold or hired the article should be made liable for the holder of that article? This changes the whole character of the existing law, At present, the character of the imprisonment for which a man is subject now is at the definite instance of a private party to enforce his civil claim. The only form of imprisonment to which a man would be subject under this Bill would be imprisonment for wilful contempt of the court and defiance of the order of the court, and, in those circumstances, it is unfair to charge the trader with the maintenance of the prisoner.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: Is not that what happens to-day? Is it not the case that when a man is supposed to be guilty of defiance of a court's order he is sent to prison, and even in spite of that heinous offence, as the Secretary of State for Scotland endeavours to make it out to be, the individual or firm responsible for taking the matter to court in the first instance is compelled to pay for the maintenance of tine prisoner while he is in prison?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Under the existing law, a person against whom a decree for delivery is pronounced, can be imprisoned by the pursuer on his own hand and without further order of the court. It is an old usage and custom, and I think it is fair that the pursuer should pay the "upkeep of the prisoner. In this Bill the hirer will have to appear before the court, and the whole of the circumstances will be thrashed out, and the court will deliver a definite decree, ordering the man to restore the article in dispute. In that case, I think it would not be fair to make the trader pay for the imprisonment.
    Lord SCONE: I am very glad that the Secretary of State for Scotland has not seen fit to accept this Amendment, put forward by the Opposition, to whom

    885
    so many concessions have been made in the course of this Ball. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) has once again given us the old story that we have heard ad nauseam from Socialist benches about the rich hire purchase firms. Apparently, while it is Very wrong to defraud a poor man, it is a much less grave offence to defraud a rich man. Furthermore the hon. Member went on to talk about a housewife who secretly concludes an agreement without the knowledge of her husband; whose fault is that? When this Bill was in Committee, I brought forward an Amendment to ensure that such contracts should be valid only if signed in the presence of the witness. I got a little support from my own side of the House, but not much. My Amendment was negatived, but for that Amendment I received not one iota of support from the official Labour party or from the Independent Labour party. I had considerable doubts about putting my name to the Amendment doing away with repeated imprisonment. If we make those responsible for bringing the action also responsible for the maintenance of the wrongdoer, it is going to be a great inducement to fraud. It has been pointed out by the Government spokesman several times that no man or woman can be committed to prison under this Bill except for wilful defiance of orders of the court. In those circumstances, I do not see how the Opposition can with any justification press their Amendment.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: When the Noble Lord has been a little longer in the House he will appreciate that it is only by a great deal of pressure that concessions can be got from any Government. I thank the Government for the recent concessions that we have obtained, but I have not the least hesitation in saying that I will try to get more concessions from them.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: My party has been assailed. I do not want to be blamed for holding up the passage of this Bill, but I want to say that the Noble Lord Is slightly mistaken. The Solicitor-General for Scotland will bear me out when I say that I pressed very strongly about this Amendment. I do not believe: in making spectacular speeches, but I believe in doing things quietly behind the scenes. I inquired privately, and I found that the Government was adamant, upon
    886
    which I decided that I would not unduly harass the Committee and take up its time. It is because I wanted to make that slight correction that I have risen. With regard to the other remarks about the payments to the court, I always thought that it was about 9d. per day, because, after a great row with the predecessor to the Solicitor-General for Scotland, I managed to get it increased from 7d. to 9d. The best way to deal with this would be by administration and by not making the charge 9d., but about 15s. 9d. per day.
    Amendment negatived.
    Captain STRICKLAND: I beg to move, in page 5, line 22, to leave out from the word "made," to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "(a) to any person specified by the owner in a notice given to the hirer or purchaser and residing or carrying on business within a radius of two miles from the place where any person who acted on behalf of the owner in connection with the formation or conclusion of any contract under which the moveables came into the possession of the defender, resided or carried on business at the time he so acted; or
    (b) in the case where no such notice has been given, to any person who so acted as agent on behalf of the pursuer."
    I do not think I need say anything about this Amendment. It is an Amendment similar in its nature to that which has already been accepted by the House.
    Mr. ALLAN REID: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    Mr. J. JOHNSTON: May I offer one or two very brief observations from a standpoint slightly different from most of the speeches that we have heard in Committee and on Report? The Amendments which have been moved to this Bill since it was introduced, including those proposed and not accepted, appear to have been prompted by rather different motives. On the one hand, those by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) and other Members of the Opposition have been trying to amend the Bill to make it more favourable to the hirer, and especially to the hirer who defaults in payment. On the other hand, the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry

    887
    (Captain Strickland) has been not less zealous but more verbose in trying to protect the interests of the trader. I am glad to know that if this Bill becomes law it will not be possible to insert such definitely oppressive conditions in hire purchase contracts; on the other hand, I see no particular harm in it to the trader. I am far more concerned to consider whether the Bill as amended would tend to encourage and increase, or to discourage and restrict, this hire purchase system of trading which has been developed to such an alarming and dangerous extent in this country.
    In times of normal financial stability hire purchase trading in certain types of articles may perform a legitimate and useful function, but there is a very great difference between the hiring out by a local authority of, let us say, a gas stove —which depreciates slowly, becomes more or less a fixture in the house to which it goes, and the hiring of which is an advantage to them independently of any profit they may make out of it, in as much as it enables the hirer to consume their gas —and a system of trading which enables irresponsible youths to get possession and use of bicycles on payment of half-a-crown. It is generally agreed that the excessive development of this system, if not actually a contributing cause, has been a great aggravation, of the economic distress in the United States, and yet we appear to contemplate with comparative equanimity its spread in our midst.
    The system inevitably encourages and entices people to purchase articles which their economic position scarcely justifies them in affording. It is an extravagant form of purchase, because, apart from interest on the deferred payments, the trader inevitably has to charge more than he would for cash, owing to the additional risks that he runs; and it is a system of trading which is peculiarly unsuitable to a time of fluctuation in the money value of commodities, or, conversely, in the commodity value of money. A friend of mine who has had much, experience of cases arising out of these contracts in the Sheriff Courts in Glasgow told me that his experience convinced him that, as regards people living more or less from hand to mouth, this system of trading, with the temptations that it offers, is nothing more or less than an unmitigated evil.
    888
    10.0 p.m.
    We have heard a great deal about bicycles in the course of these discussions, but I am sure that, if any hon. Member could tell us about the affairs of a company interested in the manufacture of moneyboxes, his evidence would be that hire purchase trading has destroyed their market altogether. The idea of saving up to buy things seems to be becoming demode in every section of society, and the caution which prevents indulgence in what one cannot pay for, and which at one time might correctly have been described as a typical Scottish virtue, is now, apparently, merely old-fashioned. I do not know whether these changes in outlook have brought the hire purchase system into being, or whether the hire purchase system has brought about these changes, but they are, I think, none the less to be deplored. I believe that there are some people, perfectly honest in all ordinary transactions, who quite genuinely regard anyone who sells them something on the hire purchase system as fair game to be "diddled" if possible, and that, I think, is a circumstance which should be kept in mind in considering the position of the hirer under this Bill as it has now been amended. I do not criticise that attitude, or blame people for adoping it. I should feel the same myself. It is an inevitable consequence of the whole system. I can imagine nothing more irksome than to have to go on making periodical payments for something of which, perhaps, one has had all the use one wants, something, at all events, of which the novelty has worn off, and which, once it has been in one's possession and the use of it has been obtained, proves to be less desirable and enjoyable than when it was coveted in a stop window—as is the case with almost everything in this world except, perhaps, beer and tobacco, which cannot be purchased under this system.
    While I express no surprise at failure on the part of hirers to implement their contracts, I waste no sympathy and shed no tears over the lot of the trader, for he is very well able to look after himself. How will he do so if this Bill becomes law? Finding that he can no longer insert in his contracts certain conditions advantageous to himself, finding that his customers are enabled to cancel their contracts and return the goods on certain terms, and finding that his remedies

    889
    against the hirer who defaults in his payments are restricted, he will inevitably have to make his terms more onerous and severe in other ways. In other words, he will have, as we have been told over and over again by the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry, to increase his prices, or to make his initial instalments larger, or something of that sort, and hire purchase will become a more extravagant way of acquiring goods even than it is already. I think that the hon. Member for Govan and others, in their enthusiasm for those who for any reason cannot or do not continue their payments and complete their contracts, have rather forgotten the interests of those people, sometimes in equally poor circumstances, who take advantage of this method of trading and who do complete their contracts, for, assuredly, every modification of the law in favour of the defaulting hirer or purchaser will in the long run be paid for, not by the trader, but by the hirers who do pay and complete, their contracts, and to whom the trader will pass on the cost of any additional risk that he runs.
    If these changes have the effect of increasing prices, they will tend to restrict the trade, and that in turn will tend to increase prices still further. I hope that those people in humble circumstances who are in the habit of acquiring goods on the hire purchase system will realise, if after this Bill is passed they find that the terms are more severe than they were before, that they have only to thank for that the people who enter into these contracts and fail to complete them, and the people who have so strongly urged modifications of the law in favour of such defaulters. For my part, I believe that the changes which this Bill will make by adding to the risks of the trader, and, therefore, forcing him to increase his prices, will tend to exercise a restraining influence upon this form of trading, and, holding the views that I do about it, I am able to overcome a natural objection to interference with the freedom of contract and to support the Third Reading of the Bill.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I think that this Measure represents a big improvement on the present position. The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. Johnston) represents a view that used to be common in Scotland against what might
    890
    be termed in ordinary Scottish language "tick" of any kind. I was brought up in that atmosphere, but, whether one likes it or not, we are now facing new conditions and methods, and this form of trading has become part and parcel of the lives of many people in some of our big cities. To my mind, the Measure represents a big improvement on the present position, although it does not go all the way that we could wish. Since the time when I first raised this question in the House of Commons—and my first attempt was very unfortunate, for I was counted out—this form of trading has certainly become very much more prevalent. Speaking on behalf of those with whom we are concerned, we accept the Measure, knowing its limitations, but feeling that it makes an improvement.
    I ought to add, in common fairness, that the Solicitor-General for Scotland has conducted it throughout in a very skilful, honest and straightforward fashion, and, this being the first Measure that he has piloted through the House, I think our thanks are due to him for his courtesy and his painstaking attitude in the private negotiations which have taken place. While as I have said, the Bill does not go as far as we could wish, and we still think there is the possibility of grave injustice to poor people, we accept it as an instalment, and thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for it.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I would also remind the House, that this Bill is the result of a committee set up by the first Labour Government, which reported to the last Labour Government, after many attempts had been made by certain sections of Members to bring the matter before previous Governments.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: The Labour Government counted us out.
    Mr. MACLEAN: That may be. The hon. Member was a member of the Labour party at that time. I want to thank the Government for bringing this Bill forward. It does not give us all that we want, but there are many things in it that we shall like to have. I should like to tell the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Johnston) what our attitude on this Bill is. We are not legislating for those

    891
    who default on their contracts. I hope he understands that perfectly well. We are not putting forward any claims whatever for them. What we do know is this, that many cases have taken place in the past in which individuals have been innocently brought in, without their knowledge, mark you, as guarantors for relatives, and rather than disclose the fact that those who had acquired the goods on the hire purchase system had forged their names, they had stood the whole brunt of whatever was coming to them when the individuals who had got possession of the article defaulted.
    It is because some of us know of cases of that kind which have arisen that we saw the necessity for endeavouring to get Governments in the past to bring forward such restrictions upon hire purchase agreements as would make it next to impossible for such things to happen in Scotland, or even in England. I want therefore to thank the Government for putting at least such a thing as that almost outside the realms of possibility, and we can now go on to see how this Bill, when it becomes an Act, works and operates in Scotland. We hope that it
    892
    will operate to the satisfaction of all of us who have taken part in getting it enacted. If there are any other items which need amending in the future, then we hope we shall receive just the same consideration and the same readiness of approach on the part of the present officials of the Scottish Office or, if they have been promoted to other spheres, from their successors, as we have had from those who at present are conducting the passage of this Bill; and we thank them for the courtesy which they have shown us.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes after Ten o'Clock.

  SCOTLAND (SOCIAL SERVICES EXPENDITURE).
  SCOTLAND (SOCIAL SERVICES EXPENDITURE).
  IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
  IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
AGRICULTURE.
  FRUIT PICKERS (WAGES).
  FRUIT PICKERS (WAGES).
  UNEMPLOYED FARM WORKERS, NORFOLK.
  UNEMPLOYED FARM WORKERS, NORFOLK.
  LAUSANNE CONFERENCE.
  LAUSANNE CONFERENCE.
  UNITED STATES (BRITISH SUBJECT'S DEATH).
  UNITED STATES (BRITISH SUBJECT'S DEATH).
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the examiners.
NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE FIRE BRIGADE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
COMMERCIAL GAS BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, this Bill is partly a Consolidation Bill and partly an amending Bill, and therefore escapes to some degree the objections that your Lordships have frequently made to legislation by reference. But the form in which the Bill is drawn, I think, makes it difficult to distinguish how much of it is old and how much is new. Actually there is a great deal in this Bill which is old. Your Lordships will remember that town planning legislation was passed in 1909 and 1919, and there was a Consolidation Bill in 1925, while further amendments were passed in 1929. And, although it is quite true that this Bill does extend and amplify those Acts in certain directions, a great deal of it is occupied with the definition in more precise terms of powers which have been exercised for some years, but the authority for which has been somewhat too general and unspecific. The immediate forerunner of this Bill was one introduced by the Labour Government in 1931. That Bill was supported by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and received a
948
Second Reading in another place without a Division but, owing to the events of last summer, it never reached this House.
The general objects of this Bill are set out in Clause 1, and are much the same as the objects of previous Bills—namely, to secure "proper sanitary conditions, amenity, and convenience," and to preserve "objects of architectural, historic or artistic interest and places of natural interest and beauty," and generally to protect the existing amenities. I feel that no member of your Lordships' House would wish to find fault with those objects in themselves; and, indeed, I feel that any opposition that there may be to this Bill is due to the fear that we may in some way or other be imposing or adding to expenditure and increasing what is usually called bureaucratic interference to an unwarrantable degree. It is no doubt important that we should carefully consider how far schemes made under this Bill will be adding to the burdens of the ratepayers, but I think that another matter of equal importance that we ought to consider is the question of how far the ratepayers' burdens will be increased by the absence of these schemes.
Perhaps to illustrate this point I might give some examples of the expense which has been imposed on certain localities by uncontrolled and unchecked development in the past. In a rural area on the coast a land company have been developing a large estate in a very scattered fashion. In some cases no proper access to houses has been provided, the drainage is by cesspool, and complaints have been made of its sanitary conditions. The council have been urged to provide sewers and sewage works, but they say that this would be enormously costly, not only because of the scattered development but also owing to the low level of the land. The council have urged that legislation should be passed to meet cases of this kind. Let me take another example, with which I am quite familiar myself. In a certain spot on the South Downs, not far from Brighton, a collection of bungalows was erected after the War, and in a few years it housed several thousands of people. It was developed as a series of individual plots, and the lay-out was of a very simple type. The local authority concerned is now being confronted with the problem of furnishing this town with roads, with sewers and other services, and it is computed that it will be necessary to

949
make up twenty miles of roads and to provide twenty-one miles of services, such as sewerage. It is further calculated that had the lay-out been efficient and according to the best standard, with the provision of open spaces and so forth, the same population could have been accommodated with four miles of roads and a corresponding length of services. The rateable value of the bungalows involved is very low, and the cost of providing these services could never be extracted from the local inhabitants.
I could give your Lordships other examples, but I think these two are sufficient to illustrate this point, that if people are to be allowed to erect collections of houses where they like and how they like circumstances may arise in which the provision of those services, which ratepayers certainly expect, will be very expensive, and the proper maintenance of the service of public sanitation will also be very expensive. It is true that under by-laws you have a certain protection, but you cannot control the lay-out of houses under by-laws, and you cannot prevent houses being built in very unsuitable places. At any rate the by-laws do not seem to have been very successful in preventing very many of the abuses which are so obvious to-day. Of course, it is true that much of this expense could have been avoided had the schemes which exist to-day been in operation at the time these houses were erected; but the whole point is that those schemes were not in operation.
To-day there are areas where similar disorderly building might at any time take place, but with which it is impossible to deal, anyhow in sufficient time, owing to the absence of powers. There are districts already planned where experience has shown that further powers are required. Parliament has already recognised this fact, for, since the passing of the 1925 Act, there have been no fewer than nineteen Private Acts of Parliament under which we have conferred on local authorities town planning powers additional to those contained in the Act of 1925; and in many cases there are none of the special safeguards which are provided for owners under this Bill. I suppose one might assume that, in the absence of a new general Bill, town planning would develop in that somewhat irregular way because the expense attaching to Private Acts of Parliament is considerable,
950
and not only would such a system lack uniformity, but in the poorer districts where town planning is most urgently required the authorities might not be able to take action because of this expense. The demand for new legislation is also strengthened by the fact that the London County Council, the Association of Municipal Corporations and numerous influential societies have all passed resolutions pressing for it.
The process of preparing a scheme under this Bill follows very closely on precedent. A resolution must be passed, notice must be given to those whose land would be affected, and a preliminary man must be prepared and exhibited. For the purposes of the scheme local authorities may act separately or jointly. They may act separately for some purposes and jointly for others. There may, for instance, be a joint scheme to deal with arterial roads and supplementary schemes to deal with other matters. The power of the county councils under this Bill is slightly enlarged, but, after considerable discussion in another place, it has been decided to leave the district councils with the same powers as they have enjoyed hitherto. But in Clause 1 and Clause 6 it will be seen that this power of planning may now be extended to new territories.
In the first place it will now be possible to make schemes for built-up areas. In theory there seems to be little reason why the redevelopment of built-up areas should not follow on approved lines. There seems to be little reason why, if offences have been perpetrated in a certain area in the past, there should be a sort of special charter given to them to enable owners to go on perpetrating the same offences indefinitely. There is actually at present a great deal of redevelopment going on, and it would be a gloomy prospect if we could only look forward to the redevelopment of some of these unfortunate places on the same lines on which they have developed hitherto. The term "existing buildings" is a very wide one, and it is most necessary we should ensure that powers in connection with them should only be exercised in appropriate cases. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the special safeguards and rights which owners of existing buildings are given under the Compensation Clauses 18 and 19, and under Clause 10, which deals with interim

951
development. I will deal with those clauses more specifically when I come to them.
I might point out in passing that not every one of the nineteen Private Acts which your Lordships have already approved appears to have been given to make schemes with respect to areas, notwithstanding that the land in those areas, or any part of them, is developed at the time of making the scheme. Again, schemes can be made for rural areas. There are those districts which are not exactly ripe for development but which, nevertheless, ought to be prepared for the possibility of it. I think we can divide these districts into two categories. First, we all know the beautiful and historic places which are not only a source of artistic enjoyment but also are a considerable financial asset to the countryside by reason of their attractions. In such localities a few misplaced or conspicuous bungalows may completely alter the character of the whole neighbourhood, whereas, properly constituted and properly constructed, quite a large number of houses might be concealed harmlessly. It seems wrong in such cases to wait until the damage has actually started. It seems wrong, if you are going to subject a certain area to control, not to let the owners know as far in advance as possible what you are going to do. If you wait until the land is just about to be developed you interfere with the owners' plans and you make your scheme, in all probability, unnecessarily expensive. Very much the same considerations apply to land which, without having any special artistic merits, is nevertheless sufficiently close to towns to make its inclusion desirable.
On the other hand, it can hardly be denied that there are certain parts of England where a building of the kind that is contemplated in this Bill is almost unthinkable, and where it would be rather ridiculous to subject owners to the laborious procedure of a scheme, and it is felt there ought to be some protection in case some over-zealous authority should misuse its discretion. It is no easy matter to say where the line ought to be drawn, but in the somewhat complicated wording of subsection (2) of Clause 6 the Minister believes that he has discovered the happy medium, and that under it no land that ought to be
952
planned, whether built-up or undeveloped, will remain uncovered, while there would be a definite obligation to withhold his approval in the case of those areas, either urban or rural, which he describes as "static." When, and if, the approval of the Minister is obtained the next step is the preparation of the scheme, and in Clauses 11 to 17 and in the Second Schedule are set out the various ways in which an authority can regulate development. They can schedule land for building, they can specify the number of houses per acre which can be built on a given area, and they can set aside land for industrial development and so forth. In most of these powers there is nothing new, and I need not refer to them in great detail. The chief thing is that they can now be applied to new areas.
But a new power is given in Clauses 15 and 16 which enables the authority to set a limitation to building not only of space but of time—that is to say, they can schedule land for development, but they can also specify that in certain areas this development shall not occur until an order has been issued by the authority. They have to reconsider at intervals of three years whether or not this embargo ought to be lifted. Actually the rights of individual owners are so protected by safeguards and exceptions that a reasonable application to build at any time could hardly be refused, but it does give the local authority some power to encourage orderly development and to check sporadic building of the speculative type. In Clause 17 a new power is given which is really designed to control the practice, of which we have had some flagrant examples in recent years, of the pulling down of buildings often of great historic interest and great beauty and removing them stone by stone to some foreign country. Your Lordships will observe that inhabited houses are entirely free from control unless their owners wish to demolish them or wish to convert them to something entirely different from their use as dwelling houses. It is only in regard to uninhabited houses that extensive alterations cannot be made without the consent of the authority; but here again substantial safeguards have been inserted, including the right of appeal to the Minister.
All these powers are undoubtedly comprehensive, as they must be if they are

953
to check in any way the serious and obvious evils that we all are aware of. I feel it is right they should be examined very closely, particularly in your Lordships' House, which is so familiar with the land and the problems arising from it, but, as I have said already, many of these powers have been exercised under existing Acts, and we have the experience of some years to guide us as to how they work in practice. Of course, it is difficult in a few words to comment on schemes which in various stages of completion already cover 7,000,000 acres, but I think that some conclusion may be drawn as to the attitude of owners from the number of appeals which they have made to the Minister. It is a somewhat remarkable fact that from the many thousands of owners concerned in this huge area, which is a third of the whole of England, the total number of appeals under interim development orders from 1924 to the present time is only 707, and of that number 464 have either been dropped by the owners or allowed or agreed between the Minister and the owners. I think these figures must indicate that landowners generally have accepted the principle of town planning, and indeed, experience has shown that in many parts of the country they are definitely leading the way. It is perhaps not unnatural that the larger landowners at any rate should feel sympathy with town planning.
I know it has been said before, and it may be said again, that local authorities are not the proper people to control development, but I will point out that, for better or worse, the trend of legislation in recent years has been in the direction of breaking up big estates, and in that process considerable tracts of country have been deprived of the skilled management of the owners and their agents. In their place has arisen a number of small owners who, whatever their merits may be, must act independently of each other, and there is really no method by which they can make an agreed plan for the development of the area. It is perhaps not too much to say that Parliament has taken away from those areas the power to develop in a co-ordinated fashion, and it is very difficult to see how that power can be given back to them except by these town-planning schemes.
Your Lordships will observe in Clause 8 some of the safeguards provided against
954
the misuse of these powers. No scheme can become law without the approval of the Minister, who is bound by various instructions. All schemes must be submitted to Parliament. There is also a right of appeal to the High Court on any question arising out of the validity of schemes. Some provision, of course, must be made also for the considerable time necessary for the proper preparation of a scheme, and Clause 10 sets out the limits of control during the interim period. Your Lordships will see that local authorities have no power during the interim period over existing buildings, but they may exercise control over new buildings subject to the payment of compensation with the same limitations as are provided for in the completed scheme. As it is impossible to foretell during the interim period the eventual form the scheme will take, so it is impossible to assess this compensation until the scheme is complete. Owners are, therefore, given the right to make retrospective claims for injurious affection during the interim period, and there is a further concession that where hard cases arise the authority may make a contribution even before the completion of the scheme.
I have to deal now with the question of compensation and betterment, and I think it is here that the real complexity of town-planning arises. Over the whole area of a planning scheme I think it can be maintained without fear of contradiction that values have a tendency to rise. Indeed I believe in America the rate of interest on mortgages in planned areas is lower than the rate in unplanned areas because the security is better. I think we can all call to mind towns the prosperity of which can be demonstrably shown to be due to careful planning measures by the landlord. It is also obvious that within a given area if the control is to come to anything at all—that is to say unless the properties involved are very large—building value may have to be taken from one owner and given to another. The drafting of the machinery by which this transfer is to be effected must necessarily present some difficulty to those not versed in the law, but I think I can state some simple principles by which the clauses dealing with these matters—Clauses 18 to 24—are governed.

955
The first principle is that all injurious affection resulting from a scheme must be paid for. The only exception to this rule is the case where it can be shown that an owner desires to do something which is definitely prejudicial to his neighbours. Loss caused by the alteration or demolition of existing buildings must be paid for in full. If an owner is not allowed to build a house on land which is reasonably suitable for development he must be compensated. Any dispute which may arise between the owner and the local authority as to value may be taken by the owner to arbitration. Subsection (1) of Clause 19 sets out the only cases in which the Minister may sanction control without compensation. Subsection (2) of Clause 19 sets out in detail the conditions under which the Minister may exercise this power of sanction. For the most part compensation may only be excluded in those cases in which it is excluded to-day. Such additions as are made to what I might perhaps describe as the free list—that is to say, the list of cases in which a local authority can exercise control without paying compensation—are, I think, of a very reasonable character. For instance, it will now be possible to prevent building on land which is subject to flooding without paying compensation.
Perhaps I may be allowed to give an example for the necessity of this power. A rural district council consented under the existing Town Planning Act to preserve from building about 215 acres of land which was frequently flooded by a river. The county council supported the proposal and the Ministry of Health confirmed the opinion of the local medical officer that it was dangerous to health for people to live in an area subject to such repeated flooding. As, however, the prevention of building would have involved paying compensation to the tune of £14,000 the local authority were unable to prevent building taking place. As a result the local sanitary authority may have to face one day an expenditure on a sewerage scheme which, owing to the nature of this land, it is estimated will cost £56,000. There are one or two other cases in which compensation is not necessarily payable, but they are minor cases.
With regard to betterment I do not think it is necessary for me to defend it in principle, because the principle has
956
already been admitted in Town Planning Acts since 1909. Certainly it seems that owners who have made sacrifices perhaps in their efforts to preserve amenities would have a legitimate cause of grievance if the only result of their efforts was to make a free gift to other owners not so well disposed towards town planning. This Bill will increase the amount of betterment that can be claimed from 50 per cent. to 75 per cent., but in return it affords to owners far more equitable terms than they have enjoyed hitherto. It is now provided that no betterment can be claimed in respect of increased value due to the scheme until it has been actually realised, cashed, and put, so to speak, in the owner's pocket. The one exception to that principle is that where owners have been given compensation in regard to what may be described as "potential damage"—namely, damage which they might conceivably suffer in future—there would be a sufficient fund out of which betterment could be paid. Some adaptation of this principle of deferred payment of betterment has to be made in the case of business premises such as garages and multiple shops where ownership does not change over long periods, because the position is different from that of other owners. It is, therefore, provided that after five years from the commencement of the scheme a claim may be made in respect of betterment due to improvements made by the scheme, such, for instance, as the construction of an arterial road.
I do not deny that the assessment of claims for betterment is a matter which requires great judgment. It is no doubt a difficult matter, but arbitrators under the Acquisition of Land Act are experienced people who frequently have knotty problems to decide. I do not suppose that claims for betterment in cash will be frequently made. As I said before, it has been possible to levy betterment for some years past, and in point of fact I believe there has been only one instance where cash payment has been made. The principal value of the power to claim betterment lies in negotiation, and I think your Lordships will agree that there ought to be some power to deal with the land speculator who makes a large profit out of the amenities provided for him by other people. The power to make claims for betterment lapses after a period of fourteen years from the commencement

957
of the scheme, so that if during that time an owner-occupier remains in possession of his home without any change of use and without disposing of his property he will escape altogether. Should a claim for betterment be passed an owner may be allowed to spread his payment over a period of thirty years. Another point is that no claim may be made in respect of agricultural land if its use is merely changed from one form of agriculture to another. I think the concession whereby value cannot be claimed until the value is realised may allay the fear that any mortgagees or trustees may have as to the security of their property.
All the principal innovations are contained in the clauses with which I have dealt. The remaining clauses either deal with machinery or are clauses agreed between the parties concerned or are clauses reproducing existing law. For example, Clauses 25 and 26, dealing with powers of compulsory purchase, fall within this latter category. The procedure in connection with this compulsory purchase follows, as before, the procedure required under existing law. Some uneasiness has, I believe, been caused by Clause 36, which gives the Minister residual powers to act in case of default, but here again this is taken from the Town Planning Act of 1925 and is intended to be used only in flagrant cases. Clause 47, which deals with advertisements, is agreed between the Department and the advertising interests. Clause 50, which deals with the special problems of London, is again a clause agreed between the Ministry, the London County Council, the City of London and the Metropolitan Boroughs. Clause 52 is an exact restatement of Clause 3 of the Act of 1925 and adds nothing to it in any particular whatever. Clause 56 and the Fifth Schedule apply the scheme to Scotland by adaptation of language. That concludes the summary of the clauses.
Perhaps I may say a word in conclusion. The main intention of this Bill is to put on a somewhat wider and on a somewhat more definite basis powers which have been exercised by the local authorities for years past. It is true, we think, that these authorities should be provided with efficient machinery for dealing in the first instance with the sort of buildings that must otherwise obviously become a serious liability on the rates in a few years' time. I do not think this
958
is a very extravagant claim when we remember that slum clearance orders have already been applied to buildings constructed since the War. I imagine that one of the most obvious causes of the degeneration of certain areas into slum areas is that it is worth nobody's while to keep them in proper condition. We do believe it is in the interests of owners no less than of local authorities that there should be some power to control the grossly unsuitable siteing of buildings whether by placing garages or factories in the middle of residential property or the wasting of valuable industrial sites.
We think there ought to be some power to prevent the destruction of amenities by such unattractive developments as refuse tips. But the Bill is designed to do just and reasonable things. It is not intended to keep England in a kind of arcadian or pastoral condition or to give local authorities power to indulge in wild building schemes. Owners are protected and safeguarded under the Bill to a far greater degree than before and it seems to me as a humble owner of property that there is very little in it that is revolutionary. In fact, unless town planning is wrong in principle altogether the only surprise I feel is that some such steps in the completion of existing machinery should not have been taken long ago. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Gage.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, after the extremely lucid and comprehensive account of the present measure that we have just heard from the noble Viscount there remains little for me to do but to sketch the attitude of the Opposition. I think we are all grateful to the noble Viscount for his lucid, detailed and, if I may say so, tactful exposition of the main provisions of an extremely complex and difficult piece of legislation. In the first place I would like to say that the Opposition welcomes very cordially the general principles behind the measure. Its avowed enemies—and though they are few in number they are distinctly influential—have stigmatised the Bill as a Socialist measure, as a piece of pure Socialist legislation. Perhaps they are not so very far from the mark if we interpret the epithet in rather a different sense from that in which they usually

959
use it, because it has never been a Party measure. A cursory glance at the antecedents, genesis and history of the present Bill is enough to convince anybody that it is the product of the effort of men of all Parties outside and inside the Houses of Parliament. It is the product of long effort and experience on the part of local authorities, of town-planning experts, and of all those inside and outside Parliament who have endeavoured to put their experience into a practicable form.
The principle—and it should be avowed—that inspires the present measure is certainly to extend public control of the economic resources of the nation in the interests of the community as a whole. This indeed is the principle behind all Socialist proposals and a principle that many would like to see applied to the whole realm of finance, industry and commerce. It is not the Conservative Party or even the Liberal Party, according to its defined policy, which stands in opposition to the present measure but rather the survivors of an almost extinct species, the supporters of the old nineteenth century Liberalism, of the principles of laissez faire and laissez aller, which, although admittedly they brought our country to a state of prosperity it has never experienced before, yet at the same time produced a condition of social injustice and of chronic unemployment which it is the object of Socialist legislation, in the sense of state interference and state control, to remedy. This principle of public control, of control by the accredited representatives of the people in the interests of the people, is not a merely utopian fancy or a figment of the poetic imagination, but has in fact found its embodiment in many practical schemes. The growth and development of the social services, the gradual but persistent handing over of public utility services to local authorities and even to the State itself, are ample evidence of the increase and expansion of the principles of Socialistic legislation in the era in which we are living at the moment.
Passing from the most general principle of the Bill, I should like to remind your Lordships that this measure was proposed in a very similar form by the late Labour Government, that it passed
960
its Committee stage in another place, and that it was only dropped on the Dissolution of the late Government in the summer of last year. The primary and original purpose of the present measure was, in brief, to extend public control to every corner of our country from Lands End to John o' Groats without any exceptions whatever. This was a very marked advance on previous legislation, which had limited the scope of local authorities to land which was empty but ready for development. It is obvious enough that the present extension of the ambit of the power of local administrators would include both rural areas and our densely populated cities and towns. Such is the main and outstanding difference between the Bill, as it appeared in its original form in another place, and existing legislation on the subject.
The noble Viscount has pointed out many advantages which would accrue to the community through the operation of the present measure. In urban areas it is obviously necessary for local authorities to be able to demolish and remove ancient and dilapidated dwellings, to be able to construct new thoroughfares, and to be able to provide open spaces for the health and happiness of town dwellers. But the main and fundamental provision of this new Bill is that local authorities will really be able to plan and scheme the development and extension of our great urban areas instead of allowing them to grow in a purely haphazard fashion, thanks to the sporadic and unco-ordinated enterprise of private companies and private individuals and even of pure speculators. In the case of the countryside it is obviously necessary for local authorities to be able to protect our beauty spots from defacement and disfigurement by the erection of ugly bungalows and vulgar advertisements and hoardings, and from all the other atrocities of modern commercial vandalism. These aims were furthered by an encouragement of the principle of regional planning; that is to say, by the creation of joint committees, on which a number of local authorities are represented, which can deal with such large areas as are indispensable for any comprehensive scheme of town planning. Again, local authorities will be able to cope with the evil of ribbon development. The straggling houses that line our great

961
highways are not merely an eyesore to the spectator but they actually cheek and detract from the utility of the high roads themselves. This is obviously the case if we consider that new side streets have to be made and that traffic stops in front of the houses on either side of the street and so causes congestion.
So far the Opposition has not uttered one word of criticism in regard to the provisions of the present measure. It is unfortunately unable to go any further hand in hand with the National Government, thanks to the introduction of an Amendment which to a very great extent defeats the purposes of the Bill as we have already heard them outlined. I refer, of course, to subsection (2) of Clause 6. This is the most important and far-reaching alteration in the nature of the Bill as a whole. Thanks to this subsection—and personally I find it difficult to follow from the wording the exact effect it will have if it reaches the Statute Book—certain areas in our country, the so-called static areas, will be altogether excluded from the purview of local administration. That is to say, the original and primary purpose of the Bill, which was to include all the land in the country, was, if not defeated, at all events to a very large extent altered and modified.
Immediately this Amendment had been accepted during the Committee stage in another place a meeting was held of the National Housing and Town Planning Council, at which the following resolution was passed; and, my Lords, I would draw your attention, if I might, to the considered opinion of people who have spent a large part of their lives in work of this kind, and who have the weight of experience behind them:
"The Conference, after careful consideration of the whole question, records the opinion that the Amendment made in Clause 6 of the Bill will seriously prejudice and in many cases render impossible the effective replanning of built-up areas, and the preservation of amenities in rural areas."
It is this unanimous protest on the part of experts, and of those who are more thoroughly acquainted with the subject than any others, that has caused the severe distrust and anxiety experienced by the Opposition, and even for the layman and the outsider it appears that
962
there are ample grounds for gloomy forebodings of this kind.
In the first place, is it really possible to distinguish between so-called static and dynamic areas? Static areas are those in which no development for building purposes is likely to take place. Dynamic areas are those localities where such development is probable. In the event of large financial losses, in the event of necessity for the payment of Death Duties, it is clearly the case that many property owners will be suddenly obliged to dispose of their properties, and this, of course, could not have been foreseen before the eventuality arose. This naturally leads to disfigurement of the countryside owing to the inability of local authorities to protect it, to the dumping of refuse, and the building of bungalows, and to other forms of exploitation of the beauty of the country in the interests of commerce. Similar results are to be expected in those static rural areas where, according to this Amendment, local authorities will not be able to exercise their protective function. Are we indeed to discriminate between what is beautiful and what is æsthetically indifferent in the countryside? Is not every inch of the English countryside untouched and unspoiled by the march of our industrial civilisation a thing of beauty and loveliness and a precious part of our national heritage?
Finally, and perhaps this is the most important effect from the point of view of material welfare, it becomes impossible for local authorities to effect what is known as long-distance planning. It is clearly necessary, if our towns are to expand in an orderly and economical fashion, for local authorities to be able to predict this expansion and to take the steps necessary in order to cope with it. This Amendment puts long-distance planning completely out of court. There can be little doubt, for any one who has studied closely the proceedings during the Committee stage in another place, that the Amendment to Clause 6, which to a very great extent nullifies the utility of the Bill, was proposed and supported by a small group of individuals representing sectional and propertied interests, and that it has not behind it the voice of enlightened public opinion or of those who are best qualified to speak in the matter. May we not, as the

963
guardians and champions of the public welfare, acting in accordance with the whole body of enlightened public opinion, modify this Amendment considerably and restore the Bill to something approaching the original shape in which it was contemplated by the present Government?
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, this Bill has had a curious career. When it was first introduced in another place we were told that it was uncontroversial, but when it got upstairs to a Standing Committee it was subjected to a most detailed and excellent criticism, so much so that the Minister found when the Report stage came that it was necessary for him to move over a hundred Amendments. The Standing Committee lasted for weeks and months. The Minister must have realised that the criticism was good. Now I very much regret that so many Amendments were put off till the Report stage, and were not dealt and finished with in the Committee stage, because we know that the latitude for debate allowed in another place on Report is much less than that allowed on the Committee stage. This only shows how very necessary it is for your Lordships to have plenty of time to study the provisions of this Bill. I read the Bill when it was first introduced in another place, I began following the Committee stage, but I gave it up as hopeless, as so many questions were postponed and put off till the Report stage, and when the Report stage came the Bill was altered again and again. We have a Bill which consists of ninety pages, fifty-seven clauses, and twenty-three pages of Schedules. I very much doubt whether there is a single member of your Lordships' House who can honestly say that he understands every provision in this Bill. I therefore suggest that there should be no rushing of this Bill.
Now, it has been suggested that the critics of this Bill object to town planning. That is not the case. I myself am all in favour of orderly town planning, and I have written to the Press to say so. But that is a very different thing from saying that this Bill is the only way in which to deal with town planning. We all own that there are evils of unsightly development going on every day. I should have thought it would have been better to introduce some simpler
964
machinery, giving local authorities power to prevent these evils and at the same time to prepare a carefully considered scheme of town planning after consultation with all interests, including land owners and local authorities. A simpler system of control than that suggested by this Bill would be quite as effective and far less costly. This Bill is going to be very costly, both as regards public expenditure and the local authorities' expenditure. Let me suggest one item of expenditure the amount of which we cannot foresee. When you town-plan it will be absolutely necessary to have ordnance sheets, and I assume that the local authorities and the Minister will work on the 25-inch scale. We know that each map of the 25-inch scale contains 960 acres, hut there are 60,000,000 acres in this country, and each of these maps costs 6s. 8d. Is each local authority going to be satisfied with one copy of each ordnance sheet? Will not they order four, five, six, or a dozen? How much of this country is going to be town planned we do not know, but everybody can work out the sum for himself if he likes, but he will find it is going to amount to a very mighty sum in maps alone.
Everyone agrees that the amenity of the countryside should be preserved, and no one desires that more than the landowner. But what is the chief cause of the destruction of the countryside? It is the heavy taxation which is put on the landowners at the present time, in Income-tax, Surtax and Death Duties. When a landowner dies his successor is told to pay a sum up to 50 per cent. of the capital value of the estate. The State will not take land for Death Duties; it insists on cash. Therefore, the landowner is bound to sell, and he has to look about for a purchaser, and he very often is bound to sell a beautiful hill or a beautiful wood. The most likely person to buy is some speculator, who knows that he can easily sell again in small plots, both for bungalows and petrol filling stations. The desecration of the countryside is not due to the landowner; it is due to successive Governments for piling this huge taxation on the shoulders of the taxpayers.
The Bill is unfair to those who have invested their money in real property, and by the uncertainty of its provisions will make the future development a very

965
anxious one for builders and others, who will not know where they stand under the shadow of a town-planning scheme which may be pending over their heads. The power of the Minister under the Bill is too great. I have time after time objected to words in different Bills which say "and the decision of the Minister shall be final." You will find those words again in this Bill. Under Clause 6 schemes can be put forward and then revoked. Under Clause 8 a scheme may be revoked by a subsequent scheme. There seems to be no finality. As regards Clause 52, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Gage, I say that that clause is far too arbitrary. It lays down that every town which has a population of 20,000 and over must formulate a scheme for all the land in its area—all the land. We have some very beautiful towns in this country, especially on the sea-coast. We have towns with plenty of open spaces between the backs of houses, plenty of recreation grounds, and beautiful sea fronts. What is the use of telling the local authority that it must replan the whole of the land in its area, including the sea front? It would be a sheer waste of money to do so. I hope that the Government will give ample consideration to Amendments which are moved in Committee, and allow as long an interval as possible before they take the Committee stage.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I listened with much interest to the speech of the noble Earl opposite, and, if I understand him aright, he approves the Bill in nearly all its features. When I first went into the House of Commons I was warned by an old Member that if ever I found the two Front Benches in agreement I could be quite certain that there was something wrong, and I have found in an experience of thirty years in the House of Commons that that was absolutely correct, and that whenever the two Front Benches were in agreement the duty of every patriotic member of the House of Commons was to oppose them both. I feel I shall be doing my duty if in my small way I endeavour to oppose this Bill.
I saw my noble friend Lord Crawford here just now. He is very artistic and a great authority upon art, and I believe that one of the chief reasons advanced for this Bill is that we want to preserve
966
the beauties of the countryside, and that the new buildings which are put up should be artistic instead of ugly, as they are said to be at present. I am not an artistic person, and I do not very much believe in the sense of those people who are at present said to be artistic. I unfortunately can remember the years from 1860 to 1870. The things that were artistic then had ceased to be artistic in the years 1880 to 1900; and everything that was artistic between 1880 and 1900 was not artistic a few years ago. Now a new artistic development has arisen, and as far as I can see it has resulted in the destruction of Dorchester House and the erection of some awful thing in its place, which no doubt my noble friend Lord Crawford considers to be artistic.
But, assuming for the sake of argument that it is necessary to have artistic buildings, can we afford them? Can we at the present time afford to spend money, not on something which is useful and which will conduce to the health of the people, but on something which somebody thinks is artistic? I do not think we can. I think what we desire at present is that there should be no further expenditure, and not only that there should be no fresh expenditure but that there should be a reduction in expenditure. I regret to say that though the present Government have been in office for something like eight months I do not see any sign of any reduction either in expenditure or in taxation. I have not heard from my noble friend (Viscount Gage) any estimate of what this Bill is going to cost, and I am glad that he did not give any estimate, because I am quite certain it is beyond the wit of any man to give any estimate of what this Bill will cost. That it will cost an enormous sum I have no doubt.
We are told: "Oh you need not be frightened, because the Minister will control the expenditure." I observe that the Minister is mentioned 150 times in this Bill—118 times in the Bill itself and 32 in the Schedule. It is even worse than the Children and Young Persons Bill. In that Bill the Minister was only mentioned 43 or 45 times. In this Bill he is mentioned three times as often. I was always told that the great safeguard of this country was that we were governed by Parliament and that nothing could be clone except with the approval of Parliament

967
—in the old days of both Houses. The modern practice is to do away with all that, and to pass a Bill empowering a dictator in the form of a Minister to do certain things without any recourse whatever to Parliament, and without the sanction of the people. Reverting for a moment to the question of economy, I would ask what reason have we to suppose that a Minister is going to be economical? You must judge of the future by the past. From 1914 to 1922 was there any single Minister either in the Liberal Government or in the Coalition Government who was economical? I do not remember one. Perhaps in 1923, which was a very short Parliament, there may have been one, though I do not remember him. In 1924 and 1925 there was certainly no economical Minister, and I very much doubt if there were many economical Ministers from 1925 to 1929. From 1929 to 1931 there certainly was no economical Minister anywhere. There were a great many very extravagant ones, and some of them are now in the present Government. Therefore, I do not think we need place much reliance upon the economical Minister.
I took the trouble the other day to read the Act of 1925. I do not think it was a very good Act; I would much sooner it had not been passed; but it was not bad; it was more or less harmless. It was much smaller than this Bill, and did not go half so far. In that Act there is a provision that the Minister may, after consulting with four or five other Ministers, authorise an association to spend money if the association has that money. It also authorises the Local Loans Commissioners to advance the money. Clause 35 of this Bill goes very much further than that, because it authorises the Minister, without any consultation with any other Minister, to advance any money that he likes, with the consent of the Treasury. There is no limit of any sort, and that is in a very much larger Bill than the one which became the Act of 1925. Moreover, the fact that we did a foolish thing in 1925 is no reason why we should do it again. In 1925 we were not aware it was so necessary to be economical as it is at the present moment.
I will not go through all the clauses of the Bill. As my noble friend said,
968
there are 57 clauses and six schedules. In all my experience I do not think I ever saw a Bill which started with clauses stating you may do something, and then went on to provide that you might not do this and you might not do that. Each clause as a rule extends over three pages, and consists mostly of provisos saying you cannot do what the first part of the clause says you may do. Why waste time in that way? I ask my noble friend in charge of the Bill, will he in Committee move to omit all the clauses and to insert one clause which would give him much less trouble and which will have exactly the same effect? The clause I should like to see inserted is this:
"The Minister may acquire any land or buildings in the United Kingdom, with or without compensation, and use them for any purpose that seems good to him."
That is a very simple clause which embodies everything that is in this Bill, and would save a great deal of trouble. I commend it to my noble friend.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I listened with some disappointment and surprise to the speech of the noble Lord who has just addressed us. He has spoken in the interests of economy, and I should support this Bill on the ground of economy if on no other ground, for if there is anything which is wasteful and causes extravagant expenditure to the nation and to the local authorities it is the evil results which have occurred again and again from bad planning in the past. I think, if the noble Lord enquired of the local authorities, they would tell him that again and again they have had to ask for an increase of the rates which would have been quite unnecessary if in the past more care and foresight had been shown in the planning of the town. Frequently districts are hurriedly built without any care, and they soon show that they are defective in their drainage, or a large building is put up which affects the whole of the neighbourhood for the worse and large sums of money have to be spent in the attempt to remedy an evil which ought never to have been allowed. Unless you are going to stop all building of every sort and kind, you must have town planning, and if you are to have town planning let that planning be as effective as possible.

969
I support and welcome this Bill. As the noble Viscount who introduced it said in an admirably clear speech, it is largely a consolidating Bill. A great deal it contains has for some time been on the Statute Book and has been worked quite smoothly in a number of localities. Eighteen or nineteen important county councils and local authorities have obtained Acts of Parliament which enable them to carry out in their own localities provisions which are now found in this Bill, and which will be of universal permissive application. You will also find that the local authorities of the country as a whole are most anxious that some measure of this kind should be passed. For a long time they have been asking for it, The demand has come not from one section of the community only, but it has come almost universally from those who are in any way concerned with town and country planning.
I welcome this Bill also for the new provisions which it contains. For instance—and I regard this as a vital matter—it allows planning in districts which are already built over. Very often we are apt to look upon a district which has been built over as completely finished. As a matter of fact in many of these districts changes are taking place. I can think of many districts in South London which have been changed and in some cases rebuilt during the last ten or twelve years. Sometimes changes in these districts are for the worse. There is put up some great factory in the midst of a residential district and the value of property comes down; or some individual owner carries through some change thinking only of his own interests and some scheme for the improvement of the whole district is ruined. Local authorities are powerless now. Local authorities will, in future, be able to plan so that if redevelopment takes place in any district—and in many town districts redevelopment is absolutely necessary—that redevelopment can proceed upon sound and wise lines.
I welcome this Bill also because it does something at any rate to protect the countryside. In other countries we can find often a stateliness and a grandeur and sometimes richness of colour not to be found in England, but nowhere in the whole world can we find such loveliness combined with peace as we have found in the past in so many
970
districts of England. But it is rapidly being destroyed—sometimes by the jerrybuilder and also by the invasion of the motor. In all directions we see the countryside losing its beauty before our very eyes. No doubt many members of your Lordships' House have often used the road to Folkestone and as it crosses the Downs have come to Wrotham where the hillside is disfigured by a number of tea shops, bungalows, petrol stations, all kinds of buildings put up absolutely haphazard, scattered here and there without any plan, so that what was once perfect beauty is spoiled. At Leith Hill, near Friday Street, there was a threat of the same kind, and there a, tract of beautiful country was only saved by the efforts of private individuals. All over the country this is happening. We shall lose our heritage in the countryside unless action is taken and taken at once. This Bill enables such action to be taken. If we delay until a more convenient season the jerrybuilder will not delay and the speculator will not delay. Ruin will be spread over many places which are now beautiful.
I do not, of course, suggest that this Bill is a perfect Bill. Changes have been made in it which I regret and the Bill is extremely complicated—so complicated and so full of safeguards that I think some difficulty may be found in working it. But I venture to prophesy that the Bill will be worked by local authorities who are keen to use it, and that within a few years another Bill will be introduced simplifying it and removing some of the safeguards which will have been found unnecessary. There is one very serious omission from the Bill as far as I understand it. It does not seem to me that sufficient protection is given to ancient buildings of historic interest. Clause 6 says that the Minister cannot approve of a resolution to prepare or adopt a scheme unless he is satisfied
"in the case of land which is neither already built upon nor in course of development, nor likely to be developed, that the land is so situated in relation to land which is already built upon, or in course of development, or on which development is likely to take place as to make its inclusion in a scheme expedient, or that it comprises objects or places of natural interest or beauty."
The question I should like to ask is whether the last few words of that paragraph refer only to a building which has

971
been scheduled as an ancient monument, or whether it refers also to the property which immediately surrounds it?
Let me give one illustration. One of the most hallowed places in England is Glastonbury. Some few years ago it was proposed to turn the field on which the Abbot's kitchen was situated into a parking place for motor cars. There was strong opposition to that and the proposal was withdrawn. But since then a parking station has been formed immediately outside the walls, actually touching the walls of the ruin. This parking station is hideous beyond words. I have here a report from a very competent authority. He says:
"No words can adequately describe the disreputable vulgarity of the motor park …. Along the roadway is a low wall occupying the centre of the frontage bedecked with large lamps at intervals advertising different motor spirits. Some five yards behind is a long row of motor pumps and oil containers painted scarlet, green, sienna, saffron, etc., as loud and offensive as such things can be at their worst. Behind these is a desert of clumsy earth forming the parking area, a broken-down shanty covered with fir bark its only occupant until the back—against the Abbey wall—is reached."
He goes on to say:
"It would be very difficult to devise a more inappropriate or repulsive lay-out, as seen from the roadway by which the Abbey entrance is reached. Even if the Abbey ruins were not in the immediate vicinity, the sight might be expected to cause dismay in any self-respecting town or village."
It is quite possible to preserve the actual building and yet to ruin it by allowing its surroundings to be marred by some unsightly structure. I am anxious to know if any kind of protection is given by this Bill against that sort of abuse. I doubt if that is the case as the Bill stands now, and I hope some opportunity may arise so that an Amendment can be moved and, I hope, accepted by the Government giving such protection. I welcome the Bill as a whole. I believe it will do something to protect the heritage of our countryside and the rich historic buildings which we have received as a legacy from the past.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: My Lords, I was glad to hear that my noble friend who spoke last but one related the cause of economy to the Second Reading of this Bill. I think it appropriate to remind your Lordships, though none of you are likely to forget, that the Govern-
972
ment at present in office was returned to effect economy in this country. I do not suggest that members of the Government themselves fail to bear that in mind; they read their newspapers in the morning and must realise that the subject interesting the people to-day more than any other is the cause of economy. At the same time I think it would be ungracious to fail to pay some tribute to those measures of economy which His Majesty's Government has already achieved, very often in face of great difficulty. There is a short passage in the May Report which ought to be printed at the head of every Bill which comes before Parliament to-day. It says:
"We fear that the country must face the disagreeable fact that its public expenditure, and in this we include local as well as national expenditure, is too high and that it must be brought down to a lower level."
The noble Viscount in charge of this Bill, referring, I suppose, to the Act of 1925, told us a good deal of this Bill was old. I should like to remind him that in this matter Bills are not like port wine: they do not get any better as they get older. Local authorities, I suspect, are not yet sufficiently seized of the need for economy. Local authorities, it is true, are not in all respects masters in their own house in regard to expenditure. They are subject to the insidious system of grants in aid which has been directly responsible for much of their improvident spending, and in many Statutes of the Imperial Parliament, as in the Bill now before the House, they are liable at the behest of a Minister or his Department to undertake expenditure whether they like it or not; and in parenthesis it is worth pointing out that even in regard to those Statutes which on the face of them are permissive, it is true to say that by the time the local authority has been subjected to an endless stream of communications from the Department on behalf of the Minister the provisions of these measures become more peremptory than permissive.
I listened carefully to the noble Viscount's speech and I am not at all satisfied from what he said that this House would be doing its duty in giving a Second Reading to the Bill, for I am not convinced that in the present state of the national finances the country can afford the luxury which in great measure this Bill represents. I was reinforced in that view by hearing the Earl of Listowel,

973
in what I thought was a very excellent speech, say that as a Socialist he thoroughly approved of this Bill. I must rely on the noble Earl's sense of humour for I do not intend to spoil what is intended as a sincere compliment when I say that I thought it a touching tribute to the strength with which convictions are held on these Back Benches that his second speech in your Lordships' House should be his first on the Front Bench opposite.
It is not possible to tell us, I gather from the silence of the noble Viscount, what, exactly this Bill is going to cost the ratepayer and how heavy will be the new charges laid upon the public as a consequence of its operation. It does not so much surprise me that in another place this Bill was passed through all its stages, for not unnaturally hearts are more tender there towards a statesman new to high Ministerial rank and quite naturally anxious to leave his mark on the Statute Book. But I am a good deal astonished that the Department concerned managed to dodge the Treasury. I can only suppose that in their pre-occupation with international activities at Lausanne the stony-hearted denizens of that place failed to observe the heavy burdens which may be expected to fall on the ratepayer. But perhaps the Treasury does not take an interest in local expenditure or the control of measures which are liable to create burdens through the operation of the rates. If that is indeed the case the sooner the Treasury pay attention to that point the better. I am confirmed in the opinion that this House will have to use every endeavour on every opportunity to secure public economy if, as a nation, we are going to survive.
I desire for a very few moments to say a word or two about the application of this Bill to Scotland, and I commend this point to the close attention of the noble Viscount because the response which is made to it will in great measure influence my vote, if an opportunity is given to vote, on this stage of the Bill. Strong feeling obtains in Scotland that a separate Bill should have been passed applying to Scotland only. The local authorities of Scotland have passed a resolution condemning the Bill on the ground that legislation by adaptation is most inadvisable. They say:
"This method of legislation by adaptation is an unsatisfactory method of legislation
974
for Scotland. It does not give adequate opportunity for consideration of the provisions of the Bill as applied to Scotland and it involves risks of administrative difficulties and possible litigation,"
Again, the Convention of Royal Burghs, which now includes all the Burghs in Scotland, passed a resolution directing a committee to maintain a continuous endeavour to secure that Scottish legislation is supervised by Scottish Members of Parliament. I assure the noble Viscount that this Convention is a very important body in Scotland and they say:
"The Bill will be considered by Parliament primarily, if not entirely, from the point of view of English law and will be debated as an English measure, and will not, receive consideration from the point of view of Scottish law and Scottish conditions, nor will it come before the Scottish Grand Committee."
And they concluded:
"This method of legislation is both prejudicial and disrespectful to Scotland. It is treated as a mere appendage of England.''
The truth is that this is essentially a matter that should have been dealt with by a Scottish Committee in another place. The Scottish system of land tenure, the methods of conveyance, and the machine of local government are quite different in Scotland from those which obtain South of the Border.
There exists in Scotland—I do not know whether its echoes are heard as far south as this House—a movement for the legislative separation of that country from England and for the setting up of a Scottish Parliament. I have yet to learn that any considerable proportion of those who now advise the Crown favour that movement. I respect that opinion but I think it entirely misguided and unfortunate. The arrangement of business for this Bill in another place could not, if one had tried, been better designed to forward the cause of Home Rule for Scotland. I do not suggest for a moment that when he allowed that arrangement to stand, with or without protest, my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Scotland intended to add fuel to the fire in the way he has done. It is more probable that he gave way to those whose duty it is to arrange the business of Parliament so as to get Bills through according to a programme and on this occasion during the period of an unusually short summer Session. I was sorry he did so. The right hon. gentleman made a grievous mistake

975
in acquiescing in the proposal and I hope that he will never again allow such a course to be taken.
There is one other matter to which I desire to draw the attention of your Lordships. The Bill lays upon the Clerk of the Parliaments the duty of embodying in a new Bill the substance of the Sixth Schedule, which contains the amendments which will have the effect of making the clauses to which those amendments apply applicable to Scottish conditions and in line with Scottish phraseology. Thereafter, the Royal Assent to the amended Bill is assumed and it automatically becomes a new Statute applying to Scotland and the principal Bill ceases to apply to Scotland. It is plain that, if the draftsman by any chance has made a mistake, the Clerk of the Parliaments will not be able to rectify it. He must obey the terms of the Bill as passed into an Act of Parliament line for line without any attempt to correct any errors that may have crept in. Any necessary amendments can only be made by a subsequent amending Statute. On consideration of these points, your Lordships will agree that the sooner that slipshod and lazy method of legislation is done away with and forgotten the better.
The same method applies in the case of the Children and Young Persons Bill, but that is not the first example of it. The first example was in the Air Force Constitution Act, 1917, which, I understand, was not strictly parallel to the other instances which I have given. I am quite confident that the House will expect a statement from the Government Bench to the effect that this procedure will never be repeated. As to those several considerations as they apply to Scotland, I ask the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill to take note that I shall put down Amendments having the effect of removing Scotland from the operation of the Bill. Unless I am deflected from my purpose by the observations that may fall from the lips of the noble Viscount or some of his colleagues, I shall press those Amendments to a Division.
As I made no secret a moment or two ago, I shall require rather less than a little encouragement to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. It is the plain and urgent duty of the Government not merely to effect economy in the
976
national expenditure, but by precept and example to do all in their power to stimulate local authorities towards reducing expenditure and the rates. The conditions of public finance and of industry and commerce are deplorable, and at such a time it is not a question whether a scheme or an object imposing charges upon the public is or is not desirable or what such a scheme, if implemented, can do. The question should be whether we can do without it and, if the answer to that question is that we can do without it, then the project ought to be scrapped forthwith. Judged by that test, this Bill will stand condemned. I hope that in the period immediately before us this House will do all in its power to serve the Crown and the public by insisting on every proper opportunity upon public economy on a scale commensurate with the gravity of the economic crisis which surrounds us and through which we shall not pass without dire disaster unless adequate steps are taken in time to reduce local as well as national expenditure.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, before coming here I took the opportunity of consulting the President of the Central Landowners' Association and I asked him what his view was as to the action which those who represented the Central Landowners' Association ought to take in this House. He suggested that their line ought to be very much that taken in the House of Commons, to approve the general principles of the Bill but, on the other hand, to criticise it and try to improve it in the way it was improved to a great extent in the House of Commons. It still requires some improvement at your Lordships' hands. One of the great difficulties as regards this Bill, as the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Winchester said, is that it is a most complicated Bill and difficult to understand. It consists of fifty-seven clauses and six schedules. As introduced into another place it was rather an extreme Bill in many respects, no doubt for the reason that for all practical purposes it was the same Bill as that introduced by Mr. Greenwood when Minister of Health in the last Parliament.
As regards the question of expense, undoubtedly it is quite posisble that under this Bill there might be a great deal of expenditure, both national and local. What I understand was said in another

977
place against that argument was: "That is all very well, but the present Minister will take good care that there is practically no expenditure put upon the local authorities or upon the Imperial Exchequer." All Governments take the Line that they are going to exist for ever, but we know very well that they are often very short lived indeed. When we get another Government in power, perhaps with Mr. Greenwood at the Ministry of Health, I doubt whether he would call it extravagance to spend a large amount of money in making improvements which he thought very desirable.
Several clauses of the Bill seem very vague indeed. For instance, in subsection (2) of Clause 21 it says:
"Provided that no claim shall be made—
(1) under paragraph (b). ….for orchards. … or for a plantation or a wood."
Does that mean that, if an authority were to require an orchard to be cut down, there would be no compensation payable? If there was to be any compensation at all it would be very small indeed, and only at the discretion of the Minister. Those who are familiar with the West Country will agree that in many cases orchards are of great value and add greatly to the beauty of the countryside. There is also the question of the cutting of timber and the management of plantations. It seems to me that to a very large extent there is to be interference with the private management of plantations and woods, and it raises a very important question with regard to the sale of timber. Is there to be compensation paid when timber is thrown? On the other hand it seems possible under the Bill that the authority may object to timber being cut. That might be of considerable importance in the case of a succession to an estate, because in many cases the new successor looks to a large felling of timber as a means of trying to pay the Death Duties, and under this Bill he might not be allowed to do it. I only hope that I am mistaken in this matter, and that we may be told later on in Committee that it is not so. I think it is so, and that a man may be prevented from paying Death Duties by cutting down timber and selling it at the best price. I think that some restrictions should be put in the Bill.
Then as to the powers of the Minister. I notice that by Clause 36 the Minister
978
has power to require the preparation or adoption of schemes, and to enforce them, and by subsection (2) that if the local authority fails to prepare a scheme the Minister has power to do so at the expense of the local authority. It shows that there are certain cases where great expense might be incurred, because one knows that when a Government Department interferes it usually means that there is great expenditure.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Does the noble Lord know that that is the existing law?
LORD STRACHIE: It is rather remarkable that this was carried only by the casting vote of the Chairman, and the Chairman of Standing Committee, as we know, always gives his casting vote with the Government. I understand that in another place they were not allowed to move an Amendment on Report. I hope that something will be done in regard to that matter when we consider the Bill in Committee. Then Clause 52 deals with the duty of certain councils to prepare schemes. It is a very complicated clause, and there is no option given to the local authority as to whether they will put the schemes in force or not. As I said at the beginning, generally speaking I do not believe that any of us are prepared not to do everything we can to protect the amenities and beauty of the countryside, but on the other hand I think it should be done in the best way and by a less complicated way than in this Bill. I hope that in Committee we shall be able to improve the Bill without injuring the object which we all have at heart, which is to secure that the beauties of the countryside shall not be interfered with.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, this Bill, introduced at the end of the Session, is not likely to be able to claim that it is a popular favourite. We have to consider in this House the question that is before us to-day, and that is whether this Bill is to have a Second Reading or not. The arguments against giving it a Second Reading are in some ways attractive, but one has to remember that if this Bill does not get a Second Reading then the Act of 1925 continues in operation. If a proposition was put forward that we were going to reject this Bill and also repeal the Act of 1925, and get rid of town planning, your Lordships, I have no doubt, would consider it. That

979
is an impossible situation at this stage. Whether or not it would be advisable to raise that situation at another stage remains to be seen. We are, however, faced with one of two things. We have either to give this Bill a Second Reading, and then say what might be done with it in Committee, or we have to throw it out altogether and leave the Act of 1925 actually in operation to-day. To the best of my ability I have considered the position, and for my own part I consider that giving this Bill a Second Reading is the lesser of two evils. Then it would go into Committee and I hope we may be able to alter some matters in it.
I do not think it right on the Second Reading stage to go into the Bill clause by clause, but I think I am entitled to call your attention very generally to the sort of matters which I think we ought to consider. The first is that if this Bill is going through it is going to cost money, and if this money has to be paid I think we ought to consider what we are buying with it. A lot of people who have written, or have spoken in another place, seem rather to consider that this Bill is going to bring about a new heaven and a new earth. You cannot do it. People have said that if only we had started town planning much earlier how agreeable the country would be. Probably we should not have made some of the mistakes which we have made, but probably also we should have made mistakes which we have not made. You cannot look too far ahead. You see certain evils, and you now think that if only you had started thirty years ago you could have avoided those evils. True, but there comes a time limit. If we had started in the time of Harold we should probably now have nothing but old monuments, Norman castles, largely insanitary, all uncomfortable and full of nuisances. You have to look in perspective at the sort of thing we are likely to get before we take the responsibility of passing a Bill which is going to cost so much money.
Then, what may be a very good scheme for building on a town-planning scheme in a new country which has never been built upon before, may not be appropriate for what are known as built-up areas. Without saying that built-up areas should not be dealt with some way, I think you should consider whether sufficient attention has been paid in this Bill to the
980
difference between the treatment of built-up areas and the treatment of new areas which have never been built upon before.
Finally, there is the question of economy. If your Lordships look at the Bill you will see that there is no limit of any kind put on the expenditure, and when it comes to a question of amendment in Committee surely we ought to see that some limitation, at least, is put upon expenditure. That raises a question which I desire to suggest to your Lordships may be raised on the Committee stage. It is the question whether or not Parliament should keep in its own hands the ultimate decision when there is a dispute as to what is to be spent upon a scheme, what compensation is to be given under a scheme, and whether a scheme is a good one. At present your Lordships may think that there is not sufficient reason to take things out of the bureaucratic hands of a Department which, perhaps because it is more recent than some of the other Departments, would like, with its youthful exuberance, to expend considerably more money than the older Ministries would perhaps think proper; and it may be that when we come to Committee your Lordships would think it as well to leave rather fuller powers to Parliament than we find at present in this Bill, instead of leaving them in the autocratic hands of the Minister himself. I have to-day only been suggesting certain broad principles which your Lordships may consider before we come to the Committee stage. Much could be said against giving this Bill a Second Reading, but I do say as my considered opinion that I am quite certain it would be better to give this Bill a Second Reading now, and make any alterations which you may think fit at a later stage.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, I confess that there must be a large number of your Lordships who are rather suspicious of this Bill. And is that to be wondered at when you consider its political godfathers? The original Bill was brought in and carried as far as the Committee stage in another place by a Socialist Government. This Bill was fathered in another place by an ex-Liberal Minister, and we have now heard that those who sit on the Front Opposition Bench are going to support the Bill. Therefore it seems to me that from the

981
political point of view the past of this Bill is open to suspicion. But surely the way to approach a Bill is not to take its label or its political godfathers, not to imagine that certain things are in the Bill when they are not, but really to examine what the Bill contains and what the proposals are. After all, you do not always go by labels, you go by facts. If you went by labels you would not expect the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs in another place to be the pet of the stern unbending Tories; you would regard him as a person so imbued with Socialism that he could not receive the support of the majority of the House of Commons which he now enjoys. Therefore I would beg your Lordships before you criticise this Bill, certainly before you vote against the Second Reading, to consider what it really does seek to achieve.
The Bill to-day is a very different Bill from the Bill which was drawn up and introduced by Mr. Greenwood last year in the House of Commons. That Bill, in my opinion, although its ideals were excellent, was grossly unjust to the individual owner of land. It gave the Minister absurdly autocratic powers. It gave no appeal to Courts of Law and, in fact, it had every possible vice—and they are many—that a Socialist measure could possibly contain. And therefore if this Bill were the same as that introduced in 1931 it certainly should not, in my opinion, receive a second Reading. I have heard it said that the present Minister of Health is as bad as any of them because he introduced the Bill in the same terms as the Socialists did, and did not modify in any way its unjust provisions. I have made inquiries, and I find it is the constitutional practice for Ministers, when they revive a Bill, to bring it in in exactly the same form as Parliament left it when it was dropped in a previous Session or a previous Parliament. I have, of course, no means of knowing what the views of Sir Edward Hilton Young are, but it does not at all follow because he introduced the Bill in the form in which it was left in 1931 that he approved of all its various provisions. At any rate, I think everybody who has followed the proceedings in another place, in Committee and on Report, will agree that the Bill we are now discussing is infinitely better than the Bill of 1931, that it does give many
982
additional safeguards, and that the Minister showed himself very amenable to the discipline—if I may say so—of the Committee upstairs, and put in many additional safeguards to make the Bill workable and just.
I have heard some friends of mine say: "Oh, well, why do we want this innovation? Why have town planning at all?" As my noble friend Lord Gage pointed out, we already have the Act of 1925 in operation; but, in addition to that, we have nineteen local Acts now the law of the land, covering a large area of this country, which deal, as to eighteen of them, with urban areas. The nineteenth, a very far-reaching Act indeed, which deals with the County of Surrey, applies not only to urban areas but to the whole of the County of Surrey, whether built up or not, and gives power to all the local authorities—not only the County Council—to deal with town planning. That Act and the other eighteen Acts are all far less favourable to the landowners than the present Bill. I think I might even say the 1925 Act is less favourable to the landowner than the present Bill. And therefore, as far as innovation is concerned, I would point out that town planning has been in existence in this country for some time, and that this Bill provides safeguards and compensation, and provides for decrement which is an important thing, and which has never been done before.
The Bill should receive the support of all who are in favour of town planning, and who should bear in mind that all these nineteen Acts and the Act of 1925 are repealed, so that we start with a clean sheet. We have uniform provisions, uniform powers, and uniform regulations over the whole of Great Britain, instead of different Acts, with different powers, for different areas. It was mentioned by one noble Lord that all local authorities through their organisations have passed resolutions in favour of a measure of town planning. I am not pretending that they are all in favour of every single provision contained in this Bill, but what I do claim is that all the organisations representing the county councils, the county boroughs, the district councils, and the other various organisations connected with local government, have all passed resolutions urging that town planning should be proceeded with with-

983
out delay and that a comprehensive measure should be put through.
To-day no mention has been made of town planning in other countries, and I think we may learn something from what has happened overseas, where town planning has been in existence in some cases for almost fifty years. Perhaps it is a good thing that we have been rather dilatory about town planning. Perhaps it is a good thing that other people should get experience and we should be able to profit by it. As far back as 1874 Sweden started town planning, and anyone who has had the privilege of travelling in that country, visiting the suburbs of Stockholm and the municipal buildings of that city, will agree, I think, whether it is post hoc or propter hoc, that the town planning of Stockholm is excellent, and the town hall they have built is certainly the finest modern building in the world. Take Germany. There town planning has been in existence for thirty or forty years, during which time local authorities have had very extensive powers over both country and town areas, especially in Prussia, and it has been a very great success.
But the most outstanding country from the town planning point of view is undoubtedly the United States of America, and there has been a great extension there in recent years, especially in the formulation of definite programmes of public works for years ahead, based on a plan. Therefore they have been able over there to cut their coat to suit their cloth. They have made their plans ahead, they have tried to estimate what the expense is going to be, and have had a coherent plan for perhaps ten or twelve years ahead. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the wonderful increase of value which has followed on some public improvements in the States. Take the Michigan Avenue improvement in Chicago, and the park system of Kansas City. In the Michigan Avenue improvement the cost was 16,000,000 dollars, and it seems almost incredible, but I am informed it is a fact that the consequent increase in property values has been over 100,000,000 dollars for the 16,000,000 dollars spent. Part of the cost was assessed on the owners of the property, but for every dollar the owners paid in increment they made five more. Therefore I do not think it is to be wondered at, in view of these facts and others
984
which could be quoted, that owners of property in the United States—what they call real estate men—are in favour of town planning.
May I venture very respectfully to outline what the Bill does in my opinion? It really does three things. It enables planning schemes to be made for obtaining good and economical redevelopment in built areas. It enables schemes to be made for rural areas in order, inter alia, to reduce the risk of spoiling the countryside, to check sporadic development, and especially ribbon development. And last, but not least, it enables places of special architectural or historic interest to be preserved. It may be said, it has been said: "Well, why have all this great organisation, this expensive Bill, this State interference with the individual rights of property? We have got on very well, or in most cases we have got on very well, in the past: why cannot we go on in the future in the same way? "No one is more sensible than I am of the wonderful town planning which the Dukes of Devonshire have carried out at Eastbourne, or the extraordinarily good town planning which has been carried out in former days by the Grosvenor Estate in London. There are also many great county properties where the big landlord has, in his farm and cottage buildings, and in his planning and general development of an estate, carried out town planing as well as anybody could. But those estates are unfortunately passing away under the pressure of Death Duties. The small men have not the experience, possibly not the sense of responsibility, which these great landlords have. You have, therefore, to substitute someone for the great landlord, and we are obliged to fall back upon the local authority.
Who are these local authorities who are going to prepare the schemes for the approval of the Minister? You have the City of London, the London County Council, the county boroughs, the urban district councils, and the rural district councils. Taking it from the county point of view, I am frankly sorry that rural district councils are chosen as the movers in this matter. With all respect to the rural district councils, are they generally composed of individuals who are the best to take over the making of a scheme dealing with rural amenities and rural developments? I hardly think

985
so. I should much have preferred that the onus of making the scheme or schemes should rest on the county councils, no doubt with the help of the district councils. The county councils, from their personnel and their size and wealth, are far more competent to deal with this matter than the rural district councils.
Remember the powers of rural district councils have been greatly diminished in the last few years. In old days they dealt with the Poor Law, with public assistance, with the roads, and other matters. These powers were taken away from them by the Act of 1928, and they are only acting now as the agents of the county council. I hope to see some amalgamation of county councils, rural district councils and parish councils so as to diminish the number of people who hold sway in the counties, diminish the overhead charges and diminish the number of members that have to be found, leaving two bodies to rule the county instead of three. By giving to the rural district councils this new power you stereotype their activities for a good many years, and prevent what I think might have been very legitimate economy in local administration being carried into effect. However the rural district councils are to be the moving powers, and they are to have in certain cases the help of the county councils to carry them through.
What was so important in the deliberations in Committee and Report in another place was the large number of safeguards for the landowners and for the general public which were put in owing to the vigilance of certain Members of Parliament and the accommodating spirit in which the Minister met them. The first safeguard which I think is important is that the Minister's approval is required to every resolution to prepare or adopt a scheme. I know my noble friend Lord Banbury does not think much of Ministers and thinks less of their economy ideas.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I say they are not always endowed with the economical spirit.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: In fact, spendthrifts. I know Lord Banbury does not think they are very economical, but I submit that a Minister, living next door to the Treasury, is more likely to work
986
for economy than a local body like a rural district council far away from the central Government and without anyone to keep it in order. Therefore I think it is a real safeguard that the Government of the day should be able to veto any scheme which is put forward and get some economy. The next safeguard which I think is of even greater importance is that no provision in the scheme shall have effect if either House of Parliament passes an annulling Resolution. This is an important safeguard which was introduced in Committee. Every scheme has to be laid before Parliament, instead of, as now under various Acts, becoming law after the Minister has given his approval, Parliament being unable to intervene. I know that for a scheme to lie on the Table for twenty-one days in another place is not a very great safeguard, for the simple reason that the Government will not give their own time for anything which is opposed to their ideas and the private member has no time. I speak perhaps with ignorance, but I should have thought that in your Lordships' House that procedure could be utilised. Though that procedure in the other House does not provide a safeguard of great value I should have thought that here, if anything was done by the Minister at the suggestion of a district council which was uneconomic or which violated some canon of honesty, your Lordships would be able to take some steps in the matter. It must be remembered that if one House passes an annulling Resolution the matter falls to the ground. It has not to be done by both Houses.
Another very important safeguard, which as far as I know does not exist in any previous town-planning legislation, not even in the Act of 1925, is that the validity of any scheme can be tested in the Courts, thus curtailing the power of the Minister and the bureaucracy. I think that is a vital safeguard. It has always seemed to me a perfect outrage that Parliament should pass an Act giving power to a Minister to do certain things and that then, when the Minister carried out, as he said, his duties under the Act, no one could appeal to the Courts to test whether the Minister had exceeded the powers given him by Parliament. Happily in this Bill it is laid down that, if the Minister does anything which anybody considers to be ultra vires the

987
matter can be brought before the Courts and the Courts can say that his order is null and void if he has overstepped the line.
Further, it has always seemed to me that in regard to these town-planning schemes in the past the ordinary landowner, whether large or small, was left in a fog as to what was going on. He really did not know what proposals were made. There might be an advertisement in the local newspaper or he might receive a visit from some kind official of the town-planning authority. Now there is laid down in this Bill ample procedure to ensure that everybody who is really interested in a scheme shall receive full notification of what is going on. When a scheme is proposed notice is to be served on all owners and occupiers under Schedule A assessment, and any owner can register free of charge and so make sure that he will receive notice of each stage of the scheme. Therefore anybody who takes the trouble to register will be warned of all the steps that are being taken to put the matter through.
There is still another safeguard which I welcome. It is that no proposal in the scheme can override any statutory enactment unless an affirmative Resolution has been passed by both Houses of Parliament. Further, the power to prepare a scheme is restricted to areas where there is a likelihood of fresh development and static areas are excluded. I think the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, if I recollect rightly, said that he very much regretted that the whole of England was not going to be town-planned and that the area of town planning was restricted. Surely on reflection he will agree with me. Why in the name of economy should you attempt to town-plan the Muir of Rannoch or the Cairngorms? Why waste public money in town-planning areas which cannot possibly develop for the next fifty years, if then?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: On a point of personal explanation may I say that I think the noble Lord misunderstood what I said? What I intended to convey was that according to the original form of the Bill local authorities would have had protective and constructive powers throughout the whole country. Town planning, of course, would not apply to purely rural areas. We simply want to prevent any disfigurement of the countryside.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I did not mean to misrepresent the noble Earl. Personally I would rather give the Minister power to decide what are static areas and what are not than leave it to the rural district council. I think even my noble friend Lord Banbury would agree that the Minister and his staff would probably have more wisdom than one rural district council. And there is a second reason, that you get uniformity of policy if it is left in the hands of the Minister. You have really reached what, I think, is a very sensible compromise. Just as in the country you do not want to town-plan a grouse moor, so in the town you probably will not want to town-plan a new suburb or a seaside watering place because it has just been town-planned and probably no improvements can be made there for the next fifty years. That, I think, is not only sensible but is also a measure of economy. You do not want to spend money on town-planning areas which are not coming into development in the near future. Another very great safeguard was introduced and a very sensible step taken when an Amendment was passed that agricultural land and agricultural development should be free from control. I regard with the greatest apprehension the possible town planning of arable land and grazing land. Surely it is quite right and proper to exclude those areas from town planning.
Another point which I think your Lordships ought to bear in mind is the matter of compensation. I do not think the question of compensation has been enough stressed during this debate. Full compensation may be called for in all cases of injurious affection by a scheme except in a few cases closely defined in the Bill. That means that if a scheme hurts your land or lessens its value you can claim and receive compensation for the injury done to your land, unless you are prohibited from using your land for a refuse tip or for some purpose which is injurious to your neighbour. Broadly speaking, if the scheme hurts development of your land then—for the first time, I think, in the history of the country—you can receive compensation. There is no exclusion of compensation possible without the consent of the Minister and if compensation is excluded by the Minister then the scheme can be questioned in Parliament.

989
Then I think I ought to draw your attention to the Bill as it affects built-up areas. I was very anxious to see what safeguards there were for the owners of existing buildings, and I looked with more anxiety that I should otherwise have done because in the nineteen Acts which are being repealed there are no safeguards of any sort for the owners of existing buildings. What does this Bill do? No existing building can be touched without compensation, and the owner is given a right to re-erect new buildings of at least equal size and use them for the same purpose unless that is seriously detrimental to the neighbourhood, or to claim compensation. I think that is only justice, but it is justice for which the landowner has had to wait a very long time, and I am sure it will be in accordance with the wishes of the majority of this House.
In regard to betterment, if your land is increased in value in consequence of a scheme you have to find 75 per cent. of the betterment. As a landowner I should have preferred 50 per cent., but as the man in the street I think 75 per cent. is not an unfair amount provided two things are done which are done in this Bill—namely, that you get decrement or compensation for damage done, and that you do not pay your betterment until you receive it. No owner is required to find money for betterment till the betterment is realised. It is in this respect that this Bill is so different from Mr. Lloyd George's taxes. You are not taxed on what you have not received. The reason why the Lloyd George taxes broke down was that the owner had to pay increment on something he did not receive, but was supposed to have received.
Summing up what, in my opinion, this Bill does it is, in spite of what my noble friend Lord Banbury has said, a definite measure of economy because the haphazard development of the past has caused needless expenditure. One must plan well ahead to get the best value for money. In the next place I regard the Bill as a bulwark of private enterprise. Private enterprise as such is not affected by the Bill, but it is regulated and assisted and coordinated with the programmes of public authorities. Further, planning helps industry and business by securing that when the site of a factory is chosen transport and other facilities
990
will be taken into consideration. In my opinion planning of the countryside does not mean interference. What is desired under the Bill is to preserve, not to interfere. Planning seeks to retain the beauty of our countryside, which is a valuable commercial asset.
We want no more ribbon development, no more Peacehavens, no more of those bungalow encampments in the Thames valley—monstrosities which are a disgrace to the twentieth century. In the Midlands and in the North and in some of the county towns in the South you can see what the absence of town planning has done—places where the working classes live in back-to-back houses, where they do not get the sun, where they have no garden, where nothing was done by our fathers and grandfathers to make their lives decent. We do not want the South of England when it is industrialised, as it will be shortly, to reproduce what now exists in parts of Scotland and in the North and Midlands. We want everybody to have a fair chance. I do not say we can ever under this Bill make this country a place fit for heroes to live in—that is perhaps too high an ideal; but if we pass this Bill the next generation will hold this Parliament in grateful remembrance.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I should like to refer in particular to an argument which has been mentioned by three or four of your Lordships that this Bill is too expensive to be adopted. Lord Dynevor thought the local authority would be bankrupt by having to expend the necessary amount of money on ordnance survey maps. I think the noble Lord exaggerates. I can quote a case of an authority which made a town-planning scheme at a cost in twelve months of one-twentieth of a penny rate. Lord Banbury of Southam asked: "Can we afford an artistic building?" Of all queer questions surely that is the most paradoxical. The noble Lord seems to think that an artistic building must be expensive. Let me assure him that he is wrong; in the case of many inartistic buildings nearly all the vulgarity is caused by spending too much money and not too little, and one of the effects of scrupulous attention to finance is to remove these eccentricities, to curtail extravagances and thus not only to improve the building but to save money in the process.

991
I beg your Lordships to believe that there is nothing in the world more costly than bad planning and nothing in this country more economical than good planning. Any money we can spend in improving the town-planning system whether in country or town will be repaid, not a hundredfold, but a thousandfold. I am glad my noble friend mentioned Peacehaven. That is a mean and ignoble township in a very beautiful part of the country which has grown up because local authorities did not have either the power or the desire to prevent a great public scandal. Measure it if you please in terms of money. Here is this colony of buildings erected in the most haphazard fashion, and in such a manner that to give that area the ordinary decencies of amenity which are enjoyed by any new dwelling scheme of a town council would absorb more than the total rateable value of the area itself. Yet they say, "How can Sussex do this sort of thing—how can Sussex afford the ordnance survey maps?" But money is being thrown away in the most scandalous manner by bad planning, and so far from saying that money has been wasted we ought to be ashamed of having spent so little in the past.
Take that new development which is extremely wasteful and profligate, which is called ribbon development. A great arterial road is run from one place to another. The frontages do not belong to a public authority or to the Ministry of Health, but are reserved to the proprietors of the adjacent land. Cottages, bungalows, small houses are strung out on either side of this road in such a manner that those who travel along this country road cease to be conscious of the fact that they are in the country, and can only look right and left on this long sequence of dull, ignominious one-storey buildings.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: They are going so fast that they cannot see anything.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Let us test the question of pace in relation to ribbon development. I did not mean to be provoked by my noble friend Lord Banbury. He says that people in motor cars travel so fast that they do not even realise the ugliness on the right and left of them. Is he aware that everyone who builds a bungalow on either side of the road,
992
say, from London to Southend, has a right of access to the high road; in other words, to have a road broad enough to take his car from his garage to the high road, and that, when not on the high road, he claims the right to park his car outside his own premises? The result is to discount the value of those roads made at an enormous public cost and it also discounts the speed at which people travel along them. Ribbon development is wasteful because it is bad planning and it is bad planning because it is wasteful. Those houses are run out in long lines instead of being grouped together with a sense of community life. All the public services have to go an increased distance to serve the minimum number of houses. Whenever a new extension is required for one of these houses, a new opening has to be made in the road and there is more waste and more money thrown away. Instead of the charming community life which is exemplified in the English village, we have this ribbon development, a wasteful system which involves needless lateral communication and reduces the value of the highway itself. It is wasteful and costly and results from bad town planning.
Whenever there is bad town planning to-day, one may rest assured it will injure us later on when that bad town planning has to be corrected, so that there is a cumulative cost to the community in this wastefulness of money. One of Lord Mount Temple's friends said to him: "Why have town planning at all?" Nobody has got any business to speak who asks that kind of question. It means that he has not given himself the trouble to study the elements of the subject; it means that he does not know what is being done in every other country in the world except Britain; it means that he has never travelled anywhere in the world except Britain; it means that he is heedless of the amount of waste that is going on. This is a necessity and not a luxury. I assure Lord Banbury that this is not a question of æsthetics, but of economics.
At this point let me refer to a subject which has not been dealt with so much by your Lordships here as it has been in another place but none the less I wish permission to speak about it. It is the very hostile and supercilious attitude adopted towards local authorities. I

993
suspect that the reason why local authorities have not been attacked here is that so many of your Lordships serve on local authorities and take so prominent a share in the local government of the country. Your Lordships know too well the futility of saying that local authorities are necessarily incompetent. It is urged that on this subject local authorities are not themselves authorities on questions of taste. I acknowledge that there have been two cases recently which give colour to that form of attack. In Scotland the local authority in the City of Dundee has allowed its town house to be destroyed, which I always thought effectively symbolised the staunchness and the strength of the citizens of that interesting town. Alas! it is gone. Here in London there has been a complacency by the greatest of our local authorities about the destruction of one of the greatest of our national buildings—namely, the attitude of the London County Council towards Waterloo bridge. That too I deplore, and I am bound to acknowledge that those who care to use the argument that local authorities are heedless or incompetent have been greatly and gravely fortified by the events of the last two months. I urge, however, that those cases are exceptional.
Lord Mount Temple and another member of your Lordships' House have mentioned that nearly twenty authorities in this country, including those of Edinburgh, Bath, Newcastle and the County of Surrey, have already come to Parliament and have secured from Parliament every right which it is proposed to grant in this Bill and in some cases rights in excess of those proposed in this Bill. It is said that this is tyrannical, but do we hear that these towns have been tyrannical? Not at all. They are interested in the beauty, the dignity, and the proper planning of their areas and they have used their powers with good sense. Again, when it is said that local authorities are so unfit for these powers, I would remind the House that in these matters to which the gravest objection is taken the local authorities are not the chief offenders. Who makes the ribbon development? Certainly not the local authorities. Who allows abuse of advertisements? Again, certainly not the local authorities. For every slum that exists in the area of a local authority there are ten that exist in the possession of private individuals.
994
Our business is to do everything we can to help and assist the local authorities in these matters.
Let me say here how much effort is being devoted in that direction. I do not know if your Lordships are aware that, at the instance of the Ministry of Health and of certain private movements in this country, the Royal Institute of British Architects has established a series of groups of experienced architects, who voluntarily are prepared to give technical and expect advice on town planning or on reconditioning old houses to a local authority which may ask for help. The movement is quite new but the whole country is covered by it, although I acknowledge that in certain parts of the country the staff and the grouping are still insufficient. In the areas of Buckinghamshire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire, qualified men have been allotted to every urban and every rural district council in that part of England, where there is a large resident population of well qualified architects and where the local authorities are very much alive to the importance to their own areas of this expert advice, which is freely and voluntarily given. Again, in the Peak district, in the Lake district in the North, and in the Cotswold district in Gloucestershire, a special effort is being successfully made in the same direction, and these groups of architects have been already consulted on matters relating to town planning and building by the Forestry Commission and the Air Ministry. Great effort is being made and marked progress is being effected, and not only are local authorities entitled to every assistance that can be given to them, but they are themselves doing what lies in their power.
These local authorities are the permanent units in this country, and the landlords are not. Successive Parliaments and successive Governments have decided that the large landowner is to be abolished. I am very sorry for it, because the landowners of England have made rural England beautiful. They have done a great deal, by generations of care and love for the countryside, to give us the beauty of which the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Winchester spoke. As the landlords go they have got to be replaced by somebody, and it seems to me that no body can replace the landlord except the local authority. At least the local authority will have one

995
advantage which the landlords never achieved, and that is of joint action in town and country planning on a large scale.
One of the most valuable things in this Bill is the assistance which it gives to the system of regional planning. These things may go badly at first. Experiments have to be made and mistakes may occur, but we have got to do it, and the longer we delay the less easy will it be to come to a conclusion. I look forward to great things from this Bill, to most valuable results from the co-operation not only of local authorities amongst themselves but of local authorities with qualified people, and with those whose properties are concerned, for the development of this country has, as I indicated in my earlier remarks, for long proceeded on bad lines. When on Clause 6 one talks about land ripe for development I read it with dismay, but I read it in connection with an interesting and valuable speech by my noble friend Lord Phillimore the other day. He protested that this phrase is being only construed as meaning land ripe for urban development or the building of houses. That is a profound misconception. This Bill is called the Town and Country Planning Bill, and you can develop the country just as you can the town, and in some ways the duty of developing agriculture is greater than the duty of developing urban property.
This Bill is going to provide us with a new start. It is a big Bill, because it includes the whole of the Act of 1925 and is therefore largely a Consolidation Bill. It is also a complicated Bill. But I hope your Lordships will pass it into law. There is really no time to waste. Every month which goes past brings more danger. Two rapid deaths in a family may throw a landed estate upon the market. It may be bought in the market by some butcher of the land, who will cut down the beautiful trees, wipe out every beautiful tradition of the past, and put up shacks and bungalows, and sometimes even devote sites to houses on wheels, which are a danger to the inhabitants and a scandal to the neighbourhood. Scotland requires this Bill just as much as England, and I profoundly regret that Lord Linlithgow took so strong a line against the inclusion of Scotland in this Bill. There is no difference in the problems of rural Scotland and
996
England, and many towns in Scotland, God knows, are pretty badly planned.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: May I interrupt for one moment? I would only like to say that I think there is ample time for a Bill in the autumn applying to Scotland, which will be better for the purpose in hand than the present Bill would prove to be.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I will not at this time pursue that point, except to express my opinion that Scotland is equally injured by bad planning, and that in some ways Scotland requires a comprehensive Town Planning Bill more than England does, and there are some parts of Scotland which I would regret to see left until the autumn, on the very remote chance of the autumn being devoted to a Scottish Town Planning Bill. I beg your Lordships not to be deflected from passing this Bill into law by fears that the initial outlay may be serious. It will not be serious; but whatever it is it will repay itself a thousandfold, and I am confident will contribute to the dignity and efficiency of our towns, and also to the beauty and service of our countryside.
LORD BAYFORD: My Lords, I am sure that the great majority of us agree with my noble friend who has just sat down in feeling that this is not a Bill that we want to lose. We recognise that it is time when the law on the subject was put into a more intelligible shape, and we recognise the evils which the Bill is meant to cure. We do not want overcrowding, we do not want ugly houses, we do not want ribbon development. We are all agreed on these points. I might almost say it is easy to make a speech on the subject, although not a speech so eloquent and forcible as that of my noble friend who has just sat down; but it is not so easy and popular to point out the dangers that may lurk in this Bill.
I want to say a word or two on behalf of a class which sometimes comes in for rather harsh treatment in all debates on housing questions, I mean the professional builders. We are all agreed that houses are wanted. The man who provides them is not a criminal, and ought not to be treated as such. If you make it too difficult, too costly, or too risky for that man to carry on his trade, houses are not going to be provided at all, or else

997
they are only going to be provided by the local authorities, which is not a consummation that I think your Lordshops would wish to see brought about. Take the most commonplace case of all—namely, the case of the number of houses allowed to be built to an acre. No one wants overcrowding, but there is always a fear that a local housing authority may unduly restrict the number of houses that can be built in a given space.
THE EARL or CRAWFORD: That is the existing Act.
LORD BAYFORD: The existing Act is repealed by this one, and this is put in its place. Quite irrespective of the cost of the land, you have the cost of the road and the sewers, and it really makes a great difference whether, say, six or ten houses are allowed per acre. That restriction of the number of houses most certainly and unavoidably increases the rent that has to be charged. That is a fact that we cannot get out of. Take another effect of restriction, or threatened restriction. Take the case of an owner who dies. Estate Duty is claimed on an estate as it stands. Then comes a scheme and restriction of the number of houses that may be built per acre. The value undoubtedly goes down in consequence. Does the owner get anything back? I should be very much surprised to hear that he did. And take another danger. Supposing land is scheduled but no scheme is made. There is a builder ready to develop. Under Clause 10 of this Bill he must get leave. Then the council may refuse his plan, and the council may be upheld by the Ministry. Or possibly the council may accept the plans, but still they may he refused by the Ministry. Building may be delayed for years.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That is practically the existing Act. It has not done that up till now.
LORD BAYFORD: I was just going to show a case in which it has done. I have a letter here which was put into my hands this morning on this very subject. Here are the details. On November 20, 1926, a certain urban district council passed a resolution to prepare a town planning scheme. This is written by a firm of solicitors, and they say:
"Clients of ours who are small builders submitted plans to the urban district
998
council for the development of a piece of land belonging to them. The urban district council refused to pass the plans on the ground that the county council proposed to make a by-pass road through the land. As delay meant ruin, our clients then submitted an application for a consent under the interim development order showing the proposed by-pass road on their plan, and the consent was duly granted. The urban district council applied to the Minister of Health for approval of their preliminary statement, which approval was refused. In September, 1930, the county council served a formal order of their intention to take the land for the by-pass road under the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, and eventually an order was made by the Ministry of Transport, and the land was taken, and the road was made.
"Our clients claim that they have been damaged to the extent of £2,792, but the county council, supported by the Ministry of Health, state that, inasmuch as the site of the road was shown in the consent under the interim development order, they are entitled to no compensation for the land taken by them for the by-pass road, and offer the sum of £1. Our clients are poor men, and if they are not properly compensated it will mean virtual ruin for them. The urban district council appear to have taken no steps to proceed with their town-planning scheme, and it is now three years since the public inquiry was held as to their preliminary statement, and it is possible that they may not proceed with the scheme. Even if they do proceed, it will be many years before the approval to the final scheme is obtained, and in the meantime our clients have no rights to compensation under the Town Planning Act. This seems to be such as iniquitous proceeding that we think it right that your notice should be called to the facts in the hope that the present Bill may be so amended so as to prevent any such state of affairs arising in future."
That is the sort of trouble which I want to see guarded against by any Bill of this sort. That is not the sort of law that encourages builders. I do not want to encourage jerry-building any more than my noble friend does, but I think we ought to realise that if we put these difficulties in the way of the ordinary builder it means what happened before the War after the Lloyd George Budget was passed: it means that builders will fight shy of developing land at all, and we shall have that shortage of houses that we had before the War and have not set right even yet. As far as I can see, the present Bill does nothing to remedy that.
VISCOUNT GAGE: May I interrupt? I should be grateful if my noble friend would furnish me with those particulars for the consideration of the Department,

999
because I am informed that the state of affairs represented in that document is unintelligible to them. I think there must be some misapprehension.
LORD BAYFORD: I should be only too glad to do that; in fact, that is the reason why I read the letter. I should like to ask for information on one or two smaller points in the Bill. Nearly all land, whether in town or country, is to be scheduled. A good deal has already been scheduled, even in remote country villages under the provisions of the old Act. What will be the result of that? Will the consequence be that no cottage, no garage even, may be put up without leave of the local authority? Another question I want to ask is whether there is any time limit for schemes. It is laid down in the Bill that they are to be prepared. How long are things to go on between the time when the town-planning authority has scheduled the land to be included in the scheme and the actual promulgation of the scheme? How long is everything to be hung up until the local council has prepared its scheme? There is another matter on a different point that I want to ask the noble Viscount about in the hope that it may be possible for him to meet me when we come into Committee, and that is in regard to Clause 38. Clause 38 relates to an inquiry that is to be held. What I want to ask is: May not the parties to the inquiry see the findings? That seems to me to be only just and reasonable, and I hope it is a point on which the noble Viscount will be ready to meet us when we come to the Committee stage.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I am afraid, after the very kind reference which the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, made to me, you will expect an eloquent speech. You will not get it. I only rise because I have done a good deal of hard work at town planning for the last three years. I have also read this Bill, and I think I can bring a little cooling water to the aid of my noble friend Lord Banbury, and possibly to others who sit on the same Bench. I am shocked to see that the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, has not yet appreciated the possibly of lithography. We do not buy quantities of the same 6 inch or 25 inch map. We get them lithographed, and they cost very much less. In my own little rural district the cost of town planning for the
1000
last three years has been met by a halfpenny rate; the cost of scavenging or picking up the tins dropped about by scattered cottages will cost us a threepenny rate. Now if the country had been properly planned in the beginning the cost of picking up those tins would probably have only been a penny rate. It is going to cost us a great deal more to pick up tins than to plan the country throughout. A halfpenny rate with us means something like £200 a year. For that exorbitant sum, I venture to say, we shall make economies far greater than anything we spend; in fact, I am prepared, in vulgar language, to eat my hat if we do not. I will go further than that, I will undertake to eat Lord Banbury's hat.
This Bill is not a Bill to make people do things which they do not want to do, and which a local council ought not to have the right or power to make them do. It is a restrictive Bill. It is not a Bill which forces people into a certain course of action. It is not even like the Agricultural Marketing Act which your Lordships, to my great regret, passed last year. It does not enable the majority of the inhabitants to force the rest of the inhabitants to do something which they do not like. Neither is this Bill, I venture to say, unfair to those who have invested their money in real property. Nearly the whole of my money is in real property, and I can say, for my part, that this Bill ought to improve, and will improve, the value of real property taken as a whole. Your Lordships will be very familiar with the working of the Licensing Act, which, put quite shortly, as you well know deals with licences in such a way that by reducing superabundant licences the value of the remaining licences is enhanced. So it will be with this Bill. By cutting down, if you will, the area of land over which buildings may straggle the value of the remaining land available for building purposes will be enhanced, so that, taking the countryside or the neighbourhood of a big town all over, undoubtedly proper town planning will enhance values.
I cannot understand my noble friend Lord Dynevor, to whom I look for light on these subjects, saying the Bill is unfair to those who have invested their money in real property. It may be unfair in isolated cases; it is, I think, unfair in the sort of case that my noble

1001
friend Lord Bayford put; but if he had studied it a little closer I think he would have found some consolation in this very Bill. As a matter of fact it is in this respect, amongst other respects, that the new Bill is better than the old one. If the noble Lord had looked up Clause 10, subsections (4) and (5), he would have found the very point dealt with. It may not be dealt with to his full satisfaction, but it is dealt with in a manner in which it was not dealt with under the old Bill.
It is getting late, and I do not wish to detain your Lordships longer, but there is one other important point I would like to make. As a practical town planner I can tell your Lordships this. It is impossible to work a town-planning scheme in the country except with the consent of the great majority of the land-owners. It is impossible because the cost of compensation is absolutely prohibitive unless you carry with you the landlords of the district, and if this Bill has a fault it is that it has in certain ways thrown compensation into the hands of the land speculator, where, perhaps, it is not wholly necessary that such compensation should be placed. I hope that at a later stage I shall be allowed to introduce an Amendment which will further carry out the principle of consent by the landlords, an Amendment which I do not think will be opposed on either side of the House. You may rest assured that it is impossible to work any country-planning scheme except by the general consent of the landowners who are concerned.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I will not detain the House for more than a minute at this late hour, but I feel I must say this with regard to economy, about which we have heard so much in the course of this debate. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, who said that the Bill now before your Lordships is a very different Bill from the Bill introduced by Mr. Greenwood in the House of Commons last year. It is a totally different Bill. I think it is intolerable that the present Minister of Health should have allowed a small group of irresponsible people, who not only disagree with the provisions of this Bill but with anything intending towards progress, to interfere with what was au agreed measure in the Standing Committee last
1002
year, on which Committee there was a preponderance of Conservatives. The Bill was agreed and passed its Second Reading in the House of Commons, and I repeat that it is intolerable that the Minister of Health should have allowed a small group of irresponsible people to destroy the main objects of the Bill. I hope your Lordships will not only give a Second Reading to the Bill, but will, in Committee, reinsert its original provisions.
VISCOUNT HEREFORD: My Lords, it has already been pointed out that this Bill is a liability of the late Government which has been taken over and shouldered by its successors. Indeed, had it been presented to your Lordships in anything like the form in which it originally was introduced in another place, I should have felt it my duty to those on whose behalf I speak to ask your Lordships to refuse to give it a Second Reading. In its passage through another place, however, it has received a certain amount of modification, having been referred to a Select Committee, at whose hands it experienced critical scrutiny, emerging from that scrutiny a greatly improved Bill, although not a good one—it is impossible, in my opinion, to make it that—but less one-sided, though not, I fear, less expensive than when it was originally introduced. I am not convinced myself that even in its changed form there is such a widespread demand for the Bill as to justify your Lordships in inflicting immediately upon the country the extra expenditure which carrying out its provisions would entail.
Certain noble Lords have been inclined to ridicule those of us who object to the Bill on the ground of economy. I am not convinced myself and I think a great many noble Lords will want a great deal of convincing that there really is such a widespread demand for the Bill as to justify us in putting it into operation immediately. Therefore I hope in Committee there will be an Amendment to postpone its coming into operation certainly for three or four years, or until such time as the financial position has improved and the country is in a better position to bear the strain entailed by its carrying out the provisions of the Bill. As has been already remarked this Bill seeks to apply very wide powers of town planning to built-up areas in towns

1003
and cities, and in this way it is a departure from previous legislation. Previous Acts limited town planning to land ripe for development. The present Bill, I understand, is said to be the result of demands by municipal corporations for authority to apply town planning to the hearts of our towns and cities. When a Committee of your Lordships' House, presided over by the noble Marquess, Lord Bristol, considered the town-planning powers contained in the Birmingham Bill some valuable safeguards were inserted. It was realised then, and. I am sure it is realised now, that the application of town-planning powers to prevent ribbon development along roads is one thing but the application of such powers to areas already covered with buildings is another. Therefore I think your Lordships will agree with me when I say that such powers should only be given after the fullest investigation of how they work in practice.
The first move to be taken by town-planning authorities under this Bill is the passing of a resolution. I am glad to observe that that resolution is not to take effect until it has the approval of the Minister of Health. No owner within the area covered by a scheme can develop his property without obtaining an interim development order. That may in practice have very serious results, and it is important that an owner should be adequately safeguarded against any possible arbitrary exercise of bureaucratic powers. My own view is that no local authority should be permitted to pass such a resolution until it has prepared a preliminary statement and that the resolution should not take effect until that preliminary statement has received the approval of the Minister. It is most important that an authority should know its own mind before embarking on a scheme, and it cannot know its own mind unless it has some sort of preliminary statement prepared. The Committee of your Lordships' House in the case of the Birmingham Bill advanced the material date far beyond the date of the passing of the resolution. I do not propose that we should go as far as that, but I do think that what is described as the dead hand should not be allowed to fall until the preliminary statement has been approved by the Minister.
I know that this matter has been given very serious consideration by the Minister,
1004
and that he has introduced additional compensation provisions covering what I may call the interim development period and providing that all schemes in future shall be submitted to Parliament. Here, however, we come to the question of Parliamentary procedure. As the Bill stands at present the scheme has merely to be laid on the Table and becomes operative if there is no Motion to the contrary. The Committee which recently sat to consider the question of Ministerial powers reported that this procedure is not satisfactory in practice. I hope, therefore, that when the Bill reaches the Committee stage it will be amended by the substitution of the affirmative Resolution procedure so that the decision upon schemes to which objection is taken shall be referred to a Select Committee. That procedure works well in your Lordships' House and if it is incorporated in this Bill you will do something to meet the demand advocated by large sections of property owners for setting up some technical tribunal.
I should like also to say a few words with regard to betterment. The betterment figure of 50 per cent. in the 1925 Act has been increased to 75 per cent. in this Bill. I know that the present figure is said to be the result of a compromise between the late Government and the Opposition during the Committee stage of the 1931 Bill in another place, but that Bill was never considered in your Lordships' House and we at any rate can review the whole question of betterment without feeling that we are tied in any way by anything done in the past. Betterment is a purely hypothetical value and it is most difficult to assess. The owner-occupier of a small house may be suddenly faced with a heavy betterment charge because of a scheme which he never wanted. It is true that the scheme may open up the neighbourhood and so increase the market value of his property, but from his point of view it may decrease the value of his property to him by depriving him of amenities such as peace and quietness and solitude which attracted him to the locality. He cannot pay this charge out of a small fixed income and so he must fall into the hands of a mortgagee or sell the property. I am not overlooking the provision that betterment need not be paid until there is a change of user or disposition of the property, but the fact remains

1005
that there will be a betterment charge and that it will be in the nature of a mortgage upon the property.
I am sorry to see that there is a special repayment rule to apply to businesses by which owners will be liable to pay five years after the property has been valued for betterment. I honestly consider that this principle of betterment will act as a deterrent to development. In these times of unemployment we ought to give serious consideration to the question whether the betterment figure of 50 per cent. in the 1925 Act should not be reinstated in preference to the figure of 75 per cent. now in the Bill. Those are the main lines on which I should like to see the improved and I hope that in Committee the Government will see fit to accept Amendments that will enable these alterations to be made because I think they would result in making it a considerably better Bill.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I rise to refer chiefly to the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, that land values would be increased by the operation of this Bill. I cannot see the force of that. Lord Bayford quoted a case of great hardship under the operation of the existing Act and there were also the remarks of the Earl of Crawford concerning estates which on the death of the owner were broken up and where the speculator came in to buy the land and spoil the amenities for the mere sake of money. If the owner or trustee cannot, obtain what is the market value of the land that land is bound to be depreciated in value, and if the Act becomes operative all over the country general uncertainty as to the value of land is bound to lead to a lessened value. With regard to ribbon development nothing is more hideous than the existence of arterial roads and therefore any houses built along them are a pleasure to look at. Moreover, why should not people be allowed to build houses where they desire to live?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, at this late hour and after a debate which has been a helpful and valuable contribution to the solution of a difficult subject, I should not be justified in detaining the House by going over the whole of the ground covered or by calling attention at any length to the general principles on which the Bill is founded. Town planning is no new thing.
1006
It found its way on to the Statute Book as far back as 1909. By an Act of 1925 the law relating to it was consolidated and the Bill now under discussion repeals and re-enacts that Act with certain additional provisions and certain additional safeguards. On a Bill of so complicated a character as the present one it is difficult to make a statement which is at once brief and accurate, but it is sufficiently correct to say that the additional powers in this Bill are those which enable townplanning schemes to be made for securing that if and when redevelopment takes place in built-up areas, it shall be on good and economical lines and, further, for enabling certain schemes to be made for rural areas in order, among other matters, to reduce the risk of spoiling the amenities of the countryside. The additional safeguards are those which ensure an extended right of appeal from the decision of local authorities and enhanced control by Parliament of schemes which have been sanctioned by the Minister.
It is obvious from the discussion we have had that the theory and ideas of town planning command the sympathy of this House. It could not be otherwise. No one here wants to create or to perpetuate slum areas. No one here desires to see land wastefully or selfishly used. Everyone here would wish that land should be administered and developed to the best advantage. All that goes without saying. Many of the difficulties and troubles which have arisen have been due not to the action of the old-fashioned landlord of the countryside, but to that of the speculative builder and the speculative land-jobber. Comparisons are odious, but anyone who desires to make them can easily pay a visit to a delightfully developed town like Eastbourne and to a less delightfully developed area occupied by one or other of the bungalow towns which are Eastbourne's neighbours on the south coast. I do not underrate the difficulties of cases where land is in the dead hand or is in a strict settlement and where the owner has not capital to develop it.
While, however, it is clear that the general sense of the House is in favour of some scheme of town planning, it is not unnatural that there should be a difference of opinion as to the propriety of certain of the provisions in this Bill and as to the machinery by which it is proposed to carry them out. Men have and

1007
are entitled to have different opinions. I would, however, venture to suggest to your Lordships that in legislation of this character, which is made in response to the views of a considerable volume of public opinion, the main things to consider and to ensure are, firstly, economy and, secondly, the adequacy of the safeguards which it is intended to set up. What we all desire is what is best for Great Britain and a law which presses hardly on any particular class without a remedy or a right of appeal is not a good thing. It seems clear that in this field of legislation a great deal of wheat has been sown. There may be some tares as well, but it is undoubtedly wise for your Lordships to let the wheat and the tares, if there be tares, grow together till the Committee stage is reached. It must be obvious to any impartial listener to our debate that the knowledge and experience of many members of this House will be of great value when we come to that stage.
Let me now endeavour to deal quite briefly with some of the points raised this afternoon and the general attitude of the Government towards them. I recognise the weight and the importance of many of the arguments which have been advanced. We are certainly not going to say here and now that we cannot admit them and will never give way to them. They are worthy of and will receive careful and detailed consideration. In my view no Minister of the Crown ought to persevere in an obstinate and unreasoning refusal to consider the views of others, but equally you will not expect me to-night to say at once that we will agree with your suggestions. Too little time and attention are given to thought nowadays and you will, I am sure, allow us the short interval between this and the Committee stage to think over what has been said. When we debate these matters rather more in detail we shall hope to be able either to adopt your suggestions or to tell you why we cannot do so, and I trust in that event to be able to allay your apprehensions.
The main criticism of this Bill is on the question of economy. If I may say so, with all deference to the noble Lords who have advanced that plea, it seems to me that in discussing the question of economy they have only looked at one side of the account. Wise expenditure
1008
may be the best form of economy and there are many old proverbs in our country which are homely ones but none the less true. "A stitch in time saves nine." I dare say many of your Lordships in the coming months, October and November, will plough the land, scatter the seed, pay your workmen, pay for provender for your horses. Why? Because you hope for a good harvest. Are there any of your Lordships who are going to say: "We are going to economise in every way, we are not going to sow the seed, we are not going to have any workmen, we are going to cut down our horses, and we are not going to think about the future"? This Bill is really an economy Bill. It is one of those Bills where you will not see the economy at the moment any more than you will see the harvest from the seed you sow next November before Christmas.
I shall come to the question of economy again later but, first of all, let me deal only with the question of expenditure. The cost of preparing a scheme varies very much with the nature of the scheme and the amount of detail that may be necessary in preparing the scheme. Permit me to give one example only. I will give the example of a developing area, partly industrial, of over 11,000 acres with a county borough and some neighbouring districts. The cost of preparing a scheme is £1,600, equivalent to a rate of less than a tenth of a penny in the pound if spread over five years. The cost would, of course, be spread over the years during which the scheme was being prepared, and that would rest with the local authority to determine when it undertook to prepare the scheme. That is one side—£1,600. I do not want to adopt slang language but it is not much even to put on an outsider. What are you going to get for it in the ordinary course of events? You may say that we do not always get a harvest. Some of us do not, but in the chances and trials of this mortal life we must put up with some risk if we are to gain anything.
Against this expenditure is set the saving in planning which results from this relatively small initial amount and the saving in expenditure on public improvements. Large sums have to be spent because of the want of planning in the past. My noble friend Lord Crawford

1009
gave some instances from his experience. The widening of roads along which development has taken place is often extremely costly. Expenditure on services may be reduced if development is ordered. That is obtaining better value for public expenditure. I need not go into the various items at this late hour but others will suggest themselves on a few moments reflection. So much with regard to expense. This is not a Bill in which you can really fear that the expense will be large. It is a Bill from which really true economy will be made.
One or two of your Lordships, no doubt from a feeling of plaisanterie, said that this Bill was a Bill of the Socialist Government. I know your Lordships well enough to know that your Lordships will vote for a Bill according to what you think best for the country, no matter whether it is introduced by a Liberal, a Labour or a Conservative Government. I will not say whether this is a Socialist Bill by parentage. I remember that in 1921 there was a slum area inquiry over which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer presided. I remember that in 1924 the present Minister of Health was able by the luck of the private members' ballot to introduce a Bill for the preservation of local amenities, which was very much on the lines of this Bill. I cannot, help thinking that, if we look back a few years, the parentage of this Bill has a very strong Conservative strain in it. I quite agree that, when Mr. Greenwood took it up, it became Socialist by adoption and grace. Now it comes before your Lordships because the National Government has become its nurse. It has come to you for treatment but I hope only medical treatment and not surgical treatment. I do not think that this Bill can stand many more operations. What is left of it is the minimum which is required for its good health.
Let me deal with another matter, Ministers' powers. Reference has been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hereford, to the Report which has been recently issued by the Committee which was appointed to consider them. I only want to make one or two general remarks in regard to Ministers' powers and they are these. Having regard to the great amount of social legislation nowadays and its intricate character, it is impossible for Parliament to deal fully and accurately with the details of social legislation.
1010
A great deal of such legislation must necessarily be done and is better done by delegation. I quite agree that the risks of delegation are obvious and safeguards have to be provided. What are the safeguards which we propose to provide? When we come to the Committee stage and we have more time to consider them, I shall be able, to convince your Lordships without any shadow of doubt that these safeguards are safeguards preserving the supremacy of Parliament and respecting the liberty of this country. One of your Lordships was a little in error in thinking that these schemes could be passed if there was no negative Resolution of Parliament against them. Some of the schemes, as I shall point out in Committee, have to have an affirmative Resolution before they become law.
I will deal very briefly with the various questions which the noble Lords have raised. I would like first of all to be permitted to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on the speech he made. On the whole he was a little disappointed with the Bill and wished it had gone further. Like Oliver Twist he was asking for more, but I assure him that half a loaf is better than no bread. Governments do not last for ever and no doubt the Opposition, of which the noble Lord is a distinguished member, will some day occupy the opposite side of this House. Then we shall be glad to hear from him what further changes he will make in this Bill in order to get what he wants.
Let me come to the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor. With one thing he said I entirely agree. I always think that this House suffers very greatly from Bills being brought up to it too late in the Session, when it is impossible to give adequate consideration to them. There should, above all, be ample time for consideration. The noble Lord said he was in favour of ordinary town planning, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, has already given him his answer with regard to the terrible expense of producing the ordnance maps to which he referred. I would also remind the noble Lord that it is not proposed to plan the whole of England. He objected to one particular clause, Clause 52, which, he said quite rightly, applied obligatory powers to urban authorities of 20,000 population. The answer is that it simply repeats existing powers. There is no

1011
extension whatsoever. It does not apply to all land in the town, but only to land which is likely to be developed; that is, the kind of land which can be planned under the existing Act.
Then I come to the noble Lord, Lord Banbury. I must say that I sympathise very much with him, because he is in that difficult position where he finds the two Front Benches in agreement and therefore thinks it is his patriotic duty to oppose. The noble Lord is always patriotic, and generally in opposition. We are very much indebted to the noble Lord, because it really is useful that some one should always remind us of the question of economy. I think with him it is the salt which savours our debates and I am always glad for the noble Lord to remind us of it. One thing I want to ask him. He spoke of drafting a one-clause Bill giving the Minister full power—a clause which seemed to me to go too far. I want to ask him this. If we bring it up in Committee, will he support it? With regard to the Bishop of Winchester, the point of his question was this: What extent of land can be included in a scheme where the scheme is for land comprising buildings of special interest or objects or places of natural interest or beauty? The answer is that such land can be included as may be reasonably regarded as desirable to include in the scheme in order to safeguard the buildings or other objects or places of natural interest or beauty.
Then, with regard to the questions of Lord Linlithgow. I have dealt with the economy point which the noble Marquess first of all mentioned. I quite appreciate his reference to old age. I agree that Bills are not like port, which improves with age, but you have to wear new clothes and in time they become quite comfortable. As to his objection to the Schedule applying the Bill to Scotland I should be extremely sorry if anything we did in this House were to offend the susceptibilities of our Scottish friends or make it difficult to enforce the Act. It is a very technical matter, which I do not want to go into at this late hour, but I will very briefly state what the answer appears to be. I think the answer is this. Having regard to that Schedule which applies all the words used in Scotland to the particular English words in the Act, I think that is a matter which can be dealt with on
1012
its merits in Committee. Without going into its merits, it might be said incidentally that there is very much to be urged for the procedure adopted in the Bill where the points of principle which arise in the two countries are the same and the only difference is in some minor matters of application to them. I think the noble Marquess will find that this is the case in the present Bill, and probably on further reflection it will be found the most convenient to all interests. In any event the matter can be considered on the Committee stage. As I have said it is a very complicated Bill and I do not want to pledge myself, but I think we shall be able to persuade him that this method of dealing with it, although I confess not usual, will be found to be convenient. I believe an Amendment to omit Scotland was moved in another place by Scottish Members, but was withdrawn after explanation took place.
With regard to the noble Marquess's reference to Clause 36, which enables the Minister to act in default of a local authority, the noble Marquess said he thought it was likely to be costly. I am not going to say that that is wrong, but my answer is that this is purely a power to be used in the last resort. It is in quite common form, but it is not likely to be used except in wholly overwhelming circumstances. Indeed I doubt whether it is ever likely to be used in the next ten years.
With regard to Lord Strachie, I see that that noble Lord has gone, and therefore I will not detain your Lordships by endeavouring to reply to his numerous questions. I only want to say one thing. Clause 21 (2) exempts land used for orchards, etc., from claims for betterment. It does not affect the right of the owner to claim compensation. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, I think, said it was the lesser of two evils to give the Bill a Second Reading. If he liked to put it that way I am content that it should be so. With regard to Lord Bay-ford's observations on Clause 8, I am very sorry that I cannot follow him. It seems to me that there must be some misunderstanding, although I will promise to look into the matter. With regard to his question as to the time limit, the Minister has power to extend the time for preparing schemes in exceptional cases. I should not feel justified after

1013
your Lordships' expression of opinion in detaining you any longer. I think this is a Bill which you would be well advised to read a second time. I do not say that there are not matters you can raise which ought to be carefully considered in great detail in Committee, and I hope that there will be time between now and Committee not only for your Lordships to prepare Amendments but also for us, as is our duty, to consider them.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

KETTERING GAS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment, agreed to.
KENDAL CORN RENT BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered and agreed to.

NEWBURY GAS ORDER, 1932.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Mayor, aldermen and burgesses of the Borough of Newbury:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

IRAQ: AERODROME GUARDS.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, perhaps you will allow me to
1014
ask the Leader of the House a question of some public importance—namely, whether he can confirm a report that troops have been sent from Egypt to Iraq, and has this movement any connection with operations in Kurdistan?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am very much indebted to the noble. Lord for asking me this question and giving me the opportunity of giving an answer to it. Troops have not been sent from Egypt to Iraq, as reported, but a battalion has been warned to proceed to Iraq if required. The Air Officer commanding in Iraq recently announced that the number of Assyrian levies who have been employed as ground guards for Air Force stations would be progressively reduced. This course was being followed in anticipation of the formation of the aerodrome guards provided for in the Treaty which will come into operation when Iraq enters the League of Nations. The levies, who were dissatisfied with these proposals and with the future prospects of Assyrians in Iraq, expressed their intention to disband without waiting for the formation of the new aerodrome guards which would replace them. In these circumstances the High Commissioner for Iraq asked that a battalion might be held in readiness to proceed to Iraq for temporary duty if required. His Majesty's Government have acceded to this request, and the necessary orders have been issued to the General Officer Commanding in Egypt. The possible despatch of a battalion from Egypt to Iraq has no connection whatever with the operations proceeding against the Sheikh of Barzan in Iraqi-Kurdistan.
House adjourned at ten minutes past seven o'clock.