Sitting of 28 June 1932

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, brought from the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Elham Valley Water and Herts and Essex Water) Bill [Lords].

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Hailsham Water) Bill [Lords].

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Henley-on-Thames Water) Bill [Lords].

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Hertford) Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time To-morrow.
Weston-super-Mare Grand Pier Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

ALIENS (NATURALISATION).
Address for
"Return showing (1) Particulars of all Aliens to whom certificates of naturalisation have been issued and whose oaths of allegiance have, during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1931, been registered at the Home Office; (2) Information as to any aliens who have, during the same period, obtained acts of naturalisation from the legislature; and (3) Particulars of cases in which certificates of naturalisation have been revoked during the same period (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 124, of Session 1930–31)."—[Mr. Stanley.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  BRITISH ARMY.

    EGG SUPPLIES.
    Mr. THOMAS COOKasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the number of foreign eggs purchased for consumption by His Majesty's Forces during the past six months?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): As regards the purchase of eggs by the Department, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 23rd June to my hon. Friend the Member for South Portsmouth (Sir H. Cayzer). As regards the purchase of eggs by the troops and their families through the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes, I am informed that the number of foreign eggs purchased at the institutes of all three Services at home stations amounted to 170,000 dozen during the last six months.
    Mr. COOK: Is preferential treatment always given to British egg producers?
    Mr. COOPER: The duty of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes is to provide purchasers with the eggs they wish to buy, and it is in carrying out this duty that they provide these eggs.

    GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (RESEARCH).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office to what extent contracts made by his Department are given to firms who contribute to the research associations established by State aid in their industries?
    Mr. COOPER: Contracts are given to such firms on the same basis as to any others, i.e., strictly on the merits of their tenders.
    Mr. MANDER: Will the hon. Gentleman give the information asked for in the question as to the proportion of contracts that go to one set of firms; will he look into it and let me know?
    Mr. COOPER: It is impossible to say. We should have to go through every contract that has been given in recent years to find out the percentage of orders that have gone to firms who contribute to these research associations.
    Mr. MANDER: Will the hon. Gentleman look into it to see if in general he can give the information?
    Mr. COOPER: It would mean a very expensive and long investigation.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Postmaster-General if he will state to what extent contracts made by his Department are given to firms who contribute to the research associations established by State aid in their industries?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Graham White): Contracts are given to such firms on the same basis as to any others, that is to say, strictly on the merits of their tenders.
    Mr. MANDER: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to consider the desirability of supplying the information?
    Mr. WHITE: My hon. Friend has already heard something of the difficulties in connection with another Department to which he put a question this afternoon, but I will consider it.

    SCOTLAND (DUNRAGIT CREAMERIES).
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the recent purchase and closing down of the Dunragit Creameries in Scotland- by the Unilever Combine; and whether, in view of the effect of the closing down of such factories upon employment in Scotland, he will take steps to obtain early information with regard to such proposals, with a view to making representations to those responsible for the closing down?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOT-LAND (Major Sir Archibald Sinclair): I have been making some inquiry, but I find that the Dunragit Creamery is in fact a margarine factory, and I have no power to take any action in connection with the closing down of such factories.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Does my right hon. Friend realise that these removals of local industries are causing much anxiety in Scotland, and at the same time grave national discontent; and will he take some action?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: I strongly agree with my hon. and gallant Friend about the desirability of encouraging rural industries, but this does not come within the jurisdiction of my Department. It is, in fact, a margarine factory.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    CLOSED FITS, LANCASHIRE AND DURHAM.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines the figures for the past 12 months of the number of mines closed down in Lancashire and the number of persons put out of work?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Isaac Fool;): Since 1st July, 1931, 22 pits in Lancashire, employing 3,685 wage earners, have been closed and not reopened. The net reduction in employment in Lancashire over the period in question was 2,822.
    Mr. LEWIS JONES(for Mr. McKEAG) asked the Secretary for Mines how many collieries have been closed down or partially closed down in Durham County since 1st January, 1932; and how many min3rs have been thrown out of employment in consequence?
    Mr. FOOT: Since 1st January, 1932, 19 pits in Durham, employing 7,700 wage earners, have been closed and not reopened. Precise information is not available of pits partially closed, but the net decrease since 1st January in the total number of men employed at mines in Durham is 7,360.

    FOREIGN COUNTRIES (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).
    Mr. COCKSasked the Secretary for Mines what countries are placing restrictions on the importation of British coal; what in each case is the nature of these restrictions and the dates of their imposition: what steps are being taken to alleviate the position; and what results have Been secured?
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: As the reply involves many references to figures and dates, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the information:

    Restrictions on importation of British Coal.

    Country.

    Nature and dates of restrictions.

    Steps taken by H. M. Government.

    Present position.

    France

    …

    A quota system for imports of coal, briquettes and certain classes of coke from all countries was introduced on 1st August, 1931. The quota for August was fixed at 100 per cent. Of the average imports for the three years 1929-8, 1929 and 1930, the quota was reduced to 80 per cent, on 1st December, 1931, to 72 per cent. On 1st February, 1932, to 70 per cent. (64 per cent. Plus a margin of 6 per cent.) and on 15th May, 1932, to 50 per cent. With an additional margin of 10 per cent. If there is a demand for the coal together with a monthly supplement of 100,000 tons for the coal importers at maritime ports.

    Diplomatic representations were made on the grounds that the method of calculation of the quote and the administration of the licensing system giving effect to the quota were considered to be inequitable to this country.

    The position was greatly improved by the withdrawal of the French 15 per cent. Surtax on coal on the 25th February, 1932, and was further improved by the changes of 15th May, 1932, in the quota arrangements which made the position of British coal imports in to France much less unfavourable, in comparison with coal imported from all other countries. The questions of improving the machinery for the issue of licences is at present under considerations by the trade interes's concered.

    Belgium

    …

    A quota system for imports of coal and briquettes from all countries was introduced on 15th October, 1931, on the basis of 76 per cent. Of the imports during the year 1930. On 1st February, 1932, the quota was reduced to 70 per cent. Of the average imports during the first six month of 1931, and on 1st April, 1932, to 55·7 per cent.

    Diplomatic representations were made on the grounds that the method of calculation of the quota revised on 1st February and the administration of the licensing system giving effect to the quota were considered to be inequitable to this country.

    The difficulties experienced have not yet been wholly removed, but the position has recently been improved by the taking over as from the 1st June, 1932, of the licences for British coal by a Committee in Brussels, on which all the British interests concerned are represented.

    Germany

    …

    A quota system for imports of coal, coke and briquettes from the United Kingdom has been in force since 1924. On 1st October, 1931, the quota was reduced from 420,000 tons to 300,000 tons a month, on 1st February, 1932, to 200,000 tons, on 1st March to 150,000 tons, and on 1st April to 100,000 tons.

    Diplomatic representations have been made on the ground that the restriction is discriminatory against this country.

    Negotiations are still in progress. H. M. Government will reply at a very early date to the proposal of the German Government that the matters in dispute should be referred to arbitration.

    Italy

    …

    A landing tax of 2½ lire per metric ton was imposed on all coal imports by sea on 1st January, 1932.

    Diplomatic representations have been made on the ground that the landing tax applies only to goods imported by sea, and accordingly affects coal from this country to a greater extent than coal from other countries.

    Negotiations are still in progress.

    Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to dispel the delusion that these restrictions are due to the operation of the British tariff?
    Mr. FOOT: The information will be set out dealing with the four countries concerned, and it will give the present position in each case.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is a delusion to imagine that the restrictions are not due to the British tariff?
    Mr. FOOT: I am not here to deal with delusions.
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the additional steps taken by the Government of Germany to exclude British coal imports into that country, and as Dutch coal has been allowed to enter Germany in excess pf the quota without leave, he will now consider the advisability of taking retaliatory action against Germany under the Import Duties Act on the grounds that the British coal export trade is being discriminated against?
    Mr. JOHN COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The German Government do not admit that their action involves discrimination against the United Kingdom, and they have proposed that the matter should be referred to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause of the Anglo-German Commercial Treaty of 1924 at the same time as certain other Treaty questions outstanding between the two Governments. This proposal is now receiving consideration.
    Captain MACDONALD: Has any representative been appointed by His Majesty's Government to appear on behalf of the Government?
    Mr. COLVILLE: No. As I have indicated, the matter is receiving consideration.
    Mr. BATEY: We got the same answer last week; when are we going to get a definite reply?
    Mr. COLVILLE: As was indicated on that occasion, the German proposal also contains proposals as to other treaty questions outstanding, and that is what has caused the delay, but there will be no avoidable delay.

    SOUTH YORKSHIRE (MINERS' DEMONSTRATION).
    Mr. PIKEasked the Secretary for Mines the number of pits closed in South Yorkshire on the 20th June owing to the miners' day revival; whether the closing down was compulsory owing to abstention by the miners; and if he will ascertain the number of miners who were compelled, against their wishes, to cease work?
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The returns for the week in question are not yet available, and I am doubtful whether, when they are received, they will contain all the information which my hon. Friend desires. I will send him such particulars as are available in the next few days.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this demonstration represents one of the 10 days' holidays agreed upon between the mine workers and the owners; and is he further aware that the whole of the South Yorkshire miners are: working three or four days a week so that one day makes no difference?
    Mr. FOOT: The hon. Gentleman will understand that in my answer I gave no expression of opinion about the merits of the arrangement.
    Mr. PIKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it has been publicly expressed by the Secretary of the Yorkshire Miners' Association that had it not been for certain pits not participating, so far as closing down was concerned, there would have been a much larger number of miners at the demonstration?
    Mr. LUNN: May I also ask if the hon. Gentleman is aware that this was the finest attended demonstration that has ever been held in Yorkshire by any party, industrial or political?
    Mr. PIKEasked the Minister of Labour whether claims to unemployment benefit will be paid to the miners who participated in the South Yorkshire miners' revival march; whether the closing of the pits was made compulsory owing to abstention; and if he will state the estimated cost to the Unemployment Insurance Fund?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The claims for benefit are being considered by the statutory authorities.

    1623
    Pending their decision on the claims it would be undesirable for me to express any opinion on the second part of the question and it is not possible to deal with the last part of the question.
    Mr. LUNN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that large numbers of miners from the Attercliffe Division attended this demonstration and helped to make it a brilliant success; and is he further aware that the men who were absent from work on the Monday for this demonstration might have been compelled to be absent on the Wednesday or Thursday because there was no work?
    Mr. HUDSON: That is a matter for the umpire to decide if they seek benefit.
    Mr. PIKE: Is the hon. Member aware that the reason given why so few miners attended the pits that did not close is that had they attended the pits their benefit would have been stopped?

    WAGE DISPUTES.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary for Mines how many mine workers were involved in wage disputes on Monday, 20th June; how many collieries were stopped through this cause; and where such collieries are situated?
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The returns for the week in question are not yet available, and until they are received I am not able to give the information asked for; but at present my Department has no knowledge of any pit which was stopped on the date referred to on account of a wages dispute.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the North Gawber Colliery has been closed down for 10 weeks?
    Mr. FOOT: I think that the hon. Member will find my answer is strictly correct having regard to the date he mentions. I am aware of the stoppage of work at the North Gawber Colliery, and the position is the same as when I last answered a question. When our intervention is sought, we shall be happy to give it.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is in a position to state how many colliery companies have failed to meet their liabilities under the Workmen's Compen-
    1624
    sation Act since 1926; will he give the total number of men affected; and also similar figures for Lancashire?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Stanley): Inquiries made into colliery liquidations since 1st January, 1927, have disclosed 12 cases in which there has been or is certain to be a permanent loss of compensation affecting about 390 workmen altogether. These include two Lancashire cases affecting 63 men. In addition, there are 11 cases, affecting possibly 500 to 600 men, where the position is still uncertain. These include two Lancashire collieries, and affect about 160 men. I have no information as to cases before 1927.
    Mr. TINKER: Has the Home Secretary been in communication with the colliery owners, pointing out what has happened and asking them to do something?
    Mr. STANLEY: I should like to have notice of that question.
    Mr. TINKER: Will the hon. Member see to it that when, the next King's Speech is prepared the necessary legislation to deal with this matter is included in it; that is, if the National Government hold together until then?
    Mr. DICKIE: Have the Government considered the advisability of using a portion of the Miners' Welfare Fund for dealing with these very deserving cases?
    Mr. STANLEY: In reply to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), this matter was raised during the Debate on the Home Office Estimates, and it was stated then that my right hon. Friend was giving his close attention to it. As the hon. Member knows, this is a very much more complicated subject than appears at the first view.

  IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

    IRISH FREE STATE.
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can now make any further statement with regard to the participation of the Irish Free State at the Ottawa Conference; and whether the British Government are prepared to negotiate with it on the basis of Empire equality?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I have nothing to add at present to the statement which I made to the House on this subject in the Debate on 17th June.
    Dr. MORRIS-JONESasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any information as to the intention of the Irish Free State to send any representatives to the Conference at Ottawa?
    Mr. THOMAS: I have no recent information beyond the reports which have appeared in the Press.
    Dr. MORRIS-JONES: Is there any change in the attitude of the British Government since the situation was discussed hero a week last Friday?
    Mr. THOMAS: None whatever.

    FILM INDUSTRY.
    Mr. REMERasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has appointed any delegates to represent the British film industry at the Empire Economic Conference; and, if so, will he state the names of the persons selected?
    Mr. THOMAS: As I have intimated on previous occasions, the United Kingdom delegation will be assisted by the industrial advisers whose names have been announced, and it is open to any trade to lay its views before these advisers and to decide in consultation with them whether it needs to be specially represented at Ottawa. The hon. Member will no doubt have seen the reports in the Press which indicate that representatives of the film industry will in fact be present in Ottawa during the Conference.
    Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of those representatives, Mr. Oscar, is not a British naturalised subject?
    Mr. THOMAS: I do not know anything about the nationality of any of them, but I assume that those engaged in the British industry will be as interested in protecting their industry as the hon. Member?
    Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Gaumont Pictures is entirely controlled by American capital?

    ALIENS (BRITISH WIVES).
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELL (for Mr. RHYS DAVIES)asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if the problems connected with the nationality of British women who marry aliens will come up for discussion at the Ottawa Conference?
    Mr. THOMAS: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), of which I am sending him a copy.

    FORESHORE EIGHTS, LANCASHIRE.
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the President of the Board of Trade what local authorities in Lancashire now lease their foreshore rights from the Board of Trade, and on what terms?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): There are no such leases, as the foreshore in Lancashire is not under the management of the Board of Trade.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    BRITISH INDUSTRIES (NATIONAL PLANNING).
    Mr. COCKSasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken in the direction of the scientific planning and reconstruction on a national scale of the main British industries?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The limits of a Parliamentary answer only permit me to refer my hon. Friend to statements on the subject of industrial organisation which have been made from time to time on behalf of the Government and the Import Duties Advisory Committee.
    Mr. COCKS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that; unless we undertake this national planning, nothing but disaster awaits us?

    EXCHANGE RESTRICTIONS.
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is now proposed to establish some form of clearing house between this country and those countries where restrictions on foreign payments are now in existence?
    Captain WATTasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps the dangers to our export trade by the in-

    1627
    Government are taking to obviate the creasing number of exchange restrictions in foreign countries?
    Mr. COLVILLE: If a question on this subject is put down next week, I hope to be able to make a statement.

    OVERSEAS PROPAGANDA (SCOTLAND).
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware that during the third week in June temperatures in Scotland on many occasions reached a higher level than in England; and whether, with a view to drawing the attention of the British public and foreign visitors to the attractions of Scotland as a holiday resort, he will consider making a small additional annual grant to the Travel Association of Great Britain and Ireland, in respect of Scotland in particular, on condition that the association shall devote a larger part of its activities to giving publicity to the amenities of Scotland than at present?
    Mr. COLVILLE: I believe that the weather in Scotland during the period referred to compared favourably with that in other parts of the British Isles. The grant to the Travel and Industrial Development Association of Great Britain and Ireland cannot be used for attracting visitors from one part of the British Isles to another, but is allotted for the purpose of attracting overseas visitors to the British Isles. The Association advertises the attractions of Scotland in. its overseas propaganda. On grounds of economy I regret that a larger grant cannot at present be considered.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a totally erroneous and unfounded impression abroad, as well as in England, that the weather in Scotland is uniformally inferior to that in England, and will he take every step to scotch that impression—to kill that impression—and by giving this extra grant for which I am asking will he ensure that Scotland is given a fair share of attention in the description of the general amenities of the British Isles?
    Mr. COLVILLE: I hope I can rely on the help of all Scottish Members in removing the impression to which the hon. and gallant Member has referred.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is the hon. Gentleman also aware of the bracing qualities of the North-East Coast, and especially Newcastle?

    DENMARK AND SCANDINAVIA.
    Mr. COCKSasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has any information to the effect that there is a growing market in Denmark and Scandinavia for British goods but that opportunities are being lost owing to the fact that British manufacturers as a whole are not sufficiently adapting themselves to the requirements of these markets; and whether he can bring this matter to the attention of the British chambers of commerce and other business authorities?
    Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: On a point of Order. Before the hon. Gentleman replies, will he ask the hon. Member to substantiate the statement he has made in his question that British manufacturers are not sufficiently adapting themselves to the needs of this market?
    Mr. COLVILLE: Perhaps my answer will make the position plain.
    I have no evidence to support the suggestion that manufacturers as a whole are failing to adapt themselves to the requirements of Scandinavian markets, but the Department of Overseas Trade is constantly bringing to the notice of suitable interests the opportunities of these markets and several special investigations have been carried out with satisfactory results.
    Mr. COCKS: Has not the hon. Gentleman's attention been directed to the statement made by Sir Francis Good enough and others to the effect set forth in my question?
    Mr. COLVILLE: I am well aware of the statement made by Sir Francis Good-enough on the general question, but, as I have pointed out, we have no evidence of a general neglect of this market. We are always pointing out the value of this market.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that not infrequently when Denmark attempts to obtain goods from this country she is referred either to Germany or Czechoslovakia?
    Mr. COLVILLE: I have heard such complaints, but I also know that many good orders from Denmark have been obtained recently by this country, and I believe they are being executed satisfactorily.

    TRADE MISSION SHIPS.
    Mr. LOUIS SMITHasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, in view of the success of the enterprise of Scottish trading interests in sending the steamship "Letitia" on a trade mission to Canada, any steps have been taken by his Department to ascertain whether this success will justify similar trade mission ships being sent on behalf of English manufacturers to Canada and the other Dominions, in view of the special opportunities offered by the forthcoming Ottawa Conference?
    Mr. COLVILLE: The Department of Overseas Trade is closely examining the results achieved by the Scottish trade mission to Canada, and is prepared to consider co-operation with any similar undertaking by trading interests which may be brought before it. I am, however, not aware of any such scheme being in contemplation at the present time.
    Mr. SMITH: In view of the desirability of encouraging such missions in the near future, owing to the depression in trade, will the hon. Gentleman communicate with one or other of the trade associations, such as the Federation of British Industries, and suggest that such matters should receive their consideration?
    Mr. COLVILLE: I am very frequently in touch with the associations referred to, and I am willing to take the hon. Member's proposal into consideration.

    IMPORTED HOSIERY MACHINERY.
    Mr. COCKS (for Mr. CHARLES BROWN)asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of hosiery machinery imported into Great Britain from Germany in the years 1929, 1930, 1931, and for the first quarter of 1932?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The quantity of hosiery machinery, as such, imported into the United Kingdom is not separately recorded. The total weight of hosiery and knitting machines and parts thereof imported into the United Kingdom, and
    1630
    registered as consigned from Germany, was 1,536 tons in 1929; 854 tons in 1930; 826 tons in 1931; and 615 tons in the first quarter of 1932.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is it not a fact that the machinery referred to in the question is German machinery which prior to the introduction of the tariff by the Government was in use for making German hosiery, which was imported into this country by German manufacturers employing German workmen; and is not that machinery now being used to employ British workmen?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I should think so partly.

    TITHE RENTCHARGE.
    Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Minister of Agriculture what the present value of tithe rentcharge would be on the basis of the septennial average; and whether in view of the difficulty farmers experiences, owing to the depressed condition of agriculture, in paying tithe rentcharge at its present value, he will take steps to deal with the situation?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): The value of £100 tithe rentcharge, par or commuted value, if calculated on the septennial average of the prices of wheat, barley and oats, as laid down in the earlier Tithe Acts, would have been £99 for the year 1932. In reply to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Lord President to the hon. and gallant Member for the Maldon Division (Colonel Ruggles-Brise), on 22nd June, of which I am sending him a copy.

  AGRICULTURE.

    PIG INDUSTRY.
    Mr. REMERasked the Minister of Agriculture if it is his intention to publish the final Report of the Pig Industry Council?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the reply I gave on 14th April to a question on the subject by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Colonel Bald-win-Webb), to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many conflicting reports, both in this House and elsewhere, as to what is contained in this report, and does he not consider it advisable, in order to dispel these rumours, to have the report published, so that we may know what is in it?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No Sir, I am clearly of opinion that it would be a waste of money to publish a report which is now being considered by a Commission set up by this House.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the pig industry is in a grave position, and that sows are being freely slaughtered, and is no action going to be taken?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am very well aware of the anxiety.

    NATIONAL MARK BEEF SCHEME.
    Mr. J. P. MORRISasked the Minister of Agriculture the number of officials employed in the Birkenhead and Manchester abattoirs, respectively, for the purpose of grading meat; the salaries paid to each official; and the number of carcases graded by them in each abattoir for the 12 months ended the 31st May, 1932?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: One grader and one marker are employed at the Woodside Lairage, Birkenhead, for the purpose of grading and marking beef for consignment to consuming centres in which the National Mark Beef Scheme is in operation. The grader receives an inclusive salary of £46 11s. a month and the marker a wage of £3 7s. 11d. a week. The number of carcases graded at Birkenhead in the period referred to was 8,500. The National Mark Scheme does not operate in Manchester and no graders or markers are employed there.

    EDUCATION (TEACHERS' SALARIES).
    Mr. J. P. MORRISasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if he will state the number of female teachers, certificated and uncertificated, employed in his Department in the last week of May, 1914 and 1932, respectively; the number drawing salaries
    1632
    of £104 per year or under; the number drawing salaries of over £104 but less than £156 per year; the number drawing salaries of £156 per year but less than £208 per year; and the number drawing salaries of £208 per year and in excess of that sum for the same periods?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): At the end of the year 1913–14 there were employed in public elementary schools 71,774 certificated women teachers and 36,679 uncertificated. The corresponding figures for 31st March, 1932, are approximately 87,200 and 27,900. I regret that the information furnished by local education authorities as to salaries paid to individual teachers is not recorded in such a way as to enable me to answer the other parts of the hon. Member's question, except by a special scrutiny of the returns, which would involve a great deal of time and labour.

    INDIA (POLICE, UNITED PROVINCES).
    Sir CHARLES OMANasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that there has been recently a large reduction in the number of deputy superintendents of police in the United Provinces, and also a further reduction of the number of chaukidars; and whether, in view of the rise in the list of ordinary dacoities, from 727 in 1930 to 1,124 in 1931 and to 341 in the first three months of 1932, he will have the number of police raised?
    Sir VICTOR WARRENDER (Lord of the Treasury): My right hon. Friend has no information beyond that given to my hon. Friend on the 11th May. He is making inquiries and will communicate with my hon. Friend when a reply is received.

    HOUSING (RENTS).
    Sir A. M. SAMUELasked the Minister of Health the average economic rental required to cover the cost in the home counties of subsidy houses built by public authorities prior to January, 1932, costing £400; and will he state the average rentals now charged by those authorities for such houses?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): The approximate average economic rental of houses built by local authorities costing £400 assuming a rate of interest at 5 per cent, and return of capital over 60 years would be about 10s. 6d. a week. My right hon. Friend has no information as to the average rental now charged by local authorities for such houses erected under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, but they should be able to let such houses at approxmately 6s. 6d. a week.
    Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: Is that figure exclusive of rates?
    Mr. E. BROWN: That is the rental.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES (APPOINTMENTS).
    Mr. DICKIEasked the Minister of Health whether his Department in all cases remits the fine payable by any member of a local authority who resigns on accepting a salaried appointment under such council; and, if not, on what principle the decision of his Department is based?
    Mr. E. BROWN: My right hon. Friend cannot find that a case of this kind has come before the Department during the last five years. He would mention that, as the law now stands, it is not essential for a councillor who proposes to become a candidate for office to resign: and it is not within my right hon. Friend's power to require him to do so.
    Mr. DICKIE: Can the hon. Member give any information with regard to an appointment recently made by the Stanley Urban District Council in the county of Durham?
    Mr. BROWN: If my hon. Friend will communicate with me, I shall be glad to go into the matter with him.

    FLOODS, DERBY.
    Mr. ALLAN REIDasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the investigations made by an inspector from the Ministry in relation to the flood which occurred at Derby on 22nd May last, the causes thereof, the danger of a
    1634
    recurrence, and the inspector's report thereon, he will accede to the request of a number of the citizens of Derby, sufferers from the consequences of the flood, that a public inquiry shall be held at which the citizens may be represented and tender evidence?
    Mr. E. BROWN: One of the inspectors of my Department has visited the locality and interviewed representatives of the council and also of those who suffered by the floods. My right hon. Friend does not think a public inquiry would serve any useful purpose, but he is considering what other helpful measure he can take.

    MALTA.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the educational reforms which he has outlined for Malta will be affected or modified by the victory of the Nationalist party in that Colony?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The policy of His Majesty's Government on this matter which I announced to the House has already been carried into legal effect by the Letters Patent issued on the 25th April last.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Minister for Education in the Maltese Government will carry out the policy of His Majesty's Government?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The provisions of the law sufficiently ensure that the decisions approved of in all quarters of the House, as laid down in Letters Patent, will be adhered to.

    ROYAL PARKS (GIFTS).
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the First Commissioner of Works what gifts have been made by private donors to the Royal parks during the last two years?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of gifts to the Royal parks since March, 1930. It always gives me great pleasure to receive such gifts, and I am very grateful of this opportunity of expressing my thanks to the donors. I should like to take this special opportunity of thanking

    1635
    Members of Parliament who have subscribed to the pictures of the ducks which will shortly be reinstated.
    Following is the list:
    Birds:

    The Duke of Bedford—4 Magellanic Geese, 200 eggs of Amherst pheasant.

    The Viscountess Byng of Vimy—12 wigeon.

    The Earl of Clarendon (Governor-General of the Union of South Africa) through the courtesy of the National Zoological Gardens of South Africa—4 Stanley cranes, 2 spur-winged geese, 4 yellow-billed ducks.

    Colonel Maxwell Earle—1 Chinese goose.

    Mr. C. B. Elliott—1 white swan.

    Mr. A. Ezra,—22 Indian doves, 12 Garganey Teal, 2 red-billed tree ducks, 2black-billed tree ducks, 2 white-faced tree ducks, 10 Baikal teal, 1 flamingo.

    Monsieur J. Delacour—4 Japanese spot bill.

    Mr. J. C. Laidlay—8 Gadwall ducks, 2 Eider ducks, 2 hybrid teal.

    Mr. J. Spedan Lewis—30 Mandarin ducks.

    Mr. W. H. St. Quentin—12 Mandarin ducks, 4 falcated teal, 4 Bahama pintail ducks, 2 cinnamon teal, 2 Brazilian teal, 2 blue-winged teal, 3white-eyed pochard, 1 American redheaded pochard, 1 goldeneyed duck, 1 American wigeon, 1 hybrid American wigeon by falcated teal.

    Plants, Bulbs, etc.:

    Bermuda Department of Agriculture—400 Lilium Harrisii.

    British Rose-growers' Association (through the Empire Marketing Board)—10,000 rose trees.

    Messrs. W. Fairbairn & Sons—48 dahlia "Mrs. Musgrave Hoyle."

    Mr. S. Goetze—180 ornamental cherry trees.

    Mr. M. Hollis—200 lilium Harrisii.

    Mr. G. Monro—2,500 daffodil, King Alfred.

    The Rolvenden Nurseries—200 statice profusa superba.

    Mr. F. Stewart Sandeman—1 case of hardy ferns.

    Mrs. H. G. Spicer—2,000 crocus.

    Miscellaneous:

    Mr. S. Goetze—8 teak seats.

    Mrs. Maude Search—Sundial.

    1636

    Mr. H. E. Seligman— 1 plank swing.

    Mr. M. W. Shanly—25 garden seats.

    Various Members of both Houses of Parliament—Tiles illustrating waterfowl in St. James's Park.

    Bequest:

    The late Mr. G. Bridcut—Clock on children's shelter at Primrose Hill.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any moneys of the Exchange Equalisation Account have been used to increase the stock of gold held by the Bank of England?
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Exchange Equalisation Account is or will be used for the purchase of silver; and to what extent, if at all, it has been used for the purchase of gold?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot); The Exchange Equalisation Account has been established since last Friday and the Treasury have placed to the credit of the Account the sum of £150 millions authorised by section 24 of the Finance Act, 1932. My hon. Friend will understand that this is an accounting transaction, the sum being held in sterling and re-lent to the Exchequer unless and until required for any other purpose of the Account. My right hon. Friend cannot undertake to give detailed information as to the operations of the Account, but in reply to the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) I would point out that the purchase of silver would be contrary to Section 24 (3) of the Finance Act.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is the Exchange Equalisation Account under the control of the Treasury or the Bank of England?
    Major ELLIOT: It is under the control of the Treasury, as laid down in the Finance Act.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do I understand that we cannot be told whether there has been any gold bought as yet, or not?
    Major ELLIOT: I am afraid that is so.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then how are we to assist His Majesty's Ministers in watching and controlling this particular fund?

    INCOME TAX.
    Captain HUNTER (for Sir WILLIAM DAVISON)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the practice of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to institute legal proceedings for the recovery of Surtax in arrear notwithstanding the fact that part of the income upon which the assessment is made has not actually been received?
    Major ELLIOT: The Commissioners of Inland Revenue are bound in pursuance of their statutory duties to take all steps, including legal proceedings if necessary, to recover sums due to the State under any assessments made in accordance with the law. If my hon. Friend has in mind any case in which he considers that proceedings for recovery of Surtax are being improperly instituted and will let me have the necessary particulars, I will have the matter investigated and communicate the result to him.
    Captain HUNTER(for Sir W.DAVISON) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of the arrears of Schedule A tax arising out of agricultural rents for the year 1931–32; and, where a formal demand for the tax has been made upon the tenant, what instructions have been given to inspectors of taxes to press for immediate payment, notwithstanding the existing agricultural depression?
    Major ELLIOT: The information asked for in the first part of the question is not available. The collection of tax in the particular class of case referred to proceeds, as in the case of other taxpayers, in accordance with the ordinary practice, and no special instructions have been issued nor, I think, are necessary.

    AUSTRIA (LOAN).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether an agreement has now been arrived at to grant a joint loan to Austria as a result of the recommendations made by the Economic Committee of the League of Nations; and, if so, to what extent it is proposed that Great Britain should contribute?
    Major ELLIOT: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for the Farnham Division of Surrey (Sir A. M. Samuel) on the 23rd instant, to which I have so far nothing to add.
    Mr. MANDER: Are negotiations still proceeding?
    Major ELLIOT: The matter is still under consideration.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (PENSIONED POLICE OFFICIALS).
    Mr. J. P. MORRISasked the Secretary to the Treasury the number of pensioned police officials employed in the Civil Service?
    Major ELLIOT: I regret that this information is not readily available and could not be obtained without an expenditure of time and labour which I do not feel justified in authorising.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. J. P. MORRIS(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the case of Private John. Wilson, who died in Hope Hospital, Salford, on Sunday, the 26th. instant, from the effects of war wounds, that although riddled with shrapnel in more than 100 places he would not apply for a disability pension as long as he was able to follow he employment as a lorry driver, that when unemployment forced him to apply for a pension he subsequently became too ill to complete his claim, and seeing that Private Wilson has left a. widow and two children, aged seven and two years, respectively, and that his widow is not legally entitled to a war widow's pension because Private Wilson was not in receipt of payment of a disability pension at the time of his death, and that he was not married until after the War, he will consider this case in a special light and make a grant immediately of a war widow's pension?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I will make immediate inquiries into the facts of this case, but if, as appears from my hon. Friend's question, Private Wilson's marriage took place after he sustained his injuries, the widow

    1639
    would not in any case be entitled to a pension, and I have no power to grant one.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not possible for the Minister to grant a pension on compassionate grounds?
    Major TRYON: No, Sir; that is not in my power. The principle involved has been sustained by successive Governments and by Ministers of all parties.

    DISARMAMENT (PRESIDENT HOOVER'S PROPOSALS).
    Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Lord President of the Council whether he can make any statement as to the Government s attitude towards President Hoover's proposals?
    The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I cannot at present add anything to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary yesterday, in reply to a question on this subject.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I should like to give notice that, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall, on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House to-night, put some questions to the right hon. Gentleman. I think it will be more convenient to do so then than at Question Time.

IMPORTED FOODSTUFFS (MARKING).
Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the marking of all imported foodstuffs with an indication as to whether of Empire or foreign production and of the country of origin; and to provide for matters incidental thereto."
The Bill which I am asking leave to introduce proposes that the marking of these foodstuffs shall be on importation and on sale or exposure for sale, whether wholesale or retail. The marking will be placed on the article itself or on its container, or will be carried out in some other way effective for the purpose. The marking, also, will consist of two different designations—first, as to whether the article is of Empire or foreign production; and, secondly, as to its country of origin. The nature and manner of the marking will be laid down by Order in
1640
Council on the recommendation of the appropriate Department, and the laying of such Orders before Parliament will follow the procedure of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926.
I do not think I need make any apology to the House for bringing the principle of this Bill before it. In my view it is long overdue. England's unsheltered food markets has been for too long the Mecca of the exporting countries of the world. It is the most valuable food market in the world. In this country we ourselves have been taught to take our food on trust, very often regardless of its origin, sometimes regardless of its worth and quality. I think it is high time that we knew more about what we are buying and whence it comes. We have in this country a "Buy British" campaign, but how is the householder or the housewife to know, when, either in the butcher's shop or in the grocer's shop, they see beef on the slab or bacon on the counter, whether that article is of home or Empire or foreign production? This Bill will make a reality of the "Buy British" campaign by enabling the buyer to know what he or she is buying.
It is true that under the Merchandise Marks Act a few Orders relating to foodstuffs have been made, but they are few indeed. Why are they so few? For the reason that, before the British buyer may be allowed to know where the foodstuff in question comes from, some harassed home industry has had to pass through the inquisition of an inquiry in making its application for an Order, and that has been an expensive business. The application has been resisted by organisations of distributors and other powerful interests. I am credibly informed that the promoters of the application for the recent Butter Marking Order, which was subsequently granted, were involved in a cost of over £2,000. I think that that is monstrous. Indeed, every obstacle seems to have been placed in the way of granting an Order under that Act. This Bill will sweep all that away. I submit to the House that it is time that we put the boot on the other leg. Let the importer tell us where the imported article comes from; let us proceed on the principle that everything imported in the way of foodstuffs should in future be marked.
Under the Bill it will be open to the home producer to mark his pro-

1641
duce or not, as ho thinks best. He can, if he wishes, take advantage of the National Mark, or any other mark. But, after all, this market is his home market, and it ought to be his own market as well. Surely no one would deny him the right to this option in his own market. But the National Mark costs British money. Why should not other countries take the trouble to mark their goods, if they desire to enjoy the benefits and privileges of our home market? We have an Empire Marketing Board, which costs British money too. I submit that the "Buy British" campaign has lost much of its value, and that the National Mark scheme and the activities of the Empire. Marketing Board have not given us full value for the money that they have cost, for one reason, and one reason only. That is that we have neglected to have a general Food Marking Order. We have omitted the pre-requisite to the success of this movement; in fact, we have started at the wrong end.
I think that at this moment it is singularly appropriate that the British House of Commons should affirm this principle. Ottawa is near upon us; our representatives will shortly be leaving these shores; and I would like to see our representatives take with them to Ottawa this happy gesture. I would like them to remind the Dominions that the competition which they have to meet in our home food market is not merely that of the home producer, but still more that of the foreign producer. I would like our representatives, before they commence discussion with a view to mutual advantage—and I hope that these two words will be the text of all the discussions at Ottawa—to tell the Dominions quite clearly that, although we expect and look forward to a greatly increased expansion of our home production of foodstuffs, yet there will still be a wide field open to them in which they will be able to enjoy preferences. In the second place, I would like our representatives to tell them that, in order to make these preferences fully effective, we intend in future that Empire foodstuffs shall be completely distinguishable from foreign foodstuffs. This in itself will constitute a valuable preference to Empire producers.
I believe that Empire countries will welcome this gesture, and, indeed, who can rightly object? Foreign countries certainly can have no cause for com-
1642
plaint; Empire countries can have nothing to lose, but everything to gain; the homo farmer will have nothing to fear; the home buyer will have nothing to fear; the honest trader will have nothing to fear; while the dishonest trader, if such there be, will be found out. Let us know in future what it is that we are buying. If we can afford, which few of us can, to buy the best cut of so-called home-fed British beef, let us make quite sure that that joint comes from an animal which is British born and fed, which has lived and died a British animal, and is not one that has spent its life browsing on the breezy plains oil the Argentine. Or, again, to go to the other extreme, if we want to buy a tin of condensed skimmed milk labelled "Unfit for Babies," let it still be open to the British producer to produce a tin of British-made skimmed milk that is fit for British babies.
I have heard the argument advanced that such marking might prove to be a disadvantage to the home producer. I scorn that argument. I believe it to be true that British producers are capable of placing their products alongside the products of any other country in the world, and of competing fairly with them. If that be not the case in respect of any particular article, then I would say that the sooner that state of affairs is remedied the better, and this Bill will stimulate the process. I submit that our farmer in many respects has not had a fair chance. His home market has been largely denied to him because the prices ruling in that home market have had no relation whatever to his own home costs of production. No other country having a food market of any value has permitted that market to be exploited in the way that we have in this country. Agriculture is the industry of all our industries at this moment which can make the biggest contribution to the rectification of our adverse trade balance. We must remember that, when we get that increased expansion, we shall not be doing it for export, but that it will be for the home market—that the home buyer must buy more British foodstuffs, and that we must tell him which is which. We know that we are cumbered with many international commitments and commercial treaties. These are often urged as an excuse for inaction in regard to doing anything to help agricul-

1643
ture. Here is an opportunity to do something which conies into no conflict with any of these treaties. We can help the Empire and ourselves in one. We have a National Government supported by a National House of Commons elected by the national will. Let us do something that is both national and Imperial at one and the same time.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Colonel Ruggles-Brise, Sir Douglas Newton, Sir Percy Hurd, Mr. Turton, Duchess of Atholl, Mr. Christie, Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Windsor-Clive, Mr. Fergus Graham, Lieut.-Colonel Heneage, Mr. Rosbotham, and Mr. Everard.

IMPORTED FOODSTUFFS (MARKING) BILL,
"to provide for the marking of all imported foodstuffs with an indication as to whether of Empire or foreign production and of the country of origin; and to provide for matters incidental thereto, "presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 112.]

GAS UNDERTAKINGS BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 113.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Rating and Valuation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]): Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. Caporn, Major Colfox, Sir Gifford Fox, Colonel Gretton, Marquess of Hartington, Mr. McKeag, Major Milner, and Mr. Rhys.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—

Children and Young Persons Bill,

South Suburban Gas Bill,

Chester Corporation Bill,

Gateshead Extension Bill, with Amendments.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 114.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [17TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee..
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1932.

  SUPPLY.
    CLASS VI.

      DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SCOTLAND.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceding £336,647, 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 Department of Agriculture for Scotland, including grants for land improvement, agricultural education, research and marketing, loans to Co-operative Societies, a grant under the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Act, 1929, a grant in respect of the Hebridean Drifter Service, and certain grants in aid."
      3.30 p.m.
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Unfortunately the Debate on this Vote last week was a comparatively short one and a great many Members had not the advantage of listening to the speech of the Secretary of State. It was rather in the nature of an apology, because he had to confess that the Vote this year was subjected to a rigorous economic cut. That was very unfortunate, because, if Scotland depends on one thing apart from mining, it is agriculture, which is its great industry. My right hon. and gallant Friend, in my judgment, did not satisfy Members in his justification of the economic cuts. Let me take, for example, the case of land settlement. Since I entered the House 2 years ago every Scottish Member has been exceedingly keen on this question, and no one was move keen than my right hon. and gallant Friend when he had less responsibility and more freedom. Many of us remember the ardent speeches that he delivered from that side of the House. I can quite understand his position, because he is a Member of a Government that is pledged to economy. But there are such things as false economy, and in my judgment no economy could be more false than that which seeks to cut down expenditure upon maintaining a strong and virile population upon the land.
      This Report ends on 31st December, 1931. The references to land settlement
      1652
      are, in the judgment of most of us, extremely unsatisfactory. The number of officials employed in the Department of Agriculture has increased during the last year. There may be reasons for that. It may be that it has increased because of the number of new Acts applicable to agriculture which have been introduced. But the fact remains that, while there is an increase in salaries and expenses, there is an enormous decrease in the amount of money voted by the House for the purpose for which the Department was instituted. No fewer than 25,000 applications have been made by young and stalwart men, most of them with a native knowledge of the land of their country, for settlement upon the soil of their country. Of those 25,000, only 5,900 were settled upon the land in nearly a quarter of a century, and 11,000 of the applications have been withdrawn. The Report does not explain why they were withdrawn, but it seems to me that their hearts became faint and weary with waiting, and it is a very sad commentary upon the administration of the Act that half of the applications have been withdrawn for one reason or another. An equally significant fact is that no fewer that 7,677 applications have still to be dealt with, and this is the opportunity that is taken for a rigorous cutting down of the expenditure, willingly voted by the House, for the purpose of keeping this population on the land.
      We hear every day, almost certainly every week, of the deplorable condition so far as employment is concerned. The figures of unemployment arc daily growing, and we hear from all parts of the country of the trouble that exists, particularly in rural districts, largely because the old occupations of those districts have ceased to be as profitable as they were and also because of the slackness of the land and the lack of any promise of future progress on the land. All these have gone to drive the rural population on to the market in the cities, thus increasing more and more the difficulties and the dangers of urban unemployment. There is that significant fact, and yet in this Report, as far as I can see, there is scarcely more than 12 lines devoted to it and 7,677 applications have still to be dealt with. As far as I can make out, this year no money is being allocated for the settlement of new holders upon the land. There is a suggestion that holdings

      1653
      may be adapted for settlement. There is no suggestion that any of the money provided by Parliament should be utilised for the purposes for which the Department of Agriculture was initially brought into existence. It is a very sad state of affairs. I hope that my right hon. Friend may be able, when he conies to reply, to hold out some hope that vigorous action will be taken for the settlement of more people upon the land, as has been suggested all these years.
      My right hon. Friend knows that in the report little mention is made of the Agricultural Credits Act which was passed in 1929. At the same time there was an Act of the same nature passed for England, and by some wise piece of strategy the English farmer and the English holder had the enormous benefits of that Act conferred upon them almost immediately. For two years or more the Scottish farmer and the Scottish smallholder have been without the advantages of the Scottish Agricultural Credits Act. Many a time, as the Committee, I hope, will remember, I have pub questions to my right hon. and gallant Friend, and I put questions to his predecessor. I have felt sorely tempted during recent months when my right hon. and gallant Friend became Secretary of State for Scotland to hurl at him some of the supplementary questions which he hurled at his predecessor on this particular point. I am glad to say—and I know that it is largely due to the desire of my right hon. and gallant Friend that the Act should be put into force—that recently steps have been taken in the matter, but so far none of the advantages of this beneficent Act has been accorded to the Scottish farmer or the Scottish smallholder. At the present time in Scotland there is a strong national feeling coming into existence, and it is just this sort of thing which drives young, ardent men who love their country into the ranks of revolution. About six weeks ago my right hon. Friend stated to me that he had been in consultation with the four Scottish banks and also with the Treasury, and that some arrangement had been made. Will he be in a position when he replies to the Debate this afternoon to tell the farmers and the holders in Scotland exactly the situation, because he may take it from me that there is a very strong feeling arising among agriculturists in Scot-
      1654
      land owing to the fact that year after year, and month after month, they are deprived of the advantages which they see being enjoyed by their competitors across the border.
      I see in the report that mention is also made of the new legislation, and I regret to see that the £10,000 which was to be given to Scotland under the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act is to be taken away. Is it going to come back into the coffers of the Treasury or what is to be done with it? I all the more regret that the £10,000 is being withheld because it is a comparatively small sum when one considers the nature of the industry and its difficulties at the present time. I noticed during the passage of the Bill which ultimately became an Act that there were no fewer than 800 applications for assistance under the Act, and to any man with a knowledge of statecraft or of the industry that fact would be significant. It would certainly show to him that the Act was likely to be a useful Act and that the people who were concerned were alive to its value. And yet we have two or three sentences in the Report making this observation, and this observation only, that £10,000 which was allocated for the purposes of the Act was no longer to be utilised for those purposes. Will my right hon. and gallant Friend be in a position to tell us what has happened under the other Act—the Agricultural Holdings Act—which was passed last; year. It was obviously too early to have anything definite with regard to the working of the Act put into this particular Report, but six or seven months have elapsed since then. One would like to be in a position to know the results of that new piece of legislation.
      In the Scottish Department of Agriculture there are a great many Departments and subsidiary Votes. It might be news to you, Captain Bourne, that in this particular Department there is a Vote granted every year dealing with piers. Piers in normal circumstances would come under the Fishery Vote, but there is a public fund in this Vote which is devoted at times to the maintenance and preservation of piers in Scotland. I have no doubt that a great many of my colleagues know of many piers which need assistance at the present time. I should like my right hon. and gallant Friend, for example, to recall the correspondence which

      1655
      I have had with him in regard to the pier at Gairloch on the West Coast of Scotland. There you have a pier which serves a very wide and a very beautiful part of the West Coast of Scotland, and the people there are almost entirely dependent upon the visits two or three times a week of the McBrayne steamers, but, notwithstanding the representations which have been made, this pier, like one or two on the East Coast of Scotland, is no longer in a position adequately to serve the wide district for which it is supposed to exist. Does my right hon. and gallant Friend propose to consider the question of piers? As he knows, his predecessor made several voyages on the delightful "Minna" to various parts of Scotland, and he visited all those piers. I am credibly informed that he not only visited the piers, but walked gingerly along them, and he made promises, which I have no doubt he relied upon my right hon. and gallant Friend to fulfil when he took over the reins of office, that those piers would be properly reconstructed and that they would no longer be dangerous either to traffic or to the inhabitants of those parts. But as far as I know nothing has been done. It is the same on the East Coast of Scotland. I have in part of my constituency, and no doubt other hon. Members have also, piers in the same condition.
      I take the pier of Cromarty, which has been made famous because it is the pier of the birthplace of one of the greatest of Scots, and which during the course of the War was of immense advantage to the people of this country. It also serves a very wide district, but nothing has been done. The predecessors of my right hon. Friend have been in close touch, I understand, with the Public Loans Commissioners and various other bodies. The pier is almost derelict now. There is no railway, no steamers call, and the farmer, who is entirely dependent upon transport for the value of his products, is deprived of good transport because of the fact that no pier is there. There is also the question of dredging. I got a promise from my right hon. Friend that he would send a dredger connected with his Department to Portmahonack Pier. He might very well do that, because most of his constituents use that harbour, and I have no doubt that his good will towards it will be a benefit to
      1656
      me as well as to himself. There is another harbour which is used by almost every fisherman on the East and West coast of Scotland, and all that is necessary at the present time is that an effective dredger should be sent in order to make it an even safer haven of refuge in the time of stress and storm to the harassed mariners.
      There was another new piece of legislation in 1930. I refer to the Drainage Act. Last year the grant for drainage was cut down, and I gather that this year there is no attempt to cut the grant. [Interruption.] I gathered from my hon. Friends that there is an attempt to cut that grant. What grant are they going to allow to remain without being cut down? If agriculture is to flourish, how can it flourish when you never know how much money is to be available, and when the tendency is not to increase a grant but to decrease it on every conceivable occasion? My right hon. Friend's speech was full of optimism, but I do not quite understand the optimism. It explained at great length what was done in agricultural research, a very good thing, and in agricultural marketing, a very good thing, but what is the good of research and marketing if you have not the men upon the soil to benefit by either of those two things? The soil itself cannot benefit unless it is put into a proper condition. One of the things we have always advocated for that purpose has been effective and efficient drainage. If this further cut is to be insisted upon, I shall much regret it. I understand that the amount may be cut from £40,000 to £22,000, which is almost a cut of two-thirds. I regret that that should be so and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be in a position to tell us that he is going to approach the Treasury and to make a bold stand in the interests of agriculture, an interest which I know he has much at heart.
      My speech has been in the nature of a series of interrogatories and I am very anxious that those interrogatories should be fully and adequately answered. We are entitled to expect from my right hon. Friend, who has taken a sincere and deep interest in agriculture, much more than we would expect from anyone else who has not taken the same interest in it. I feel sure that if he gets a chance our expectations will not be belied. This is

      1657
      his first official performance as Secretary of State for Scotland dealing with the Scottish Estimates. We all recognise that he is not in a position, probably owing to the short length of time that he has occupied his office, to give us any pontifical pronouncement upon this very important subject, but we give him this word of warning, that, while we admire what he has done in the past in pressing this subject upon his Scottish colleagues and upon the Government, we expect more from him. I hope that in his reply he will not leave us with this report alone, which gives hope to nobody and which encourages no optimism. I hope that he will be able to tell us that he can supplement what is written in the report and hold out some hope to the struggling and striving farmers in Scotland and to the smallholders all over the country.
      Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: The right hon. Gentleman described his speech as a series of interrogations. I would describe it as a series of demands on the Treasury to spend more money. In case an appeal from one Highlander should have too much effect upon the heart of another Highlander I, as a mere Low-lander, would like to put the other side and to appeal for more economy. I want to continue what I had begun to say the other evening when the clock reached the magic hour of eleven. I was referring briefly to the position of the headquarters staff and the expenditure of the Department of Agriculture. I should like to recall to the Committee one or two facts which it is well they should know. The old Board of Agriculture started in the year 1912 and the first full year's figures are for the year 1913. I find that the total staff employed at that time was 86. Subsequently, on account of fresh work put upon the Department and the general expansion of their duties during the War and the immediate post-War period, the staff had risen in 1921 to 392. In that year there fell what is known as the Geddes Axe and in the following year the number of the staff was 314. In subsequent years there has been a steady and persistent rise, so that this year, in spite of all the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman in not filling posts which are still to be filled, the figure is 386. Of that figure 38 are allowed as being required for new and enlarged services such as drainage, settlement, marketing and
      1658
      census production. If the land drainage is being reduced there seems very small reason for keeping on an enlarged staff to deal with the reduced amount of drainage. Is the census of production to be maintained from year to year or is it merely being taken for one year? If so, there is a possibility of further reduction.
      Taking the actual figures of costs, I find that in 1922 the amount that the Department was to spend was 296,327, but this year, in spite of all the right hon. Gentleman's efforts at economy—I congratulate him on what he has done in that respect—the figure is £598,685, a great deal of that expenditure is accounted for by land settlement., of which, we have heard a good deal from the right hon. Gentleman. I mention these figures in order to suggest to him that there is still a field open for economy, and I hope that when we see the Estimates produced next year he will be able to adopt further economies in that section of his activities
      4.0 p.m.
      There is the other side of the picture. The Secretary of State struck me as being highly optimistic in his description of Scottish agriculture last Wednesday. The broad facts of the case are that land all over Scotland is going out of cultivation. I do not want to worry the Committee with too many figures, but one or two are of so striking a nature that I cannot refrain from quoting them. In the year 1913, the total arable area of Scotland was 3,312,000 acres. In 1931, the total had fallen to 3,061,000 acres. I suggest that that is not a state of affairs which this Committee can view with anything but alarm and dissatisfaction. The Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) have both shown a very great enthusiasm in the matter of smallholdings and land settlement. Given the right man and the right place, I have nothing whatever to say against the smallholder. At the same time, I do think that we can press enthusiasm for those things rather too far. When I hear the statement made that it is an admirable thing to take men from the towns and set them on the land, and when I hear instances quoted of some successful people who have been brought out from the towns, I cannot get out of my mind the fact that during all that time agricultural workers have been dispossessed of their

      1659
      work, and I cannot help remembering that in the last 20 years the figures show a decrease of some 53,000 agricultural workers of all sorts in Scotland.
      I am very glad to think that tailors and others who come from the cities can make a living on the land. I have rejoiced to see the same thing happening in other parts of the Empire. At the same time, I do feel that if we are going to justify the setting up of smallholdings simply on the ground that they are relieving the congestion of unemployment in the cities, we must not forget, as I think the right hon. Gentleman pointed out just now that people who are being trained for the land are going into the cities and increasing the amount of unemployment there. Our first duty, I think, is to ensure that people who are on the land are retained on the land. I think that that is the chief way in which to restore prosperity to agriculture in Scotland, and I should like to add in that connection, that while there is, no doubt, an unsatisfied demand for smallholdings, yet the farmers of larger farms who, after all, have always been, and always must be, the backbone of Scottish agriculture, are finding it more and more difficult to carry on, and it is become increasingly difficult to find tenants for moderate-sized and larger farms as they come into the market. I cannot, therefore, help wondering whether it would not be a wiser policy on the part of the Government to do more to assist that type of farmer, than to concentrate too much on the setting up of smallholdings all over Scotland.
      I can quite understand that the Secretary of State did not wish to cover all the grounds which his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture covered in his statement about the Government's agricultural policy, but there are one or two passages in his speech which did fill me with a certain sense of alarm and apprehension. There was one short paragraph, in particular, when he was referring to the importance of land settlement. He said:
      "In that way alone can we redress the balance—now, I suggest to the Committee, in dangerous disequilibrium—between our urban and rural population, and maintain in the countryside in Scotland men and women concentrating on those lines of production for which our agricultural conditions are best adapted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1932; col. 1206, Vol. 267.]
      1660
      The question I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is this: Does he really believe that conditions have so changed in Scotland that the old staple agricultural productions of meat, of milk and of cereals, particularly barley and oats, are no longer those for which Scotland is best adapted, and that we have to look to other things, like poultry, pigs and so on, for the future of our agriculture? That which is interesting Scottish farmers most at the moment is what the Government intend to do for those old established and important branches of our industry.
      I do not intend to say anything at the moment about meat, because we know that is one of the questions to be considered at Ottawa, and, therefore, the Government, obviously, cannot say anything at the present moment. Nor do I intend to say anything about milk, because I understand from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that schemes are already under way dealing with that. But I do want to say one word about cereals, and particularly the Scottish cereals of barley and oats. Barley is rapidly ceasing to be grown in Scotland. On the average for the years 1911 to 1915 we had 181,000 acres in Scotland under barley; in 1931 we had 92,000 acres, and, I understand from a preliminary report in the Press the other day, this year the situation will be even worse. What is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman going to do about that? Is he assisting his right hon. and gallant Friend, a fellow Scot, in his struggle to find some method of imposing the additional duty on malting barley about which he have heard so much, and which seems to take a very long time to materialise; or is he allowing matters to drift? I sincerely hope that he is on the side of the Scottish agriculturists in this respect.
      Then, what is the position of oats? There, again, we see an alarming fall, although this year, I believe, the acreage under oats will be slightly greater than last year. There seems to be a certain number of people who consider that the price which the oat crop fetches is a matter of secondary importance, because it is almost entirely used on the farm or, at any rate, in other branches of agriculture. But, in a very interesting reply which was given to the Noble Lady the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) a short

      1661
      time ago, the Minister of Agriculture estimated that about 40 per cent, of the total oat crop of Scotland was sold off the farms, and that the total value of that crop so sold was estimated to amount to a sum of £1,660,000. That is no small item, and if that is the average of Scotland, I suggest that in the North-East, at any rate, the average is far more than 40, and would, indeed, prove to be over 50 per cent.—a figure I have had given me by an authority in that part of the world.
      Therefore, the price which the producer gets for his oats is a really important matter to him. Nobody is suggesting that we want an exaggerated price, but it is an unfair argument to use that we must take any price we can get for the benefit of other people. I do not think it is reasonable to suggest that anyone who is engaged in agriculture should live on the losses of any other branch, and I do not see why any farmer who uses the oats purely for feeding should be allowed to exist at the expense of the farmer who is producing the oats, and is looking for a price when he comes to sell his produce to solve the very difficult question of how to get profits in these hard times.
      The great thing of which they are all frightened in the oat-growing counties of Scotland is the old fear of dumping. They never know, when ploughing their land, whether when they come to gather their crops they will not he faced again, as they have been before in recent years, with a catastrophic fall in prices due to the importation of oats grown under uneconomic conditions in some other part of Europe. I hope that the Secretary of State is pressing this point upon his right hon. Friend, and that we shall soon get some pronouncement that the Government intend to take steps to deal with this very real menace. I hope that that time is not very far distant. I hope we shall get a pronouncement before the House rises this Session, because if we do not, it will probably mean that we shall have to wait until the House reassembles in November or at the end of October, and then it will be too late. If we want to see the area at present under oats maintained or, as some of us hope, still further increased, we have got to get a pronouncement before the House rises, and not have to wait till
      1662
      some future time in the Autumn, when it will undoubtedly be too late.
      I do hope the Secretary of State will bear these points in mind, but, as I have said, he takes a very optimistic view of Scottish agriculture. I am afraid he has an optimism which is not shared by the farmers of Scotland. There is a very real feeling in Scotland that nothing very much has been done to assist them. While I am not going so far as to say that, because I think a good deal has been done, at the same time I want to add one word to what the right hon. Gentleman who preceded me said about the spirit of Scottish nationalism. There is a feeling that, whereas the English farmers have had wheat dealt with, the Scottish farmers' cereal crop's have not been dealt with. I have tried, in my own small way, to correct that, because while I believe there is every justification for dealing with wheat first, I have no doubt the Government have every intention of dealing fully with Scottish agriculture later. But the feeing is there, and has to be met. Therefore, I hope the Secretary of State will be able to say something, when he replies later, that will reassure the Scottish farmers, and give those of us who are not in the ranks of revolution a chance of maintaining our position and encouraging our own people in Scotland in the well-founded belief that they are not forgotten, but which they do not realise, living so far away from the centre of our activities here.
      Mr. JAMES STUART: I venture to intervene, in view of the shortage of Members of the Opposition present today, because I feel it is necessary, although one Scottish Member is present on the Opposition benches, that there should be a certain amount of opposition from the Government side, and I cannot, for one, join in throwing bouquets at the present Secretary of State for Scotland. I agree, however, for once with the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), who said that what we want is something more than the nice flowery speeches of the Secretary of State. Whatever the Scottish farmer may feel, I, personally, feel a considerable doubt as to whether the Scottish agriculturist is likely to get much satisfaction from the present Secretary of State for Scotland. For one thing, I

      1663
      consider that he is extremely fortunate in occupying the proud position he does occupy. He was resurrected, as a result of the national crisis, from the mouldering remains of the Liberal party, and, so far, during his tenure of office, his peak effort has been to oppose in the Cabinet the chief item of Government policy. I disagree entirely with the hon. Member who belongs to my own party, the representative for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman), who informed us that the Secretary of State would in the future be able to look at the beautiful portrait of one of his relatives and say that he also has done something for Scottish agriculture. I hope that the hon. Member for South Edinburgh is right. I take a more cautious attitude, but I sincerely hope that the present Secretary of State will realise that Scottish farming is in a very serious condition indeed. It seems to me that if the right hon. Gentleman had had his way, if the small minority to which he clings in the Cabinet had had its way, Scottish farming would have nothing to which to pin its faith unless it is the Minister of Agriculture, who may be able to influence the Secretary of State and get something done.
      The hon. Member for Peebles (Captain Ramsay) complained last week that Scottish Members were in considerable difficulty in dealing with agricultural questions, not knowing whether they should approach the Secretary of State or the Minister of Agriculture; and that if they went to one they were switched off to the other. I agree with the hon. Member. We are in a most unsatisfactory position. It is difficult to know which Minister we should approach. This state of affairs is creating a great deal of ill-feeling amongst the agricultural population in Scotland, who consider that their interests are not being properly looked after. If I did not feel this matter strongly I should not dream of standing up in this House and try to make a speech; for there is nothing which I dislike more. I should like to support the plea made by the hon. Member for Kincardine (Mr. Barclay-Harvey) that the question of malted barley should be dealt with and that a pronouncement should be made as soon as possible. It seems to me that there is considerable distaste on the part of the present Government to take any action in this matter, which has
      1664
      been going on year after year and nothing ever done. It was a burning question when Mr. Walter Guinness, flow Lord Moyne, was Minister of Agriculture, and he issued a White Paper explaining why it was impossible to deal with it. Since then we have had Government pronouncements to the effect that it would be dealt with. The Government, I think, should make up their minds and tell us whether they intend to do anything about the matter or not.
      The same applies to the question of oats. The Lord President of the Council has stated his views on this subject; and I should like to see action taken and a pronouncement made before the House rises. Perhaps the most important branch of agriculture in Scotland for which nothing whatsoever is being done is the producer of meat. This is a most valuable branch of the industry. In this Parliament and in previous Parliaments we have voted money from the taxpayers pockets to assist the beet sugar industry and by other methods we have done much the same thing in regard to wheat. There are certain localities where these measures may be of assistance, but if you take Scottish agriculture generally neither of these measures are of any real assistance. The Scottish taxpayer is paying and the Scottish farmer is receiving no benefit. I hope the Secretary of State will realise that while he opposed tariffs and import duties he supported the wheat subsidy. I am not very keen, about it myself, but having done this for the British farmers I hope he will bear clearly in mind that he is the representative of a Scottish constituency and that the Scottish people and Scottish farmers expect something from him. His grandfather may or may not have done something for Scotland, what we want is that he should do something. I regard the right hon. Gentleman as being extremely fortunate to occupy his present high position. I am not a seeker after office but it seems to me that the party to which one should belong if you want anything in the way of honours and office is the Liberal party. All of that party, in my view are extremely fortunate to hold any position whatsoever. The fact that they are there is entirely due to the national crisis, and we expect the right hon. Gentleman to do something for Scotland and Scottish agriculture.
      Sir JAMES DUNCAN MILLAR: We regret that owing to the lateness of the hour it was impossible for the Secretary of State to enter into a discussion of the broader aspects of Scottish agricultural policy last week. On that occasion he said that
      "the immediate agricultural objectives of the Government were particularly appropriate to Scottish conditions,"
      and he went on to refer to the pioneer work which was being done in that direction. He also stated that
      "In accordance with this policy the agricultural departments of the Government, and particularly the Department of Agriculture in Scotland, have been concentrating upon such measures as may be taken immediately to help the farmer in his present distress."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1932; col. 1201, Vol. 267.]
      I hope that this afternoon we shall get from him some amplification of this theme, because there is nothing which the Scottish farmer is at present more concerned to know than the Government's objectives which are appropriate to Scottish conditions. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, of course, speaks very specially for Scottish agriculture. We know his interest in the subject, and we should like to hear from him the proposals he has in view in relation to the staple Scottish crops and the Scottish livestock industry. The Secretary of State was a strong supporter of the Wheat Bill. He is no doubt well aware of the very limited extent to which the quota affects Scotland. The wheat produced in Scotland is not more than 2 per cent, of the whole agricultural production, but if we look at the production of livestock and livestock products we find that there represent by far the largest proportion of the production of Scottish agriculture. While cereal farmers have a great interest in knowing the Government's proposals in relation to Scottish cereal crops, I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will also tell us the policy of the Government in regard to the question of livestock farming. I know that it is a matter which is related to the proceedings at Ottawa, and I am glad that we shall have the advantage of the presence at Ottawa of Sir Robert Greig, Secretary to the Scottish Department of Agriculture, who I hope will keep in view the interests of Scottish producers and do something to effect an arrangement which will secure their interests.
      1666
      Scottish agriculturists in this period of severe depression are only asking for fair conditions of production and as far as possible a first call on the home market. They are anxious that the industry should be self-supporting with a view to increasing employment and thus maintaining a healthy population on the land. The Government have recognised the need for action, and those of us who are particularly interested in the position of Scottish producers hope that we shall get a further statement from the Secretary of State to-day. As a Liberal I take the view that with a National Government in power, which is prepared to view the agricultural problem not from any political standpoint but from the standpoint of national interests, we ought to be in a position to secure a satisfactory arrangement which will enable our agriculturists to produce at a reasonable profit and to make farming pay. Scottish agriculturists have no desire to exploit the consumer. Resolutions have been sent to the Secretary of State from various agricultural societies which have made it perfectly clear that they have no desire to exploit the consumer in any way. They maintain that they ought to be able to secure for themselves a fair return for their work and at the same time satisfy the needs of the consumer in the large towns. Indeed, the interests of both are bound up together, and we must look to a revival of agricultural industry as in a large degree associated with a revival of our great industries in the towns.
      Farmers in Scotland have a record for producing the best livestock in the world. This can be seen at the Highland Show at Inverness. In my view it points to the need for developing mixed farming. The breeding and feeding of livestock is one of the most paying lines of the industry, carried on under fair conditions, and would enable us to utilise what are some of the finest natural pastures in the kingdom. I was attracted by a reference in a volume just published by the Noble Lord the Member for Basingstoke (Viscount Lymington) to the possibility of increasing our agricultural population by increasing the number of those engaged in the livestock industry, which would provide, as the hon. Member points out, not only a means of livelihood but an attractive life as well.
      "The cultivation of the land, while it should provide a livelihood, does afford,

      1667
      whatever the townsman may think, a life as well. This, in a country where industrialism has divorced occupation from interest, should be the ballast of national sanity."
      4.30 p.m.
      The writer goes on to say that wheat growing is being steadily mechanised—which means that it is not only liable to shrink as a source of employment, but tends to come nearer to the factory type in its methods. The care of animals cannot lose its dependence on individual skill or its appeal to individual interest and pride. It is, he points out,, the chief among those subtle influences that bind a contented population to a countryside. I think that is very true.
      As to the re-organisation commissions which for the moment are dealing with milk products and pig products, I do not know whether the Secretary of State can tell us how far Scotland is represented on those commissions, and when we may expect a report from them. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to the marketing schemes to which effect is likely to be given in the immediate future, amongst others a possible marketing scheme for livestock, particularly fat stock. Is it proposed to call for the cooperation of the very large body of skilled salesmen and auctioneers throughout Scotland who have rendered great service to the industry and whose position as experts in connection with marketing should be recognised and taken into account under any such schemes? I was a little disappointed that no reference was made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to the position of the agricultural workers, particularly in the present depression. This is a very important element in the agricultural problem. The agricultural workers are the backbone of the industry and they represent a highly skilled and a very worthy section of our population. I understand that within recent times many of them have been paid off and that they are going into the towns to swell the army of the unemployed.
      I strongly support the view already put forward this afternoon that while in exceptional cases townsmen may make excellent smallholders, it is our duty to see that in the first instance the experienced agricultural worker is utilised on our smallholdings. These men have
      1668
      been trained on the land; their wives and their daughters are specially skilled in dairying and other agricultural pursuits; and in my judgment it is they who have formed the most successful class of smallholders in Scotland. They ought to be given the first preferences. It is interesting to note, from the returns in the Department's Report, that of the agricultural scholarships offered under the recent scheme 21 were awarded either to bona-fide agricultural workers or to the children of smallholders or crofters. That shows how keen they are as a class to equip themselves for their duties. There is much yet to be done to attract our agricultural workers to farm service by the improvement of the condition of their houses and of the conditions under which they work in certain districts.
      As to land settlement there has undoubtedly been growing evidence of the demand for land, and one welcomes the individual successes that have been referred to by the Secretary of State, mentioned in the report of the Department; but it is only right to point out that in certain districts the settlers have actually to encounter many serious difficulties, where land is poor and waterlogged, and in certain cases where early promises which were made to the applicants, who were ex-service men, were not carried out. I speak particularly of a settlement of smallholders at Thirdpart Crail, in the Division of East Fife. I have watched that settlement with great interest for a period of years. The smallholders have had a very serious struggle. In some cases the land has proved to be very poor and waterlogged, the buildings which were put up have not been built on sufficiently substantial lines and are not properly constructed, the drains have given trouble, and there is hardly a decent farm road on the whole settlement. In wet weather I have had the greatest difficulty in getting access to some of the holdings because of the condition of the roads.
      This is a matter to which I have formerly referred. I received a petition from the smallholders on the subject of their difficulties, and the Secretary of State was good enough to go into the matter. It is a subject which requires further consideration. There were also difficulties in regard to water supply. In this instance the supply was con-

      1669
      taminated, and a filter was put in. It is absolutely essential that in a matter of that kind no doubts should exist. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that there are settlements of smallholders which require very sympathetic handling, and cases of men who have had a hard struggle and who must be allowed every opportunity of making good. They should have the feeling that the Department is acting in the closest and most sympathetic collaboration with them.
      I welcome the Order which has been made during the past year preventing the importation of potatoes from European France. This was a matter about which our potato producers felt considerable anxiety, owing to the Colorado beetle. Under this Order, which became effective from 15th March, potatoes from European France are prohibited from entering this country. But the right hon. Gentleman should consider the matter a little further. I previously raised the question of the dangers arising from disease and contamination of imports of foreign vegetables and potatoes. I have here a resolution from the Highland and Agricultural Society, dealing with the question of foot and mouth disease. I have no doubt the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has received a copy of it. The resolution, which calls for the prohibition of the entry of vegetables into this country from countries where foot and mouth disease is prevalent, is founded upon a review of the facts which, I hope, will carry conviction to the Secretary of State, because it is brought out in this statement that there was strong circumstantial evidence that the outbreak in Northern Ireland last June was traceable to a cargo of Dutch broccoli landed at Leith towards the end of May. That view was accepted by the Minister of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, but it has not been accepted by the Minister of Agriculture for Great Britain. I hope that the Secretary of State will keep in view our Scottish interests in this matter, and that he will remember that there has been a great number of serious outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in countries which are sending produce to this country. In such cases I think effect should be given to the representations made, and that there should be a complete prohibition of all such produce.
      1670
      I would like to pay a tribute to the work of the women's rural institutes, which are referred to in the report. The work done by these institutes throughout Scotland, and especially in Fife, where the institute movement has been very active, has done much to sweeten the life of country village residents and to quicken interest throughout the rural districts. In 1931 the institutes numbered 893, with a membership of 45,000. They are closely associated with the Handicraft Guild, which has done so much to train many of our rural workers. We owe a debt of gratitude to the large body of voluntary workers who are associated with this effort.
      I trust that as a result of the discussions to-day we may obtain from the Secretary of State a little more definite information as to the position of the Scottish producers, and that we may also be enabled to satisfy our constituents and the public in Scotland that we who have upon our shoulders the responsibility of dealing with these matters in this House, are determined to see that our Scottish agriculturists get a fair deal. We can assure the Secretary of State of our hearty support in every effort that he can make to assist them in these anxious times.
      Mr. BURNETT: In the first place, I would like to endorse the remarks which have been made by the hon. Member for East Fife (Sir J. D. Millar) and the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Stuart) on the subject of livestock. I represent a town where livestock bulks largely, where a great many are dependent upon the prosperity of animal husbandry for their livelihood. Livestock producing is perhaps, next to milk products, the most important, the most successful branch of agriculture. As the hon. Member for Kincardine and West Aberdeen (Mr. Barclay-Harvey) said, in most parts of Scotland the area of cultivated land is decreasing, but in Aberdeenshire there has been an increase in recent years. We all approve of what the Secretary of State has said on the subject of agricultural research. We have benefited very much from that in the North of Scotland, from the work of the College of Agriculture. At the Rowett Institute inquiry has been made as to the effect of diet upon the nutrition of animals, and now further inquiry is being made: at the new Institute set up

      1671
      at Craigiebuckler into the effect of soil upon pasture. This research should be of the greatest advantage to livestock farmers. There is no doubt that at present livestock farming is in a very critical position, and that farmers are feeling the present pinch very much. We are all receiving letters from farmers stating what they think about matters. Here is a letter I received this morning, in which the writer says:
      "If something is not done quickly farming is down and out."
      Another farmer writes to me:
      "Please do something at once to help us poor farmers or it will be too late. We cannot carry on as things are at the present time."
      We are meeting a severe blast of competition from South America. In the Argentine climatic conditions are good, there is a plentiful water supply, droughts never occur, and steers can be killed at the age of 2¾ years. There are up-to-date refrigerating works and the beef is sent to this country chilled according to the most modern methods. It arrives here in good condition; the cost of transit is small, and it can be sold in our market here at from two-thirds, to three-quarters of the price realised by home beef. That is the problem which we have to face and there are two ways of meeting it. On the one hand we may consider that it is a matter that cannot be helped; that the conditions in South America enable the farmers there to raise cattle more cheaply than we can do it here, and that the only thing we can do is to protect our farmers—to control imports. That, of course, is a question which we cannot discuss on this occasion, but it will no doubt be discussed at Ottawa.
      The other way of meeting the situation is to cut down the cost of production in this country so that our farmers may be able to compete with South America. The question is how this can be done and what the present Government is doing in connection with that matter. Going through this report, we find, of course, reference to research, and no doubt the farmers will gain from that research. But the only other expedient suggested in this connection in the report is on page 74 where there is a reference to the question of the grading of beef. This question of grading is a very
      1672
      difficult one. As regards the marking of beef I think there is general agreement among both farmers and distributors that foreign beef should be marked before it comes into this country. It should be marked right down the side, so that we can know at once what is foreign and what is British beef. I have tried to get opinions from a number of people as to whether grading is benefiting the farmer—the producer—in any way. The report says:
      "The scheme has proved advantageous to the producer. It has tended to steady the price of Scottish beef at a higher level, and 'has made known the true merits of Scottish beef to a wide public."
      I hold that the merits of Scottish beef were very well known before grading was ever thought of. Our beef was sent down, from Aberdeen and elsewhere, to Smith-field market, and short sides of Scottish beef realised the highest prices in that market. Grading has done nothing to increase the price. In fact the price has been going down, as food prices generally have been going down, recently. I should like to quote some of the letters which I have received from farmers on this subject. One large producer of livestock writes:
      "The majority of farmers are absolutely up against grading, but they all think that the foreigner should be compelled to mark his beef both with quality and country of origin. Why put us to the expense of grading beef?"
      Another farmer, who submitted the question to a meeting of an organisation of farmers, writes:
      "The feeling of the meeting was that marking and grading of home meat would not help to raise the price to the producer. What we think would do more good would be to have all the foreign meat marked with the country of origin and sold in separate shops"—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not pursue that point. He will no doubt recollect, if he was here earlier in the afternoon, that a Bill has been introduced for the purpose of dealing with that question which is obviously a matter requiring legislation.
      Mr. BURNETT: I, of course, bow to your ruling, Captain Bourne, but I would like to make a reference to the question of prices if that is in order.
      Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: On a point of Order. Are we to assume that any discussion, such as the hon. Member for

      1673
      North Aberdeen (Mr. Burnett) has up to now been pursuing, in regard to the grading of Scottish beef and in reference to something which has already been done, is to be ruled out of order, because of a Private Member's Bill intoduced this afternoon.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, the hon. Member must not understand that from my Ruling. What I was ruling out of order was a suggestion as to the compulsory marking of foreign meat. That obviously requires legislation but references to the grading of meat, in so far as it is covered by existing legislation, are certainly not out of order.
      Mr. STUART: On a point of Order. In view of the fact that the Opposition asked that this Vote should be put down today may I inquire is there any obligation upon Members of the Opposition to be in attendance at this discussion, or is it at their discretion?
      Mr. MACLEAN: May I explain to the hon. Member. He knows perfectly well that in Scotland the Labour party went under during the crisis, but we have done something which has never been done before in the House of Commons. Instead of doing as an Opposition is entitled to do, and putting forward on these Estimates only matters which we ourselves desire to raise, we have taken into consideration the wishes of Members in other parts of the Committee as far as these Estimates are concerned. We asked them what matters they desired to discuss and we have put down Votes which would enable Members, irrespective of party, to raise those points which they desire to raise in regard to Scottish affairs and to discuss the matters in which they are interested. I think that any little reflection on the Opposition which seems to be conveyed by the hon. Member's reference ought to be withdrawn.
      Mr. STUART: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I should like very sincerely to congratulate him upon his single-handed effort—
      Mr. GROVES: Although I am a Member for an English constituency may I remark that those who are in attendance on the Opposition side represent a larger proportion of their party than hon. Members opposite represent of theirs.
      Mr. STUART: I am afraid I cannot work that out at the moment. My arithmetic is not equal to it.
      Mr. BURNETT: I shall confine my remarks entirely to the question of grading which is a really important matter, and I want the Committee to consider a view which has been submitted to me by retail butchers, by sellers of high class Scottish meat in London. Their view is that as a result of grading there has been no additional demand for Home beef, and this contention is borne out by the figures of imports as published at Smithfield Market every week. In this list is published the percentage of foreign meat which is brought into this country. I have tried to follow these lists back for some time. I have made out an average for the last complete month and compared it with the corresponding months in 1929, 1930 and 1931. I find that in 1929 the imports of foreign meat amounted to 82.5 per cent.; in 1930, 83.3 per cent.; in 1931, 84.3 per cent. In 1932 there is a slight fall and the figure is 83.6 per cent., but over the whole period there is a rise in the amount of imported beef of rather more than 1 per cent.
      It is continually said to me by those acquainted with the trade that good meat grades itself and that no mark or grading which is put upon it conveys the exact degree of quality. There are all sorts of grades. One person likes meat fat, another likes meat lean. One person likes it well "marbled," and so forth and butchers tell me that it would be exceedingly difficult for anyone to tell exactly what grade a side of beef ought to be, much more difficult than to grade the live animal. When a side of beef has been cut up, as soon as the butcher puts his knife into it he can tell at once what kind of meat it is, and he is the man who must ultimately grade it. If he could not do that he might as well "down tools" at once. I was anxious to bring these views on the question of grading before the Committee because this is a matter on which many of my constituents feel very strongly. As I say they are all in favour of marking foreign beef. That is a necessity if we are to know what is the foreign beef and what is the home beef. But there is a strong feeling among those who have had to deal with the matter that the grading scheme has proved a failure; that it has been,

      1675
      not only useless but misleading, and that we ought to revert to a system of marking only the imported meat coming into this country. If we want to tackle the whole problem involving the position of the livestock farmers in this country we will have to do it by other means. We will require to adopt stronger measures before we can restore the farmers to that prosperity which we all wish them to enjoy.
      Commander COCHRANE: Hon. Members who are intimate with those subjects, have already dealt with the questions of cereals and meat, but I think it is not an exaggeration to say that in the mind of every Member of this Committee is the desire to see more settlement on the land, and a larger rural population in Scotland. It is to the question of land settlement and smallholdings that I propose to limit my remarks. I regret that I have not the enthusiasm of the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary for purely agricultural holdings, but I can imagine conditions in which, I think, I would try to be just as enthusiastic as we know them to be on the subject of providing facilities for people to live in the country. My right hon. Friend in his opening speech dwelt on the tenacity of the smallholders during this time of crisis, and pointed out how they had been able to weather the storm better almost than any other section of the community. If he analysed the cases in which that tenacity has been most marked, I think he would find that they fall into two classes.
      There is one comparatively small class of those who have smallholdings coupled with jobs under the Forestry Commissioners. I think there are only a few hundreds of them those in all Scotland. I think the right hon. Gentleman, would find that the remainder of the cases were those of smallholders whose holding is a part-time job, and who fortuitously have some other employment. It is plain that in these times of difficulty a man who is not pinned down to one form of employment is in a better position than a man who is entirely dependent on one form of activity whether in agriculture or some other industry. My right hon. Friend has given illustrations of the kind of men who have gone on the land from the towns and have been successful. He has mentioned the cases of the tailor, the miner, the cabinet maker. I agree with
      1676
      the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) as to the desirability of that development. Those particular men have been successful but when we look at the problem as a whole, is it not true that it would be easier for those people if, when going on to the land, to take over a smallholding, they could carry at any rate some part of their other employment with them? Who would then be in a stronger position than they?
      5.0 p.m.
      Take the case of the cabinet-maker who goes to a smallholding and is dependent on a few acres and on 100 or 200 chickens, and take the case of the same man who has the holding and, at the same time, has some alternative employment either for himself or for other members of his family. I do not think there can be any doubt that this provision of alternative employment to agriculturists in Scotland is of prime importance. The conditions which we ought to try to fulfil, or, rather, the principle on which we ought to try to proceed is that of giving economic security—that is to say, that a man may know where the next week's money is coming from—coupled with economic independence. That, I believe, is of just as great importance when you are dealing with the population in Scotland.
      A good deal has been said about the depopulation which has gone on in our country districts. I believe that it is a mistake to think that in olden times that larger population was entirely dependent on agriculture. Certainly in the parts of Scotland which I know best there are everywhere remains of what were small but flourishing industries throughout the rural districts. They have gone out, many of them, I think, squeezed out by the invention of the steam engine, the boiler, and so on, but it is only since that change has take place and since these small industries have to some extent ceased to function in our countryside that we have adopted a plan of segregating agriculture in one watertight compartment and putting all our other productive industries into another; and they very rarely meet.
      I am not, of course, referring to the Rules of Debate in this House, but, as a matter of fact, we have got into the habit of thinking of agriculture as being something quite apart from other productive industries in this country. I do

      1677
      not think that any advantage has come to anybody from that way of regarding the problem, and if you take the circumstances of to-day, you will find that, in Canada, the wheat-grower is becoming uneasy. He is no longer willing to be dependent for his entire livelihood on the production of wheat, for which he can find no market. He is trying to turn to other things, and I am sure that that same argument will very shortly apply, shall I say, to the breeder of pigs in Denmark. He also will find that in these days it is not possible to make a steady and satisfactory livelihood if you are dependent entirely on one form of production. If there had been no change in the circumstances in the past few years, it might be idle to argue in this way, but I would suggest to the Committee that there have been important changes.
      In Scotland you see nearly everywhere these steel towers put up in connection with the electrical grid. Some people regard them merely as an eyesore, but I confess that when I see these gaunt and rather grim steel erections, I am somewhat inclined to go and give them a friendly pat, because I believe that through the wires which these towers are tested to carry there ought to flow the lifeblood for a regeneration of our rural life in Scotland. If we are to make a full use of the land of Scotland, I believe that it must be used as far as possible to provide an alternative to other forms of employment. I am certain that there is nothing in logic or common sense in continuing to regard agriculture as something apart from our other productive industries.
      Take the position of Scotland to-day. We are losing some of our industries; they are moving down to England, but our agriculture cannot follow these productive industries to England, fortunately for us. It is true that our agricultural population is decreasing, but if we are to retain other productive industries in Scotland, is it not desirable that we should link them up as closely as possible with agriculture, by giving a common employment to the people in both, thereby preventing this flow of other industries across the border to the South? I know of no other way in which that can be. done, but I believe that to the extent to which it can be done, we shall be able to find a policy for land settlement and smallholdings which does
      1678
      offer the greatest chance of success, which indeed offers the only possibility of a permanent solution of those difficulties, to which I cannot refer this afternoon, which are pressing upon the agriculture of every country in the world. Every country is trying to find a solution of its agricultural and other productive difficulties, and I make no apology for suggesting to this Committee that in the conditions in Scotland and with the mentality of the people of Scotland, it may be possible for us to suggest a solution of what is a world-wide problem which will commend itself to all other peoples of British extraction.
      Sir MURDOCH MacDONALD: I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland on the Report from the Department of Agriculture which has been presented to the Committee this afternoon; and I think, along with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Fife (Sir J. Duncan Millar), who spoke earlier in the Debate, we have every reason to congratulate our-selves on the presence of Sir Robert Greigg as head of the Department under the Secretary of State, for conducting it in the manner in which it has been conducted in the last few years. I quite appreciate that in these difficult times it is impossible for the Department to carry out all the schemes which it may feel to be of benefit to agriculture, yet I think there is one scheme which should be pressed. It will not cost much, and it may save a great deal. In former years, previous to the land agitation which took place in the Highlands of Scotland, the Island of Skye was divided up into large sheep farms, owned by individual owners and farmed by individual farmers. These individual farmers, owing to the largeness of the stocks which they were able to carry, were able to deal themselves successfully, monetarily., with their stocks and to dispose of them and obtain the best market prices then ruling.
      Since that time a great change has taken place. The large farms have, quite rightly, and in many cases with the sympathetic acquiescence of the proprietors, been handed over to the local people, who either themselves or their immediate ancestors had been dispossessed to make room for these same sheep farms and to lay the foundations of what is now the modern sheep farm-

      1679
      ing industry. In recent years the Department of Agriculture, under the Secretary of State, has very nearly completed its operations in the Isle of Skye, and very few large farms remain now in the possession of one man. They have all, or nearly all, been handed over to local communities. The sheep now owned by these new landowners are in a great number of cases held on the common stock principle, but, owing to the want of liquid funds, they are not able in the present state of agriculture to dispose of their product to the best advantage. As a consequence, an organised marketing system for the sheep and other livestock products of this island is especially desirable.
      A recent inspection by a division of the Scottish Land Court has exemplified what is happening and the necessity for organised marketing in the Island of Skye. Indeed, if one looks at the short summary of that report which appears in the "Scotsman," it would appear as if, while the actual number of sheep on the various farms has been increasing, the actual product for sale has been decreasing, which indicates a very serious state of affairs and that the farmers, these new landowners, have not been able to winter their stock, owing to the want of money, in the normal way that the farmers were able to do in former years. It is, therefore, to be hoped that the Secretary of State will carefully consider the report of this division of the Land Court, and that he will influence his officials to press forward the provision of a scheme of organised marketing; and I shall be glad to hear whether or not he is able to do so.
      A further point in favour of such a scheme is this: A great number of these new landowners entered into possession of their sheep stocks at valuations which were very many times the present value of the same sheep stocks. Even the report of the Department of Agriculture, on page 19, says that the value of a certain class of sheep has fallen by one-third, and even in cases by one-half, of what it was last year, and that this has occurred after quite a number of almost disastrous falls in previous years. It is perfectly true that the Department, with the consent of the Treasury, on repre-
      1680
      sentations made—and I have had some little share in making those representations myself, so I am aware of them—have reduced the original values of the sheep stocks and have also reduced the amount of money due for the loans made, but even the new terms thus arranged, owing to the extraordinary falls in the value of the sheep stocks in the present circumstances, have again become extremely onerous, and the farmers may possibly be incapable of the fulfilment of their original obligations on even their present terms, which are quite different from those originally made when the sheep stock was at such a high value, a few years ago, when these farms were purchased from their original owners and handed over to these people.
      I must say that Skye men fully realise that, having entered into bargains, they are in honour bound to do their utmost to implement them, and while there is a limit in this respect, in that if the stock does not produce sufficient money to liquidate the debt, some arrangement will have to be made, yet, if such a scheme as the reorganisation of marketing can be carried through by the Secretary of State, then both parties, both the landowners and the State, would benefit. The State would secure the fulfilment of the engagements now entered into, and the people would be able to earn a livelihood from the sheep which they possess. It is only the Department of Agriculture which can best carry out such a suggestion, and the Secretary of State might consider whether the Agricultural Marketing Reorganisation Commission provided for in the Act of last year could not be formed for the Island of Skye to deal with livestock.
      I am glad to know that the Department, notwithstanding the difficult times, have not altogether abandoned the duty of attempting to settle people on the land. I hope, however, that in forthcoming settlements, particularly in the Highland districts of Scotland, where farms are being broken up into smaller units, every attention will be paid to the selection of the new landholders so as to ensure that they actually reside on the holdings when they get them. I appreciate the difficulty of selecting tenants, but I am sure that if an obligation be entered into that the tenant must reside on the holding as well as hold it, the selection will be a much easier matter for the Department.

      1681
      I would like to draw the Secretary of State's attention to the matter of intensive agriculture in the extreme Western Highlands. In that area the climate is mild and temperate in comparison with the Central Highlands, and it has been represented to me by a lady who is a native of that district and has travelled much throughout the world that there is in that region the possibility of supplying some of those things, such as flowers and fruit, which our great cities are now importing from the Continent. If the Department will give sympathetic support to the organisation and classification, and particularly to the carriage of such produce, my friend, who has written long and valuable notes on the subject, and has been endeavouring to interest the womens' rural institutes in the matter, will be glad to place her knowledge and active support at the disposal of the Department. I hope that the Department will delegate someone to look into the subject and help with advice as to what produce should be grown and give assistance in the marketing. I trust that the Secretary of State will sympathetically consider this suggestion.
      Mr. R. W. SMITH: The first thing one ought to do is to thank the Labour party for giving us an opportunity of having this discussion on agriculture in Scotland. We are grateful to them for that, but they have rather spoilt their action by showing that they are not very greatly interested in the subject.
      Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Member is mistaken in his assumption that the Labour party have no interest in agriculture. We put down for discussion the subjects which we believed would be of the greatest interest to Scottish Members in all parties with the hope that such a step would both prove satisfactory to the Members and produce a most interesting discussion, and not because the Labour party are not keenly interested in agriculture.
      Mr. SMITH: I apologise to the hon. Member. I am glad that the Socialist party are beginning at last to take a greater interest in agriculture than they have done before. Many Socialist Members are now apparently beginning to realise that agriculture is really of importance to the country and cannot be allowed to go under altogether. We were rather delighted that there was to be an.
      1682
      opportunity of discussing agricultural questions, because those of us who represent agricultural constituencies and agriculturists throughout the country have been rather distressed about what has happened since the National Government took office. There is no doubt that when the Government first took office the country felt that at last the interests of agriculture would not be forgotten, and there was great hope that something would be done for the industry. That hope was a reasonable one because of the statements which were made by the leaders of the various sections of the Government. The Leader of the Conservative party definitely said that something must be done for agriculture, and the other leaders made similar statements, but since the National Government have been in office we have been waiting and waiting to find out what their broad agricultural policy is, and we have not yet heard it.
      At the beginning of the Secretary of State's speech on Wednesday we were led to believe that at last we were to hear the broad objectives of the Government in regard to agriculture. He told us that the Government were doing something for Scottish conditions, but, when we reached the end of the speech, we knew no more about what the Government were going to do than we did ot the beginning. I hope that the Minister will to-day be able to give us some broad outline of the Government's objectives. The Secretary of State 1ms a hard job because he has to think of other things beside agriculture, but we know that he is capable of concentration on this subject from the interest that he took in it when the present Minister of Agriculture occupied his office. In 1930 the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said:
      "Many things, hold the farmer back. There is lack of capital, lack of confidence, lack of organisation, and lack of credits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1930; col. 1493, Vol. 233.]
      I know that his view has somewhat altered, as he showed when supporting the wheat quota, but I feel sure that he agrees that; these four elements are still the basis of the troubles in agriculture. The Secretary of State said last Wednesday:
      "The immediate agricultural objectives of the Government are particularly appropriate to Scottish conditions, and, indeed, we in Scotland have already undertaken a Considerable amount of pioneer work in that

      1683
      direction. In accordance with this policy the agricultural Departments of the Government, and particularly the Department of Agriculture in Scotland, have been concentrating upon such measures as may be taken immediately to help the farmer in his present distress."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1932; col. 1205, Vol. 267.]
      What is being done with regard to meat and grading and marking, to which reference was made by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Burnett)? I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will take some steps to put into effect the report which has been published on this subject. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen said that he had come to the conclusion, after careful examination, that the grading of meat was absolutely wrong and no good to the producer or consumer. That may be the opinion of the hon. Member, but I ask the Committee not to take his opinion. A committee of competent men was set up to inquire into the question, and one paragraph of their report reads:
      "The representative bodies of British agriculture and the bulk of those butchers and caterers who sell mainly high-class home-killed beef are convinced that the scheme is of advantage both to the British beef industry and to the public."
      I hope that the Minister will give us some information as to the line that he will take on this report, because this system will be of vital benefit to the farmers. I hope, too, that the Minister is considering the resolution which was passed with regard to foot-and-mouth disease. It is rather important when the Northern Ireland Government have themselves accepted the findings which have been arrived at as to the source of the infection that we should seriously consider whether something cannot be done on the lines of that resolution.
      I stress upon the Minister the necessity of doing something with regard to malting barley. We had a definite promise that something would be done either by means of a tax or a quota. All these months have passed, and yet we do not know whether it is to be a tax or a quota. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Stuart) referred to the marking of barley. I understand that other countries differentiate in the duties that they put on grain, and I should like to know if the Secretary of State has gone into the question of the colouring of the grain. It is of the greatest importance to Scot-
      1684
      land, and he ought to know about it almost more than the Minister of Agriculture, and we should like to know if something can be done along those lines. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman also see his way to do something for the producers of pearl barley? Up to a short time ago an order issued by the Minister allowed barley growers to treat barley with sulphur dioxide in order to make it a better colour. I understand that representations have been made to the Minister on this point in order to allow the use of sulphur dioxide. The report of the Department of Health for Scotland states, on page 35:
      "Imports of continental barley to a large extent have supplanted the Scottish output of pot and pearl barleys. At the close of the year the question of amending the Regulations was under consideration."
      I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to take some action. It may be a small thing, but it will be of some assistance to the unfortunate farmers, and it is the duty of Parliament to do every little thing they can in order to help agricultural interests.
      5.30 p.m.
      I press again the point which was made by the hon. Member for Kincardine and Western Aberdeen (Mr. Barclay-Harvey) that something should be done to stop the dumping of imported food. There is no necessity for us to import any oat products, for we can, from the amount of oats produced in this country, supply all the oat products required. I will give the Minister some figures from the Board of Trade returns. In January, 1930, we imported 63,000 cwts. of oat products; in January, 1931, 70,000 cwts.; and in January, 1932, 84,000 cwts. In February, 1930, we imported 41,000 cwts.; in February, 1931, 74,000 cwts.; and in February, 1932, 97,000 cwts. In March, 1930, we imported 43,000 cwts.; in March, 1931, 68,000 cwts., and in March, 1932, 77,000 cwts. Cannot the Minister see if something can be done to stop this importation? Further, I would press on the Minister to give us some information as to when the agricultural credits scheme is to be brought into operation. The Socialist party gave financial assistance to the smallholders, and it is very hard that the Agricultural Credits Act should have been on the Statute Book so long without anything having been done to help the farmers. There is many a

      1685
      farmer who is just hanging on in the hope that he may be able to get some assistance from that Act, and I ask the Minister to give us some encouragement that it will soon be put into force.
      Finally, I would press the Estimates themselves on the attention of the Minister. We are spending over £500,000 in connection with agriculture in Scotland. That is a reduction of £142,000, but of that cut of £142,000, not more than £2,000 has been made at the expense of the staff of the Department. The whole of the rest, £140,000, is really taken from the industry itself and I submit that that is a perfectly ridiculous position. On page 152 of the Estimates will be found the salaries, wages and allowances of the headquarters' staff-nothing to do with the inspectorate, or the seed testing and plant registration station, or smallholdings, or the surveying staff. For that headquarters' staff alone we are asked to supply more money than we were last year. Last year the expenditure on that staff amounted to £71,457, and this year it is £71,725. The expenditure on the legal staff is up by £1,000, and then there is £3,000 for the messengers, which is the same amount as last year. There is an expenditure of somewhere about £77,000 for administration expenses out of a total expenditure of £581,000, representing 12½ per cent., and I say that is too high. I have left out of account the expenditure on the inspectorate and other things, which may be said to be for the direct benefit of the farmers.
      I would like to show how the saving of £140,000 has been arrived at. There is a reduction of £3,000 or £4,000 in the money given for the improvement of livestock, though surely if there is one thing more than another we ought to do it is to improve our livestock, and yet we are reducing the grants given in respect of bulls, boars, etc. It is a tragic thing that we should be spending £4,000 more on the Macaulay Institute for soils. I have no objection to money being spent on. research, but what the Minister has told us about the Macaulay Institute is that it is investigating the use of peat soils for the growing of crops, in order to bring more land into cultivation. The land already under cultivation is doing badly enough, without our starting to put people on peat soil. It is a funny thing that we should find £4,000 more for this
      1686
      new institute while at the same time cutting down, the grants to old institutes which are doing such good work. There is also a reduction on the expenditure on land drainage.
      Those Me examples of expenditure which directly assists the. farmer, and yet we are cutting it down to the tune of £110,000. When we come to the Appropriation s-in-Aid we find that we expect to take more money from the farmers. The receipts from the licensing of bulls are expected to yield £2,000 more this year, which will come out of the pockets of the farmers; and in other cases in which fees are charged we are looking for greater receipts. That is not the way to deal with agriculture. As my hon. Friend the: Member for Kincardine and West Aberdeen has already said, in 1913 we had a Department of 89, and this year it is 386. If it is necessary to cut down the expenditure by £142,000 the staff of the Department ought to bear a bigger proportion of that cut. I ask the Minister to see whether in the months to come he cannot do something more for the direct benefit of agriculturists and not spend so much on the inspectorate and the headquarters' staff.
      Sir GODFREY COLLINS: I rise to ask the Secretary of State to direct his attention to page 63 of his annual report on agriculture. He will find there a report of his officials on the growing of sugar beet in Scotland in 1930.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question of sugar beet does not arise on this Estimate. The Estimate for sugar beet is for the whole of Great Britain; there is no separate Estimate for Scotland; and the Minister could not make a reply to the hon. Gentleman.
      Sir G. COLLINS: I was not proposing to raise the question of sugar beet. I was anxious to show, from the information supplied by the Secretary of State on page 6S of the Report, the cost of the sugar beet grown in Scotland in 1930; and I submit that if the Secretary of State is in order in presenting this Report I am in order, if I keep strictly to the exact words and figures contained in that Report on page 63. During the year 1930 10,000 tons of sugar beet were grown in Scotland, and the wholesale price was about £190,000. On page 63 we learn that the State paid—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have listened to the hon. Member developing his point. He is now raising the question of the sugar beet subsidy, and that is not a matter to be raised on the Scottish Estimates. Because a certain service is mentioned in the Vote of a Department it is not neecssarily in order to discuss it on that Vote.
      Sir G. COLLINS: I bow to your Ruling. If you rule that I am not allowed to comment on the information which the Secretary of State has provided for Members of this Committee, and draw attention to facts which are not apparent in the Report, I will resume my seat.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that is a matter which must come on the appropriate Vote, and that is the Vote for the sugar beet subsidy, which is No. 9 of this Class.
      Mr. MACPHERSON: On a point of Order. Is it not in order in this Debate for my hon. Friend to show that the soil of Scotland is not suitable for growing sugar beet? If there is a special reference to sugar beet in this Report I submit, with all due deference, that it is in order to show that there is a waste of public money.
      Sir G. COLLINS: We have spent two or three hours in discussing the soil of Scotland, and there have been arguments about one type of cereal being grown and the rearing of live stock. I am anxious to direct attention to what the soil of Scotland produced in 1930. I know how proper your Ruling is that no reference should be made to the sugar beet subsidy and I will try to avoid those words. Some 10,000 tons of sugar beet were grown in that year. The wholesale price was about £190,000, and the subsidy was about £130,000. To find out the cost of the sugar to the public we must deduct the amount paid in preferential duty, which was about £58,000. Therefore, the cost of this sugar beet grown in Scotland—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting back to the subsidy. In reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) the difficulty is, as he knows very well, that in Committee of Supply we must not discuss a matter for which there is a separate Vote in the Estimates.
      1688
      The sugar beet subsidy is in a Vote for the whole of Great Britain, and is not divided between England and Scotland, and the appropriate place to raise any question about sugar beet is on the particular Vote, Vote 9, which is not before us at the moment.
      Earl of DALKEITH: I am surprised that the Secretary of State for Scotland paid so little regard to the actual condition of agriculture in Scotland in the course of his speech, and I am also sorry that the spokesmen of the Government do not more frequently devote more attention to the prices in the industry in Scotland, especially the prices of live stock and the return obtained from wool, lambs, meat, milk and so on. If the Government are not yet in a position to announce what steps they are going to take to benefit agriculture in Scotland, at least they might show some recognition of the very serious condition that exists while asking the farmers to carry on and to await the further steps that are in contemplation. Reference was made by the Secretary of State to the marketing scheme and also to the proposed scheme for the marking of meat, but it must take some considerable time to formulate those schemes, and get them approved, whereas the present is a time of very great emergency, and we need proposals which are suited to that emergency. I feel that less favourable treatment is being accorded to those who are engaged in production from the land, whether it be live stock or timber, pit props, meat or milk. The same people find themselves hit several times over, and those who are responsible for providing employment in agricultural districts have an unnecessarily difficult time. We have our Debates here and discuss figures and returns, but the actual state of the industry and its requirements is almost entirely ignored.
      Since this Debate started last week many agriculturists in Scotland have acquainted me with the fact that they are very strongly opposed to the high proportion of the expenditure which goes on the staff of the Department, and I hope that the Secretary of State and the Chairman of the Department will take steps between them to keep it down. There is also the same criticism regarding the amount of money spent on land settlement in Scotland, or, rather, the pro-

      1689
      portion of the money which they consider has not been well spent. The hon. Member for East Fife (Sir J. Duncan Millar) drew our attention to the many difficulties of successful land settlement. The necessity for careful selection of holdings that are suitable cannot be emphasised too often. The unsuccessful holdings are either bad or difficult and almost impossible; the buildings are not always satisfactory and suitable and there is not always a good choice of occupiers of those holdings. By attention to those matters we can avoid undue extravagance.
      I would ask those who are most enthusiastic for land settlement not to be led away too much by endeavours to increase the numbers of holdings so fast as to make it uncertain that they are as satisfactory as they possibly can be. Oases have often been brought before me by smallholders, where greater sympathy might have been shown by our representatives in the Government or in the Board of Agriculture. Cases are well known where buildings have been unsatisfactory or, more likely, where the water supply has been deficient. If action by the Board could be rather more smooth and could meet the absolutely necessary requirements, those whom they settle on the land would have a more congenial occupation. Once the buildings are erected on behalf of the Government, the occupier is probably told: "We are no longer concerned with you, and you must try and squeeze something out of the ground landlord if you can do so." I hope, therefore, that such objections as one experiences against the system of dual ownership will be precluded in the future, if possible, by doing away with the system which has not worked satisfactorily.
      The Secretary of State for Scotland referred to the fortunate fact that there had been very few failures in cases of people settled on the land. Is this partly due to the fact that rents have not in more cases been economic rents, and that the taxpayer has really contributed considerably towards the rents for those holdings? Luckily, failures have not been frequent, but the position of many smallholders to-day is very difficult indeed and they are very near the line, and steps must be taken to help them, just as much as in the case of the larger farmers. Mention has been made of the importance
      1690
      of expenditure in regard to research. While we all realise the greater necessity for this, we should also recognise that much good work can be done, and is being done, without State expenditure necessarily, or assistance from public funds. As one privileged recently to visit the agricultural research sub-station which is being conducted by the Imperial Chemical Industries, I can testify to the very excellent results and valuable discoveries which are being made under private enterprise, and, as far as I know, without the use of any public funds. I feel sure that there are great practical results from this research station, and I dare say from many other similar ones, in regard to the best management of grasslands, the best and most economic methods for the improvement of crops, and the intensive uses and combinations of different types of manure.
      I hope that Scotland will get some useful advantage from those enterprises that are running without State funds, as I feel sure they will, as well as from those research stations which are being carried on under the Government. There is scope for more work of this kind without the use of funds from the Exchequer. I ask the Secretary of State and his colleagues if they will consider very sympathetically and try to give encouragement to those who are engaged in farming in Scotland.
      Mr. McKIE: This is one of those rare occasions when the House of Commons transforms itself for a few hours into the Scots Parliament. I welcome the opportunity that is before me of making a few remarks about the position of agriculture in Scotland generally, so far, of course, as; the limits of the Vote will permit me to do so. I should like, in passing, to thank the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) for the part that he has played in making it possible for us to continue this Debate to-day. I am sure I am voicing the sentiments of all connected with agriculture when I say that, although the hon. Member may be in opposition, on this occasion he has played a truly national part. Agriculture is one of the vital subjects and one which any Administration which claims to use the adjective "National" must tackle and grapple with speedily. The discussion has been an extremely interesting one, and all the points to which I wished to refer have already been made. I will merely confine myself to re-echoing what

      1691
      has already been said from the local point of view as, if I may say so, the representative of the largest area under cultivation in Great Britain.
      This is the first occasion when we have really discussed the position of agriculture in Scotland. Many references have been made on many occasions during the present Parliament to the parlous condition of agriculture throughout the land. Fortunately in the northern part of the country affairs are not so bad as they are in England, but that is no reason why we who represent Scottish agriculture should be content to lie back and remain in a negative position. The position there, although it is not so acute, largely owing to the mixed system of farming, is unhappily far too serious to permit of our pursuing a course which is not justified. It was very encouraging to hear the right hon. Gentleman, in opening this Debate this afternoon, speak in such a direct manner about the necessity of speedily tackling this difficult subject, and associating himself with all that was said about him by his colleague the Minister for Agriculture. It is certainly very encouraging, after we have so often heard in this House the old argument, "What is the use of doing anything for agriculture in a small island such as this. It is merely necessary to concentrate upon the basic industries and leave agriculture to work out its own salvation." That is the theory which has been held by an enormous majority of the people of this country for far too long. It is owing to the fact that that theory has dominated the mind of the nation that agriculture has been prevented from having its voice heard. We hope, that now that we have got a national Parliament, and that the mind of the nation is awakening to the necessity of doing something, that Parliament is really going to do its best by the most ancient of all industries.
      I have heard it said that when industry flourishes agriculture will, as a natural sequence of events, flourish also. Even those who have the most cursory knowledge of matters pertaining to agriculture will, after a few minutes' reflection, give a direct negative to any such statement as that. When industry during the long Free Trade era of this country reached its highest pinnacle, agriculture was in its lowest depths, as low, proportion-
      1692
      ately, as it finds itself to-day. It is extremely difficult, owing to the poverty of the industry, to frame a comprehensive policy to meet the requirements of all who are engaged in agriculture. That has been the difficulty in the past, and it is the difficulty to-day. One great step forward has, at all events, been made, and one of the greatest obstacles of the past was that three elements in agricultural life were at variance and cross-purposes as to what was best to be done. These three were the owner of the land, the occupier of the land, and the labourer who maintains himself on the land by the sweat of his brow. In the past they have generally been in conflict, but to-day you have the spectacle of those three different orders of agricultural society realising that their objective is a common one, and that there is nothing to be gained but everything to be lost in a clash of opinion such as has prevailed in the past. They must go forward in a solid body to demand that their common industry shall have justice meted out to it.
      6.0 p.m.
      We have had a good deal of discussion about cereal farming in Scotland. Cereal farming in Scotland has not bulked very largely in the minds of the agricultural population. I am not for one moment suggesting that we should try to hold the balance between the cereal producer and the animal producers in Scotland, as we are doing in England by the Wheat Quota, in that much-discussed Measure which is now an Act of Parliament. It has frequently been said that the Wheat Quota Bill was responsible for antagonising the agricultural interest in Scotland, and that it hardly touched them or benefited them. The Agricultural industry in Scotland welcomed the wheat quota because it was the first step to the thorough reorganisation of the industry. Wheat certainly is grown in Scotland, or it has been grown up to the present. I do not know what will happen if an intensified system is pursued. Wheat has only been grown in very small quantities, and the same is true of the other cereals which we have already been discussing. The other cereal product that bulks largely is, of course, oats, which are grown very largely in Scotland for home consumption, to be consumed, so to speak, on the premises. A certain amount of surplus is left over. I was speaking to a prominent Scottish agriculturist yesterday, and he said that it is in regard to

      1693
      that surplus that they feel they are not getting fair play. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Burnett) spoke about the necessity of doing something to stop the coining into this country products from Russia, chiefly oats, which come in by the process which is commonly known as dumping. It is almost entirely in regard to oats that the dumping menace in Scotland is so great. The Noble Lord the Member for Perthshire (Lord Scone) made that point in connection with many other projects in his speech on Wednesday last. I would like, on behalf of the oat producers in Scotland, to say that they feel very keenly indeed that this matter of dumping is one that must be dealt with very drastically indeed. So much for cereal farming, which, as I have said, occupies such a small space in the minds and lives of Scottish agriculturists. There can be no doubt that it is the animal production side of the industry in Scotland, just as in England, which, if it is helped along, as we hope and believe it is going to be, will restore agriculture to its original position. In the sphere of animal products, two main items stand out as of paramount importance. Those are the branches connected with the dairying industry and that of meat production itself. What is the position of the dairy farmer in Scotland? I cannot help saying, in passing, that it is rather amusing to find that in the Twentieth Report of the Department of Agriculture, Section XI begins with a reference to an "Investigation of the profitableness of farming." As regards the dairy farmer, his position is certainly not one that would permit him to read with calmness a section with such a title. His position is insecure in the extreme. At this very moment, people are going about the country in Scotland explaining at meetings of dairy farmers the proposals of the Government with regard to the milk reorganisation scheme. I am sorry that those explanations have not been more joyfully received. There has been a good deal of heckling when those who are charged with this matter have stated their views, and questions have been invited. There is keen interest on the part of the farming public as to whether this scheme is really going to put them in a better position with regard to the marketing of their milk, and whether it is going to meet with greater success than did the
      1694
      milk pool, which was tried not very long ago and which ended in dire failure.
      It may be said that the milk pool failed because it failed to secure the wholehearted co-operation of the milk producers-of Scotland, and there may be a grain of truth in that suggestion, but every producer who is qualified to speak on the matter will tell you that the real reason why the milk pool failed was because of the uncontrolled foreign imports of milk, both in the condensed and, sometimes, in the liquid form, that were coming into this country. The answer, no doubt, will be that the 10 per cent, duty will meet that situation, but I very much doubt if it will, and those who are actively engaged in the farming industry are also wondering considerably whether that 10 per cent, duty will really meet the requirements of the case. They believe that some better organisation than that will be necessary if the marketing of milk and the question of dealing with surplus milk are to be handled in a way that is calculated to produce the results which we all desire to see. I have noticed that at many such meetings the question of cheese has been raised. That is a question which interests me very much from the agricultural point of view. At one meeting in particular, about which I was reading the other day, the point was directly made as to how the question of cheese could be dealt with so as to give our producers the chance that they must have if they are to go on producing, when we have cheese coming in, not only from outside the British Commonwealth of Nations, but from Canada and New Zealand as well, at a price with which our home producers cannot possibly hope to compete.
      As regards the main pivot of the animal production side of agriculture, namely, meat itself, that is the crux of the whole situation, because it touches the unemployment problem at first hand. If you have a real livestock policy, if you set out to produce the greatest amount of meat that you can economically in this country, holding the balance, as we all wish to do, you will directly relieve the strain of unemployment, and you will see gradually dribbling back to the land some of those who have left it in recent years and gone into the towns, adding to the large numbers there who are in the ranks of the unemployed. A vigorous livestock policy will do this because it ensures in the rotation the place of the green crop,

      1695
      which directly calls for increased labour in agriculture. But, just as we hope that some security is going to be offered in the nature of marketing, so we hope that some security is going to be offered in regard to the price that the producer is going to receive for his wares. I would suggest, and I think the farming community in Scotland as a whole would suggest, that what is required is the fixation, not necessarily of a maximum price, but a minimum price. A minimum price judiciously fixed would cause inconvenience to no one. The consumer would not suffer, because to-day the hiatus between the price that the wholesaler receives and the price that the retailer demands is so very large that the middleman would never have, shall I say, the effrontery to charge more than he is charging at the present time. I believe that a minimum price would meet the requirements of the situation. If security is not offered in this matter of price, there can be no doubt that the danger to the wages of those engaged in the agricultural industry will become a very live one indeed.
      I spoke about this matter some two months ago, in the first Debate on the Agricultural Vote for England, and I remember that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who followed me, said that it was no use talking in that way about the necessity of raising prices so as to make more secure the position of the agricultural labourer. He said that it could never be done in that way, and that such talk was mere cant. I am afraid that, with all the deference with which on many occasions I bow to the views of the right hon. Gentleman, I cannot accept the truth of such a statement as that. Although the agricultural industry to-day is at as low an ebb as it was 40 years ago, in the last decade of the last century, wages, in Scotland at all events, are still twice as high as they were at that date. It may be said that the value of money has changed, but that is no reason why we who represent Scottish agriculture and Scottish agricultural labourers should be content to leave matters to drift owing to our inaction in not urging upon the Government the necessity of doing something; it is no reason why we should allow the wages of Scottish agricultural labourers to be placed in continuing jeopardy. The majority of those of us
      1696
      who are connected with Scottish agriculture, and with agriculture in Great Britain as a whole, believe that it is only by means of a strong livestock policy that the industry can be put once again in a fighting position.
      In a few weeks' time that great Conference—I only refer to it incidentally—will take place at Ottawa, and it is the growing hope and belief of the farming community that our representatives at that Conference will come back to us with concrete proposals. We hope that a very firm hand will be taken in regard to British agriculture. We do not wish to see it made a shuttlecock for the purpose of obtaining the best bargain with regard to other industries. The fear lest agriculture should become a pawn in that way is a very live one in the hearts especially of Scottish agriculturists at the present time. We believe that the representatives of the Dominions will see our point of view, which is that, no matter how we may try to extend the idea of freer trade within the Empire—a most laudable sentiment and practical proposal—no scheme such as this will have the results that we all wish to see as the outcome of the Ottawa Conference which does not make for home preference first, allowing the Dominions only the second mortgage.
      We in Scotland are not lovers of Protection for its own sake, as I am certain those who occupy the Liberal benches will agree. Neither are we Free Traders, nor have we been in the past Free Traders, just for Free Trade's sake. I think that, with all our faults and shortcomings, which no doubt are many, we can at all events claim to be fairly logical and hard-headed, and we realise sometimes that it is impossible any longer to kick against the pricks. Just as St. Paul, going down the road to Damascus, was suddenly dazzled by a blazing light that was let in upon him, so we to-day realise that it is impossible any longer to resist the force of present-day economic conditions. At the last General Election, the National Government appealed for a free hand, and the agriculturists of Scotland were by no means in the background in making it possible for that Government to be returned with the huge majority behind it that it had, in order that it might carry out a real national policy, not being tied or bound to any one line of action, but free to explore every

      1697
      avenue whereby alleviation could be brought to the distressed industry of agriculture as a whole. We tried to do our bit, and we hope sincerely, and we believe, that the National Government will do its duty also by Scottish agriculture. I am certain that our confidence will have been justified before its tenure of office is over. I have endeavoured to put the case as best I could on behalf of the industry which I represent, and about which I feel so keenly, and I thank you very much, Sir Dennis, for having allowed me to do so.
      Mr. MACQUISTEN: I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) that we should not make captious speeches making further demands on the Treasury. That is an easy line to take, but in these times, when the country is groaning under the burden of taxation, I do not think it is a sound line to follow at all I do not want any further grants, but there is money floating about and I could take the Secretary of State to parts of Scotland where money could be more usefully spent than it is being spent now. At Dingwall, for instance, money could be far better spent in giving the people the opportunity of earning their daily bread than in feeding them on the East wind of a clerical education. When one sees the right hon. Gentleman there and considers where he came from, one is reminded of the fly in the amber, and wonders how he got there. He represents a minority party in a policy to which the majority of the House is opposed. I do not suppose we can get a great deal of help from a Liberal, except that association with his colleagues may bring him to see the light, and I hope that in the course of time he may become a much more patriotic citizen. Scotland has been a kind of dumping-ground for people from England who were no use here. The right hon. Gentleman is, at all events, a Scotsman, and that is an enormous advantage. It is not like having an English Member put into that position.
      The hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. R. W. Smith) seemed to be surprised that, in spite of all the cuts that have been made, Government officials are in no way restricted. He forgot that, when you come to deal with the Government official class, you are
      1698
      dealing with a priestly, saintly, sanctified class. I have no doubt that the Government officials from the Board of Agriculture are doing their duty as well as can be expected. The were established originally in 1912 and 1913 by the Liberal party, but I question very much if the many millions that have been expended on them could not have been much more usefully applied. I remember in 1922, in connection with their policy of settling people on the land, I found out that the expenses of the Board of Agriculture would have provided every man who had been settled on the land with a pension of 30s. a week for life and allowed him to buy a smallholding for himself. I am not surprised that the officials have not been cut down. We see the same thing in America, and we see here that, as soldiers and sailors grow fewer, the War Office and the Admiralty increase. I suppose the Board of Agriculture will increase until agriculture itself dies down altogether. That will be the end of it.
      One of the reports on smallholdings said that the Board of Agriculture attributed the success of these men in small cultivation to the fact that their wives have been brought up on farms and knew something about it,.and that it was hopeless for men to succeed unless their partners assisted in the work. That is a very sound observation. That is how smallholders succeed. It used to be the practice, I am told, in Perthshire 60 or 70 years ago, for farmers not to have farm servants. They had smallholders surrounding them with two or three acres each. They worked on the same principle as the forestry people work to-day. They do not engage men in the forests to work for 365 days in the year less the 52 allowed for the Sabbath. They give them 150 days' work in the forest, and give them a smallholding and.say, "Earn your living on your own holding and grow your own food." It is open to the farmers to do that to-day without any interference from the Board of Agriculture. Why do they not give their men a certain amount of land and guarantee them only so many days' work and cease buying agricultural produce in the market—bacon, eggs and vegetables?
      That is the real trouble with agriculture and horticulture. The produce cannot stand three profits. It cannot stand producers, middlemen and re-

      1699
      tailers, with the expenses of each. The labourer ought to be in a position to produce the things he lives on and, with a wage for so many days' work in the year, that would be very much better than having a money wage all the year and having to buy at the shops. The real solution of the agricultural problem is to get an economic market. If you could manage by some sort of co-operation—I do not know that the Government could do it—to bring producer and consumer face to face the problem would be solved. With regard to the taxation of meat which has been suggested, in the old days we had enormous herds of cattle. I believe we could practically feed ourselves in this country if we cultivated our land intensely. I believe we could produce all our pig supplies, eggs and bacon, but I doubt very much if we could ever produce butcher meat, in the sense of oxen, as cheaply as can be done in the Argentine. I have had a good deal of information supplied to me, and it has shaken me to some extent. But, with regard to pig products, we ought to produce all our own, and that would itself mean an enormous amount of labour in cultivation of the land, and it would help in adjusting the balance of trade.
      6.30 p.m.
      We in Scotland, of course, have many grievances. The growing of barley is one of our greatest industries, but it is taxed to the extent of £300 to £350 per acre. That would never have been put on by a Scottish Parliament. That is a very great grievance and, until there is some modification of it, we cannot expect that the Scottish barley-grower will get a chance. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to keep that in view. I do not think he can do anything in the present state of the country's finances, but he might try of see if he cannot mitigate the taxation so that in time he will be able to do something to restore this Scottish industry to the prosperity to which it is entitled. The Scottish farmer is the best in the world. I was very proud, when I was in Rhodesia on the last two occasions, to discover that the greatest farmer in Africa was a comparatively young man who had been a successful farmer in Scotland. He was a Highlander from Argyll. He went there and took charge of one of the biggest farms in Africa, and brought a huge place to prosperity where everyone else had failed. We have to
      1700
      begin with children at an early stage to make them love agriculture. It is the greatest and highest of occupations. More than any other, it brings home to the soul of man that he is going into partnership with the Almighty. If we can get that instilled into the bosoms of our children, we shall get our land cultivated, there will be no difficulty and there will be nothing but prosperity for our country.
      Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: We must compliment the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) upon the very skilful way in which he, brought in the difficulties of the industry and so enabled the Chairman, evidently, to keep a blind eye on the subject-matter of the discussion.
      Mr. MACQUISTEN: It was quite in order.
      Mr. MACLEAN: The way in which the hon. and learned Member brought them in was quite in order. If they had been introduced in the usual manner, they would have come under the ken of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and he, and not the Secretary of State for Scotland, would have had something to say on the matter. I intend to address the Committee on the question of smallholdings and call attention to the amounts by which some of the Votes have been reduced. The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire spoke about the necessity of better marketing, and yet I did not find him taking exception to the Estimate in which the amount provided to assist in the marketing of Scottish agricultural produce has been reduced by £4,000. Both the hon. and learned Member and an hon. Member sitting behind him strongly criticised the Secretary of State for Scotland because of his party predilections, and not because of his position as Secretary of State for Scotland. He was criticised rather because he was a member of the Liberal party, and, according to the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire and his colleague behind him, evidently occupied the position of the cukoo in the nest.
      The point which strikes me most in the Estimate is the amount which is being taken from Scottish agriculture. The amount by which the Estimate in regard to marketing is reduced, as compared

      1701
      with last year, is £4,832, and, as far as drainage is concerned, the Estimate is reduced by £31,000 as compared with last year. There is a total net reduction in the whole of the Estimate of £95,666 as compared with the Estimate of last year. I submit that in these days, although the cry is for economy, that kind of economy is not justified when one compares the Scottish agricultural Estimate with the Estimate for English agriculture. The percentage reduction of the Scottish Estimate is considerably higher than the percentage reduction of the English Estimate. I am not surprised that so many matters have had to be completely held up because of the way in which the Scottish Office is evidently compelled to save at the expense of agriculture. The Agriculture (Scotland) Fund (including Grants-in-Aid) has been reduced by £49,000. The Estimate for the improvement of livestock is reduced by £2,000, and yet at one time Scottish livestock was included among the finest specimens of pedigree cattle and horses one could find anywhere in the world, so much so that large numbers of prize pedigree stock in Scotland were purchased by breeders from abroad and exported to the Argentine and used in that country in order to bring about a better breed of cattle and horses. Now we find the Secretary of State for Scotland coming before the Committee with an Estimate for the reduction of the amount to be expended upon the development and improvement of one of our finest products as far as exports go.
      The reduction in regard to land drainage is approximately £31,000, and yet we find in the report of the Department of Agriculture a number of places mentioned which are still liable to flooding. In those places nothing, evidently, is being done or can be done to safeguard the inhabitants from the damage which arises from flooding. I will take one place which lies outside the city of Glasgow. For some years the Kelvin Valley has been subjected to considerable flooding. The late Member for West Stirlingshire used to raise the question periodically because of the constant flooding which took place when there was anything like an excessive rainfall in the area. As far as the Kelvin Valley is concerned, the report says:
      "In view, of the financial situation and the Committee's observations, further
      1702
      action in regard to the promotion of this scheme was suspended."
      That is the scheme to carry out work in the area to prevent a continuation of flooding. Flooding is to continue in that particular area. Considerable damage has been done, not merely to the households of people dwelling in the area, but to a very decent agricultural part of the country. Damage is to be permitted to be done there because of the financial straits of this country. I submit that no financial difficulty should be allowed to stand in the way of necessary repairs. If there were a house in this country which was not watertight, and the landlord would not make it watertight, all that would have to be done would be to report the matter to the local authority and have the matter put right at once. No protestations on the part of the owner of the property as to his being in financial difficulties would prevent the work from being carried out. I cannot, for the life of me, see why in this country valuable land upon which good food can be grown is to remain the subject of flooding for years to come, because we are told the country is in financial difficulties. You are putting those who are cultivating the land into greater financial difficulties by the refusal to drain the ground properly.
      Take the Spey Valley. At Garmouth, a place which I know something about, and which is not far removed from Lossiemouth, the Prime Minister's birthplace, houses are flooded time after time. The railway company, which is one of the parties to the proposed scheme, is, I understand, prepared to go on with the scheme to prevent the flooding of that area. The landowner, I understand, takes a different point of view, and, in consequence, according to the report of the Department of Agriculture, all that is done, seeing that the scheme to prevent flooding cannot be proceeded with, is to tell the local authorities to build houses on a higher stretch of ground and remove the people there. A more stupid method of attacking the flood problem I have never read in any report. The country is in financial difficulties and cannot prevent flooding in a particular area, but the local authority are advised, with financial assistance from a Government in such difficult straits that they cannot prevent flooding, to institute a building scheme. It is almost too absurd to believe that such a contradictory situa-

      1703
      tion could be put into a report of the Department of Agriculture and submitted to the House of Commons for acceptance.
      Can the Secretary of State for Scotland say why greater activity is not being shown in placing applicants upon smallholdings? About 6,000 people have been put into smallholdings. There are 7,000 applications pending, and between 11,000 and 12,000 applications have been withdrawn. Can one wonder that so many people withdraw their applications when it has taken so many years for some people to get smallholdings? The right hon. Gentleman will remember that a few years ago I brought to the attention of the House the cases of two men who had made applications for smallholdings in 1912, who went through the War, came back as ex-service men in 1918, and yet in 1926 were still applying for smallholdings. Finally these men had to take possession of land, and in consequence they were put into prison as land raiders. Can one wonder that men become desperate and forcibly take possession of land after having had their applications in for 14 years, having fought in the War and having been brought up on the land with all the qualifications necessary for tilling the soil and making something out of smallholdings? Is there not some justification for people withdrawing their applications when they find the Scottish Office so slow in inquiring into their cases and in obtaining the land necessary when they have found people suitable for placing upon the land?
      I am not blaming the present Secretary of State for Scotland. Probably I could blame him less than the Secretaries of State for Scotland who preceded him. He has been in office less than a year. He is standing here to answer for the sins of his predecessors, but I hope that he will not put himself into the position, when future Votes come up for discussion, of being put upon the cross in the way his predecessors have been because of his inactivity in regard to the same matter. I trust that when next the same Vote comes before the Committee, he will at least have some justification and satisfaction in submitting his report to the House and showing a very marked increase in the number of people who have been placed in smallholdings, and also a
      1704
      very large improvement in agriculture throughout the whole of Scotland.
      The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Sir Archibald Sinclair): We have had a very interesting Debate, to which helpful contributions have been made from every quarter of the Committee. I enjoy the position to-day of being the party attacked instead of finding myself amongst the attackers. I am in one sense of the word, getting a little of my own back. All the speeches, including the attacks— the rapier touches of the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) and the more cumbersome bludgeon wielded by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Stuart)—have been stimulating. A great deal of useful information has been given and much light has been thrown upon the problems discussed. It has been suggested by several speakers—I think the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) was the first to suggest it, and other hon. Members followed him on the same line—that when I introduced this Vote I made an optimistic speech. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs said that it was a flowery speech. Hon. Members have overlooked a very important part of the speech, in which I said clearly that there never was a time when farmers were contending against so many and such adverse handicaps as to-day.
      Far from wishing to be foolishly optimistic, I say that the situation is serious, but I also say that we may have grounds for confidence in the future, knowing the whole history of Scottish farming and the progressive spirit in which Scottish farmers are attacking their difficulties, and conscious, as the majority in this House are, that the Government are putting their backs into the work and doing their best for the farming community. There are certainly some grounds upon which we may base what I would call not an unreasonable or easy optimism, but a feeling that if we do pull together and if all the Measures of the Government can be brought to a successful issue, then indeed agriculture will come into its own in Scotland as in other parts of the country and that it will be not the least prosperous of our industries. On the other hand, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) took a

      1705
      different view of my speech and said that it was an apology for economy. It was very far from being that.
      On nearly every occasion that I have been present when the Scottish Estimates have been presented the Secretary of State has had more or less to take an apologetic view of economies, but for the first time that I have known in this House I felt bound to strike a different note. I said that, far from apologising for economy, having regard to the economic position of the country and the financial necessities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer I had to justify the expenditure of every shilling in the Estimates. It was from that standpoint I expounded the Estimates. The hon. and learned Member for Argyll said that he knew of a way in which I could make economies. It would be improper for me to follow him into a discussion of the particular item to which he referred, but I can assure him that there is not a chance of £50,000 being saved in this year at Dingwall and there is no proposal at all to spend £50,000 on any such purpose this year. I hope, however, that we shall have an opportunity later on in the evening of dealing with that particular misrepresentation, not made deliberately by the hon. and learned Member but due to a misunderstanding.
      References have been made to the difficulties of almost every branch of Scottish farming. Hon. Members will forgive me at this hour and with a large agenda still before us if I do not go into every argument that has been used, or if I do not deal with every branch of farming, but there was one matter which was mentioned by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) in his very interesting speech, and the hon. Member for Kincardine (Mr. Barclay-Harvey), namely, cereal farming. I made it quite clear in my speech in introducing the Estimates that we definitely considered that a livestock policy is the important one for this country to pursue. We attach special importance to these branches of farming— livestock farming, dairying, and so forth—and I wish to make it quite clear to the Committee that that is the policy which we are pursuing. We do not in the least ignore the importance, indeed, we have proclaimed the importance of barley and oats. The Minister of Agri-
      1706
      culture has announced that the question of dealing with barley either on the same lines as wheat or in some other way is being studied now. He has announced that on behalf of the whole Government, and that study, difficult and complicated as it is, is being energetically pursued. But do not let hon. Members think that there is any chance—even if they distrust me, as the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn very frankly does, and do not let the Scottish farmers think that there is any need for them to share in the hon. and gallant Member's fears—of Scottish interests being overlooked, or of barley being overlooked because it is a Scottish interest. It is in greater proportion an English interest.
      There is more barley grown in Scotland than wheat. According to the last figures we had for 1930 there are 54,000 acres under wheat in Scotland and over 100,000 acres under barley. Wheat is far more important in England than in Scotland, and although barley is twice as important in Scotland as wheat, it is ten times as important for England as for Scotland, because there are 1,000,000 acres of barley in England as against 100,000 acres of barley in Scotland. Not only is it ten times as important to England |as it is to Scotland, but it is of greater relative importance in English economy than it is in Scottish economy. The easier way by far to deal with this particular problem would be to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire, as the most direct way of restoring prosperity, if it were possible, having regard to larger aspects of policy, but I am afraid that it would be impossible for me to do that by administrative action.
      The hon. Member for East Fife (Sir J. Duncan Millar) and one or two other hon. Members asked me to say something more clearly about the Government's agricultural objective.
      Mr. R. W. SMITH: Before the right hon. I Gentleman leaves the question of barley may I ask whether he has considered the possibility of staining?
      Sir A. SINCLAIR: Yes, and what is more important it is being considered by people who have a really expert knowledge of the process. That particular question has passed the phase of being studied by Ministers. We are anxious that, if possible, all the difficulties which

      1707
      attend that particular process should be overcome and the possibility of overcoming those difficulties is receiving the close study and attention of the experts. With regard to the Government's objective—
      Mr. STUART: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman himself would prefer to support an additional duty on malt and barley?
      Sir A. SINCLAIR: The Government's policy on this subject has been announced and it is a policy to which every Member of the Government is pledged. It was announced months ago by the Minister of Agriculture.
      Mr. STUART: I want to know whether the Secretary of State for Scotland is in agreement with that policy.
      Sir A. SINCLAIR: Of course he is in agreement with that policy. I have just said that I am in full and complete agreement with the policy which has been announced by the Government on that question. What are the objectives to which I have referred? First of all, the question of barley is one of the objectives to which the Minister of Agriculture has referred. Then there is the necessity of producing in this country the bacon and pork which we consume. Particularly, there is the bacon problem. That matter is the subject of study by the Reorganisation Commission at the present time. When I referred to the appropriateness of these objectives to Scottish conditions I had in mind the fact that the pig industry is making, I will not say great progress, because that would be an exaggeration, for no branch of agriculture is doing that at the present time; but it is being increasingly adopted in Scotland in small holding schemes assisted by the Department of Agriculture. They are very interesting schemes, one of which I visited a few weeks ago near Edinburgh. This is one of the directions in which the Department is moving.
      7.0 p.m.
      A good deal of research has been done on questions which will greatly facilitate a forward move in the pig industry. That problem is being studied by a commission on which Scotland is represented by Sir William Haldane. In regard to the milk industry we have set up a Milk Reorganisation Commission. As regards marketing, we have our own milk scheme which is now going through the various
      1708
      stages which are ordained by the Marketing Act. There is a Scottish liaison officer on the Milk Reorganisation Commission which is sitting in London, and therefore the closest possible contact is being preserved between the milk producing industry in Scotland and the work of the Reorganisation Commission in England. A great deal of work had been done in Scotland before the policy was announced, in regard to such matters as research and disease, and we are increasing that work now and working towards an objective which will be directly useful in the development of the Government's policy for the dairying industry. The hon. Members for Central Aberdeen (Mr. R. W. Smith) and North Aberdeen (Mr. Burnett) referred to the question of beef. In regard to that we have been conducting research with the object of helping the producers. I have now requested the Scottish agricultural organisation society to draw up a marketing scheme on the lines for which the farmers asked in the resolution they passed at Inverness a few weeks ago. The question of grading is also receiving very careful examination.
      I should have liked to have said a good deal more on these wider questions of policy, but I do not wish to miss answering the very many points that have been raised in the Debate, so I will pass on. Various criticisms were made by several speakers in regard to the land settlement proposals in these Estimates. On the one hand, the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs and the right hon. and learned Member for Ross and Cromarty declared that we ought not to economise in this direction, and, on the other hand, several hon. Members have declared that we have not economised enough. The right hon. and learned Member for Ross and Cromarty said that this was a very sad state of affairs, and that there was no money for the settlement of new holdings.
      Mr. MACPHERSON: We strongly object to and resent the fact that millions of pounds are being spent without any cuts at all on the Zambesi and in Palestine, whereas a great cut has been made in the miserable pittance we get for agriculture in Scotland.
      Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am quite prepared to take the fullest responsibility for everything which is in these Estimates,

      1709
      and I do not in the least resent but, indeed, welcome helpful criticisms of our proposals: but I cannot be held responsible for the expenditure of other Departments. The hon. Member said it was a very sad state of affairs because there was no money for the settlement of new holders. I can assure him that that is a mistake, and I can only repeat what I said when we discussed this last week, that we were able to make economies this year without for the remaining part of the year retarding progress on adaptation work on properties already acquired, and I pointed out there could be no more false economy than to slow down that process of adaptation, for the more quickly properties once acquired could be passed through the machinery of the Department, the move economical the settlement would be.
      If I may return for one moment to the subject of marketing, the hon. and learned Member for East Fife asked about the co-operation of the auctioneers in the marketing scheme. I have still good hopes of their co-operation. If we can get that co-operation, it will be very valuable and will smooth the progress of the scheme. I shall be very glad indeed if it can be assured. Of course the board will be a producers' board, but I certainly hope we shall get that co-operation.
      To return to the question of land settlement, the hon. and learned Member for East Fife gave a very discouraging account of the settlement at Crail, which was echoed by several other speakers who referred to the difficulties in regard to the water supply and other points. I think this complaint and some of the other complaints made during the Debate relate to a period which is passed, a period when smallholdings were being formed under great pressure, at the highest level of prices, and by an inexperienced staff hastily recruited immediately after the War. I have said before that mistakes were made then, but we are overcoming them, and, in the particular case referred to, that of Crail, my recent reports are good. I am told that the provision of a satisfactory water supply did present very serious difficulties, but that it was met by the installation of a filtration plant which cost £900. I am told now that the holdings are being well cultivated, and that they have held one of the most successful shows in the country.
      Sir J. DUNCAN MILLAR: I gave cases where the holdings were not yet wholly satisfactory. The scheme is working better, but there are certain holdings which require further consideration.
      Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am glad the hon. Member agrees that the scheme is working more satisfactorily, and if the hon. and learned Member will give me particulars of the complaints that he is still receiving, I will certainly look into them. Several hon. Members have criticised me in regard to this economy on smallholdings but on this occasion, if I am criticised on the score of undue economy, my withers are un-wrung. We have to relate every Estimate to the general financial situation of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has to balance the Budget, and that being the problem with which the Government are faced, it is apparent that every Department has to make its contribution, and even useful, valuable and productive expenditure has to be cut out in every direction. It is for that reason that we are not able to do more in land settlement now.
      Mr. N. MACLEAN: I was referring to the large number of arrears on smallholdings.
      Sir A. SINCLAIR: I agree that there are a very large number of arrears, and we want to get on with the job. In every part of the House there will be support for a forward land settlement policy in better times, but the limiting factor at present is the financial factor. There may be differences between us as to the policy of land settlement which can be overcome, but at the present time finance is the limiting factor. I was also asked about research by the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard), and by the hon. Member for Aberdeen and Kincardine (Mr. Barclay-Harvey) who referred to the limitations which wore necessary on grounds of economy. I share fully their views, and deplore the necessity for cutting expenditure in this particular direction. It can only be defended on general grounds of broad financial policy, and not on any particular ground in relation to agricultural policy. But I would like to make it clear that the economies have been almost entirely obtained by the postponement of buildings. It is not the case that we are checking the work that is now being done,

      1711
      or undoing that work. What we are doing is advancing at a less rapid pace than has been done in the past. A big building programme, which was in contemplation last year, has been cut down. Expansions are not being made which were envisaged last year. To that extent, it is true to say we are slowing down the progress which had been anticipated last year, but the work of research is going on uninterruptedly and with unabated zeal: It is only expansion which is retarded.
      The hon. Member for Central Aberdeen referred to the Macaulay Institute and made some criticism as to the amount of money which we are spending on that particular institute for research. Let me explain that the £4,000 is not new money. It is transferred from the advisory work already done in the agricultural colleges and out of the £4,381 only £276 is new money. Moreover it should be remembered that we owe it in a very large measure to the great generosity of Mr. Macaulay himself, who provided for its acquisition and equipment and upkeep, including the farm in Lewis, a sum of money which I cannot estimate at the moment, but which would run into five figures, say £20,000 to £25,000. Moreover) it is doing very valuable work outside that particular branch to which the hon. Member refers, such as the mineral analysis of soils and other research work to which I referred in introducing the Estimates. The hon. Member referred to economy in drainage. As regards hill drainage, we have been fortunate in Scotland in being able to continue a service which has been abandoned altogether in England and Wales, and the greater part of the economy has been in the matter of arterial drainage. At a time when ecoomy is so necessary, it was felt that it was impossible to justify so large an expenditure as £24,000 on the Kelvin scheme, to deal with only 2,580 acres. I am far from saying that the scheme is abandoned. There are many arguments which may be brought forward in favour of it, but at the present time we consider that it is not one which we should be justified in undertaking.
      Mr. N. MACLEAN: With regard to the Kelvin scheme, it is not so much the acreage which is flooded as the damage that is done to other parts by the flooding of the area.
      Sir A. SINCLAIR: I dare say there is something in that point. I do not say that the scheme is a bad one, or that no Government will undertake it; but it is not a scheme which we should be justified in undertaking at the present time. As regards the Garmouth scheme, it is much cheaper to rebuild the houses than to spend money on these works. It would be many times more expensive to undertake this scheme than it would be to rebuild the houses.
      Mr. MACLEAN: Were the two parties owning the land which constitutes the flooded area and causing the damage, willing to bear their fair share of the expenditure on works which are necessary to prevent flooding?
      Sir A. SINCLAIR: Thai depends on the definition of "their fair share." The fact remains that a large sum of the money required would have fallen on the State, and, as I say, it would be much cheaper to rebuild the houses. In regard to the question of agricultural credits, the position is that all matters of principle have now been settled between the Department of Agriculture, the Treasury and the four banks concerned, and formal documents setting up the company are now before the Treasury for final adjustment. I am assured that a short period should see the successful completion of this difficult business. There has been delay which I greatly regret and deplore, but I can assure the Committee that the Department of Agriculture has done everything in its power to accelerate the matter. We are fully alive to its importance, and I hope that the period of delay has now come to an end. The hon. Member for Aberdeen West raised the question of the staff. I gave the Committee figures on the last occasion to show that we were doing our utmost to reduce the staff. First of all that we had reduced the number, abolished a number of posts of about £4,000 a year, and that we were not filling other posts, although they appear in the Estimates.
      The hon. Member has complained that we are not doing enough, and that in years past there had been a steady growth of the staff. There is a simple and important answer to that complaint, which I think hon. Members should take into account, and that is the amount of

      1713
      work which the House of Commons, session after session, in recent years has been putting on the Department of Agriculture. I am not going into the question as to whether these measures were right or not, but I have here a long list of Acts of Parliament passed in recent years all of which have increased the duties thrown upon the Department of Agriculture. Take, for example, the year 1924–25, in which there was the British Sugar (Subsidy) Act, for which regulations had to be framed, the payment of subsidies arranged, and a large amount of routine correspondence performed. There was the Milk and Dairies Act, the Agricultural Returns Act. In 1926–27 there was the Heather Burning (Scotland) Act, the Markets and Fairs Act, and in 1928–29 the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Act, and the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Act, all of which threw additional duties on the Department of Agriculture.
      At the same time there was an expansion of business with which the Department is charged, such as the Scottish Horticultural Advisory Committee, the annual preparation and issue of the tables of the residual values of feeding stuffs and manures, and the issue and administration of new orders under the Destruction of Insects and Pests Act, administration on behalf of the Empire Marketing Board, and the administration of various works and schemes in other directions. At the same time there was an increase in the acreage of the estates belonging to the board. At the present time the total number of rents payable half-yearly and requiring to be collected is 3,676 and the total number of annuities which are collected half-yearly, in repayment on loans, is 4,322. That means that there are about 16,000 documents a year on that score alone. Some allowance, therefore, must be made in these circumstances for the automatic growth of the responsibilities of the Department when hon. Members are considering the increase in the staff. I can only repeat the assurance I have already given, that we shall continue to pursue economy in this direction and continue to cut down the staff wherever it is possible. This question is constantly under review with a view to further economies.
      Mr. R. W. SMITH: The Secretary of State has referred to the Bill which I had the honour of introducing, the Heather Burning Bill, as one of the causes of the increase in staff. Might I suggest that if all branches of the Department were run as cheaply as the Heather Burning Act, £50 a year, it would be an excellent thing.
      Sir A. SINCLAIR: The hon. Member must remember that I took a few years as they came, and, while it is obvious that the Heather Burning Act did not add substantially to the duties of the Department, it nevertheless is true that the long list of Bills which have been passed during recent years has added considerably to the work of the Department of Agriculture. I have answered as best I can most of the points which have been raised during the Debate, and I can only assure hon. Members that all the points will be carefully considered by the Department and by myself.
      I have already said that it was unfair to describe my speech last week as being unduly optimistic. Of course it is true that every branch of farming, not only in this country, but in every country of the world is afflicted by great depression. Many interesting suggestions have been made for dealing with the problem which lies at the root of the agricultural difficulty and to restore equilibrium between costs and prices, but there is one great fundamental fact which will strike every one who has studied the agricultural situation, and that is that there are to-day in the world 25,000,000 people out of work, and if you allow one dependant to each of these you have 50,000,000 people unemployed, an aggregation greater than the whole population of these islands. That is what I meant when I said that the main battle for agriculture cannot be won on a purely agricultural front, but having said that I said, do not let us abandon ourselves to despair. There has been a little too much pessimism about agriculture. It has come to be regarded as a kind of poor relation to other industries. I feel convinced that agriculture in this country has a great future. Let us concentrate upon making the most of those features of the situation which are most favourable to its development. That, at any rate, I case assure the Committee will be the constant aim and determination

      1715
      of His Majesty's Government, of which I have the honour to be a member and of the Department over which I have the honour to preside.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLASS III.

      REGISTER HOUSE, EDINBURGH.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £90, 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 3lst day of March, 1933, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices in His Majesty's General Register House, Edinburgh."—[NOTE.—£10 has been voted on account.]
      Mr. N. MACLEAN: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £10.
      7.30 p.m.
      This is a matter which affects Scotland very much indeed. The amount of money which is devoted to the recording and the indexing of the historical records of Scotland is in no way comparable with the amount that is required, and no matter how efficient the staff might be there is not a sufficient number of them to codify the records, and consequently large numbers of very valuable documents which ought to be collected, indexed and made available for research work are lying neglected and becoming practically useless. The present Estimate is for only £200, whereas England is asking for and probably will obtain £2,300 for similar purposes. Although there is not sufficient money to provide for the proper collection and maintenance of Scottish records, there is plenty of money for English and Welsh purposes. Whereas only £455 is given to the National Library for Scotland, £15,300 is given to the Welsh National Library. If such a large sum of money can be voted to the National Library of Wales there is no reason why a proportionate amount should be withheld from Scotland.
      Mr. J. WALLACE: I have pleasure in associating myself with the statement made by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean). This question has to do with an old grievance about which I knew very little until quite recently. I happened to read an article in the "Scotsman" of 28th April last, which
      1716
      gave a very full account of the whole position. But up to that time I had no idea of the disgraceful condition into which the Record Office in Edinburgh had got. It has been the subject of many representations in past years. At the last meeting of the Convention of Royal Burghs the representatives present thought it was not the slightest use to raise the question again with Scottish Members of Parliament, as they had been disappointed so frequently. The attitude in Scotland to-day, I understand, is that nothing will be done at all in order to right what is a very definite Scottish wrong. A deputation which we met last evening was composed of reputable Scottish gentlemen who knew exactly the importance of the subject about which they spoke. They surprised most of the Scottish Members who were present.
      What is the position? We have, I am afraid to say how many hundreds of thousands of valuable historical records uncodified, uncalendared, and unclassed in any way whatever. They are lying about in the garrets and the cellars of the Register House, and many of them, I am told, are in a state of hopeless decay. I find it almost impossible to believe what I have been told about those records, but it is a fact that very strong representations have been made to the Scottish Office and to the Government before on the subject. I understand that in 1922 very strong representations were made to the Scottish Office; again in 1929; and once more in 1930, to the late Secretary for Scotland, Mr. William Adamson. We have a paltry sum of £200 allocated in these Estimates for these historical documents. It is impossible even to make a beginning with the work with a sum of that kind.
      The complaint is twofold: First, that these documents are not looked after in any proper way and that they are being allowed to decay; and, secondly, that the staff is utterly inadequate to do the work. It is almost impossible to get recruits to enter this particular service in Scotland. That was the testimony we got last evening, with every possible evidence to support it. As a Scottish Member I ask, how is it that the Scottish Office permits this to go on? The whole history of the Records Office is one of parsimonious neglect so far as the Treasury is concerned. But we have a Secretary of State for Scotland. I remember that when I

      1717
      was last in the House I took a small part in bringing to the notice of the House the unfairness of our having only a Secretary for Scotland instead of a Secretary of State, and I was very glad when the higher status was granted later. The Secretary of State occupies a very important position in the Cabinet, and the country and I cannot understand why he permits neglect of this sort to go on. As others have said, we cannot blame him personally, because this is a record of sin and neglect which has characterised many Secretaries and Secretaries of State up to now. But I think we must now expect our Secretary of State to do something. He has the fighting qualities. There are occasions when he can unsheath a shining sword in championing Free Trade, and I do not see why in the interest of Scotland that sword should not be drawn again metaphorically.
      But I think my right hon. and gallant Friend is afraid of the Treasury. Perhaps it might not be altogether inappropriate for him as a Highlander to remember that there have been occasions when a Scotsman thought it was the right thing to "lay the proud usurper low." In his attitude towards the Treasury something of that old Scottish spirit will have to animate him if we are to have these records properly kept. We have heard a good deal from my right hon. Friend about economy, and we have all agreed with him on the broad question of economy, but as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) said, there can be false economy, and I suggest that for these extremely valuable records, the most important records in the world, so far as Scotland is concerned, to be left in the present state of disgraceful neglect, is false economy. All we want is a perfectly reasonable thing. We say that the Scottish Record Office should at once be brought up to a relative status, so far as staff and equipment are concerned, to the London Record Office. Surely that is not stating our case too highly. I commend this subject to the early attention of the Secretary of State.
      Mr. BUCHAN: I would like to associate myself with the two hon. Members who have spoken on this question of the Scottish records, a matter which has long exercised most seriously the minds of those who are interested in Scottish
      1718
      history. The Scottish History Society, of which I have the honour to be President, has for some years made an annual protest, and the case for Scotland on this question has been argued most ably and energetically by the Convention of Royal Burghs, which is the best we have at present in Scotland in the way of a national council. The facts are perfectly plain. On this question in the last half century the interests of Scotland have been shamefully neglected. Our records are in a deplorable condition, un-catalogued, unindexed, in no way properly accessible to the public, and there is a real danger that unless we take care many of them will be destroyed altogether. That is not the blame of the officials. The Record Office during the last century has been in charge of very able public servants and very eminent scholars, but they are hopelessly understaffed, and there is nothing like enough money even for the mere purpose of physical preservation, let alone reorganisation of the Department so as to make it properly accessible to the public.
      I need not remind the Committee that in recent years there has been a very remarkable revival of interest in historical study in Scotland. We Scots are all historically minded. The past is a very real thing to us. We have history in our bones. We have a very admirable recent record in Scottish historical scholarship, and recently we have seen two professorial chairs successfully founded in Scottish history. But there is very little encouragement for a Scottish historical student to pursue his researches in Scotland. It is a melancholy business to compare London with Edinburgh. At the Record Office in Chancery Lane everything is in beautiful order and the work of research is easy and simple. In Edinburgh a student finds himself wading among masses of irrelevant and dusty materials, with very small chance of discovering what he wants. Again, I say that that is not the blame of the officials. They are exceedingly competent as far as it is possible to be competent in their miserable jobs. The Scottish Record Office at present can only be described in the words of the popular hymn:
      "Change and decay in all around I see."
      Yet these are wonderful records. They are not only of unparalleled value to the student of the history of our country but they are also of great legal interest

      1719
      There is every likelihood that in the near future they will be very largely supplemented, as great estates are broken up and as the muniment rooms of great country houses are emptied. The natural place for such papers is the Record Office, but at present the Record Office cannot receive them or deal properly with them. There is a real danger that unless we take great care we shall lose some of the most valuable material of the country's history for ever.
      I know that it is very difficult at this moment to ask for more money, but I understand that the amount required is very small. A matter of £1,000 or £2,000 is required in order to prevent these valuable documents falling into physcial decay. That is not a large sum, and I understand that the Register of Sasines makes a considerable profit. Is there no possibility of some reallocation by which some of the profit which is now taken by the Treasury from that department should go to the service of the Public Record Office? I appeal seriously to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I ask him to consider that in this matter Scotland is being treated, and has long been treated, with gross unfairness as compared with England or with Wales. We cannot face the prospect of our descendants arising and examining our work and finding that we, for a miserable ha'porth of tar, have spoiled an invaluable ship. I appeal to my right hon. Friend both on the ground of the unfair treatment of his own country in this matter and in the general interests of historical scholarship to deal with this grievance before it has passed all hope of redress.
      Mr. MACPHERSON: May I briefly reinforce the arguments which have been advanced by my two hon. Friends who have preceded me? I am like the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan), a member of the Scottish History Society, and I had the honour of presiding at a meeting of Scottish members last night, when we had before us a very important deputation from the Convention of Royal Scottish Burghs. I think I can speak for everybody who was there when I say that we were deeply impressed by their statements. Some of the facts have already been placed before the Committee, but I was astonished to find that, in the twentieth century, a
      1720
      country with a great past should have to confess that the Government are treating it in such a niggardly fashion and with such callous indifference in this respect. My colleagues and I were told that thousands of bags and boxes of documents which were placed in the Register House in 1789, the year of the French Revolution, have not been dusted since. If that be true, if documents of great historical value, some of them dating from centuries before, are lying there unsorted and undusted, it is a shame and a disgrace, and we, as the representatives of the people of Scotland, should not tolerate such a condition of affairs for a single moment.
      We have heard a great deal about economy, but we are not asking for much. All we want, I believe, is something like £1,200 in order to have six Second Division clerks, who will begin the work of sorting these documents. These documents have not been treated by anybody during all these years and it is necessary, first, that they should be sorted. Nobody can say a word against the present officials. They are competent, sympathetic and able but it is beyond human powers to tackle the work which ought to be tackled, in historical research of this kind, in a house which contains so many documents. I understand that the Treasury in a normal year makes a profit of £10,000 on the Register House. If it be true that that sum is pocketed by the British Treasury, it is a great disgrace that we should allow these documents to become useless and valueless for the sake of £1,200 a year.
      The British Record Office in Chancery Lane gets £67,000 a year. My hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities who has, on occasion, added so much to our enjoyment as the result of his researches there, has pointed out that in the British Record Office research is a delight. Why should it not be the same to him in his own native country? We are as proud of our historical documents as any Englishman is proud of English historical records, and we are making this demand to the Treasury as a united nation. There is not a man or a woman in Scotland who is not sincerely anxious that this matter, after such a long delay, should be put right at once. Scottish feeling is running high and is bound to ran higher if callous indifference of this kind to national aspirations and national hopes

      1721
      should continue to be shown by the British Parliament and it is on behalf of the whole of Scotland that we ask my right hon. Friend to take it upon himself to approach the Treasury and remedy an age-long disgrace and grievance.
      Sir PATRICK FORD: There is a certain difficulty in dealing with this subject because economy is usual in Scotland and we are economical in our departments. We have this one department of registers and records and it fulfils functions which are fulfilled by two separate departments in England. Therefore if we want to bring a charge of unfair treatment against the Treasury, it is difficult to disentangle what goes to the Re-cord Office and what goes to the ordinary Register Office. It is hardly necessary to explain to the Committee the functions of these two offices. Roughly speaking the function of the Register Office is to see that records with regard to titles and deeds and so forth are properly prepared. Once they have been lodged, it is the function of the Record Office to see that they are properly kept and are accessible. I maintain that it is very difficult to fulfil even the first function owing to the conditions of penury under which we live in Scotland to-day as a result of the Treasury treatment of our country. Secondly, it is almost impossible to get any proper access to these valuable documents.
      It would take far too long to go into the history of the documents. About 1590 or thereabouts, they were more or less complete but owing to a very sad train of historical and other events, some were taken to England; some which were being returned by Cromwell were lost in the wreck of the ship which was conveying them, while a great many were left in private country houses. There is actually a Bull which was issued by Pius IV some time about 1560 upon which I believe the titles to the properties in almost half a county of Scotland depend and owing to neglect on the part of the whole Government, and not of the Treasury only, of these things in Scotland, it was discovered only three weeks ago in a secondhand bookshop or auction room. That example reinforces the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) that we ought to set up with Treasury support, some general body in Scotland, to see that
      1722
      these records are properly kept. As a matter of fact these records are not only of historical interest but have a practical interest as well and though I feel that it is difficult to make an appeal of this kind in these days when we must be strict in our economy, yet it always seems to me that the Treasury rather takes the Biblical attitude:
      "Moab is my washpot, over Edom will I cast out my shoe."
      If we substitute Scotland, that has been the attitude of the British and predominatingly English Treasury on many Scottish questions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is getting an opportunity of working with the National Government to secure these things for Scotland and we will applaud him if he does his duty, but we can never forgive him if he does not satisfy Scotland that he is doing his very best not to get up a special caste for the Treasury, but to get up Scotland's case and to bring the Treasury face to face with it. I maintain that we are not getting our proper grant for Scotland in proportion to what goes from the Treasury to England, and in proportion to the taxation which we pay to the common purse. Over and above that consideration there are 500 years of callous neglect and worse, to be made good with regard to the Record Office.
      8.0 p.m.
      With the indulgence of the Committee I would like to deal with the practical aspect of the question as it concerns the clerks in the Register of Sasines—those second-class clerks of whom we have heard, off and on, for the last two and a-half years, to the great annoyance, I think, of the powers that be, but to the even greater annoyance of those who have had to make a plea for them. It is all very well to become sentimental about the great past of a great nation—though there are practical issues involved as well—but we have also to ask, what are we doing for our sons to-day? What are we doing for the clerks who are entrusted with the preparation and revision of these documents and with seeing that those documents, upon which land tenure in Scotland depends, are kept in proper order. Their treatment is not within 20 per cent, of that received by their "opposite numbers" in England. In that office we have people who are responsible for the preparation and revision of those documents and for

      1723
      seeing that they are properly filed and tabulated, and we are told that they are not worth any more than the clerical service in the corresponding English offices. It may interest the Committee to know that the corresponding nearest grade is what were called Second Division and are now called Lower Executive clerks in the Estate Duty Office in England. These people are recruited at the age of 18 to 20. Our clerks of the same grade in Scotland are recruited at the age of from 20 to 25. There is a difference there, and yet these boys begin in England at the rate of £100, rising by the not very princely increase of £15 a year to a maximum of £500. A maximum of £400 is grudged to ours, and they do not begin at the same scale either. There was a Reorganisation Report in 1920, and they lost the status that they had in correspondence with their English opposite numbers up to that time. They put in a claim on the 7th January, 1921, but it was two years and more after that before the Arbitration Board to which they sent their claim got from the Scottish Office its counter-statement, not a statement, as one might have expected, supporting the Scottish clerks, but a statement supporting the Treasury attiude. There was the counter-statement put in two years after the Geddes axe had fallen, after the other civil servants whose livelihood was concerned had got more or less what they wanted, and these poor Scottish clerks came in and were told, "Oh no, we do not consider that you are of any more use or any more value than the lowest clerical servants in England."
      You cannot have it both ways, because you insist, before you take people as second class clerks in the Register House in Scotland, that you do not recruit them except between 20 and 25, as against between 18 and 20 in England, and you insist that they not only must have passed higher standards in second grade school examinations, but that they must have had practical knowledge of conveyancing and all its intricacies in Scotland, and under our feudal system there are far more differences in writs and in conveyancing and all those things which are a puzzle to the layman, and far more special knowledge required than in England. They have to have all that, and
      1724
      also, and very rightly, they have to have had practical office experience. When my right hon. and gallant Friend and I had a discussion on this subject, he was most courteous and went into the matter, but he suggested that perhaps that service in an office might not really be very serious. On my own suggestion, he got a tabulated return of what service these people had done, and it was nothing illusory at all. They actually had done service that rendered them better practical men in dealing with practical points and confirming their theoretical legal training with practical legal experience.
      Further, if you say that they have no more value than these lowest grade clerks in England, why is it that you insist upon their having these qualifications? Why is it that the general feeling in Scotland is that the requirements of the work they are put on to do are such that they deserve better emoluments, but get less? As a practical proof of that, in 1924 an examination was held, when there were 11 vacancies, and only four candidates were fools enough to turn up. One of them failed, and out of the three who passed one, on reconsideration, was less of a fool, said the terms were not good enough, and withdrew. Remember too that your higher grade clerks are recruited from that second grade, and you have therefore absolutely dying out the recruits and the material for dealing with things that require the greatest special knowledge; and in a few years the chaos of the deeds and writs on which we depend for our proper tenure of landed property in Scotland will be almost as great as the chaos that has overtaken these old records after 500 years of neglect.
      I maintain that even if it would cost more, and even in these times of economy, it would be a false economy not to do this, but that is not the case, because, as a matter of fact, as I understand, that branch at any rate of the Register and Record Office pays its own way. It made a profit, and I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) that, as far as our information goes, the Treasury very calmly took that profit and allocated it to other purposes, no doubt in the interests of the State, but not in the interests of Scotland, as far as I am aware, and certainly not in the interests of that Office. After certain changes

      1725
      took place, there were Acts passed in 1924 and 1925—a Conveyancing (Scotland) Act and an Endowment of Church. Property Act for Scotland—and they not only entailed more labour on these clerks, but in the conveyancing part of the Office they reduced the sum total of the fees paid.
      For transactions up to £200 there is a charge of 5s. made by that Office for seeing that things are in proper order and form, and it goes up to £6 for transactions valuing £10,000 and upwards. We maintain that there might, at any rate, be some suggestion made in the direction of dealing with these fees, and I would suggest to my right hon. and gallant Friend that he should stand up to the Treasury and say, "If you will not give us money, at any rate, let us make our own rules by which we can spend it." He should stand up to them like the Scotsman he is, and the hero he would become in the minds of all Scotsmen, if he had the courage to do it. I am sure he has plenty of courage. There is a kind of courage that is only rash, but there is another kind of courage that comes from thought, and I am sure that that is the kind that my right hon. and gallant Friend would display to the greatest advantage. If he would do that, we could again make that Office practically self-supporting and meet the immediate needs of these depressed classes.
      We talk about the depressed classes in India, but think of these poor fellows who spent their money on their education, in working in an office for very small amounts, because it was leading up to what they were going to get when they got into the magnificent Civil Service. Just think what it means to them. There they are; they have been axed, and cut down, and they have suffered all the economy cuts, and they see their friends in England who do not have the same qualifications getting much better paid—
      Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: My hon. Friend may be a great authority on Scottish matters, but I suggest that if he wants an ideal Civil Service, he should come to England.
      Sir P. FORD: As a matter of fact, my hon. Friend who interrupts does not know what he is talking about.
      Sir W. SUGDEN: Again I say the English Civil Service is superior to the Scottish, section by section.
      Sir P. FORD: I was saying that the opposite number, the specialist class in England, is paid infinitely more. I am not at all imputing any inefficiency to English people—far be it from me to do that, because they have been able to do a very good deal with Scotland—but I am merely saying that here are these people, who entered this service under certain conditions held out to them; they have been reduced all round, and they see their friends in England on similar jobs being infinitely better treated; and it does not seem to me to be fair.
      There is one saving that is being effected, because there are a number of special clerks who, about 10 years or less ago, cost about £20,000 a year. There has been no recruitment for them in this Office, and they have been dying out, so that with the money already saved annually on that, if the Treasury did not interfere and if my right hon. and gallant Friend would insist on his rights as a Minister in Scotland, and not make special cases for the Treasury, but special cases for Scotland, he could get more than the money that is needed to meet the claims of these people. I speak feelingly about it, because I know about it. Very few of these people vote in my constituency, so let it not be thought that I am doing this as a vote-catcher. I am doing it because I want to see justice done to a very able, well-educated, conscientious body of men in Scotland, with wives and children dependent on them. I know that we do not live by bread alone. I know that we live by the spirit of our nation and our belief in it, but these men and their wives and children are practically starving, and I demand from the Secretary of State for Scotland less of this sickly hue of hesitation, a little more of the real Scottish spirit, and a little more standing up to the Treasury and getting justice for Scotland.
      Mr. JAMIES JOHNSTON: Two points are raised on this Vote. First of all, there is the question of the Record Office, which is sadly under-staffed from the point of view of the carrying on of its work of preserving, cataloguing, indexing, and making available to the public and to students the documents which come within its care. Judged by

      1727
      that absolute standard of the adequate performance of its work, it is understaffed, and I maintain, and the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) has very strongly supported the view, that upon a comparison with similar departments in England we are less well served in this connection. There has been a long agitation about this matter, and various promises, or at all events half-promises, of additional staff have from time to time been made by various Secretaries of State when they have been far removed from the Treasury on visits to Scotland, but nothing, unfortunately, has yet materialised.
      I am told that the under-staffing is such that while the Record Office is open to receive gifts, it refuses to receive documents on deposit, on loan from those to whom they belong, if the person who proposes to lend them attaches the condition that they must be made available to the public. I am told also that in all questions of that sort the head of the Department is able to exercise no discretion at all, but has to refer every important matter to London, before he can give a reply. That is to say, he cannot decide for himself whether he has to buy a box of pen nibs or engage an office boy. It has all to come to London, where it will come before people who spend their working lives in Whitehall under the shadow of the Treasury and who do all their work practically with a Treasury official looking over their shoulder. It is that government of Scotland from London in matters of this sort which creates a great deal of feeling. This is not an Imperial question in any way; it is not a question of policy in any way; it is a purely Scottish matter, and there ought to be a competent authority in Scotland, whether an individual or a body, with sufficient authority to administer questions which arise in regard to the control of the records without continual reference to the Scottish Office in London. Far better would it be to get as much money as can be got for the purpose and give it to a competent body to spend without tying it down too much, than have every item of expenditure scrutinised in Dover House.
      1728
      There is, in connection with the Record Office, an allied question about the sheriff court records, which at present are kept in the different counties and have never been collected into one centre. I believe that at present they rest altogether in 56 different depositories in various parts of Scotland. The places where they are kept are in many cases unsuitable, and in charge of people who in many instances cannot read them. They are, to some extent, I am afraid, being lost and damaged and destroyed, and are certainly not kept so as to be of the least use to any member of the public or student who wishes to consult them.
      Since in accordance with the usual desire of the Scottish Office to get everything into its own direct control the office of Depute Clerk Register was abolished to comply with a shameful bargain with the Treasury, there has been no supervision or control of the Sheriff Court records to any purpose at all. There is no one in Scotland responsible for seeing how they are kept, or how they are indexed, or seeing what is done to make them of use to those who wish to consult them. In this connection a departmental committee was appointed by one of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's predecessors in 1925 to report upon various questions connected with the custody and preservation of sheriff court records. It was an exceptionally strong committee, and its report is undoubtedly instructive. The committee reported first upon a reference as to whether further provision or regulations should be made for the custody, preservation and arrangement of the record in the hands of sheriff clerks; and they recommended:
      "That powers be sought and obtained for the constitution of a Record Authority, who shall have jurisdiction over the whole Public Records of Scotland, inclusive of the Sheriff Court records, and shall be furnished with sufficient powers to regulate the formation, transmission and preservation of these records."
      Again, they recommended:
      "That provision be made for an increase of staff at the Record Office by the addition of, inter alia, two established clerks for the exclusive purpose of examining and arranging the records brought in from the Sheriff Courts; and that in addition to the present grant a sum of not less than £400 be furnished yearly for the adequate preparation of indexes and calendars."
      The committee recommended the transportation of the Sheriff Court records from the 56 repositories where they are

      1729
      now to the Record Office at Edinburgh. Upon other matters referred to it, this powerful committee found, for instance:
      "That in most instances the necessary accommodation is not available locally for the proper protection and handling of the Sheriff Court records, especially those of earlier date. … That the state of preservation of a great proportion of the older records is unsatisfactory. … That large sections of the Sheriff Court records are difficult of access. … That the present custodians are almost without exception unable to read the older records. … That the Sheriff Court records are of very great historical value,"
      And so on. So in regard to the Sheriff Court records, the committee recommended:
      "That the Sheriff Court Registers of Deeds and Decreets, with relative warrants … and all other Sheriff Court Registers … which are of earlier date than 1876, should be transmitted to His Majesty's Records Office at Edinburgh for safe custody and preservation, as and when required by a properly constituted Record Authority, there to be made available to students as other public records are."
      The committee recommended similarly in regard to other records at present kept in the different counties. Lastly, the committee recommended:
      "That provision be made whereby the Record Authority, on the advice of experts, and with the consent of the Lord President of the Court of Session, may regulate the disposal, by destruction or otherwise, of such Sheriff Court records as are not of sufficient value to justify their preservation in the Record Office."
      There is no need to say anything more. The report was made in 1926, and the outstanding recommendations are that the sheriff court records should be sent to the Record Office and that an authority should be set up to look after the public records of Scotland. All that we have to do is to ask why nothing has been done. We can do that without the least hesitation, as we are obviously not asking the right hon. and gallant Gentleman why he has done nothing because he has not had a very long time to consider it. We are, however, entitled to know what are the views of his Department of the report which was made so long ago as 1926.
      There is the other question with which my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Sir P. Ford) has dealt with regard to the clerks in the Register of Sasines Department. It is not a very easy subject to discuss as there are so many details connected with it, and I do
      1730
      not propose to enter into them. I can only say that we have in these clerks a class of men who have a good education of a secondary school character, have passed an examination in the law of real property, and have had practical experience in a law office. In other words, they were definitely engaged as people with substantial legal and general educational qualifications. I do not think that it is right now for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, after these qualifications have been laid down, to accept the Treasury view that the duties to be performed are, on the whole, no more than what might be described as of a clerical nature. You cannot engage people as lawyers and then turn round and tell them that they are only doing clerks' work and should only get clerks' pay. It is from those very people that the higher staff in the same Department are exclusively recruited, apart from one or two at the very top. I gather that no question is raised as to the legal qualifications of the first-class clerks in that Department.
      The broad facts about these clerks are simply these: In 1919 they had the same salaries scale as those who were then called the Second Division class; they had the same salaries scale then as the clerks in the Customs and Excise Department. To-day they are £100 below the Second Division clerks, and £150 below the Customs and Excise class, because in 1920, when the general Civil Service was reorganised, this special class was missed out. They made an immediate claim for consideration and a delay of some years took place. For the last two or three years, whenever this question has been raised, the reply has been that any consideration of these claims and of what is to be done with this class must await the decision as to whether anything is to be done in the reorganisation of the Register of Sasines Department on the lines recommended by the committee presided over by Lord Fleming, which reported in 1928. That report has been under consideration for nearly three years, and no decision has yet been announced.
      The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in reply to questions recently, said that he was taking the opinion of legal bodies and hoped to deal with the matter shortly. Since then he has replied that these inquiries disclosed divergencies of

      1731
      opinion. All I can say is that it is not the business of a Government to wait until all sides are agreed before they take action. On a matter of this sort the Government, if there is not agreement, must make up its mind on policy, and decide one way or the other whether they are going to reorganise the Department on these lines or not. We do appreciate the difficulties in regard to both these matters. We realise that in the end we are inevitably up against the Treasury. I think, however, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will lend a sympathetic ear to representations from the Scottish Office. Our criticism, if we have one to make at all—and I hope I am unjustified in making it—is that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Department, instead of being, as I would like to see them, the spearhead of the Scottish attack on the Treasury, are rather playing the role of the Treasury's first line of defence against any demands from Scotland. I should be very happy to feel that that is a wrong view, and that where we have, as we think, a legitimate demand for fair treatment for Scotland, we shall have a strong and helpful ally and advocate in the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
      Mr. GUY: I think the Committee must be in general agreement that a very strong case has been made out why my right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland should take a firm line with the Treasury. It is clearly a case of injustice to Scotland. I have no doubt the Secretary of State will say that he strongly sympathises with the case, and say also that on account of the necessity for economy and of balancing the Budget it will be impossible for him to get this additional money. I wish to put forward a suggestion which may influence his judgment in the matter. It is a truism to say that economy is wise spending, but in the particular case of the Register House there is a real danger that if additional money is not spent now the Scottish Office will be involved in considerably increased expenditure within the next two years, because it has been made sufficiently clear that the Record Office has fallen into a disgraceful condition.
      It has also been made abundantly clear by my hon. Friends the Member for North Edinburgh (Sir P. Ford) and the hon.
      1732
      Member for Clackmannan (Mr. Johnston) that the second class clerks as a body are below strength. They have not been recruited to any material degree since the War. There were only two additional candidates to fill up the vacancies in. 1924, and there has not been a single new candidate since 1924. That means that the existing second class clerks are becoming more and more senior, and that in numbers they are now below strength. There are only 36 left out of a total of 51. No fresh blood is being introduced; no new members are being trained in the duties of the department. Then we are approaching a decision upon the Fleming report, which, as my right hon. and gallant Friend admitted in answer to a question of mine the other day, will involve additional duties for the second class clerks. If that reorganisation has to be carried out within the next year or two it cannot be done properly by the existing staff, and that will involve a raising of salaries to attract new recruits in order to strengthen the staff considerably. It would be much wiser to increase the staff gradually, and to raise the emoluments, in common justice, to raise the maximum of the second class clerks and to put them upon the same level as their equivalent class in the Civil Service. If this be done it will only be a reasonable act of justice to Scotland, and, in addition, it will ensure the efficiency of a vitally necessary Department in Scotland. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will be doing a good service and a popular service to Scotland if he tackles the Treasury in a right fighting spirit.
      8.30 p.m.
      Sir A. SINCLAIR: Let me say at once that the Government very much welcome the Debate, the opportunity for which has been given by my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), and the helpful speeches which have been made in all quarters of the Committee on the very important question of the custody of the Scottish national records. The position there is thoroughly unsatisfactory. Boxes of valuable documents, irreplaceable records, are lying in the Register House unavailable to research students, uncatalogued, unindexed and not even examined, and the great majority of the records have been lying in those bags and boxes ever since the Register House was built at the end of the 18th century. None of us can view

      1733
      that situation with complacency, and it was a thoroughly good thing to have this Debate to ventilate the subject. It is right that we Scottish Members of Parliament should be vigilant in the protection of our national records, I am at least glad to be able to confirm the tribute paid by hon. Friends of mint; to the work which is being done in the Record Office and the unsparing efforts being made by the staff there to make the most of the available resources. But if we are to do better we shall need money. These records have been lying there more than 100 years, and I doubt if during those 100 years there was ever a worse moment at which to come forward and make out a case for getting additional money for this purpose from the Treasury.
      If we are to make our case effective we must use arguments that we can sustain in discussion with the Treasury, and there are three arguments used by hon. Members to-night which could not be sustained. I have made a note of two small ones first, and I will come to the other one later. In his interesting speech the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. Johnston) said that loans were being refused now by the Record Office if it was made a condition that what was loaned was to be made available for the public. I am informed that that is not the case. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Colonel Buchan) said there was a profit on the Sasines Office of £10,000 a year, and I think that was repeated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) but, in fact, there is a loss of £4,,000. The third and most important argument used upon which we cannot rely is the argument that Scotland is being treated worse than England.
      The hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Sir P. Ford) said, and said truly, that it is very difficult to disentangle the costs of the Record Office from those of the other sections of Register House. The vote for the Register House covers three main sections, with the addition of a very small chancery section. There is the deeds section, where deeds other than those concerned with the conveyancing of land are copied, registered and passed on to the Record Office. Then there is the Sasines Office into which the deeds concerned with the conveyancing of land are taken and copied. The origi-
      1734
      nals are returned in this case, although not in the cases of deeds other than conveyancing deeds. The writs are returned to the owners of the land and the copies are passed on to the Record Office and go into the Record book. In addition, in the Sasines Office they keep what is known as the search sheet, which is a subject-precis of the record book. Then the third section is the Record Office proper, where the records,, and in particular the records of the conveyancing of land, are received, and where also the minute books are kept. The minutes give a chronological precis, according to the time at which transactions take place? in different properties all over the country.
      In the Register House there are a number of services which are common to all three of these sections, and therefore I am very far from saying that it is an easy matter to arrive at the exact amount of the charge which could properly be said to belong, strictly, to the Record Office at Edinburgh, and at the amount of money spent on the records in Scotland which would be strictly comparable to the amount of money spent on the Record Office in England. But I have had these figures very closely gone into, and nobody, I need hardly tell you, would be more pleased than I if the result were to provide us with a strong argument to be used in putting this thing right. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. J. Wallace) mentioned the figure of £200 as being the amount of money which was spent upon the Record Office. Of course, that is very far from being the case.
      Mr. WALLACE: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. I mentioned specially that the £200 was for the publication of historical documents.
      Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am sorry if I misunderstood my hon. Friend. The £200 is only a payment, to the editors for the work of preparing the record publications for the Press. It is confined solely to that one purpose. The other chief figures are: Staff salaries and pensions, £6,300; printing of publications, £1,800; accommodation, rates, incidentals, stationery, etc., £3,450; and that is the lowest estimate that I have been able to get. That makes a total of £11,550 as compared with £65,000 as the cost of the Public Record Office in London.
      Mr. WALLACE: The comparable figure with the £200 in Scotland is the figure of £2,300 spent in England.
      Sir A. SINCLAIR: Ah, yes. But what we are discussing is the care of the records, and not whether a sufficient proportion of them are being edited for the press. That is not what we are discussing to-day, but it is that to which my hon. Friend's figure relates. We are discussing the whole of the money involved in the care, preservation, indexing, cataloguing and making available of the records for the purposes of research, including the publication work. The actual figure in the case of England is £65,000, and, in the case of Scotland, the lowest figure we have been able to get it down to is £11,550. I am making further inquiries into that.
      Mr. GUY: May I ask whether the figure for England is not £37,000 for 1932?
      Sir A. SINCLAIR: I thought I had the actual figure. I find that I have not it actually under my hand. I will make inquiries and give the figure to my hon. Friend in a minute. I see now that my recollection is perfectly right. The actual comparable figure is £65,849. I said that this £11,550 was on a comparable basis with £65,849, and it is as near comparable as we can make it in this Very complicated calculation. There are two additional factors which the Committee should bear in mind, each of which tells a different way. On the one hand, there is the fact that the public Record Office in London has nothing comparable to the Sasines Register in Edinburgh, and that is of course because the custody of the register rests with the Record Office in Edinburgh. In fact, it is in that office that the bulk of the searches actually take place. On the other hand, the activities of the London Record Office cover a much wider field of historical research: it is a United Kingdom Office, and Scotland has a direct interest in a good deal of its work.
      It is apparent from these figures that we are not getting unfair financial treatment as compared with England at the present time. We are getting more than our due proportion for these services, and we must put our case on higher ground than that stated by the hon. Member for Dunfermline. It must be on rather higher than purely national
      1736
      grounds that we must base our claim. The waste of this valuable matter should not be allowed to go on, as much in the interests of England and Wales as in the interests of Scotland. There is a need for what I might call some quasi-capital expenditure—non-recurring expenditure—to get all this mass of information into the machinery of the office. Here is a mine of information which ought to be worked, which ought to be quarried out, which ought to be passed through our machinery and brought to the mills and presses of historical research. Knowledge and learning know no national boundaries, so do not let us put this case only on national grounds; it is in the interest of the whole country that these records should be properly preserved. Of course, the engagement of very highly skilled and relatively highly paid staff, which would be necessary for the full accomplishment of the work would be costly, but a strong case for it could be made out in normal times, and it is only with great regret that I have to make an alternative proposal, to which I shall refer in a moment, and to tell the Committee quite frankly that in these times it would be impossible to press the case for the expenditure which would be necessary in order to make a thorough job of this highly important work.
      I should like to say in the meantime that nobody could be doing more than is being done at the moment by Mr. Angus and his colleagues in the Record Office. No small amount of time is spent in giving advice and assistance to research students. This is very valuable and useful work, and none of us would wish to curtail it, even though we might thereby get a little more of the time of these officials, and be able to turn them on to this other work which we are now discussing. I am sure that no Member of the Committee would wish that course to be adopted. A beginning has, however, been made with the arrangement, sorting and repairing of these old records, and with the arrangement of private collections which are coming into the Department at the present time. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities seemed to doubt whether they were coming in, but as a matter of fact we have had, in quite recent times, some very valuable collections, of which the

      1737
      Lothian Papers are among the most recent. In short, the Record Office is not at the moment a stagnant pool of hopeless impotence and neglect. There flows through it a current of purposeful activity and highly skilled research, which will in happier times richly deserve and amply repay any financial reinforcement which this Committee may be prepared to give to it.
      Reference was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan to the records of the Sheriff Courts. If I may say so, his quotations from the report of the committee were accurate, but opinion on this matter was not so unanimous as the report itself. There was a good deal of opposition to some of the proposals, particularly that in reference to centralisation of the custody of the records, including opposition from the city of Glasgow. At any rate, I think it would be premature to discuss the eventual disposal of these Sheriff Court records. In the meantime, obviously, an immediate and important problem is what is to be done about these national records which are in the Record Office now. Obviously it is vital, in the first place, to stop the physical deterioration of the records, and, therefore, as it is evident that we ought to take steps to do that, and to be prepared to take advantage at the earliest possible moment of any hopeful opportunity of obtaining money for coping adequately with this problem, I have arranged for a kind of reconnaissance to be undertaken, that is to say, for one or two highly skilled officials of the Department to be taken from their present work on private collections, in order that they may go down into these cellars and make, as far as they can, a cursory examination of these records, and form some opinion as to their date and value and as to the amount of money and the organisation that would be required for an adequate solution of the problem of their preservation, cataloguing and indexing.
      To turn to the allied question which has been raised on this Vote, namely, that of the second class clerks, I think that, from what I said just now, Members of the Committee, even if they could not follow my necessarily untechnical and possibly, as my legal friends may think, very inadequate description of the functions of the Register House, will realise that there is there an extraordinarily
      1738
      complicated and technical but very highly useful apparatus of land registration, which no doubt is envied by many other countries. It is not the sort of thing that could be built up at this stage of civilisation; it is a thing which has grown up gradually, and of which Scotland is rightly proud. I think I have mentioned before, but perhaps I may be allowed to say again, that there are now in the Record Book at the Record Office copies of conveyancing deeds—writs, as I understand they are called technically—covering the whole of the land of Soot-land with very few exceptions. These records have been growing up since the beginning of the 17th century. Based upon this Record Book, there are the two precis, namely, the Minute Book, which is a chronological precis, and the Search Sheet, which is a subject precis, the Search Sheet lying in the Sasine Office and the Minute Book in the Record Office.
      It was suggested by the last keeper that possibly the Search Sheet, which is a comparatively modern innovation, could take the place of the Minute Book, and that it might be possible to dispense with the Minute Book altogether. That proposal was referred by my predecessor to what is now known as the Fleming Committee, and that committee has provided two reports in favour of the abolition of the Minute Book. Unfortunately, however, in spite of those two reports in favour of such a change, there are strong differences of opinion among lawyers as to its advisability. It is, as hon. Members will realise, a highly technical and complicated subject, and the decision taken will be vital for this very delicate and complicated apparatus of land registration. My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan said that the Government must take their own responsibility and must decide policy, but, in a matter of this highly technical kind, a true decision is very difficult for a layman to make, and a false decision might cause, if not the collapse, at any rate the serious impairment of this very delicate machinery. Naturally, therefore, we are reluctant to take a decision unless we feel that it will command the confidence of those who will be working the machine in the future, and of the lawyers in Scotland who use it. Of course, a decision has to be taken, and we are moving towards that decision now. There will be no unnecessary delay but

      1739
      we are naturally proceeding cautiously. We are not at a standstill but we are taking the necessary but cautious step to reach that decision at the earliest moment.
      It is true that, in the meantime, a decision in the case of these second class clerks is being held up pending the decision of the larger question of reorganisation. These second class clerks have performed their duty well, and they deserve, not indeed generous treatment, for in present conditions the State cannot afford it, but just treatment from the House of Commons. The fact that they have waited a long time in happier days does not make it any easier now. When prices have fallen and when other salaried servants of the State have been subjected to cuts in their salaries—these men themselves have shared uncomplainingly in the cuts which all civil servants have had to bear—it makes it necessary to have an overwhelmingly strong case to justify a demand for increases of salary at this juncture.
      Moreover, whether or not the Government decide to adopt the recommendations of the Fleming Committee, they will have to reorganise this Department. In my opinion, and in that of my predecessor, such reorganisation is necessary, and it can be carried out with an increase of efficiency in the working of the Department, and, if this reorganisation is going to be carried out within the next few months, at any rate before the next Estimates are presented, it will be impossible to go to the Treasury now and say we want a Supplementary Estimate for this purpose. Reorganisation will not necessarily provide a means of satisfying all the demands that have been made on behalf of the second class clerks, but it will compel a reallocation of duties and possibly go a considerable way to breaking up that block in promotion which, I understand, is the principal grievance from which these men have been suffering in recent years—as a result of which, for example, a man of 51 is still on the scale of pay of a second class clerk. Therefore, this reorganisation will be the tide in the affairs of the civil servants in the Register House for which we should be well advised to wait. When that reorganisation comes, I think there will be an overwhelming case for meeting,
      1740
      at any rate, some of the complaints that have been made on behalf of these clerks.
      9.0 p.m.
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if there is any truth in the statement that is being made in Scotland—it is in the "Glasgow Herald" this morning—that there is a great amount of these records in the cellars of the Register House covered up with the dust of ages. There is no doubt that there are ever so many landlords who have not title deeds to their land. If I had my way, I would burn the Register House and do away with the whole business. That is what we will do when we take the business over. All the records in Scotland are records of the working-class being downtrodden right through the ages. To give an instance, in 1560, in the reign of Mary Queen of Scots, an Abbey in the West of Scotland and thousands of acres were sold practically for an old song, and they had to petition the Pope in order to safeguard the interests of the monastery. They said, "You have got the whole of the names and everything connected with it," but they did not get the Pope's Bull. It was found in a second-hand shop and bought for an old song. This is what they call keeping the records. It is only certain records that have been kept. What has the right hon. Gentleman to say about that statement? I have sat throughout this and the last Debate, and I have heard references to the Sheriff Court. I want to raise the action of the Sheriff in the Dumbarton Court last week when the time comes. I want to stake my claim on that.
      Sir A. SINCLAIR: I do not think there is any Member of the House more assiduous in attention to his Parliamentary duties than the hon. Member, but he did not happen to be present when I made my speech. I met all the points he has put to me, and I do not like to weary the Committee by reiterating them. The point he has brought forward about a particular document is as new to me, as it is to him, but the Register House cannot be held responsible for the custody of documents which have not been brought to it, but only for those which are there. As I have announced, I am proposing to conduct a reconnaissance. We are going to see exactly what is there, the condition it is in, how much it will cost to put these

      1741
      documents into a good state of preservation, and to index and catalogue them, and I do not propose to be deterred from that objective even by the hon. Member's threat that, when that has all been done, he is going to burn down the Register House.
      Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £80, be granted for the said Service," put, and negatived.
      Original Question again proposed.
      Sir A. SINCLAIR: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

      POLICE, SCOTLAND.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £837,452, 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 Salary and Expenses of the Inspector of Constabulary; Grants in respect of Police Expenditure and a Grant-in-Aid of the Police Federation in Scotland."—[NOTE.— £225,000 has been voted on account.]
      Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
      The Secretary of State for Scotland on the last Vote defended the Government against any proposal which might be made to increase the emoluments of clerks in Register House, and he made it plain that in the present circumstances it was impossible to consider anything in the nature of an improvement in conditions as far as wages or salaries were concerned. But in the present Vote I notice that the inspector of constabulary is having an increase in his salary of £19. In many other items in the Vote there are considerable reductions, but the salary of the inspector of constabulary is to be increased from £1,013 to £1,032 a year in addition to which he is to get £25 a year for clerical assistance. I also note that the inspector of constabulary receives army retired pay of £134 10s., which means that he has a salary sufficient already without any further increase to enable him to carry on in an ordinary and decent way. He is almost as well paid as most of the sheriffs-substitute in Scotland. As a matter of fact, I believe he is paid better than some of them. I do not believe that the office which he holds is more important than the office held by the sheriff-substitute in any of the counties of Scotland. I should like some information from the right hon.
      1742
      Gentleman as to the reason why the economy proposals do not appear to apply in this case, while they are made so very general among all other classes of servants in the country.
      There is a considerable amount of dissatisfaction in Scotland at the present time due to the administration of the law in reference to another matter with which I do not suppose that I should be allowed to deal at length. There is the application of the means test, which is considerably aggravating the already poverty-stricken conditions of a great many people in the West of Scotland. A number of meetings have been held protesting against the administration, and deputations have been appointed to meet public assistance committees, and in some cases there have been conflicts with the police. A demonstration was held in Kilbirnie, in Ayrshire, a few weeks ago, and a deputation was appointed to meet the public assistance committee. The members of the deputation, as far as my information goes, conducted themselves quite correctly and put their case, but, unfortunately, they had been accompanied by a large percentage of the population, a great proportion of whom are in receipt of public assistance.
      I know that locality fairly well, and I do not think that there is a more law-abiding community in Scotland than is to be found in the whole of the county of Ayr, and certainly, as far as Kilbirnie is concerned, I believe it is the first time that anything in the nature of conflict has arisen between the people and the police authorities, certainly within my recollection. As to what, if any, provocation was given, I cannot say, but I know that the police charged the people who had gathered to hear the report of the deputation appointed to meet the public assistance committee. As a consequence of the conflict, a number of men were arrested, and varying terms of imprisonment were imposed upon them. Without knowing the actual circumstances which were presented to the sheriff, one cannot say very much upon the matter, but, as an ordinary outsider, reading the reports in the newspapers, and having the information which was sent to me in connection with the matter, I feel strongly that the sentences were a bit too severe.
      There is very good cause for consideration of the matter by the Scottish Office and the remission of sentences. After

      1743
      all, the character of the people in the locality ought to weigh to a considerable extent with the Scottish Office in a matter of this sort, taking into account the very serious condition of the people and realising how natural and easy it is, when persons are suffering from the poverty which is rampant in the South-West of Scotland, and particularly in that part of Ayrshire, to be inflamed to the extent of disregarding the police regulations. I am not arguing—nobody on our side will argue—that the regulations promulgated by the police for the purpose of maintaining public order ought to be set at naught, but we want to put before the Department that the whole of the circumstances should be taken into consideration, and not least the fact that men and women, particularly those in prison, are suffering from what they believe to be—and I think rightly believe to be—a very strong sense of unfair treatment. I do not think that it is fair, and I do not think it makes the law any stronger in England, Scotland or Wales if the evidence in a prosecution of this kind is to be entirely police evidence.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I should like to have the guidance of the Minister on this matter. If this were a Vote for police in England the matter which the hon. Member is now raising would only be in order in the case of the Metropolitan Police, which is the sole subject for which the Secretary of State for the Home Department is responsible. I am not aware what is the corresponding responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and before the Debate proceeds I should be glad if he would tell me what responsibility he has for the police in Scotland.
      Sir A. SINCLAIR: My responsibility for the police is confined to the administration of the grant, which means that I am responsible for seeing that a general level of proficiency of the police is maintained, but the chief constable is the officer responsible for the discipline of the force to the local authority and takes his orders from the magistrates. If there is any complaint about the way that he exercises his authority complaint should be made to the magistrates or, if it be alleged that the police have broken the law and given ground for a criminal complaint, to the Procurator-Fiscal.
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: So far s the chief of police is concerned in Scotland he is officially responsible to the Secretary of State for Scotland. In regard to the appointment of the chief of police, neither a county council nor a town council can make such an appointment without the appointment being referred to the Secretary of State. He has the final word in all these things. He represents the King in Scotland, and he has no right to say that a town council or a county council or the magistrate has the final word. He has even more power in this matter than the Lord Advocate.
      Sir A. SINCLAIR: The position is, that such an appointment is made by the local authority, but as I am responsible for half of the chief constable's salary, which comes on my Votes, I have to be consulted, and I have to see that the local authority does actually appoint a chief constable in accordance with law. The appointment is, however, made by the local authority. It is to the magistrates of the borough that the chief constable is responsible for the maintenance of order. The obligation is laid upon the magistrates of the borough to maintain order, and the chief constable is responsible to them.
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: There is more in this matter than appears on the surface. If a town council or a county council wish to get rid of the chief constable they cannot do so without first getting the sanction of the Secretary of State for Scotland. In the same way there is the greatest difficulty in England if a town council wishes to turn off a chief constable. The Secretary of State in England could keep him on. For example, there was the case at St. Helens.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the point raised by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) would be in order on this Vote if he sought to criticise the action of the Secretary of State for not consenting to the appointment of a chief constable or, if his consent was necessary, he declined to consent to a dismissal. It would appear that the case in Scotland is the same as in England and that the police are responsible to the local authority. Therefore, the question of the conduct of the police under a local authority does not arise on this Vote.
      Sir A. SINCLAIR: While respectfully expressing agreement with your Ruling, I would only add for the information of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs that in regard to the dismissal of a Chief Constable the matter rests entirely with the local authority. They have the power to dismiss their chief constable, but the chief constable under the Police Appeals Act has the right of appeal.
      Mr. D. GRAHAM: We are discussing the salary of the Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland. If the Secretary of State for Scotland is not the authority that controls the police, I take it that the Inspector of Constabulary has some authority over them, and it is his salary that we are discussing. Kilbirnie is not a burgh. It is a local district authority under the county council. If the police in a village like Kilbirnie take some action that is unwarranted then, surely, a Vote dealing with the payment of the chief of the police this is the proper. time to raise the question of the conduct of the police. I understand that no one with any real authority other than a sergeant was in control of the police there when a charge was made upon the people. I do not think it should lie in the hands of a comparatively small official of police to charge and baton people who are meeting together for a lawful purpose. We are not asking for anything in the nature of chaos, neither are we asking that there ought not to be respect paid to police regulations, but we do say that before people are batoned by the police there should be someone in authority who will give the people an opportunity of dispersing before any such action is taken.
      My main object in raising the matter is to appeal to the Secretary of State for Scotland. Most, if not all, of the men who were incriminated and put into prison are of good character, and I see no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not exercise the clemency which his position entitles him to do and to remit a considerable part of their sentence. Now that the whole thing is over, that would be the most satisfactory way out of it. I have had some communication with the Secretary of State on the question, and I am raising the matter for the purpose of endeavouring to ascertain whether he can exercise some little
      1746
      authority over the police and induce the local authorities concerned to exercise a little more discretion in dealing with organised meetings during this period of unexampled poverty in that particular locality.
      I should like to raise another subject. There is a feeling in the minds of a number of people in certain parts of Scotland that a, system has grown up, or is growing up, under which omnibus companies give free passes to officials of the police. I do not know to what extent that statement is true, but if it is true, it is an evil habit. The Secretary of State has informed me that he does not approve of the practice, but I think it is well that the matter should be referred to here so that attention will be drawn to it by the authorities in different parts of Scotland.
      Mr. McGOVERN: I rise to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham), and I want to appeal to the Secretary of State for Scotland—for I understand it is within his jurisdiction and power—to review the sentences of men and women throughout Scotland.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It may or may not be that it is within the power of the Secretary of State to reduce sentences, but that is a matter which, if raised at all, must be raised on his own salary. It cannot possibly be raised on this Vote.
      Mr. McGOVERN: I want to deal with the question of police action, and, from the rulings given, it is becoming very difficult to discuss police action at all in relation to this Vote. I want to deal with the fact that the police in one or two parts of the country have been acting, to put it moderately, with a lack of tact and a lack of understanding of the spirit of the people who have been congregating together in demonstration to protest against the infliction of poverty and hardships. These people have limited opportunities of protesting against Measures that were put hastily through, and certainly not understood by the people of the country at the last election. It was after the period of the election that they fully understood the Measures put through by the House, and therefore their opportunities were limited to making their protest against the means test especially. In various parts of the

      1747
      country, they got together in demonstration to protest against the infliction of this poverty and hardship, and no one in this House would deny that men and women at least should have the right of reasonable democratic expression in every area against what they conceive to be the hardships to themselves and to their families.
      In every part of the country there was a spontaneous coming together of ordinary, decent men and women against these hardships,, and I do not think we are entitled to expect that, if legislation is passed hastily through this House and not explained or understood previous to a democratic appeal to the country and, as I think, cunningly hidden when they went to the country, these people should have to wait for four or five years before they can have the right again to express their discontent and their resentment against this proposal. Therefore they come together and express, in a reasonable, democratic manner their aims and their desires. I do not wish to be unreasonable or to make any wild or savage attack on the police in the country. In many ways I have a respect for and understanding of the police and their duties, and I recognise that law and order must be maintained in any kind of civilised society; but I do want to say that we can understand that passions are easily aroused when men are driven to the stage when they feel they are enduring tremendous hardships and, as they believe, unnecessary hardships at the present time.
      9.30 p.m.
      They come into the streets and other places, and protest against this legislation. It may be true that in many places there has been in the crowds a minority of the people who may have been determined to exploit the feelings and the passions of the people for ulterior purposes. I am not going to deny that there are sections at times who are more concerned with that than with the real sufferings and feelings of the people, but I hold that the great mass of people are orderly and law-abiding, though they certainly believe that in a democratic civilisation they have the right to express their antagonism and resentment in some way. How could we ever have progressed to the present state of democracy if we had not had that right throughout the ages for sections of
      1748
      the people to express themselves in that fashion?
      The vote was won by men and women having some right to express their discontent in the country and at various stages they were batoned down, sabres were drawn and rifles were used, in order to suppress them, when they were demanding their rights. These people come together to protest against scales of relief, which they consider are totally inadequate. Many of these people to-day, according to what we read in the Press, are driven to commit suicide because they cannot feed, clothe and house their wives and families. There was a case of suicide reported in the "Glasgow Evening Times" last evening where a man committed suicide by jumping through a window, and it was stated that he did so because his unemployment benefit was cut off, and he was without funds of any kind. There are large masses of the people without lighting of any kind in their homes or the necessary fuel to generate heat in the bodies of their wives and children during the winter months. They are being evicted from their homes in various parts of the country because of their inability to pay rents and they cannot keep a shelter over their heads. They come together in the streets to protest against this lack of humanity in the 20th century. They got into a crowd, the police see the crowd, and, naturally, passions are aroused on both sides.
      It may be a very small incident which compels the police to take action without the application of reason, and the result is sometimes that some person makes a suggestion to which, in the heat of the moment, the people respond, and they are arrested in consequence of that act. I do not deny that there have been actions taken that one cannot commend, and which one would condemn, but allowance should be made in some degree for the circumstances in which these people find themselves. If I may cite one example, there was a demonstration and police action in the city of Glasgow which was brought up in the trial there. Two minutes before the police batoned and rode down the crowd, according to the evidence given by the police themselves, I requested that time should be given to confer with the other people who had organised the demonstration to see what was going to be done. My intention at that stage was to urge the people that, as

      1749
      there was a danger of riot and trouble, they should march back and be satisfied with the demonstration that had taken place, in order to prevent anything of that nature arising. The sheriff practically agreed that there was no evidence to prove that I came there to create disorder. Had time been given probably no riot of any kind would have taken place.
      I suggest that there may be a lack of tact and understanding on the part of the police. In regard to the incident referred to by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham), a number of people whose characters were absolutely clean and who were opposed to disorder certified in their evidence that unnecessary and most inhumane action had been taken. Whether that was true or not I do not know, I was not on the spot, and I can only judge from the evidence given. Let, me put this point to the Secretary of State: is it not rather a remarkable thing that the evidence for the defence is always completely discounted and the evidence for the police is completely accepted on every occasion.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not in order in criticising the decision of the courts. That is a thing he cannot do unless he tables a Motion.
      Mr. McGOVERN: I will try to keep within the limits of your Ruling. A clash took place on the 1st of May in Dundee because the authorities in that area prohibited the demonstration taking place.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now getting outside my Ruling. As long as he confines himself to the general recommendations of the Secretary of State, who has a certain control to issue orders dealing with these matters, he is in order. When he deals with specific eases he is criticising local bodies for whom the Secretary of State is not responsible.
      Mr. McGOVERN: I am citing these instances in order to make an appeal to the Secretary of State. I am using these examples not to criticise the action of the local authority and their refusal to grant permission but to show what led up to the clash and how the police should have taken more tactful action in the discharge of their duties. In this case the police took action, according to the evidence, and used their batons at the beginning. Is it not much better for the police
      1750
      on every occasion to approach someone responsible for the demonstration, to try and get an agreement not to break the law completely, but to allow them to make their protest, to have their procession, and to make it as thorough and democratic and legitimate as possible? I appeal to the Secretary of State to consider with his advisers the issuing of some instructions that in all these demonstrations the utmost tact and understanding and leniency should be shown to people who are trying to make an effective protest on behalf of their wives and families. The brute: beasts of the forest have the right of tearing from nature what they require. Human beings have certain rights of food, clothing and shelter, and they can only make themselves heard in very limited ways. If the police were considerate towards these people and sympathetic and not simply go out with the determination at all costs—I do not allege that they do in every case—to prevent the demonstration we should have fewer clashes and less trouble in the country.
      I believe in demonstrations, in showing to the ruling classes and to the governing bodies what is in my mind and the minds of my fellow men. I believe in protesting. I do not believe in throwing defenceless men and women against the police. It is cruel and unjust for any person to bring people together in the street and throw them against the drawn batons of authority. I am not in favour of doing that, but I am in favour of every legitimate means of protesting and showing the Government of this country that human beings have a right to food, clothing and shelter in a civilised centre. I ask the Secretary of State to review the sentences which have been imposed especially on the women, to wipe out these sentences, as a gesture to those who are helpless and unemployed, to show to them that if they have exceeded the limits allowed by the police that at least he is sympathetic in his understanding of their demands and is prepared to concede—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is raising a point which I said he must not.
      Mr. McGOVERN: I have said all I want to say; but it seems to me that the limits drawn by you have been absolutely unreasonable.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not criticise the Rulings of the Chair. He must withdraw that remark.
      Mr. McGOVERN: I certainly will not withdraw it.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Then I must ask the hon. Member to leave the House.
      Mr. McGOVERN: I certainly will leave the House. I bow to your Ruling in that respect, but I still have my opinion.
      The hon. Member withdrew accordingly.
      Mr. MACQUISTEN: The police have very difficult tasks to perform, and no task is more difficult than the handling of a large number of people, called in the language of the law a mob, which may rapidly become a riotous mob. The law should be known to the gentleman who has just retired, quietly I am glad to say on this occasion from the Committee, that if you are one of a mob, although you may be a perfectly peaceful person and are only looking on, if the mob becomes disorderly you are guilty because your presence there encourages them to go on. It is no use you saying that you were there just out of curiosity. You have no right to be there at all out of curiosity. It is one of the occasions on which you may get three months in gaol or a tap on the (head from a policeman's baton, a very painful thing to get. But yet one of the few occasions when idle curiosity gets what it deserves. The hon. Gentleman who has just retired was telling us about a particularly disorderly mob which he had witnessed somewhere in Ayrshire. He did not tell us anything about the mob at which he and the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) were present about a fortnight ago in Glasgow. I do not know the exact place, but I saw it in the newspaper, and it appeared to me that the police there took a hand on behalf of the hon. Gentlemen who were being dragged from the platform by a very disorderly mob. I think that they must have been profoundly grateful to the police on that occasion. I think the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs was so indignant that he called them "a lot of dirty rats" and used words of that description. I do not
      1752
      know that they really came to blows, but that is very likely. I am not so sure that these hon. Gentlemen would have been very much annoyed if the police had drawn their batons and given a few pats to those who were molesting them. "The policeman's lot is not a happy one." The police are always comparatively few in numbers. When there is a mob it is often a case of one hundred to one against them and they cannot stop to engage in a Parliamentary discussion with individual orators in the mob. If you could guarantee a number of police equal to that of the multitude round about, they might engage in such a Parliamentary discussion.
      I recollect seeing a riot in Glasgow in 1919. I was standing afar off like the Levite. I took very good care that my curiosity was situated geographically at a very long distance. But I saw there the late Member for Linlithgowshire, Mr. Shinwell, who evidently knew the law quite well. For if ever I saw a marathon runner when he realised that the mob was getting disorderly, it was Mr. Shinwell. I believe he ran all the way home to Partick. When there is trouble about you must assist the police or get home to your bed. I believe that he got under the bed. But the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs did not know the law. He sought to argue with the police, as he does here with the Chair, and the policeman gave him a crack on the head with a baton. It was very painful. He told me about it; he told me He was unconscious for 25 minutes. He has been far, far too sanguine. For those of us who have heard him speak question if he has yet recovered his senses; I do not believe he has completely got the better of it. The people ought to understand that when a huge mob collect? without proper leadership there is all the material for a crash.
      I remember reading of that in the old volunteer days, in the time of Napoleon III, when the volunteers went out for sham fights care had to be taken that different regiments did not get close enough to each other, because the tendency was, when one mass of men got opposite another mass, for them to come to blows. I remember an old picture of a man coming home to his wife after one of these sham fights, and when asked how he had fared said he had enjoyed himself

      1753
      but he wished they had been real bullets. That is what the nature of mankind is. Men get to blows with very little provocation. When you get a comparatively few police dealing with a big mob it is almost like a Department of State against the taxpayer, one is disciplined and the other is not, there is grave danger of disorder. Bismarck once said that private interest is an organised force, but public interest is a mob. I have seen hundreds of stalwart miners scattered by a scare of police. In Fife, 5,000 miners were scattered by 45 policemen. Yet miners are generally extraordinarily law-abiding people. You get these largo assemblies, these demonstrations, and most of those who take part have not even a thought of being disorderly. But once the trouble starts you never know where it will end. You are obliged to leave these things to the police.
      I remember once congratulating a superintendent of police on his military skill in scattering a large mob of very troublesome characters with only 22 police He told me that he had had an early experience of riots. He said that as a rule not 1 per cent. of men were inclined to be lawless, but that if you get 7,000 of them together they become a mob and troublesome riots are likely to develop. He added, "I lie in wait for the small nucleus of evildoers, and I give them a few taps with the baton. It is extraordinary what a civilising effect that has. Of course I try to get my police not to hit on the head, and if they do so to loosen their hold on the baton at the moment it touches the bead, so that it will not cut a man's head. But it leaves a large lump the size of an egg, and that lump remains so sore that the man cannot put his hat on for about a, fortnight, and as long as the lump is aching he takes no interest in public affairs."
      I recommend the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) to take into consideration the extraordinary difficulties of the police. There is no class of men for whom I have more respect than for the police. To begin with, they have to undergo a severe physical examination. It would be a good thing if the Members of this House underwent a physical examination. Many of us no doubt would be rejected, but there would at least be the assurance that legislation would be passed suitable for the fit man, whereas an unfit man is
      1754
      apt to pass legislation for those only who are morally and physically unfit. There is no more humane body of men than the police. I remember a murder or serious crime of some kind that was committed in one of the worst districts of a large Scots town. An old woman was the first to come across the tragedy. When she was asked what she did she replied, "I ran out and cried, 'Police, police.'" That is the first thing that is done when there is trouble. Then the policeman comes in and acts sanely and judicially. The policeman has to be a man very much above the average in intelligence and physique.
      I put it to the hon. Member for Shettleston, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs would agree with this proposition, that the police, on the whole, do their duty faithfully and well and with the minimum amount of aggression. I do not think that any special instructions are necessary from the Secretary of State for Scotland, or from the Home Office. I do not know as regards the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I certainly do not think that the Home Office know the duties of the police as well as the policemen themselves. Otherwise they would not have enforced that extraordinary charge for the giving of information by policemen in the case of certain actions—a charge which the policemen themselves repudiate. If you leave the police to do their duty conscientiously, I think they will carry out their duty just as well in time to come as they have done in the past. I think there can be very little criticism of their action, either in the case of which the hon. Member for Shettleston spoke, or in the case in which they protected the hon. Member himself and his colleague opposite from the fury of a Communist mob.
      Sir A. SINCLAIR: I know that the Committee wishes to pass on to other Votes and I mast be brief in my reply to the points raised by Members on this Vote. The hon. Member who opened the Debate referred to the salary of the Inspector of Police. The increase, which is only an increase of £19, is one which the State is bound to give him. It is an increase in the normal incremental scale given to all civil servants, according to the terms on which they are engaged, and there is no difference between the

      1755
      treatment of the Inspector of Police in this matter and the treatment given to any other public servant. His salary is, of course, subject to the economy cut on the bonus. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) and the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) raised a question about the action of the police in connection with disturbances which occurred as a result of protests against the means test. Let me make it quite clear to the Committee that the Government fully recognise the right of the public to protest against the Government or against anything else, and there is not the slightest desire on the part of the Government to put any restraint upon those measures of protest and those demonstrations other than that which is necessary in order to safeguard the rights of the public.
      It is the duty of the magistrates to preserve law and order and I have to repeat that the police are not responsible to me but to the local magistrates. It is their duty to see to the preservation of law and order and the preservation of public rights such as the right of free passage through the streets. Subject to that duty, it is the custom of the magistrates in every part of the country to give opportunities for the free expression of opinion and that is in accordance with the wish of the Government. But if, as the hon. Member for Shettleston clearly admitted in the course of his speech, some person makes a suggestion, which people in hot blood may respond to, sometimes that suggestion leads to violent attacks on the rights and the property of other people, to the smashing of plate glass windows on a large scale, for instance, or the obstruction of traffic, and it is necessary then for the police to take measures for the preservation of the rights of the public. The hon. Member for Shettleston said that he believed in demonstrations and that he was in favour of every legitimate form of protest. On that there is no difference between us, but, as the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) has said, the police have exercised great tact and discretion in the handling of the very difficult situations with which they have occasionally been faced in one or two of our big cities. There is no doubt that in some cases the burgh police have had very
      1756
      heavy duties to perform and I am convinced, according to my information, that they have exercised much discretion and forbearance and have carried out their duties properly and efficiently.
      10.0 p.m.
      The hon. Member for Hamilton also raised the question of free passes on public conveyances for chief constables. I have already said in answer to a question, and I am obliged to the hon. Member for the opportunity of stating it more formally in this Committee, that that is a custom which, I think, is open to the gravest objections. I hope that the publicity which has been given to this matter by has question and by my answer, may result in the ending of this custom if, in fact, it still exists, as I am disposed to doubt.
      Mr. KIRKW00D: I put a question in regard to an individual chief constable and mentioned the case, but I also asked whether it was not the case that councillors and magistrates in the counties were getting this privilege from the private omnibus companies and the Secretary of State said he did not think he had any jurisdiction over magistrates and councillors. I think he ought to emphasise the fact that neither magistrates nor town councillors, any more than chief constables, ought to get these privileges.
      Sir A. SINCLAIR: I think it is quite obvious that anybody who exercises judicial functions in relation to these companies ought not to have free passes on these vehicles. That is strongly my opinion. But as regards county councillors who were also referred to by the hon. Member, their case I think raises a different order of considerations. The county councillor does not exercise judicial functions in relation to these companies, and I think it would be an undue restriction of the field from which you can recruit county councillors if you said that they were on no account to have free passes on these vehicles even if they themselves were directors of the company. I do not think it necessary in the public interest or desirable that such restrictions should apply to county councillors.
      The Committee will expect when we are dealing with such an important Vote as the Police Vote, that I should say something about its broader aspects. The authorised strength of the forces in Scotland at the end of last year was 6,626,

      1757
      representing one constable to every 578 persons in the burghs and one constable to every 1,001 persons in the county area. The total cost to the Exchequer, including the salary of His Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary to which, the hon. Member opposite referred, for 1932–33, is estimated at £1,062,452, a reduction of £47,506 on the year 1931–32. This reduction is mainly due to the 5 per cent, cut in the police pay which was made last October, and to the new scale of pay for new entrants into the service. They were both brought into operation on the 1st October last.
      Mr. D. GRAHAM: Is there any increase in the numbers?
      Sir A. SINCLAIR: No. In fact, there is a steady decrease, due to reorganisation within the force, and one particular factor which is coming into operation increasingly, and that is the consolidation of forces. Hon. Members will remember that under the Scottish Local Government Act, 1929, we in Scotland took a different course from England; we took power to effect the amalgamation of police forces in small burghs in Scotland with the county force, and actually in eight small burghs the police forces were amalgamated with the county force, and two lots of two counties were also amalgamated at the same time. Further than that, this year Dumfries burgh and Dumfries county have come to an amalgamation agreement, which came into operation as from the 15th May, and the result of that is that there are now 48 grant-receiving police forces in Scotland, 29 county and 19 burghs. The police have, I think, by their conduct in very difficult circumstances during this winter, earned the confidence of this Committee and of the people of Scotland.
      Mr. D. GRAHAM: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Original Question again proposed.
      Sir A. SINCLAIR: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

      LAW CHARGES AND COURTS OF LAW, SCOTLAND.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £28,785, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the
      1758
      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 Lord Advocate's Department, and other Law Charges, the Salaries and Expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice, and of Pensions Appeals Tribunals in Scotland, and Bonus on certain Statutory Salaries."—[Note: £14,400 has been voted on account.]
      Mr. N. MACLEAN: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
      I move this formally, in order that the Vote may be discussed.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: I have been in the House a good number of years, and this is one of the few occasions on which I ever remember the Lord Advocate's department coming under the scrutiny of the Committee. The first point that I want to raise on this Vote is, comparatively speaking, a very minor point. We have now passed through this House a Bill in connection with hire purchase in Scotland, and it has gone to another place, but in the meantime I would ask the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland if they cannot see, by administrative action, that nobody is imprisoned under the old Act. At the week-end I came across two cases of people who approached me in this matter, neither of whom would have been imprisoned, I believe, under the new Bill. In one case the woman was prepared to tell where the goods wore, and I believe that under the new Measure an adjustment would have been made. I therefore hope the Lord Advocate will see that administratively the position may be eased before the new Measure comes into force.
      The second point that I want to raise is also, comparatively speaking, a minor point, and it has to do with the procedure in the Glasgow Sheriff Court. For good or ill, a number of children are charged at the Sheriff Court. A great many are taken before the ordinary City courts, but a number of children are sometimes prosecuted before the Sheriff. I had occasion a considerable time ago to act in the capacity, not of defending, but of taking some children before the Sheriff. I have no complaints about the Sheriff's conduct, but I merely want to raise a minor point that I feel could be adjusted. The week before I had appeared in the same court, and at that court there were High Court cases being tried, including people charged with murder. I thought

      1759
      it rather ghastly that children of tender years, round about 10 and 11, should be charged in the same court, before the same Sheriff, who was in the same clothes. I thought it bad from another aspect, that you were making these children what we call in the West of Scotland—if I may use a phrase that the Lord Advocate may know and that certain of my hon. Friends here know—gallous, having been in the same court as somebody on a capital charge. It would have been much hotter if they had been taken into the Sheriff's private room and charged there, with the Sheriff not attired in his Sheriff's garb,, but in his everyday dress.
      May I turn to another small question, which I have raised many times, in regard to the procedure at the Glasgow Sheriff Small Debt Court? I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is not now in the House. I know he is coming back, but I want to pay him the compliment of having attempted, along with the Solicitor-General for Scotland, to meet me in regard to this matter of the small debt court. They have now made some arrangements to try and spread the time over. The Lord Advocate held his present office under the Labour Government, and he knows that the procedure at the rent court ought to be that the sheriff should determine every case. There is nobody who, in the courts of this country, ought to be allowed to take the sheriff's place in that court. It is true that since this question was first raised the procedure has been eased, and the sheriff in most cases still exercises his functions, but a large number of people are now being sued in the small debt court.
      It would be out of order to argue the rights and wrongs of Unemployment Benefit and the means test, but nobody will deny that there is extreme poverty, and people under these conditions must be treated with a certain amount of sympathy. People are being sued for rent, and, while legally they may be in arrear, in actual fact they are not in arrear, because they are being sued for fore-handed rent, sometimes as much as a quarter in advance. There is a case in the Bridgeton Division of a man who has been 28 years in one house and has never been in arrears; now he is being
      1760
      faced with a fore-handed demand of £7 12s. Many people in present circumstances cannot pay a sum like that at once, and they would like to pay it week by week. This man, however, is being taken to the court and mulcted in expenses, and all that would be saved if he were allowed to pay week by week. I would ask the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General and the Under-Secretary to consider calling a meeting of Glasgow house factors to see if they can in terrible times like these get them not to insist on fore-handed rent. I know that they cannot compel the house factors, but I am sure that if the factors gave their word to do it, it would be carried out in the main.
      Hon. Members can remember the system of fortnightly and monthly wages in Glasgow. That was abolished in order to ease the position for the poor people. I am sure that one sheriff at least would be glad, for his own sake and for the sake of the administration of his court, to be relieved of enforcing orders for the payment of fore-handed rent. Part of this Vote is for the upkeep of the sheriff courts. There is talk of economy, and if we could do away with the evil of forehanded rent it would result in a great economy and saving of time in the administration of the sheriff courts. The three Ministers will soon be free from the House for the Recess, and I urge them to spend a part of their time in having a conference with the Glasgow sheriff and the house factors to see what can be done in this matter. I am certain that the better type of house factor would not be unapproachable if the powers that be make the approach.
      I turn from that to another question, which most particularly affects the Lord Advocate, "The silk trial" as it is commonly called. I am not going to enter into the rights or wrongs of a judgment given by His Majesty's judges; the question I wish to raise concerns the methods of the Lord Advocate's Department—I do not know if that is the best word to use, and I will say the way in which the subject has been tackled. More than 12 months ago all Glasgow and, indeed, the whole of Scotland, was startled to read in the daily papers that 12 or more very prominent Glasgow business men had been arrested and charged with having done certain wrongful things in connection

      1761
      with the formation of companies in the West of Scotland. Everybody, without regard to the angle of politics, was interested in what was going to happen. For a time the arrested men were refused bail. The Lord Advocate and his Department set a very stiff upper lip against the granting of bail. After the lapse of a certain time bail in considerable sums was granted to each one of the arrested men.
      Let the House note that considerable sums were insisted upon as bail, because when we came to criticise the lower bail on which the men were allowed out later it was said, "The real deterrent against a man is not the sum of money on. which, he has been released on bail, but the fact that the police and the authorities will know where to lay their hands on him at any particular time." We say that the sums demanded as bail were either too high at the beginning or too low later. It seems to me that the Lord Advocate, in fixing bail, as it was his prerogative to do, fixed bail at sums that were far too low in the second instance, because by that time the men had been sentenced, and if there was any inducement for them to go, surely it would be greater after sentence had been passed than before. While the judge fixes bail in cases of dispute the Lord Advocate and his Department, without the judge, can fix bail mutually with defendants.
      The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Craigie Aitchison): That is entirely inaccurate. The hon. Member is confusing two things.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: I was coming to that point. I know you are going to tell me that, there is a difference in the case of appeal—that on appeal only the courts can then fix bail; but in other cases, as the Lord Advocate is well aware, bail is fixed in negotiation between the officers serving under him and the defendants' counsel. I have fixed bail in dozens of cases every day in the week when negotiating with the Procurator-Fiscal.
      The LORD ADVOCATE: Prior to trial.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes, prior to trial; but this is what I am coming to. I am not criticising the judges—I do not say that I would not like to, but I should be out of order—but I criticise the Lord Advocate's Department because they acquiesced in the fixing of the bail. The
      1762
      judges, in the fixing of bail, are guided entirely by the Lord Advocate. While in effect the judge lays down the sum, the judge will not grant bail unless the Crown authorities acquiesce in a reasonable sum, and also give a reasonable guarantee as to the man being got at in reasonable time by the authorities. My charge against the: Lord Advocate is that, while in fact a sum was laid down by the judge, he, who had insisted on huge sums in the origin, only insisted upon getting, after the sentence, a minor and meagre amount. It is not my right or my duty here to contest the judge's ultimate decision, but I say that if these men had been poor men, who had been engaged in a riot in a street, and had been appealing, the Lord Advocate, going to the Appeal Court or the judiciary court in Edinburgh, would have insisted on much larger sums being forthcoming. Nobody in the West of Scotland can gainsay that for the Lord Advocate to say in the pre-trial days that huge sums should be forthcoming for payment and, on the later days, after years have expired, to allow it to go uncontested as a miserable sum, were two contradictory courses that ordinary men and women would find difficult to reconcile.
      I turn from that to the other aspect. Twelve persons., as I said, were arrested and, after a long time, the total costs to the Crown of this trial—and I know, because I used to go about the sheriff court, and it was only with great difficulty that I could see anyone at the sheriff court. Every time you went near it—it was Mr. Adrian and then Mr. Godfrey Hamilton—every time you knocked, you put your two hands on—
      Mr. MACQUISTEN: May I rise to a point of Order I understand that these cases are under appeal just now.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: I knew this point was coming. I will tell the Committee about it.
      Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it in order to discuss a case which is in the hands of the judges, and before it is finished?
      The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert): I think the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) will realise that I feel a—
      Mr. BUCHANAN: I am not taking advantage: of you.
      The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member will realise that when the case is actually before the court—
      Mr. MAXTON: It is not before the court.
      The CHAIRMAN: —or is about to come before the court, it is most inadvisable to raise any question in regard to the case.
      Mr. MACQUISTEN: The judges are considering it just now; the appeal has been heard.
      10.30 p.m.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: May I put the facts? I was not going into the question of the rights or wrongs of the case, what I am going into is what I have a right to go into—the costs of the trial. Secondly, I was dealing not with the two men that are now in the case, but with the 10 men that are away, and I am entitled to discuss that. That is all that I am going to discuss, if the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) had had the good manners to wait. We have been very decent with him, but he has tried to be very indecent to us, and he says hard things to us. What I am saying is that these 10 men are away, and there is no question of a single thing being before the courts about them. The trial is finished for them. I am dealing with the 10 men. The two I have left out of account. As you say, it may be that I would be out of order if I dealt with them. I have no wish to take advantage of anybody who is not up in Scots law. The point is that 12 men were arrested, and the Lord Advocate's Department, and practically the whole Sheriff Court Department of Glasgow, were engaged on that matter. Then, for some mysterious reason, the charges against four of these men were dropped. Eight were taken to the High Court, and by process there in certain cases the charges were withdrawn while the trial was on.
      The LORD ADVOCATE: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but he has made a statement which is nothing but a gross exaggeration. These men were indicted upon three separate charges, and, as regards two of them, one of those charges was withdrawn, but the indictment stood exactly as it was as regards the others.
      Mr. MAXTON: One was discharged during the course of the trial.
      The LORD ADVOCATE: One was discharged owing to illness. Is the hon. Member going to suggest that we should bring an ill man to trial?
      Mr. BUCHANAN: That is one of the points of my charge against the Lord Advocate. He is not going to put me into the false position of saying that you must prosecute an ill man, but this was a rich ill man, and I know that day in and day out in the Glasgow courts ill men and ill women are prosecuted, and no consideration is shown to them, even in the case of far smaller crimes than this. I do not say that an ill person should be prosecuted, but I could give case after case where men and women who were far from well—even women on the point of childbirth—have been prosecuted, and nothing like the same consideration has been shown to them. The Lord Advocate showed consideration for these men. Indeed, one of them, I understand, was extremely ill before the trial, and the charge against him was dropped on the ground of ill-health. I ask the Lord Advocate, in view of what he has done in the case of these comparatively well-off people, to issue instructions that in cases of illness every one of his subordinates should do the same in every court throughout the country in the case of lesser charges and of very much poorer people.
      With regard to the ultimate trial, only two of these 12 men were ultimately convicted. It seems to me that the theory of the law of Scotland in these matters is that, before the Crown engage in large-scale public expenditure, they should see that their case is so well constructed that a conviction is reasonably possible. In view of the fact that in so many of these cases the charges were withdrawn before the Crown case was presented to the court, that even after its presentation the charges were partly dropped in certain cases, that in a number of other cases the men were discharged, and that even those found guilty were found guilty of minor offences, either the Lord Advocate's Department has been guilty of undertaking a case which they could not prosecute properly, or they were guilty of prosecuting certain charges which they found themselves not properly equipped to prosecute when they were gone into.

      1765
      On the question of the judges I make no comment, but there is great feeling in Scotland with regard to the Lord Advocate's Department, and I desire to express as best I can the feeling of ordinary people on this matter. These 12 men were arrested, and 10 of them were found to be not guilty. It is felt that, because these were rich men, the Lord Advocate's Department was not showing the same zeal, the same integrity, and the same push as it would have shown if they had been minor citizens guilty of lesser crimes. They feel that men and women every day are arrested and charged and the Lord Advocate's Department prosecutes them with a skill and ingenuity which they do not show in the case of rich men. The proof of that is that, out of 12 men who were arrested, two were found guilty of minor charges while 10 were discharged by the judge or the charges were withdrawn entirely. The Department to that extent stands indicted and the Lord Advocate must make a defence of his conduct.
      Mr. MACQISTEN: If I may refer, first of all, to what the hon. Member has said about tenants being taken to the Small Debt Court for non-payment of rent, surely, if a man signs a contract and undertakes to pay rent—
      Mr. BUCHANAN: That may be legally right but, when bad times come and a man is working only three days a week, the house factors might take a different view. We may be entitled to certain sums from foreign countries but we recognise changed circumstances and do not always insist upon them.
      Mr. MACLEAN: May I mention one thing that my hon. Friend has omitted? It often happens that, where the proprietor of a house has changed his factor, a new factor comes in with a fresh book on which is printed, what may not have been the custom before, rent "payable in advance." The tenant does not read it and a few months afterwards falls into arrears and finds he is hold to have entered into a new contract that he did not know about.
      Mr. MACQUISTEN: I am very glad to hear the explanation. It seems to me very like the Chancellor of the Exchequer extracting three quarters of the Income Tax in advance, as he did last January. I am surprised to hear that such a thing
      1766
      can happen as that a man who has paid his rent faithfully and well for 28 years should be haled into the Small Debt Court. I feel sure that the vast majority of factors; would not act in such a way. They should exercise the greatest possible indulgence in such cases. Perhaps this Debate will serve a useful purpose, because they will take it from the hon. Member, and also, I hope, from me, that an old tenant who has loyally paid his rent should not be brought to the court. The expenses in the Small Debt Court in Glasgow are, perhaps, the smallest of any court; within the Empire. It is a wonderful court and I have spent many days in it. The expenses amount to shillings where they are guineas in other courts. But, when they have good tenants who have been paying their rent, it is ill advised and bad business to drag them to the court. It may be that they get the judgment and think that they need not do anything. All the same they are putting an expense of several shillings upon the people's rent which is taking them all their time to pay. I hope that they will take to heart the discussion which has taken place in this Committee, and that they will exercise their right in this matter with great delicacy towards respectable tenants, as are the majority of the people.
      The next question which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) raised was that of bail in the silk case. He seemed to think that the first bail had been fixed at a very high figure because the Lord Advocate's Department felt that it was a particularly bad case and a bad crime, and that the accused must in some way be punished by fixing high bail and that the bail should be so high that there was no possibility of their bolting. The main purpose of bail is to make sure that the accused will turn up at the trial. There is no other purpose. All but murder cases are bailable because when a man's neck is at stake, no amount of money will prevent him from trying to get it out of jeopardy. But in this particular case the men turned up at the first trial, and at the appeal, and whether there was any bail or not is purely irrelevant and of no importance. Whether the first bail or the second bail was 10 pence or £1,000 the question is, Did it affect its purpose? The real complaint ought to be on the part of the accused, for they can say, "By our pre-

      1767
      sence here no bail was needed, no matter how small the bail might have been." You should get rid of the idea that bail is a punitive thing. Sometimes it involves cases of sexual offences and the like, but in a case of this kind you were dealing with 12 respectable citizens. There is no question of the poor and the rich about it. For they are all poor enough now.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: I have met some of them since.
      Mr. MACQUISTEN: Perhaps they had a little of their former state clinging about them. As a matter of fact, the civil liability of those men was so great that the hon. Member for Gorbals can take it from me that none of them answered to the description of rich. There is nothing more complicated than one of these extraordinary company cases. People may think that they have a right to a real investigation, examination and scrutiny, but it is an extremely difficult thing to keep right. I should be surprised to learn that there has been a case like the silk case since the City of Glasgow Bank case 60 years ago. There has not been a case like it. Mark you, it came before a judge and a jury. No counsel, no Lord Advocate can guarantee, no matter how careful he is and what investigations he makes, and how skilful he is, what would happen to a case tried by judge and jury.
      I remember once giving evidence against a prominent Scottish city. I was asked what happened when the city lost a case. I said, "The town clerk went back to the magistrates' court, and said, 'Oh, the Court of Session is wrong again.'" Then the magistrates proceeded to take counsel one with another, and decided that they should appoint the judges and dismiss them, and there would be no more bad law and unsatisfactory decisions against their city. It often happens that you may have the best possible advice, and that you may be represented by the most brilliant counsel, and yet the court may decide against you, and all that you can say is that you do not believe in the judgment of the court I remember well the case between the late Lord Leverhulme and the late Lord Northcliffe. Lord Leverhulme consulted some of the most eminent counsel, and they all turned down his case until, finally, it was submitted to the late Lord
      1768
      Birkenhead, who wrote an opinion in three lines, saying:
      "The slander was of the grossest kind and the damages would be enormous."
      I believe that it cost the defendants something like £750,000 to get all the cases settled.
      Mr. MAXTON: The cases are not analogous.
      Mr. MACQUISTEN: These were cases of civil slander. This was a criminal case. The question is: Can anyone put a finger on any of the legal steps taken by the Crown in this case and say that an error in practice, in conduct or in law was made? You cannot do anything of the kind. I followed the case in the Scottish newspapers, and I thought that it was being conducted, as far as I could see, with very great skill on both sides. It will never do to have the conduct of our Law Officers, who are men of eminence in Scotland and in England, brought up and criticised because the decision is different from that which some people consider is right. The question is, was there a prima facie case? After the most careful examination the Lord Advocate's Department came to the conclusion that there was a prima facie case and that it was their duty to go on with it. The people who are responsible ultimately for the decision are the court, the judges and the jury. It would be a most regrettable precedent if when cases of this kind come up the Law Officers should be subject to criticism by those who have not sat day by day in the case and who do not know the case as well as the solicitor and counsel. Otherwise, it would be impossible to carry a Crown prosecution, because the Crown would always say: "Unless we are absolutely sure of a conviction we cannot prosecute." If they are absolutely sure, the accused would probably plead guilty. When I was a practising counsel and got a clear case I said, "There is no fight in this case," and as a rule there was not. It is only when there is a doubt that you realise that you are likely to have a contest. That was the position in this case. It was a difficult case of extraordinary complication and, speaking with a great deal of feeling, I repudiate the reflection cast upon the Lord Advocate's Department.
      The LORD ADVOCATE: I will endeavour to deal with the points that were

      1769
      raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and particularly with one point he made that was so unsound that the word "unsound" is too mild an epithet to use in regard to it. In case I should be pressed for time let me deal with the unsound matter first. I regret more than I can say that the hon. Member for Gorbals, with the approval, apparently, of some of his colleagues—
      Mr. MAXTON: All of them.
      The LORD-ADVOCATE: That makes it worse. With the approval of all of his colleagues, the hon. Member has raised a question relating to a matter which at the present time is under the consideration of His Majesty's Judges. The hon. Member shakes his head at that. That simply demonstrates his complete and abyssmal ignorance of the whole matter. In the very short time at my disposal I will tell the Committee what the position is. It is perfectly true that over a year ago, acting on my responsibility—and I assume responsibility, and I ask neither the hon. Member for Gorbals nor the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) to share it—I had a number of business men of the City of Glasgow put under arrest. I do not follow the argument that that shows a discrimination in favour of the rich against the poor, but, following on that arrest, the most careful and exhaustive inquiry was made, in which the Crown had the advantage of the advice of the most eminent accountants of the City of Glasgow. Following on that,, I indicted on my responsibility—and I accept responsibility—11 men upon charges of a very serious kind. Of those 11 men, one man had to drop out on a medical certificate which made it quite impossible for that particular man to go to trial. Of the 10 who were left it was necessary to drop out two others in order to keep the trial within manageable dimensions. It was a matter of the very greatest difficulty to bring even eight men to trial, and we were compelled by practical considerations to limit, as we did limit, the number, and we ultimately brought eight men to trial. In the course of the trial one man fell ill. What would the hon. Member for Gorbals have done in those circumstances?
      Mr. BUCHANAN: Let the man off.
      The LORD ADVOCATE: We did not let the man off. We reserved the right
      1770
      of the Crown to proceed against him at a later date. The hon. Member would have let that man off, but that was not the method I followed. If we had agreed to the interim liberation of a particular man, it meant a postponement—and that would have been a second postponement of the trial—for at least a week. It had already been interrupted for a period of 10 days by the illness of a juror. I suppose in those circumstances the hon. Member for Gorbals would have let them all off.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: You would have saved spending public money.
      The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. Member is much concerned about spending public money. There are the apostles of economy! Let us consider the situation. The cases of seven men went to the verdict of the jury. The last thing I want to say in this House is a single word reflecting upon any man who obtained a verdict from the jury. I am going to say this when my public administration is attacked, that upon the main charge there was not a single verdict of not guilty—not one. That fact alone is ample, and indeed to anyone who knows anything at all about these matters, overwhelming vindication of the course which I followed as Public Prosecutor in bringing these men to trial. Even were it otherwise, the hon. Member for Gorbals and his colleagues must remember that the aim of a prosecution is not to secure conviction.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish that were so.
      The LORD ADVOCATE: Perhaps the hon. Member may reflect on it with hope.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: I have been in a good many criminal courts, and I have never seen the Crown acting in this way. I wish it would.
      The LORD ADVOCATE: If there is one thing settled in the tradition and practice of the Department of which I have the honour to be the head, it is that the aim of the prosecution in Scotland is not to secure a conviction but to present fairly and impartially a case for the consideration of the jury and that where the jury acquits a man to accept loyally the acquittal without making any reflections upon it. The hon. Member has said that of the men charged, most were acquitted. That should not be a matter for regret but

      1771
      or congratulation. I should never have mentioned the matter if I did not think that what the hon. Member has said conveyed a reflection which should never have been made.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: They should never have been charged.
      The LORD ADVOCATE: I, and my Department are the best judges of that, and as long as I remain at the Deparment I am not going to consult the hon. Member for Gorbals or the hon. Member for Bridgeton.
      Mr. MAXTON: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must also recollect that whilst he will no doubt carry out the responsibilities of his office we shall carry out the responsibilities of ours and criticise him whenever we feel inclined.
      The LORD ADVOCATE: I am the last person to resent well informed criticism but the kind of criticism to which I have been subjected to-night has been of the most ignorant, stupid and irresponsible kind. As regards the hon. Member for Bridgeton if he will raise the matter on another occasion I shall be glad to deal with him and his point of view. In regard to the question of bail, the hon. Member for Gorbals does not realise that the moment a man is convicted he is no longer a prisoner of the Crown but a prisoner of the court. An unconvicted man is the prisoner of the Crown, and the Crown has a responsibility to see that he is there for trial. But the moment the verdict of the jury falls the man becomes the prisoner of the court, and the Crown has no responsibility whatever. It is true that the court may ask the Lord Advocate his view on the matter of bail, and I understand that the real essence of the charge of the hon. Member is acquiescence. On that point the issue is simply this. These men were penniless and the issue was either nominal bail or no liberation. I was in favour of nominal bail. I would take the same decision tomorrow. There was no departure from practice or precedent. My time is up, but I will welcome a further opportunity of defending my position in this House.
      It being Eleven of the Clock, the CHAIEMAN left the Chair to make his report to the House.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
      The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  DISARMAMENT (PRESIDENT HOOVER'S PROPOSALS).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain Margesson.]
  Mr. LANSBURY: In accordance with the notice that I gave at Question Time, I desire to raise some questions relative to the Disarmament Conference, and specifically in regard to the Government's attitude towards Mr. Hoover's proposals. At the outset I would like to say that we shall probably have another opportunity of more fully discussing the Government's policy. In taking the action we are taking to-night, we are doing so mainly to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity, if he is able to take advantage of it, of briefly stating what is the Government's real attitude in reference to the proposal put forward by the President of the United States. I think the House will agree that this question of Disarmament is one which, ever since the Peace Treaties, we have had continually not only before this House but before the whole world. There has been conference after conference. People's hopes have been raised, and, relatively speaking, precious little has been done. There have been numberless proposals and projects put forward, and we have had rejoicings at the end of some conferences. Others have been admittedly absolute failures. This one has been going on now for some months.
  We have lived in a condition of one crisis after another, one proposal after another, and only apparently in sheer desperation the President of the United States put forward a proposition upon which up to the present His Majesty's Government have not given any unequivocal statement. I do not stand here to say that President Hoover's proposal goes as far as my friends would desire that the British Government should go, but it certainly is one of the most magnificent proposals that have yet been put forward. It covers a wider range than any other proposition short,

  1773
  I think, of the Russian proposition for complete and total disarmament. At present people who have an interest in this subject and who think that it is of great importance to the world that some results should accrue from the Conference that has been proceeding for so many months, think that the British Government especially have a duty to perform in relation to the matter. We think, and the world thinks, that our Government are more interested than, or at least are as interested as, any other Government in this matter. We are more interested from the point of view of the fact that we are, if not the most powerful nation, one of the most powerful nations in the world, and if we were to join with the United States we would be the two most important nations, as regards armaments. Other nations would think a good many times before they refused to follow us.
  That is not the only point. We have also to remember that this country is intensely interested in the questions of War Debts and reparations and of trade and commercial relationships. If we are to believe statesmen who make speeches on this subject—I mean the purely orthodox statesmen—all these questions are intimately linked up, one with the other. We are told by American statesmen that it is unfair that Europe should expect the War Debts and reparations question to be settled, if that settlement is to release money to be spent on more armaments. We think that the Conference at Lausanne and the Conference at Geneva are irrevocably mixed up, one with the other, and, because it is of the utmost importance that both should succeed, we want the British Government to come forward and to stand for at least as much disarmament as the United States. It may be argued that the British Government have better proposals. Let us see them now. Let the world see them now. When I say the world, I mean people like the House of Commons. This House has as much right to know what our Government have up their sleeves, as the United States have to lay their proposals on the table. We feel that a great deal of distrust is being sown in the world because of the apparent indifference shown to this one concrete proposal and it seems to us that as the days pass the difficulties will become greater. It is imperative that we should know
  1774
  whether the Government are prepared, first, to accept the principle of a reduction of one-third, and then work out any details which are necessary.
  The right hon. Gentleman may say, as was said yesterday, that the Dominions must be consulted. I quite understand that the Dominions have to be consulted on these matters and that it is more or less necessary to obtain their consent. But this House has to vote most of the money for the armaments of the country. This is not a question for secret diplomacy. This is not a question in regard to which secrecy is important. This is a question in regard to which openness and frankness are more important than anything else. If His Majesty's Government have put propositions to the Dominions, we think those propositions ought to be laid on the Table of the House. We do not think the Governments of the Dominions have any more right than Members of this House to know what is in our own Government's mind, and no one will deny that at present we know very little of what is in the Government's mind. I remember quite well the Foreign Secretary's last speech on this subject. I listened to it from beginning to end, and when he had finished I thought it was the most disappointing statement that I had ever heard on this subject. Since then he has made, so far as I know, no advance.
  If the Government have put to the Dominions Mr. Hoover's proposal and some alternative proposal of their own, I beg the right hon. Gentleman to tell us so to-night and to tell us what it is, so that the world may know that it is not true that our Government are boggling about whether it shall be one Dig ship here or a submarine there, whether it shall be a big submarine somewhere and a smaller one somewhere else, or whether it shall be so many bombing machines of a certain size or some of a reduced size. What we want from the Government is as clear and as categorical a statement of their position in this matter as it is possible for us to obtain, but we want most of all that the right hon. Gentleman should deal with Mr. Hoover's proposal and the Government's attitude towards it. That is to say, do we believe that the proposal is to practical one? Do we believe in it sufficiently to back it as hard as ever we can until the other Governments come in with us; and are we prepared to say to the world that we will take our

  1775
  stand with the American Government and people in leading the world along the path of disarmament?
  We hear a great deal of Anglo-American alliances and at meetings of the societies that exist to maintain and develop the best relationship between this country and America, we hear a great deal about the Anglo-Saxon people standing together and so on. We on this side should like to see the Anglo-Saxon people, as represented by the people of this country and of America, coming together and forming a determined lead to bring about disarmament at all costs, and not only to lead the world in pious aspirations or in long speeches on the subject, but to come right down to facts, as it were, and put before the world a united statement as to what we mean by disarmament. I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite was present in the Royal Gallery when the Disarmament Conference was held during the period that the Labour Government were in office, and he must, I think, have been struck with the feeling that pervaded that assembly, that we were starting on a new era. I reminded the House that I too sat in the big hall in Paris where the Peace Conference was opened, and I would remind the House again that the speech made by Mr. Wilson on that occasion was that we were then, in 1919, entering on a new era in the history of the world. How many times since then have the same sort of words been uttered, at conference after conference, at that Box and from this Box, in the other place, and in various parts of the country? I read the great speeches by the right hon. Gentleman in the Albert Hall, and by the Prime Minister and by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and at the end of it all we have got nowhere.
  When I read Mr. Hoover's proposal, I thought that it was one of the most splendid statements that have ever been made on the subject. It did not go as far as people like me would desire, but in these days of so much of what appears to us to be—I will not say make-believe, but unreality, I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to-night to stand at the Box and say, "We not only welcome whole-heartedly what Mr. Hoover has proposed, but we are going to back it, and we will, if possible, go further than
  1776
  he has done; we will not make any niggling proposals to cut down what he has proposed, but we want to carry it still further and to do what President Wilson said at Paris—carry through for the common people that security which only comes when there is real peace." We have in this House and in the country to disarm our minds of the war spirit, the spirit of domination and power, and when a man like Mr. Hoover takes the line he has, the Prime Minister ought to take the same line and say that because of the horrors that war has piled upon mankind we, the two great powerful nations of the world, will join together and set an example of real disarmament.
  The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I quite understand the motives which have animated the right hon. Gentleman in opening this brief discussion, and I only wish it were possible for me to say what I hope may be possible before many days are passed. At present I cannot answer all his questions, but I think I may be able to say something that may give some satisfaction to him, and, I hope, satisfaction to the House. I am in general agreement with much that he has just said. He spoke of having heard me make speeches on this subject, but I am not conscious of having made more than one or two in the last 10 years. I have not spoken on this subject because I have been dissatisfied with what has been accomplished by the nations at Geneva. They have been playing with the subject. There are 50 or 60 nations involved in this question. It is not only a question between two nations, however great and powerful. However, that is not a very important point.
  I would like to remind the House that for about a week prior to the sudden and unexpected issue of these proposals, conversations were in fact taking place between ourselves, the Americans and the French, and those conversations were for the purpose of ascertaining as accurately as we could how much common ground existed between the three nations and the best method of enlarging that common ground. Those conversations had made some progress. To those not familiar with disarmament problems, which are numerous and most complicated, I must point out that the proposals made now are of a completely different nature from those which have been studied by the

  1777
  nations over a long time, and the whole problem is so difficult that it is impossible in a day or two, or even after days, to give definite replies to the questions which the the right hon. Gentleman has asked. I rejoice to see them, because they are proposals on a kind of scale on which I should like to see disarmament take place though when I say that, I do not mean in detail.
  There are one or two difficulties to which I should like to allude. This matter has to be examined with the very gravest care and in order that we could have a preliminary examination I asked that our representatives might be spared to come over from Geneva to give us first-hand news of what was going on and to bring with them certain memoranda that had been received in connection with these proposals which we had not seen in London. We had a discussion of over two hours yesterday afternoon. I can assure the House that one or two gentlemen who have written in the Press that there has been a split in the Cabinet on this subject, will be very glad to hear that that is not the case. I am sure no one will rejoice more than the "Daily Herald." There is not a single word of truth in the articles which appeared, and they will rejoice to know that I have never known any Cabinet—I have been in a great many now—more unanimous than the Cabinet was in discussing these important proposals yesterday afternoon.
  The Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary returned to-day. The Foreign Secretary flew, and is, I hope, safely in bed in Geneva now. They will report to the members of the Cabinet who are still out there—the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the President of the Board of Trade—and I hope very much that when they have had time to have some consultation we may be in a position here to give the House some really substantial information. But the House will see that until the Prime Minister has knowledge of our discussions, and until our colleagues have met, it is perfectly impossible for any Minister here to give any definite or authoritative reply. With regard to the point about the Dominions, the various subjects we discussed yesterday will be communicated in the ordinary course to them, and I think it will probably be only a matter of a day or two before we get their reply.
  1778
  I hope the House will take it from me once more that, as I said at the beginning of these few observations, not only do I rejoice that proposals on this scale are being put forward, but I most sincerely trust that proposals may be carried that will ensure, if not in that form, as great a reduction in quantity as is contained in the so-called Hoover proposals. We have been working for a long time, and I have had a good deal to do with the work myself, on these problems. The House will recognise, and I hope the Opposition will recognise, that this country has responsibilities which no other country has, for we are responsible not only for the safety of our own food supplies in time of war—we have a duty to our own people—but we are responsible for the maintenance of law and order for some hundreds of millions of people in the East and for keeping open the sea communications between ourselves and the Dominions on the other side of the world.
  Therefore, although it is perfectly possible for us to join in bringing about as great reductions as are suggested in the proposals which have come from Washington, yet there are various aspects of disarmament that must be guarded against by any Government in power in this country because of the responsibility they have to their own people and to their people overseas. You cannot make a yard stick of disarmament, because there are several countries that may be able to make equivalent contributions but which must settle, inside the limits that are allowed, how best they can distribute their forces between the Air Force, the Navy and the Army. These things are difficult and complicated, and have not yet been studied in direct reference to the novel plan which has been put forward by President Hoover. I have just put these thoughts before the House to show what questions have to be considered, and must be considered. I do not admit what the right hon. Gentleman said, that a delay of a few days will endanger anything being done on this occasion. I do not think so at all. I think that by far the most dangerous thing is to rush in and say that a certain plan is possible before we have had time to examine it. I entirely agree with the essence of the proposals, and I would be anxious, as I am sure the Government is, to see as great an amount of dis-

  1779
  armament as is comprised in these proposals.
  Whether the proposals as they have come to us are the best form, either for us, or for other countries, in which to get that amount of disarmament, requires the closest examination. That is the position. We are going into this (matter with a view to making the whole thing a real success. It is quite impossible, I imagine, although I have not been in consultation with anyone, with proposals of this magnitude, to see the results achieved immediately. I imagine that, if these questions are to be taken up, as I hope and believe they will be, seriously and with a view to giving effect to the essence that is contained in them, it is probable that the Disarmament Conference, or the greater
  1780
  part of it, which has been engaged on these great problems, will have to adjourn and meet again at as early a date as possible, to bring into effect among these multitudinous nations the amount of disarmament that could be brought about by the adoption of these proposals or of equivalent proposals. I do not think that there is anything at this moment that I could say. I have had no opportunity of having any consultation with the Prime Minister, but I feel quite certain that I have said nothing to-night to which the Head of the Government would take exception.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  FOREIGN TIMBER (IMPORT DUTIES).
  FOREIGN TIMBER (IMPORT DUTIES).
BRITISH ARMY.
  PAY OFFICES (PERSONNEL).
  PAY OFFICES (PERSONNEL).
  OVERSEAS FORCE.
  OVERSEAS FORCE.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
  LOANS.
  LOANS.
  HOUSING.
  HOUSING.
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, LYMINGTON.
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, LYMINGTON.
  SEVERN BARRAGE.
  SEVERN BARRAGE.
  UNEMPLOYMENT (TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS, ROTHERHAM).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS, ROTHERHAM).
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
CHESTER CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
GATESHEAD EXTENSION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

HARTINGTON UPPER QUARTER AND KING STERNDALE ELEC TRICITY ORDER, 1932.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, in reference to this Order, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Paper in my name.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

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

EAST CORNWALL ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1932.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the East Cornwall Electricity Order was considered by the Special Orders Committee and referred to a Select Committee which reported that the Special Order should be approved provided that those provisions which affected the St. Austell Rural Council were struck out. Following that Report the promoters have informed the Minister of Transport that they do not wish to proceed with the Order, and in the circumstances I do not propose to ask this House to affirm the Order.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Power to alter constitution of joint committees]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: The Amendment to this clause which I have put on the Paper is the first of sixteen drafting Amendments either to correct or perpetuate the grammar of the Government according to the view which your Lordships take. I wish to enter a strong protest at the slovenly drafting of Bills which, after passing all stages in the House of Commons, come before your Lordships' House. I do not believe that to be entirely the fault of the Government draftsmen, for I believe they are understaffed and overworked because they are forced to produce a lot of legislation which nobody except perhaps the Government Department desires. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 15, leave out ("has") and insert ("have").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: I congratulate the noble Viscount on his custodianship of

211
the grammar of recent Bills. We accept his suggestion.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Preparation or adoption of schemes.
6.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a local authority or a joint committee duly authorised in that behalf may, by resolution, decide—

(a) to prepare a scheme with respect to any land within, or in the neighbourhood of, the district of the authority or, as the case may be, the districts of the constituent authorities; or

(b) to adopt, with or without modifications, a scheme proposed by all or any of the owners of any such land.

(2) A resolution passed under the foregoing subsection shall not take effect unless and until it is approved by the Minister, and the Minister shall not approve any such resolution unless he is satisfied—

(a) in the case of any land already built upon, that public improvements are likely to be made, or other development is likely to take place, within such a period of time and on such a scale as to make the inclusion of the land in a scheme expedient, or that the land comprises buildings or other objects of architectural, historic, or artistic interest, or that the land is so situate that the general object of the scheme would be better secured by its inclusion;

(b) 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.

(3) A local authority or joint committee, before passing a resolution which will apply to—

(i) any land not within the district or, as the case may be, districts aforesaid; or

(ii) any land to which either a resolution to prepare or adopt a scheme, or a scheme, being a resolution or scheme passed or made by another authority or committee, applies,

shall consult with every authority or committee which will be affected thereby.
(4) The Minister may, in giving his approval to a resolution to prepare or adopt a scheme, but subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, vary the extent of the land to be included in the area to which the resolution is to apply.
(6) In giving his approval to a resolution under the last foregoing subsection, and in
212
making an order thereunder, the Minister shall by the imposition of conditions or, as the case may be, by the terms of his order secure that—

(i) any person whose property has been injuriously affected by reason that since the commencement of this Act the Minister has refused, on an appeal made to him under an interim development order, to grant an application for permission to develop the property, or that the Minister has imposed any conditions on the grant of an application made since that date; and

(ii) any person who, for the purpose of complying with any conditions imposed on the grant of such an application, has since the commencement of this Act incurred expenditure which is rendered abortive by the revocation of the resolution to prepare a scheme;

shall be entitled, if he makes a claim for the purpose within twelve months from the date when the resolution is approved or the order is made, as the case may be, to claim compensation from such authority as may be specified in the condition or order:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out "or in the neighbourhood of". The noble Viscount said: In the Socialist Bill of 1931 as introduced in the House of Commons Clause 1 originally contained these words, "or in the neighbourhood of", but they were taken out in Standing Committee. They also appeared in Clause 5 of that Bill, but owing no doubt to an oversight, a consequential Amendment was not passed to that clause. Now in the present Bill they have been reinstated in Clause 6 but not in Clause 1. I hope your Lordships will leave them out in all material clauses of the Bill for several reasons. In the first place, if the scheme was a reasonable one it would be approved by the neighbouring authority, and there should be no difficulty in persuading them to join in, but if the scheme is bad an adjoining authority should not be forced to approve or to have their preserves poached upon.
Further, there is no definition or limitation of what "neighbourhood" means. If your Lordships will refer to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary you will see under the heading of "neighbourhood"—"according to the best rules of husbandry practised in the neighbourhood; custom of the country." Therefore on that definition they would be able to go all over the country under the definition of "neighbourhood." Then it states that "an agreement by the seller, on the sale

213
of a business, e.g., a milk business, not to carry on a like business 'in the neighbourhood' of the places where the business sold is carried on is not too vague to be specifically enforced,—'neighbourhood' there means, the immediate neighbourhood of the stated places and is equal to a distance sufficient to prevent competition." If that be the case the neighbouring authority might be put out of the matter altogether and for those reasons I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 13, leave out ("or in the neighbourhood of").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I hope the Amendment will not be agreed to. There is nothing new in this wording in such a Bill. Your Lordships will find that in Gas Bills, where the local authority is asked to take up a gas scheme, there is always this sort of clause. The reason for the local authorities is one of convenience. If they were in watertight compartments the whole effect of keeping them as local authorities would be destroyed. I hope your Lordships will not agree to the Amendment.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I do not think it is necessary to add much to what the Earl of Halsbury has said. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment is, I think, under some misapprehension. Actually this provision has been in town-planning legislation from the beginning and it is really for convenience that this procedure is made possible. Really I think it would be almost impossible for a local authority to plan an area outside its jurisdiction without the consent of the other local authority as the local authority making the scheme would have no power to levy a rate on the other local authority. I do not think that the noble Viscount need have any fear of any difficulty.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: I would draw the attention of your Lordships to some of the more important implications of this subsection to show you that they seriously detract from the value of the Bill, and ask your Lordships if you can see your way to endorse
214
public opinion in this matter. In the first place at the beginning of the subsection the wording is:
"A resolution passed under the foregoing subsection shall not take effect unless and until it is approved by the Minister."
This means that every resolution to adopt a scheme of town planning and every scheme prepared has, before it becomes operative, to be approved by the Minister of Health. In other words, immediately the local authority adopts a resolution to prepare a plan this resolution is referred to the Ministry of Health and thereupon, one assumes, a public inquiry would be set up so that the Minister might find out whether or not the plan is within the limits of the law. This means that at least nine months to a year would elapse between the time the resolution was passed and the time when it became possible for the local authority to put its scheme in operation. A considerable opportunity would thus be afforded for serious damage to be done by speculative builders, and it would be a serious encumbrance and hindrance to the work of local authorities. In point of fact, this is indeed a retrogression from the Act of 1925 to the Act of 1909, for under the latter it was necessary for local authorities to refer every plan or scheme to the Ministry of Health.
I will pass on to paragraph (a) of subsection (2), which states that the Minister has to be satisfied:
"in the case of any land already built upon, that public approvements are likely to be made, or other development is likely to take place, within such a period of time and on such a scale as to make the inclusion of the land in a scheme expedient."
Only on these terms is the Minister allowed to give his consent to a scheme presented by the local authorities. It is indispensable nowadays for local administrators in planning for the future to be able to draw up schemes which will operate for a period of years, but this makes what is known as long-distance planning quite impossible. In the second place the local authorities are not allowed to interfere in urban areas unless development is taking place on a large scale. The words are "on such a scale as to make the inclusion of the land in a scheme expedient." This means that a casual incursion of shops, business premises or small factories into residential areas could not be prevented by the local authority because they would

215
obviously be developments, changes and alterations on a small scale.
I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that all the countryside, outside land which is adjacent to some building scheme, outside land that is fraught with historical, archælogical, or æsthetical interest, is by the Amendment withdrawn from the purview of the local authorities. In other words, it will be impossible for the local authorities to protect a large portion of the English countryside. It seems to be unreasonable that any part of our unspoiled countryside should be at the mercy of people who erect posters and advertisements, or ugly bungalows, and so ruin the beauty that otherwise would attract the spectator. These are the most important consequences of this Amendment to the Bill. I should like to suggest that this Amendment is not in accord with public opinion, expressed either inside or outside Parliament.
Your Lordships will remember that in the Committee stage under the recent Government the Bill as presented in another place by the present Government was accepted without the Amendment we are discussing this afternoon, and that on this Committee there was a majority of Conservatives and Liberals. You will remember that the Second Reading of the Bill was not disputed in another place, and if I may draw your Lordships' attention to some of the opinions expressed outside Parliament I should like to do so. The Council for Town Planning, which represents local authorities and town planning experts throughout the country, passed the following resolution:
"The conference, after careful consideration of the whole situation, 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."
The Royal Institute of British Architects has passed a resolution, which has been sent to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Health, objecting to this proposal. The Council for the Preservation of Rural England also expressed the view that it would seriously detract from the value of the Bill. I would therefore suggest that the action which was taken on the Committee stage in another place
216
is not the expression of public opinion at the present moment, and I would excuse the lengthy and detailed discussion of this matter on the ground that it is perhaps the most important point which will arise in the course of our discussions. I would ask your Lordships seriously to consider this matter, to consider the opinion that has been expressed in other quarters, and finally, if you see your way to doing so, to delete this subsection from Clause 6 of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 19, leave out subsection (2).—(The Earl of Listowel.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: In the first place I would like to correct a statement made on the Second Reading from the Benches opposite and repeated in a more courteous manner by the last speaker—namely, that these words were put in owing to the irresponsible prompting of Tory diehards. This subsection was introduced by the Minister himself after discussion in Committee, and the Amendment now moved by the noble Earl was defeated in another place by a majority of 250. The real object of putting in the subsection is to prevent the making of ridiculous schemes, and if there is anything which is going to hurt town planning more than another it is attempting to do ridiculous things. Without this subsection it would be possible for any authority, which happened to be over zealous and a little indiscreet, to subject the owners to things which would be turned down by the Minister or Parliament. I think it is possible that such things would be rare, but in cases where it happened to be done it would have a disproportionate effect in discouraging town planning, and I think it would be better to adopt the procedure which has recommended itself to a majority in another place. Should the things which the noble Earl fears be proved in practice, it would be an easy matter for this Amendment to be made at some later date.
I should just like to correct one statement that tile noble Earl made. I think he said that it would be impossible to plan land in rural areas unless it was in the sphere of influence of a building scheme. I would draw the noble Earl's attention to the fact that the clause also says the Minister must be satisfied "that

217
the land is so situated in relation to land which is already built upon." I think it gives the Minister fairly wide discretion. In regard to the point which he made about the time that it would take to prepare a scheme, I think it would be very useful in the majority of cases that sufficient time should be allowed for proper investigation of the scheme to be made. I suggest to your Lordships that you should not accept the Amendment.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I cannot help regretting that the Government are not able to accept the Amendment, because we regard it as a very important point. It rather spoils what otherwise will be a very useful Bill. I cannot say that I think the noble Viscount met the arguments advanced by my noble friend who moved the Amendment. He dwelt on how disadvantageous it would be that long-distance planning should be discouraged, and we all of us know how necessary it is to make schemes long in advance. The noble Earl quoted only two or three prominent associations who have expressed themselves very forcibly on this point, but I am sure he could have quoted many others to show that really knowledgeable public opinion is seriously concerned, and has expressed
itself very forcibly on this particular point. I certainly wish that the noble Viscount could have accepted the Amendment, and I am afraid that in the circumstances we shall have to put the House to the trouble of a Division.
LORD ASKWITH: Of course, one recognises the spirit in which the noble Earl introduced his Amendment, but years ago there was an Act of Parliament passed with regard to vexatious actions. You cannot have a municipality proposing huge schemes without having some authority able to say: "You must stop this and you must prepare certain schemes which will have some chance of fructifying and of bringing something good into the general use of the country." Here is a Bill which for the first time prepares town planning on a large scale, and you are proposing to take away from the Minister in charge any chance of being able to stop futile schemes and possibly the flying of kites by exuberant municipal councils.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 8.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Wicklow, E.

Forester, L.

Bedford, D.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Wellington, D.

Allendale, V.

Hampton, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Hayter, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Bridgeman, V.

Jessel, L.

Reading, M.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Lawrence, L.

Salisbury, M.

Exmouth, V.

Lovat, L.

Hailsham, V.

Marks, L.

Bathurst, E.

Hereford, V.

Meldrum, L.(M. Huntly.)

Bradford, E.

Mersey, V.

Mount Temple, L.

Buxton, E.

Phillimore, L.

Cavan, E.

Addington, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Halsbury, E.

Askwith, L.

Rhayader, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Lucan, E.[Teller.]

Clanwilliam, L. (E.Clanwilliam.)

Saye and Sele, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Somerleyton, L.

Morton, E.

Clinton, L.

Stafford, L.

Onslow, E.

Cranworth, L.

Stanmore, L.

Peel, E.

Cushendun, L.

Strachie, L.

Plymouth, E.

Danesfort, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Radnor, E.

Darling, L.

Rothes, E.

de Clifford, L.

Templemore, L.[Teller.]

Stanhope, E.

Dynevor, L.

Wharton, L.

Strafford, E.

Ernle, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Arnold, L.

Hay, L.(E. Kinnoull.)>

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Boston, L.

Marley, L.[Teller.]

Snell, L.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)[teller]

Noel-Buxton, L.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved, at the beginning of subsection (2), after "A resolution," to insert "applying to any land not within the district, or, as the case may be, districts aforesaid." The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to put the Bill back on its original footing. When Clause 6 was re-modelled in another place I could not see that the Government ever gave any explanation or indeed any good reason why local authorities should have to ask the approval of the Minister of Health of a resolution applying to land within their own district. It seems to me totally unnecessary. It is surely only in the case of a district lying outside that of a local authority that the approval of the Minister need be asked. The original Bill was welcomed by every municipal and local authority, and by all associations connected with housing and the right development of the country. Parliament in the past in local Acts has countless times given power to local authorities imposing no limitation on the kind of land they should be allowed to plan.
Why does the Government imagine that local authorities should wish to plan areas without the slightest justification? Where is the necessity for putting a brake on enthusiastic local authorities? Is there one case under the 1925 Act where local authorities have been over-eager to exercise their powers? What reasons have the Government for insisting on an expensive inquiry by the Minister, and an inquiry there must be by the Minister or how he is to form the judgment required under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b)? Not one of the noble Lords here who own many thousands of acres would agree that only part of a particular estate should be planned without regard to the amenities of another part. Many, when developing their own estates, have sought agreement with adjoining landowners. I desire in this Amendment to help the progressive authorities who are taking steps to prevent the despoiling of the countryside. Cases must often arise where the planning will effect an adjacent area. Even under the Local Government Act, with the reorganisation of the areas now being carried out by the county councils and local authorities, there are districts
220
where a part of one local authority penetrates into the area of another local authority, and where, if the planning authority could not submit a scheme covering the area of the other authority, all their efforts to provide rational development would be set at nought. In the interests of the countryside and of reasonable development I ask your Lordships to be good enough to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 9, after ("resolution") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: Your Lordships will not expect me to make the same speech as the one I have just made. The effect of the Amendment would be to put the Bill back as it would be under Lord Listowel's suggestion, with the exception of the small and rare pieces of land which are being planned by other authorities. With that small exception the question that the noble Earl wishes to raise is one on which your Lordships have already given a decision.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Might I ask the noble Viscount if he will give me an answer to my questions?
VISCOUNT GAGE: I think the general principles of this matter have been debated, and we have had a Division upon them. I say the only part of the Bill which will be really affected by the noble Earl's Amendment is that part which is dealt with by schemes made by authorities outside their own areas. I suggest that that is a very small consideration, and I do not think it is worth while making a special exception for these particular cases.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (2), after "by the Minister and, "to insert" the Minister in giving his approval may vary the extent of the land to be included in the area to which the resolution is to apply, but." The noble Viscount said: This is really a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 21, after ("and") insert the said words.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved to insert at the end of subsection (2):

221
"Provided that nothing contained in this subsection shall prevent the Minister from approving a resolution adopting a scheme in the case of land described in this paragraph proposed by the owners of not less than two-thirds of that land and approved by not less than three-fourths of the owners of that land."
The noble Lord said: The subsection we are considering provides that the Minister shall not approve of a planning scheme and resolution unless he is satisfied that it does not come within the category of what has come to be known in the other place as a static area. The object of my Amendment is to take out of this category of static areas such land as the great majority of the persons concerned with that land wish taken out and planned. I have in mind such areas as the English lakes, and, if I may venture to cross the Tweed, the Trossachs, and many other wild and comparatively remote bits of country in which a very small change may have a most devastating effect, long before the Minister can be got to work, a scheme be prepared, a resolution passed and the necessary formalities gone through.
In such a, case the landowners concerned are not only trustees for themselves, but, as we freely recognise, trustees for the general benefit of the country, and they would be in a position to act with much greater celerity and much greater local knowledge, probably knowing beforehand the danger which is threatened. I do not say those cases would be very numerous, but I do say that there are many cases where even a sympathetic Minister might find it extremely difficult to bring such areas within the four corners of the definition laid down in paragraph (b) of this subsection. I also submit that my Amendment is an extension of the principle of consent, that without this principle no planning scheme, as I ventured to point out on Second Reading, can work, and that consent in a general planning scheme will be economical and useful. I also hope—and I have some reason for holding—that this Amendment is in no way contrary to the ideas of those who pressed in another place for some such provisions as are contained in paragraphs (a) and (b). On the other side of the House I trust my Amendment may also find favour, inasmuch as it is, to however small an extent, an extension of the scope of the planning. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
222
Page 5, line 41, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Phillimore.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I would like to support this Amendment of my noble friend. While I do not agree entirely with the unlimited extension of planning, I can see no reason why, if a group of landowners desire to preserve the beauty of the countryside from desecration by one individual in their midst, any obstacle should be put in their way. I think this Amendment provides that they can preserve such a stretch of country, and I hope the Government will consider it favourably.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I think the object of the noble Lord is one with which many of us would feel sympathy, but there are certain practical difficulties. For instance, there is considerable difficulty about the ascertainment of any given numerical proportion of the landowners. It is quite true that if you could ascertain the views of two-thirds of the owners it might be a fair indication of the feeling in the neighbourhood, but cases might perhaps occur when all the value of the property was in one particular part which might belong to the recalcitrant owner. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he does not think that in the event of a preponderating number of owners in a given area being in favour of the inclusion of land in a scheme, that there will probably be some very good reason for it, sufficient in fact to justify the Minister in approving the resolution, even without exactly estimating the number of landowners who are involved. I do not wish to resist this Amendment but I cannot definitely accept it. I would prefer to leave the matter until Report stage for further consideration.
LORD STRACHIE: I cannot quite understand why the noble Viscount who has great sympathy with this Amendment cannot accept it. He says there are great difficulties in the way. Surely it is not impossible to find out what the landowners of this particular district want? If you have two-thirds of the landowners asking for this scheme, and then afterwards three-quarters have to agree, that is no reason why they should not have the approval of the Minister. I should have thought that it was all to the advantage of this Bill, which professes to be in the interest of

223
maintaining the amenities and beauty of the countryside. The objection of the noble Viscount seems most extraordinary.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I would appeal to the Government to accept this Amendment and, if it is necessary to make any change, to make the change on Report. Everybody agrees that the object of the Amendment is an excellent one. It is only put in to strengthen paragraph (b) and to remove any possible doubts in the mind of any Minister of Health as to whether he has power to do what the Amendment says. It is always best to put these matters clearly in the Bill. Any necessary change can be made on Report.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I do not object to the Amendment, but I would like the noble Lord who proposed it to explain how his speech was related to the Amendment. Paragraph (b) gives the Minister the right of dealing with land which comprises objects or places of natural interest or beauty. I understand my noble friend's desire to save such places, but surely the Minister has power to deal with that already. I may have misread the Bill, but it seems clear on the face of it.
VISCOUNT GAGE: May I correct a misapprehension? There may be minor matters which it is desirable to consider in connection with this Amendment, but the principle we accept. I only put it in that form as a safeguard against any minor alterations that may be necessary on Report stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 11, leave out subsection (4).—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (6) (i), to leave out "since the commencement of this Act." The noble Lord said: The effect of this Amendment will be to give to people, who have been refused an interim improvement, the same compensation as is given to those who have been refused an improvement after the passing of the Act.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 42, leave out ("since the commencement of this Act").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): I regret that we cannot accept the Amendment and I will tell the noble Lord why, because I am sure that, when he appreciates the reason, he will not desire to pursue the Amendment. The noble Lord is perfectly right in thinking that this provision gives compensation to the class of cases to which he refers. It was a new provision which was inserted on recommittal of the Bill in the Commons. For the first time it enables an obligation to be imposed on an authority, if it revokes a resolution to prepare a scheme, to pay compensation to suitable cases. The position is this. At the present moment a man may suffer a very grievous injustice. He may apply under the Act at present in force to build and he may be refused because, for example, the local authority proposes to put a road over the place where he proposes to build. As the Act stands at present, most unjustly, the man does not get a sou of compensation. Under the new Act, when we pass this provision, he will be enabled to get compensation. The new Act merely remedies a very great injustice to people who, under the old Act, did not get compensation. In a case like that the man will get the benefit of the new Act and, if the local authority changes its mind, he will get the compensation of which he was unjustly deprived under the old Act. I do not want to say too much about that Act. Some people think it is rather harsh to the landowner. This is one of the few cases where there is a tardy recognition of the landowner's claim and where an injustice under the present law is remedied. In those circumstances I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount for his kindness in so lucidly explaining what has taken place in regard to this matter. My recollection is that in Committee the Government were defeated and this was put in. I do not quite understand whether, if my Amendment is rejected, a person, who under the old Act has been refused permission to develop and in consequence suffers a loss will suffer that actual injustice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No. He will not; that is the object of this provision.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment. The following Amendments standing in my name are consequential, and I do not move.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to
Clause 7:
Notices in relation to the making of, or under, schemes.
(2) A notice required by the last preceding subsection to be published and served in the manner therein mentioned shall be published in the London Gazette and once at least in the local newspaper within fourteen days, and be served within six months, after the date when the resolution takes effect, and shall contain—
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Amendment to this clause is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 33, leave out ("of the passing of the resolution") and insert ("on which the resolution takes effect").— (Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (2), to substitute "three months" for "six months." The noble Viscount said: In the 1931 Bill there was some reason for saying that the notices should be served within six months because it was to be served on the ratepayers. In this Bill it is the occupier, as shown in the Schedule A list, and not the ratepayer, and therefore the reason no longer exists for the period of six months. My noble friend Lord Gage said on Second Reading:
"It seems wrong, if you are going to subject a certain area to control, not to let the owner know as far in advance as possible …"
I agree that the owner of the property in question should be put out of his agony as soon as possible, and I propose that these notices should be served within three months instead of six months in order to attain that object.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 38, leave out ("six") and insert ("three").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: The object of this period of six months rather than three months is to ensure economy. The noble Viscount has said that the necessity
226
for this period has now been lessened because notices have to be sent according to the Schedule A assessment. In the majority of the cases the notices would still go out to ratepayers with the rate notices and therefore it would save a considerable amount in postage. Your Lordships will observe that public notice of the passing of a resolution has to be given in fourteen days, and therefore there will be ample time for people to realise what is being done.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Approval, validity, coming into effect, variation and revocation of schemes.
8.—(1) A scheme prepared or adopted by a local authority or joint committee shall require the approval of the Minister, and the Minister may approve any scheme either with or without modifications:
Provided that, before making any modifications in a scheme, the Minister shall inform the local authority or joint committee, as the case may be, of the modifications which he proposes to make, and shall cause a local inquiry to be held into the matter if within twenty-eight days the local authority or joint committee request him so to do.
(2).The provisions of the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to the laying of schemes before Parliament, the validity of schemes, and the dates on which schemes are to come into operation.
(4) The Minister, on an application made in accordance with the provisions of the next succeeding subsection, may, if he thinks that in the special circumstances of the case a scheme ought to be varied or revoked, himself make a scheme varying or revoking that scheme:
Provided that the Minister shall not make any variation in a scheme unless he is satisfied that it will not involve substantial additional expenditure by any responsible authority under the scheme who object to the variation being made.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW moved, in subsection (1), to insert:
"Provided that where the resolution passed by the local authority or joint committee in pursuance of Section 6 of this Act was a resolution to prepare a scheme, the draft scheme prepared in pursuance of the resolution shall before submission to the Minister be adopted by resolution of the local authority or joint committee at a meeting specially convened for the purpose."
The noble Marquess said: The object of this Amendment, the purpose of which indeed is evident on the face of it, is that members of the local authority

227
should have an opportunity of knowing the scheme in detail and of forming a view of the effects which that scheme may have. Parties interested would also have an opportunity to discuss whether they would be prepared to support it. Further, the Amendment, if accepted, will ensure reasonably long notice to all members of the local authority who are anxious to be present so that, if they think proper to oppose the scheme, they shall have an opportunity of doing so. It seems to me a very reasonable Amendment and I trust that my noble friend in charge of the Bill will be ready to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 28, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)
LORD DYNEVOR: I very strongly support the proposal of my noble friend the Marquess of Linlithgow. There is a very good arrangement under the Local Government Act whereby a county council must hold a special meeting when they are considering questions of altering boundaries, whether to add an area to a large town or to de-urbanise a district and put it into a rural area. All such questions have to be considered at a special meeting of the county council, and I think we should do well to follow that practice in this Bill, under which local authorities will have to consider very intricate questions of town planning. I hope my noble friend will accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF HALSIBURY: I cannot speak with experience of county councils, but I have had some experience of district councils, and I know that when a special meeting is called people in the district hear about it—it gets about that something is going on—whereas in the case of ordinary meetings that happen regularly people do not think anything about them. I think it is important that people should know what is proposed to be done before it is done. This is an excellent Amendment which I hope the noble Viscount will accept.
VISCOUNT GAGE: It is considered somewhat undesirable to ask important bodies like county councils or county borough councils to follow instructions on these comparatively minor matters. One would think that important responsible bodies would be able to lay down rules
228
for themselves in this respect. As regards smaller local authorities I very much doubt whether there would be a better attendance at a special meeting than at an ordinary meeting when full notice had been given of the subjects for discussion. The Government cannot accept the Amendment, and I must resist this effort on the part of the noble Marquess to alter the ordinary procedure in this matter.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: I listened with care to the observations of the noble Viscount and I am bound to say I remain entirely unmoved by what he said. I shall abide by the decision of your Lordships.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (1), after the last "committee," to insert "or any person affected by the scheme." The noble Lord said: The result of inserting the words which I propose would be that the clause would read:
"Provided that, before making any modifications in a scheme, the Minister shall inform the local authority or joint committee, as the case may be, of the modifications which he proposes to make, and shall cause a local inquiry to be held into the matter if within twenty-eight days the local authority or joint committee or any person affected by the scheme request them so to do.''
This seems to me a reasonable Amendment, because, after all, who are the people who are most affected by the scheme and who are the people who ought to be given notice of the scheme? Surely they are the people affected by the scheme.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 34, after ("committee") insert ("or any person affected by the scheme"):—(Lord Banbury of Sautham.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: The object of reserving to the local authority alone the right to claim a local inquiry in respect of a modification made by the Minister is really in the interest of economy. Whereas the local authority is only one body there are numerous owners and if they were to exercise the right to demand a local inquiry there might be a lot of superfluous local inquiries. It is obvious that if this Amendment were passed an owner might for some quite trivial reason demand a local inquiry. It is thought that the rights of owners are sufficiently

229
safeguarded by the provision that a local inquiry must be held into any draft scheme where any objection is made and is not met or withdrawn. If your Lordships will look at Part I of the Fourth Schedule you will see that and you will also see that paragraph 4 (v) provides also for publication by advertisement of any modification that the Minister proposes to make. I think that owners are given sufficient notice and every opportunity of stating their objections at the local inquiry when the draft scheme is prepared.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I do not think that the Amendment of my noble friend ought to be dismissed in this summary way. It is quite true that before the scheme is submitted to the Minister the individual is given every opportunity of making his views heard, but as I read it what we are dealing with now is not the original scheme but a modification of the scheme. A scheme may be sent up to the Minister with the full approval of every one of the landowners in the district, but what we have to deal with now is the case where the Minister, probably for some very good reason, proposes a modification of the scheme. Under the Bill as we have it before us the only people who are to be consulted by the Minister, in order that if they wish a local inquiry may be held, are the local authority or the joint committee. It may well be that some modification by the Minister, done in perfectly good faith, may injure a local landowner or landowners although the local authority would not be affected in any way. In that case, although they have been told by the Minister what is proposed to be done, they might not demand a local inquiry. It seems to me that some machinery ought to be devised—in fact must be devised—to enable a local landowner to put his views before the Minister.
I quite see the point of the noble Viscount that it may be going too far to say that one landowner can call for another local inquiry. He might be a crank and there might be unnecessary public expense incurred in order to meet his whim. I would suggest, however, that before the Report stage the Government should see whether an Amendment could be made so that, say, five or ten people, or at any rate a certain number of people, affected by the scheme, if they wished to have another local inquiry, should be
230
able to put forward their views and not to have to rely entirely upon the local authority.,
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am glad to hear what the noble Viscount said about economy. I am a strong supporter of economy myself, but I did not know the noble Viscount was. Though I am a supporter of economy I am not a supporter of economy if injustice is connected with it, and unless my Amendment is inserted I think injustice may arise under this clause. I do not propose—I am not sure I ought not to have done so—to insert in lines 33 and 34, "or any person affected"—
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: But you do.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: The effect of my Amendment would simply be this. Now, if the local authority had made a scheme which affects, let us say, Viscount Cecil, and the Minister modifies that scheme, then the noble Viscount would know nothing about it, and I propose that my noble friend should be informed of the Minister's modifications. That is all. I might have gone further and said that he should ask for an inquiry, as I think the noble. Viscount probably would do. But as far as I read it at present, all I do is to say that when the Minister has modifications of a scheme, which I presume has been submitted by the local authority to the owner of the land, the owner of the land should know that the Minister has made modifications in the scheme submitted to him.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Since my noble friend has been good enough to take me as the person on which this experiment is to be made, may I point out that this Amendment is on line 34 and not on line 30? If it had been on line 30 I should have seen great objections to it, because it would mean that unless every possible person who regarded himself as a person interested had notice the scheme would be void. On line 34 it seems open to the objections raised by Viscount Gage, but they are not so vital as if the Amendment had been on line 30.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, has not quite borne in mind that under

231
the Schedule, as he will see if he turns to page 78, these are the provisions as to the matters in which regulations shall be made:
"that if the Minister proposes to modify the scheme a copy of the scheme as proposed to be modified is furnished to the local authority or joint committee and notice by advertisement is given by the local authority or joint committee of the intention of the Minister to approve the scheme with modifications and of facilities for inspection of the scheme and map and for making objections to the scheme as intended to be approved."
And in sub-paragraph (vi):
"that objections to any proposed modifications of the scheme made within the time specified in the notice are taken into consideration by the Minister."
So that before it is possible to proceed with modification, just as when a scheme is going to be started, notice must be given by advertisement and facility given to anybody who thinks he is affected by it to take objection. I hope that may possibly meet the objection of my noble friend.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I admit that what Viscount Cecil says is right. I was misled by a noble Lord who said that my Amendment did not do what it intended to do. I am not sure that I think the noble and learned Viscount has entirely met me, but in the circumstances, and as I always desire to support the Government if I possibly can, I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (2), after "The provisions of," to insert "Parts I and II of." The noble Viscount said: This is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 36, after ("of") insert ("Parts I and II of").—(Viscount Gage.)
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I do not know that I entirely agree that this is consequential and I should like to guard myself in the matter; it may not, I think, be consequential.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved, in subsection (2), after "of" ["laying of schemes"] to insert "opposed." The noble Earl said: The very small word that I am suggesting here no doubt gives the idea that this is an Amendment of a small character. As a matter Of fact it

232
is an Amendment which raises a very big question indeed. Your Lordships will see that the subsection on which it is moved begins: "The provisions of the First Schedule," and this is an Amendment which deals with, and is necessary for, a very large Amendment that comes under the First Schedule. I have had an opportunity of talking with the noble Viscount who is dealing with this Bill and with this particular Amendment, and in agreement with him, and if your Lordships are of the same opinion, I think it is much more convenient to take the broad question here instead of merely dealing with the one word that is the subject-matter of the Amendment.
This is the broad question. In this Bill, as in many other Bills, we have legislation delegated to the Minister and the Minister having and being able to exercise certain powers. Those powers should be controlled, and controlled in someway by Parliament. The question is how far should they be controlled and in what way? What the question really comes to is that there are two ways in which Parliament can deal with the control of Ministerial powers. One is by what is known as the annulment procedure; that is to say, that any orders made may be laid before the two Houses of Parliament and unless by a Resolution of both Houses they are annulled they become effective; or they may come before both Houses for an affirmative Resolution before they become effective.
There was a very great desire in the Committee stage in the House below to put in the powers of the affirmative Resolution. That was opposed by the Government and was not carried. One of the big arguments put forward by the Government against that procedure was the fact that a Committee had been sitting for two years, a Committee called together by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, and had not given their Report and therefore it would be rather unfortunate to insist on the affirmative Resolution until it was seen what the Report was. Since the Committee stage in the House below the Report of that Committee has come out and we now know what it has reported. I think if can summarise it shortly. They first of all said that delegated legislation was necessary in modern circumstances, but it had to be carefully guarded. The main point that they rested their views

233
upon with regard to guarding it was the old principle of natural justice, that no man ought to be a judge in his own cause.
I am quoting from the Committee's Report. They pointed out—they quoted the historic case of Lord Cottenham—that there would rarely be such a crude bias as a pecuniary bias, but they pointed out that there was a very much more subtle and dangerous bias likely to come about in the case of a Minister who was at the head of an able and loyal Department, and who, carried away by the perfectly honest and very enthusiastic views of that Department, might be biased unconsciously against the individual. They said that the better the Minister the greater would be the danger. If you had a cynical Minister he would probably be a good judge, but if you had a good and enthusiastic Minister he would be insensibly biased for the Department and against the individual. They said that for that reason it was absolutely necessary there should be a proper safeguard against the Ministerial power, and they said it should be by the two Houses of Parliament.
Then they dealt fairly frankly with the possible ways of doing it. When they got to the way which we had in this Bill, by annulment, they said it was most unsatisfactory. I am not going into the details of the broad decision of that Committee, but I will put it simply in this way. Owing to the procedure of the other place it is very difficult to raise the point and get it absolutely discussed. Under the 11 o'clock rule it may not be possible to get a House, and, further, the matter may be talked out. They come down to the point which I think is the real point. Leaving out all the questions of why and wherefore it is unsatisfactory and difficult to do, they say that this should never be left to individual effort—that if these things are to be brought forward and put before the House properly they should be brought forward not by individual effort but by the Minister who is responsible for the matter. They go on to suggest a Committee who could deal with the matters by the good will of the Speaker and the Lord Chairman of Committees—a Joint Committee of the two Houses. I am not saying whether that is a good idea or not. All I am saying is that that procedure does not exist now, and it is not unfair to say, having regard to the
234
business that must be done in these times, that one cannot expect that representations will be considered and disposed of in a short time. Therefore we start with this, that the annulment procedure is a procedure which the Committee have said is not satisfactory. They have not criticised the affirmative Resolution procedure. That procedure, so far as I can see, cannot possibly hurt anybody, and it is a procedure which is free from the difficulty that the matter is being left to individual effort to bring these things up when they occur.
With your Lordships' indulgence I have dealt with the broad principle, and I now come to the particular Amendment. Is it advisable to bring every single scheme up to the House? I venture to think not. If you have a scheme that is agreed by the local authority, by the Minister, and by everybody who has any interest in the matter at all, what is the use of bringing it up to this House? If you do, and you bring up every scheme, may I suggest that familiarity breeds contempt? Your Lordships, because humanity is the same in every sphere of life, will come to the conclusion that these things are just ordinary things, which go through as pure formalities. If, however, you confine it to schemes which are opposed and say that those have to be brought up before the House, then you get both Houses interested in those schemes, and those are the only schemes which matter. That is why I have begun my campaign with regard to affirmative procedure by my Amendment confining it to opposed schemes. I would rather see this Amendment go through, and have opposed schemes, even with the present negative Resolution, than let negative Resolutions apply to all schemes, when I am perfectly certain the whole thing would be more illusory than it is now.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 37, after ("of") insert ("opposed").—(The Earl of Halsbury)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sure the House is indebted to the noble Earl for a very interesting and instructive speech, and I quite agree with him that the point at issue here is one of very great and constitutional importance to our system of Parliamentary Government. In order to make my meaning clear, will you permit me to explain, as lucidly as I can, what are the two competing proposals that are now before the

235
House. The Bill as drawn makes three proposals. First of all it says that all schemes must come before Parliament. Secondly, it says that certain provisions in schemes—provisions referred to in the First Schedule of the present Bill—must have an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, before that part of the scheme can become valid. Thirdly, it says, in respect of all other schemes, that they must be subject to what is called the negative or the annulment procedure, that is to say, that they pass into law unless within 21 days Parliament in its discretion sees fit to negative them.
Just one other point. The Bill also proposes this, that in cases where Parliament gives its sanction to a provision that provision cannot be challenged, but where Parliament only gives its assent negatively, that is, by not disapproving, that scheme can be challenged. That is the proposal in the Bill. What is the competing proposal of my noble friend? First of all he says that unopposed schemes ought not to go before Parliament at all. He says pertinently, why should a scheme which nobody opposes from beginning to end ever be brought before Parliament? He further says that other schemes to which there is opposition must have an affirmative Resolution of Parliament, passed by both Houses.
There are, first of all, certain practical points which I will deal with and, secondly, certain constitutional questions, to which I will address myself quite briefly when I have dealt with the practical questions. I should think it would be obvious to your Lordships that Parliament is already overworked and has not the time to go into these schemes. What is Parliament for? Is Parliament to discuss every sort of petty detail that must come up in every scheme, or is Parliament to be the vehicle by which the country expresses its view as to policy, leaving it to other authorities to fill in the details of the picture? The affirmative procedure will throw a very heavy burden of work on both Houses. Fancy, every scheme has to be brought before Parliament and has to obtain Parliamentary approval before it becomes valid ! It might be said that the number of schemes might be small. That may be true but one objection would be sufficient to require the full affirmative procedure.
236
And this is a point of great constitutional importance. Supposing, for example, a scheme enacted a building line and there was a frontager upon that building line who only held, we will say eighteen or twenty feet, and supposing there were dozens and dozens of other frontagers of different amounts. If one person objected to that scheme under the proposal of the Amendment that scheme would have to be brought before Parliament, and not only so, but I suppose that if things are brought before Parliament, Parliament considers that it has an obligation to discuss them. Not only will it take a very great amount of time in the House of Commons and here, but what is to happen if the two Houses disagree? I am sure I cannot tell your Lordships.
The first practical difficulty is the great amount of time which would be consumed and that both Houses of Parliament will be at the mercy of a single objector. I do not want to call a single objector a crank, though cranks are entitled to have justice just as much as anybody else. But at the same time you must consider the question of public time, and you must not put upon Parliament an obligation to decide these questions if you can relieve it by making quite sure that the objection of a crank will be properly dealt with and due justice will be shown to him. I ask your Lordships: Is it not a danger that the time of Parliament will be taken up by small matters, which might encroach unreasonably upon the time available for large matters of policy, which are really the matters to be considered by this House and another place? There is another matter. I should be sorry to think that either House of Parliament should deal with anything which appeared before it in a slap-dash, perfunctory manner, and it would be wrong, if these schemes have to be brought before Parliament, that Parliament should treat them in a way which was really not consistent with doing justice to the case. Parliament must do its work well, or Parliament will cease to retain the confidence of the public.
Now with regard to the scheme itself. A scheme is a complicated whole, and the parts fit into one another. It is quite impossible that an objection of any moment can be considered in isolation. If you make a small alteration in a Bill, as your Lordships know perfectly well,

237
though the alteration may seem very small it may throw out of gear a great number of other clauses. And any objection would have to be dealt with in relation to other proposals in the scheme. It would be necessary to consider them, and the House might find itself committed to examining the whole of a scheme. Is it to have maps, expert witnesses and evidence? Is it to have the same procedure as a Private Bill of many details? It really would be impossible, first of all, for Parliament to give the time to it, or for Parliament to do full justice to the matter before it.
Might I just put one other practical consideration before your Lordships? To adopt the alternative procedure would have this unfortunate result. The legal validity of any provision in a scheme which has been passed by a Resolution could not be questioned in the Law Courts, and a contradictory position might arise. Scheme A has to come before Parliament because an objection is made, and Parliament passes the scheme by Resolution. The provision which it so passes cannot be questioned in the Court; but if Scheme B were not objected to and therefore did not come before Parliament, the provision in Scheme B could be upset by the Courts if in their view it was invalid notwithstanding that in Scheme A it was outside their jurisdiction. You therefore might get into this unfortunate conflict of jurisdiction, that Parliament might have said a thing quite rightly and yet in another scheme say just the opposite. I would suggest to your Lordships that that is not the way to deal with these matters.
I have dealt with two practical difficulties and they are real difficulties: (1) the time; (2) that in the time that Parliament has it really could not do justice to the merits. Let me come to the question of the constitutional functions of Parliament. We may be at the parting of the ways and we may have to decide whether Parliament is to be a legislative body or an administrative body, because if you are going to take into your consideration now all these various schemes and all the various details of them you will really be administering the law. What is your function? I suggest that it is to decide the policy and not to discuss details. Something has been said about
238
the Donoughmore Committee's Report, which dealt with these matters. May I suggest to your Lordships that a proper analysis of this part of the matter is this? 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 details. A great deal of legislation must not only necessarily be done, but is better done, by delegation, though the risks of this are obvious and safeguards have to be provided. Your Lordships will find on consideration of the matter that Parliament will be obliged, as time goes on, to delegate more and more to what, may I say for a moment, are inferior authorities, and the real solution is to see that the powers given to the Minister shall be regulated, and that safeguards are provided against their misuse.
The issue at the bottom of this—and it is a grave issue—is whether Ministerial government, with responsibility to Parliament, is to prevail, or whether Parliament is to become part of the administrative machine, thus entering more and more into the details of local administration, just as if it was a local authority and its committees. I submit to the wiser consideration of your Lordships that this latter part is one of extreme danger to the country, and that the more Parliament is induced to enter into details of administration the less efficient is the government of the country likely to become. The present time more than ever, when conditions are necessarily complicated and more intricate than they have ever been before, is a time when Parliament should be very chary of doing anything which may render less effective its control over the big issues of policy on which the political well-being of the country chiefly depend.
What your Lordships will have to decide here is whether all these schemes shall require an affirmative Resolution of Parliament, or whether the proposal, which I venture to think is a half-way proposal but a more important part, should be submitted to what I call the negative procedure. With regard to the negative procedure, it is perfectly true that the Donoughmore Committee have said that it is not satisfactory. With that, I think, one would agree. They do not recommend, however, as far as I read the Report, that it should be scrapped, but simply that the procedure

239
should be rendered more effective. Any improvement in that negative procedure is a general question which should be dealt with as a whole and not in a piecemeal fashion by reference to this Bill. Therefore I suggest that the proper way of dealing with this question, when you really have not sufficient information, is to let the matter stand as it is in the Bill. I hope that at no distant date one will be able to do something with regard to the whole of this part of legislation, and to put the delegated legislation of this country on a proper footing. I would ask your Lordships, in the present state of affairs, to say that it is impossible to place the burden upon this House and upon the other House which the affirmative procedure, as at present constituted, would place upon it.
There is just one other point. The noble Earl indicated that he wishes the obligation to submit schemes to Parliament to be confined to schemes to which objections are made and not met or withdrawn. The Minister, in the discussion in the Commons, stressed the value of submitting every scheme, because it would bring every scheme within the purview of each House, and tend towards greater care in dealing with the making of schemes. May I add that experience shows that too harsh a criticism of the negative procedure is not warranted. The annulment procedure now applies to many regulations made by the Minister, and in recent years regulations to which objections were raised have in fact been questioned in Parliament and have had to be withdrawn. It would be quite easy for anybody who wishes the matter to be brought before Parliament to get that done. I submit to your Lordships that at the present moment it is better to let this Bill stand as it is with the proposals as they now are, which is certainly a compromise, and that in due time—the sooner the better—the whole question of delegated legislation should be considered in all its aspects, and this Bill and any other Bill to which it applies, if it be found necessary, should be brought within any new scheme for delegating authority.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I know something about this subject because it is really a very old one. The relative merits of the negative or annulment Resolutions of schemes or orders laid on the Table, and of affirmative
240
Resolutions have been the subject of discussion in your Lordships' House for many years. It was found many years ago that the annulment power was a practically useless power. I speak in the presence of a great many noble Lords with as much experience in your Lordships' House as I have, and they will know that when orders or schemes were laid on the Table and it was left for private Peers here, or it may be for private Members in another place, to raise objection to them, in practice that usually never happened. That may be a weakness on the part of ourselves and members of another place or it may be the fault of the system, but in point of fact it is of no use. That being so, Parliament began to consider whether it could not establish a more effective system, and it invented the affirmative Resolution, which was put into a great number of Acts of Parliament. I believe it was effective but, as indeed the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has just said, the difficulty was that the enormous number of them might over-weight the Order Paper of your Lordships' House, and the system might become a form, just as the negative system became a form, and that, therefore, even the affirmative Resolution might become useless.
It is very important, may I say parenthetically, that we should find some method, because the legislative process of your Lordships' House and of the floor of Parliament is so extremely clumsy and awkward, and all ordinary legislation which does not raise any Party question at all never gets through, and it would be immensely in the public interest if some shorter method of legislation could be discovered. It has been thought by many people that if you could have established a system under which a minor authority could "rough out" a scheme, which should be laid upon the Table of both Houses, and should only become law upon a definite affirmative Resolution of both Houses, then you would, for a large number of minor matters of legislation, find a short cut which would be immensely valuable and in the public interest. Therefore the question which the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has raised, is really of very great importance.
I come back to my main point. These affirmative Resolutions became so numerous that they themselves formed a

241
difficulty, and so your Lordships established a procedure which is called the Special Orders Committee procedure—there is a Committee of your Lordships' House called a Special Orders Committee, before which all affirmative Resolutions come. If the Amendment of my noble friend were carried, all the affirmative Resolutions which he leaves in the Bill would come before the Special Orders Committee. The Special Orders Committee are instructed to go through all the schemes and orders and, if they are found to be in the ordinary course normal exercises of the particular power of making schemes and orders, then they so report to the House and many of those schemes, electricity schemes, gas schemes, etc., go through without any question at all. If there is any special question about them, if they turn out to be on a very large scale, or if they raise any novel point, or if in any respect they ought to receive special attention, a special Report is made by the Committee to the House, and only those schemes are a matter of consideration and discussion in the House. In that way the difficulty of affirmative Resolution orders being overweighted by their numbers is eliminated, because they are sifted in the Special Orders Committee and only those which it is obviously necessary for your Lordships' House to consider are left I think we have instituted a very good system, though I do not know how it works, because I have had not much time to study the proceedings under that Standing Order since it was instituted some years ago.
My noble friend in his Amendment wants a certain number of schemes to be submitted to the affirmative Resolution process. What is the objection to that? It is the objection that they may be too numerous. That was the objection of the Lord Chancellor in his speech just now. Then my noble friend suggests that we should limit them and that only the opposed schemes should go through the affirmative Resolution process. That seems a very reasonable proposal. There are not likely to be many of those schemes. I do not know if the Government have formed any estimate of the number but I do not think that many of them will be opposed. Almost all of them—to use a colloquialism—will be "squared" in the gradual process as a scheme is agreed upon, "squared"
242
either in the locality or by the central body. The ultimate result will be that very few opposed schemes will be left. Even those opposed schemes, if they have to have an affirmative Resolution, will go before the Special Orders Committee and be sifted out. The ultimate number that will come before your Lordships' House will be very few. I should be sorry to pronounce a definite opinion on the matter and I should be glad if a final decision were postponed until a later stage. The Amendment raises very important constitutional matters. If it turns out that my noble friend's Amendment does really involve a very large number of schemes, or that it still involves too large a number of schemes and that some schemes ought to be eliminated, then I hope the Government will take the House into their confidence and tell us the decision at which they have arrived.
I do not believe the annulling Resolution is of any value whatever. The only real resource is in the affirmative Resolution. There is the point which the Lord Chancellor made as to the consideration by the Courts which is left with an annulling Resolution. That is not of the same value. The Courts do not deal with the same point but with the point whether the scheme is ultra vires or not. Parliament takes a much wider view than this, not only whether it is ultra vires under the law but whether it is advisable in all the circumstances of the case. That is a very different proposition. In other words, the Parliamentary method is partly legislative, as it ought to be, whereas the Courts are only there to interpret the law as it stands. Your Lordships will forgive me for having detained you so long but I was largely the author of the affirmative Resolution method and therefore I felt that it would not be amiss if I troubled your Lordships with an explanation of its working.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am very glad that the noble Marquess has intervened and has thus assisted your Lordships to understand the position. Certainly, as far as I am concerned, I was very glad he made the statement he did on the procedure which, largely at his instance, has prevailed in connection with these Resolutions. The difficulty is a very real one and I do not propose to go at any length into the discussion. The

243
noble Earl was quite right in raising a point of this importance. The word he seeks to introduce does not convey anything unless one has the explanation which he afforded to your Lordships. I only rise to endorse as far as I can the explanation of this Bill and the views which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor put forward to your Lordships on the constitutional position. The point raised is an extremely important one and it is not quite as easily disposed of as the noble Marquess suggested, though he will forgive my differing from him. You may have a large number of schemes coming up, even if you introduce the word "opposed," and you would have to pass in this House a number of affirmative Resolutions. Gradually there may be more time taken up in this House than would be desirable if a proper procedure could be devised.
I do not want to discuss the various distinctions that were made by the Lord Chancellor because I agree with him. I only desire to draw your Lordships' attention to a point which has escaped attention as indicating the importance of the affirmative Resolution in certain cases. There are provisions in this Bill which provide that a scheme may suspend the provisions of an enactment actually in force. These provisions occur on various clauses and provide that a scheme—
"may provide for suspending the operation of any provision, whether contained in a Statute or in an order, by-law, or regulation."
Obviously, that raises a most important constitutional point because it will enable the Minister, by approving a scheme or modifying or dealing with a scheme, to suspend the operation of a Statute actively in operation which had been passed before this measure. Under this Bill, if the clause stands and is made effective, the result would be that past enactments could be over-ridden by the Minister in a scheme without, of course, bringing the matter before Parliament by an affirmative Resolution.
The noble Marquess has referred to the annulment provision, as it has been called as a comprehensive term for the negative procedure by which a scheme can come into operation unless within a certain number of days either House of Parliament expresses a different view and refuses its approval. On the other hand,
244
there is a provision in the Bill which deals with the more serious constitutional point to which I have just called attention, which is in the second paragraph of the First Schedule on page 67. It lays down definitely that:
"A scheme which contains a provision suspending the operation of a statutory enactment, other than an enactment which is an excepted enactment for the purposes of this paragraph, shall not be capable of coming into operation until a Resolution approving the suspensory provision has been passed by each House of Parliament."
There is no question of conflict between the two Houses. Both Houses must pass a Resolution. That is the affirmative procedure and, of course, it is a very necessary safeguard when you have such far-reaching provisions as are contained, for example, in Clause 11 of the Bill to which I have already called attention, which give power to the Minister when dealing with a scheme to suspend the operation of a statutory enactment.
I merely refer to that for the purpose of drawing the attention of your Lordships to the importance of considering whether the procedure should be in the negative form or the affirmative form. Obviously when we are dealing with such an important matter as the overriding of a statutory enactment it is necessary to have an affirmative Resolution. I gather that His Majesty's Government, after a good deal of consideration, came to the conclusion that it was necessary and put in the Schedule a provision which seems to me to meet the graver constitutional point which we have been discussing, because under that provision a statutory enactment cannot be suspended in any form by any scheme which is brought forward unless there is an affirmative Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament. That is a very wise provision.
With regard to what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor called "administrative procedure," all that I would desire to say at this stage is that whilst agreeing with much that fall from the noble and learned Marquess and from the noble Earl and from the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, it does seem to me that it is not possible at this moment in this Bill to deal with so wide and important a matter. It requires very careful consideration and we shall have to evolve some plan regarding what one may call for the

245
moment administrative legislation in order to see whether we can devise a better procedure. I am glad the noble Marquess expressed approval, as I followed him, of the idea that this matter should be most carefully considered and should not be insisted upon at the moment. I will not go into details of the argument upon this particular Amendment because I think it is apparent that its importance only arises from the fact that it has evoked the important constitutional discussion to which we have listened. I hope we shall come to the conclusion, after the observations which have fallen from the noble Marquess who has so much experience and who led the House for so many years, that it would be far better to leave the matter to be dealt with in the manner suggested by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, contenting ourselves with the definite affirmative principle laid down on the important constitutional point to which I have already alluded and upon which it is not necessary to say more at the moment.
EARL PEEL: May I add a word or two to what was said by my noble friend below me? I remember extremely well the discussion as to annulment or affirmative Resolutions and I rather understood that so far as your Lordships' House was concerned that question had been generally settled. I am also aware, of course, of the working of that system in Committee and I have myself sat on the Committee several times. But listening to the speech of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, I was not quite clear as to the exact importance he attached to the proposal in the Bill—that is to say, the annulment Resolution. He gave us a powerful argument, no doubt, about Parliament usurping administrative functions and suggesting that legislation was its proper duty, but I could not understand from that what importance he attached to the annulment Resolution itself. The whole tendency of his argument, I thought, was that Parliament should abstain from administrative interference and that the annulment Resolution was a polite way of putting something into the Bill which did not matter much because its effect is very small both in another place and in this House.
When the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor criticised the affirmative Resolution he said: "Oh, but
246
what would happen if the two Houses differed and an affirmative Resolution was passed in one House and a negative Resolution in the other?" I suppose the matter would fall to the ground. Surely exactly the same thing happens as regards the annulment Resolution. It is just as much an argument against the one as against the other. If, in this House say, there was an annulment Resolution and a scheme was condemned, there might be a difference between the two Houses and it seems to me the effect would be very much the same. Does the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor really mean that we can have practically no control over these schemes? Does he accept the statement made by my noble friend the Marquess of Salisbury, to which I myself subscribe, that really the annulment Resolution is of very little value? If he does mean that then I think he ought to state it clearly. Does it mean taking this matter practically out of the hands of Parliament and having it settled either by the Minister or in some way by the Courts through an appeal, I understand, under the annulment Resolution? I am not sure that this appeal to the Courts fills me with the same enthusiasm as it does him. I should have thought it better to have it settled by Parliament.
I certainly think that we ought to have a clear lead from the Government. I understand, of course, that there is a good deal of control possible under the affirmative Resolution and that is the only way of Parliament asserting itself. I am a little nervous about the proposal of the noble Earl as to only opposed schemes being dealt with in that way. There might be certain schemes which, though not opposed, would be suitable schemes upon which Parliament should express an opinion. According to him, however, only opposed schemes would come before us. Any scheme that was not opposed would not be brought before Parliament and might pass sub silentio. I think that that leaves too great power in the hands of the Minister, and I only support the affirmative Resolution procedure with that qualification and feeling a shrinking of the heart. Really I rose to get a statement from the Government as to what is their view as to the real effectiveness of this annulment Resolution procedure and of the power which it gives to Parliament.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am very glad to respond to the appeal from my noble friend Earl Peel. Everybody in the House, I think, will feel that the matter which has been raised is a matter of real importance and that the discussion has been useful in eliciting some very valuable expressions of opinion. No doubt there is an important point involved and no one can fail to have been interested by the explanation which my noble friend the Marquess of Salisbury gave of the system which prevails with regard to affirmative Resolutions in this House—a system which he was largely instrumental in bringing into effect.
I would like to remind your Lordships of the fact which has been a little obscured in the debate, that we are not discussing really what form of Resolution shall be adopted in this House. We are discussing what form of Resolution, negative or affirmative, shall be adopted in each House, and I think it is well to remember that, although the procedure originally devised by the noble Marquess which prevails in your Lordships' House has been found to work here in a way which safeguards the situation and at the same time does not overburden the business of your Lordships' House, the same is not true in another place. Any of your Lordships who have served an apprenticeship, as I have done, in another place will remember the great congestion of work which prevails there, a congestion certainly not less now than when we were present, and they will realise that the condition of affirmative Resolutions in another place, where they have not the procedure which the noble Marquess introduced here, does involve a very great addition to the work in that House and creates a very real difficulty in applying this procedure to that House, which is what this proposal seeks to do.
Says my noble friend Earl Peel—and I appreciate the pertinence of the question —what value is there in the merely negative form of Resolution, because if it is of no use when you allow for a negative form of Resolution then you are not providing any effective check? That was a consideration which was, I think, brought before bath Houses of Parliament some little time ago and as a result of which the Committee was set up to which attention has been called. The position with regard to that is that the Commit-
248
tee has only just issued its Report. I think it had not been issued when this was discussed in another place. It is obvious that the criticisms to which the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, called attention are criticisms which the Government cannot possibly ignore, and that in the light of those criticisms it will be necessary for the Government to examine into the exact value of the two forms of Resolution and the best plan of making effective the control of Parliament in cases where it is not desired to have the cumbersome form of affirmative Resolution which, if adopted in every case, would even further clog the legislative machine and practically make the proper conduct of business in another place an impossibility.
I am not going to tell my noble friend that I have a ready-made solution—I wish I had; but most certainly the matter will be investigated by the Government and not merely with regard to this Bill, which is only one illustration of the two forms of Resolution, but with regard to the whole situation created by the existence of this form of negative Resolution in a great number of other Acts of Parliament passed very largely in recent years. There are some particular schemes to which the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, called attention, in which there is some interference with legislative enactments, where it is plainly, I think, the duty of Parliament to insist that they shall not become effective without their being examined and affirmatively approved by each House of Parliament, and if either House refuses assent the effect is that the scheme fails. That is already provided for in this Bill in paragraph 2 of the First Schedule. With regard to others, what I would like to suggest would be that for the time being we adopt what I understand to be the suggestion of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, and that is that we should allow the proposals to stand as they are for the moment, but that the Government, in the light of the Report of the Committee, shall investigate the whole question of how to make these negative Resolutions an effective check so as to ensure that they shall not become a mere formula, a mere excuse for seeking to give to Parliament a control which it does not possess.

249
What means we are going to find I do not pretend to be able to tell your Lordships at the moment, and I do not think your Lordships would expect it of me. It is only within the last few days that the matter has been reported on and obviously the Report is one dealing with questions of great difficulty which have puzzled wise heads for a considerable time and require to be carefully weighed. In the circumstances I would suggest that your Lordships should be willing to accept the position outlined in the present proposals of the Bill and that the Government should undertake, as I understand the Lord Chancellor is willing to do, that the whole question of these Resolutions should be investigated with a view to a more effective check being provided.
LORD STRACHIE: The principal argument of the noble and learned Viscount seems to be that we should not pass this Amendment because if the schemes have to be affirmed in another place it would mean great congestion of business. I had a much longer apprenticeship there than the noble and learned Viscount, and had not the pleasure he had of always sitting on the Treasury Bench. It seems to me that there would be no congestion caused because when these questions come before another place they come after 11 o'clock and therefore do not interfere with Government business, while on the other hand, private members get an opportunity in regard to them. I hope the noble Earl will go to a Division because this Amendment seems to me to raise a very important point.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I have heard with some disquiet the reply of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. As far as I can make out all he has said is: I agree with you, and I agree with everybody that the negative Resolutions are of no value. The noble Viscount who leads the House says that the Government have not had time to consider the Report. If I thought it worth while I would ask him to look at
the Report for ten minutes and then tell us if he has not convinced himself that the Report says that the negative Resolutions are futile as they stand at present. We are told that at some time, unspecified but hopefully put forward, something will be done to find something which will make negative Resolutions less futile than they are now. The Report has not said that affirmative Resolutions are futile and they have not been criticised in the Report. The Lord Chancellor puts forward the case of a frontager and says that of course the man may have been right, but if you are going to have an affirmative Resolution what will happen? —time will be taken up to see that a man who is in the right gets justice done. What therefore is to be done? Have a negative Resolution and we shall not be bothered with it. Is that really the way that Parliament or this House ought to deal with the matter?
Then we are told it is going to take so much time. Let me give one instance. We have the Electricity Act with the affirmative Resolutions. There have been a thousand schemes put forward under it up to date and the total number asking for an affirmative Resolution is four. It is nonsense to say this is going to take up too much time. The real vice is that if these affirmative Resolutions are not passed you are giving the whole thing into the hands of the Ministry and they want you to do that; they do not want you to keep a hold on them. Here I would quote the words of the Report of the Committee:
"If we do not take care we shall find that the servant has become the master."
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I should not have intervened but for the words which fell from the noble Earl. As one who put through nearly a thousand Electricity Orders in another place, I would wish to point out that those Orders are very different things from a scheme under the Town Planning Act.
On Question, Whether the word "opposed" shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 65.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Mar and Kellie, E.

Bedford, D.

Midleton, E.

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

Morton, E.

Linlithgow, M.

Iddesleigh, E.

Radnor, E.

Lindsay, E.

Selborne, E.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Biddulph, L.

Lawrence, L.

Hereford, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Novar, V.

Forester, L.

Remnant, L.

Forteviot, L.

Sinclair, L.

Annaly, L.

Greenway, L.

Strachie, L.

Askwith, L.

Harlech, L.

Wharton, L.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Jessel, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Churchill, V.

Greville, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hampton, L.

Somerset, D.

Hailsham, V.

Hare, L.(E. Listowel.)

Wellington, D.

Mersey, V.

Hayter, L.

Heneage, L.

Bath, M.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Reading, M.

Luke, L.

Addington, L.

Marks, L.

Balfour, E.

Alvingham, L.

Marley, L.

Bradford, E.

Amulree, L.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Cavan, E.

Arnold, L.

Mount Temple, L.

Denbigh, E.

Boston, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Brancepeth, L.(V. Boyne.)

Phillimore, L.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Chesham, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Clanwilliam, L.(E. Clanwilliam.)

Redesdale, L.

Plymouth, E.

Rhayader, L.

Powis, E.

Clwyd, L.

Rochester, L.

Rothes, E.

Conway of Allington, L.

Snell, L.

Stanhope, E.

Cushendun, L.

Stafford, L.

Strafford, E.

Danesfort, L.

Stanmore, L.

Vane, E.(M. Londonderry.)

Darling, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Allendale, V.

Ernle, L.

Templemore, L.[Teller.]

Bridgeman, V.

Faringdon, L.

Wargrave, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Gage, L.(V. Gage.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in the proviso to subsection (4), to leave out "substantial." The noble Earl said: So far as I understand it this provision gives the Minister power to vary or alter a scheme, and it imposes as a restriction on increased expenditure that such increase shall not be "substantial." The word "substantial" is capable of varying interpretations, and one's past experience of Government Departments shows that their ideas of substantial do not always coincide with the views of the ordinary individual on that subject. The Minister might quite easily, under this proviso, impose what in his opinion is not a very substantial increase of expenditure, whereas to the local authority it might seem to be expenditure which was out of all reason, and they again, so far as I can see, have no appeal against that increased expenditure. I hope that in the interest of economy the Government will agree to delete the word "substantial."
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 10, leave out ("substantial").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
LORD CRANWORTH: I should like to support my noble friend. I do so out of sympathy for the Minister. The unfortunate Minister has more and more work put upon him apparently from year to year, and this particular word will add to his work. Every time a scheme has to be varied the Minister will have to spend anxious hours in deciding whether the variation will give rise to a substantial addition of expenditure; and whereas one Minister might well say £1,000 was substantial might say that £10,000 would properly be called substantial additional expenditure. Of course, the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, may tell me I need not worry about that because it would only mean three or four additional clerks who will do the worrying for the Minister. But I am afraid that is the whole trouble of these curious words: they do not really mean anything. But this will, in fact, involve some additional clerks and that is how the staffs of all Government Departments swell from day to day.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I think this is the first occasion that any sympathy has been expressed for the Minister and I am grateful to my noble friend. But

253
actu0ally I do not think that anything very sinister is intended by this word. It really is a safeguard against some meticulous person who might insist that a sum of £1 or £2 was an additional expenditure in connection with the modification. I think I am right in saying that if there was any real question of the meaning of the word "substantial," if, for instance, the Minister puts what might be considered a ridiculous interpretation upon it, the person aggrieved would have a right of appeal under the general powers relating to validity. And, in answer to my noble friend Lord Cranworth, may I point out that it would take just as many clerks to see that the modifications did not actually entail £1 or £2 more expenditure as it would in deciding whether the expenditure was substantial? I hope that the noble Earl will not press the Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Supplementary schemes for areas Comprised in regional schemes]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 9, after ("made") insert ("whether under this Act or under any Act repealed by this Act.")—(Viscount Gage.)
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10:
Interim development orders.
(4) In any case where such an application is refused or is granted subject to conditions, the authority may, if they think fit, make a contribution towards any damage or expense which the applicant shows to their satisfaction that he is likely to suffer by reason of their decision.
(5) An applicant who is aggrieved by the refusal of the authority to consent to his application, or by any conditions imposed by them, may within twenty-eight days from the date on which he received notice of the decision of the authority, or such longer period as the Minister may allow, appeal to the Minister, and the Minister, after taking into consideration any offer by the authority to make a contribution under the last preceding subsection, may dismiss or allow the appeal, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as he thinks proper to im-
254
pose, but the Minister, before deciding any such appeal, shall, if either the appellant or the authority so desire, afford them an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose.
The decision of the Minister on an appeal under this subsection shall be final and conclusive and shall have effect as if it were a decision of the authority.
(6) An interim development order may empower any authority specified in the order, with the consent of the Minister, to suspend the operation of any enactments contained in local Acts and of any orders, by-laws or regulations, under whatever authority made, so far as such suspension may be necessary in order to promote or expedite development permitted by or under the order.
(7) The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply in any case where the scheme for the preparation or adoption of which a resolution has taken effect is a supplementary scheme within the meaning of the last preceding section of this Act.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (4), after "contribution," to insert "the payment of which shall not be unreasonably delayed." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to secure prompt payment of the contribution made by a local authority to any person who has suffered damage or expense by reason of the decision of the local authority to reject an application for interim development. The clause probably intends that this should be done, but there may be cases of poor persons who are seriously injured by a delay in the payment, and we know that all authorities, not even omitting the Inland Revenue Department, sometimes take a considerable time in making a payment for which they admit responsibility.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 9, after ("contribution") insert the said words.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Subject to your Lordships' consent, I accept this Amendment.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (5), to leave out all words after "authority" where that word secondly occurs, and insert "appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction for the petty sessional division or place within which the property to which the notice relates is situated." The noble Lord said: If your Lordships will look at the

255
beginning of the clause you will see that the Minister first of all makes the order. You will then see by subsection (3) that:
"Where an application for permission to develop land is made to the specified authority in the manner provided by the order…"
that is, I understand, the order made by the Minister, then certain things shall take place. Then you come to subsection (5), which says that an applicant who is aggrieved by the refusal of the authority to consent to his application may within twenty-eight days from the date on which he received notice of the decision of the authority appeal to the Minister. Thus, the Minister makes an order, the local authority acts on it, a person is aggrieved by the order, the right of appeal is given, but it is to the person who makes the order. It does not seem to me that that is likely to be a very efficient right of appeal. If in a Court of law Mr. Justice So-and-so makes an order the appeal does not lie to Mr. Justice So-and-so but to other Justices learned in the law in the Appeal Court.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 17, leave out from ("authority") to the end of line 30 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: At the first blush the noble Lord's proposal does not seem unreasonable, but when I have put the considerations to him I will venture to ask him whether he thinks he will persevere with it. The object is to provide that interim appeals should be determined by a court of summary jurisdiction, not by the Minister. The provision that appeals in interim cases are decided by the Minister has been in town planning law right from the outset. I am quite sure the noble Lord is not one of those who wishes to alter a thing because it has been a long time in existence. Further, it has always worked well.
The next point is this: with all deference to the justices—and nobody thinks more highly of them than I do, because I know that the amount of work they do unpaid in this country is beyond all praise, and they do it extremely well—this is not quite the sort of case to throw upon them. The kind of case adapted for courts of summary jurisdiction is where definite criteria are laid down in the law and the task of the court is to ascertain facts and to apply the criteria. The
256
issues here are issues of administrative policy, not as to whether a man is guilty or not guilty. For example, take the case of whether a factory or a commercial garage should be allowed in an area which is intended for residences, or whether bulding development should be refused because the land should be preserved for open spaces and the like. I do not want in any way to decry the justices of the peace—I have already said what admirable work they do—but I think your Lordships will agree that not all justices of the peace up and down the country are familiar with that sort of work. May I also put this? A further consideration is that many of the issues which will have to be decided have to be decided with professional advice, which is not always available to the justices, and if it were available to them you would probably have to have counsel there and solicitors, and it would increase the expenses enormously.
The Ministry, on the other hand, have officials with the necessary qualifications, and one result of that is that a very large proportion of these cases are settled to the satisfaction of all parties, and that does save—perhaps I ought not as a lawyer to say this—a great deal of legal expense. Another point is that where you entrust it to the Minister you can get a reasonable amount of uniformity throughout the country. You do not get one decision in one case and a different decision in another, and so forth, and—this is important—the Ministry are able to guide local authorities so that regulation during the interim period may be carried out with the least trouble and to the greatest advantage of all. A still further consideration is that decisions during the interim period may vitally affect the ultimate scheme, which, of course, it is not for the justices to have anything to do with. Therefore, although I have the highest opinion of the work done by the justices of the peace, this is not quite the sort of work they are familiar with, or, indeed, could do as well as the Ministry does it. As I said at the beginning this has never been the law since town planning has been in force. The Minister has always decided the cases satisfactorily, and I hope the noble Lord will, for these reasons, not press his Amendment.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: The noble and learned Viscount commenced by saying that he was sure I would agree

257
with him because I was always in favour of any law that had been in existence for a long time and which had worked well. If he will pardon me, I am not always in favour of the law which has existed. I think very often that the laws which have existed for the last thirty or forty years are mostly bad, and I should repeal not one but the whole of them, Therefore I much prefer my point of view. I would also point out that one of his learned predecessors, the late Lord Birkenhead, said in my hearing: "Because you have a bad precedent once there is no need to have another one afterwards." That was an extremely able and clever thing to say.
I am not moved by the eloquent speech of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, but I must admit that it is possible the justices of the peace may not be the best tribunal. There are cases, no doubt, where they would not be able to give an altogether satisfactory verdict. On the other hand, the great number of them are responsible in the localities where the Minister is not, and they do know the needs of those localities. I do not like the idea of the Minister appealing to himself, which is really what it comes to. If I withdraw my Amendment could the noble and learned Viscount give me any assurance that he would consider between now and Report whether it would be; possible—I do not ask for a pledge—to introduce some other authority so that the Minister does not appeal to himself, which seems to me (and I think the noble and learned Viscount will agree) to be contrary to all principles of English justice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will consider it.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM.: In those circumstances I withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, after subsection (5), to insert:
"(6) Where an appeal to the Minister under the last preceding subsection is dismissed on the ground only that the land to which the appeal relates, though otherwise suitable for immediate development, ought to be reserved by the scheme for a public open space, and the Minister is satisfied that, if the appeal had been allowed, the development for which permission was sought would have taken place within a reasonable period, the appellant, if he is entitled to dispose of the fee simple of the land with vacant possession, may, by notice in writing
258
given to the authority within six months from the date of the Minister's decision, require the authority to purchase the land at a price to be agreed, or in default of agreement to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, and the authority shall purchase the land accordingly."
The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment which is moved to meet a pledge given in another place. It provides that if an owner is prevented by an interim order from building on land suitable for development on the ground that it is required for an open space, he might require the local authority to purchase the land. I think an open space is really on a different level to any other kind of reservation, because it stops building upon it in any form. By this Amendment the owner is now given the right to compel the authority to purchase.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 30, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Gage.)
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "so far as such suspension may be necessary in order to promote or expedite" and insert "where it is expedient in order to promote the." The noble Viscount said: This is really a technical Amendment, arrived at as the result of an agreement come to in another place. It is felt that the word "necessary" was too limiting, and that the word "expedient" would serve the purpose better.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 35, leave out from ("made") to ("development") in line 37, and insert ("where it is expedient in order to promote the").—(Viscount Gage.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 41, leave out from ("scheme") to the end of the section, and insert ("or a scheme varying an existing scheme").—(Viscount Gage.)
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11:
Contents of scheme, and authorities responsible for enforcing them.
11.—(1) Every scheme shall define the area to which it applies, and specify, in

259
accordance with the provisions of the next succeeding subsection, the authority or authorities who are to be responsible for enforcing and carrying into effect the provisions of the scheme and—

(a) shall contain such provisions as are necessary or expedient for prohibiting or regulating the development of land in the area to which the scheme applies and generally for carrying out any of the objects for which the scheme is made, and in particular for dealing with any of the matters mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act; and

(b) where it is necessary in order to promote or to expedite development, may provide for suspending the operation of any provision, whether contained in a statute or in an order, by-law, or regulation, under whatever authority made, in so far as that provision is similar to, or inconsistent with, any of the provisions of the scheme.

THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out "prohibiting" and insert "planning." The noble Earl said: "This Bill is one which is essentially constructive in its intention, and you have effective schemes in this clause. One of the first provisions has the words "shall contain such provisions as are necessary or expedient for prohibiting," which are essentially unconstructive. I feel certain that the noble Viscount's reply will be that it will be necessary to prohibit development, or possibly necessary to do so, in certain areas within the scheme, but the mere fact of the prohibition of certain forms of development is in itself a planning and not a prohibition, and it is for that reason I move that the word "prohibiting" should be deleted and the word "planning" inserted instead. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 9, leave out ("prohibiting") and insert ("planning").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: This is really a matter of words. It is quite true, as the noble Earl said, that this is a Bill to plan, but it is also necessary to have power to prohibit, as in the case of buildings which it is proposed to put on land that is subject to planning. I suggest that the noble Earl should be content if we kept in the word "prohibiting," and also put in the word "planning." If I may I would incorporate words to that effect on Report.
LORD CRANWORTH: I hope the noble Viscount will take out prohibiting, because prohibition has such an unpleasant sound now.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I should like to see the word taken out, because in the case the noble Viscount quoted that is in itself planning, it is not prohibiting. You are planning that land not to have buildings on it. It may be actually prohibiting building, but all the same it is planning.
VISCOUNT GAGE: It seems to me that from the point of view of an owner an instruction that that owner was not to build there would be in fact a prohibition, but it is a comparatively minor matter. I think it is necessary to keep "prohibiting" in but I am willing to accept the word "planning" as well.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I should like to ask the noble Viscount if he could not accept the Amendment. It would be a great mistake if it was to be considered up and down the country that development always referred to building. Why should there not be agricultural development as well as building development—at present a much more necessary thing? If he is talking of prohibiting he is obviously thinking of nothing but building. On that score, and if it were only on that score, I would support my noble friend.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 16, leave out from ("is") to ("development") in line 17 and insert ("expedient in order to promote proper planning or").—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in subsection (1) (b), after "may" to insert "subject to the provisions of Part I of the First Schedule to this Act." The noble Lord said: Subsection (2), paragraph (1) of the First Schedule provides that a scheme containing a provision suspending the operation of a statutory enactment shall not be capable of coming into operation except after a Resolution by both Houses of Parliament. The only point in this Amendment is whether or not a reference to that portion of the Schedule should not be here inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 17, after ("may") insert the said words.—(Lord Phillimore.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: I am instructed that this Amendment is quite unnecessary because Clause 11 deals simply with the contents of schemes, and the manner in which schemes are to be made is dealt with in Clause 8, subsection (2), which provides that the First Schedule is to have effect with respect to the laying of schemes before Parliament and so forth. As the Bill now stands, there is no doubt that a provision under Clause 11 (1) (b) suspending an enactment requires an affirmative Resolution unless it falls within the exceptions set out in paragraph 2 (2) of Part I of the First Schedule.
LORD PHILLIMORE: On that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12:
Provisions in schemes with respect to buildings and building operations.
12.—(1) The provisions to be inserted in a scheme with respect to buildings and building operations may include provisions—

(c) regulating, or enabling the responsible authority to regulate, the size, height, design and external appearance of buildings and, so far as is necessary for the regulation of their external appearance, the materials to be used in their construction;

(d) imposing restrictions upon the, manner in which buildings may be used, including, in the case of dwelling-houses, the letting thereof in separate tenements: and

Provided that where a scheme contains a provision enabling the responsible authority to regulate the design or external appearance of buildings or the materials to be used in their construction, the scheme must also provide that any person aggrieved by any decision of the responsible authority under the provision aforesaid may appeal against the decision either to a court of summary jurisdiction or to a tribunal to be constituted for the purpose under the scheme, as may be thereby provided, and the grounds on which such an appeal may be brought shall include the ground that compliance with the decision would involve an increase in the cost of the building which would be unreasonable having regard to the character of the locality and of the neighbouring buildings.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1) (c), to leave out all words after "buildings." The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with the powers which may be inserted in the scheme regarding buildings. The powers as printed in paragraph (c) are very drastic indeed. Apparently you cannot build a house without having the plans and everything else approved by the local authority, whether they have a knowledge of architecture or not. Secondly, this was not in the 1925 Bill, which did not contain anything like these drastic powers. Probably many of your Lordships are very much in sympathy with the whole of paragraph (c) and more particularly the portion I would like to see deleted, principally because you do not want to see much more of those bungalows of a rather unsightly nature being erected of rather indifferent material. I am very much in sympathy with that point of view, but, on the other hand, there is undoubtedly a demand for cheap houses, and unless people are allowed to use a cheap material in building their houses we cannot get cheap houses. The æsthetic point of view may result in the demand for cheap houses being unfulfilled because the local authority desires to see nice looking houses. It has to be borne in mind that there are two sides to the question, the æsthetic point of view and also the increasing demand by a large number of people for cheap houses. If you accept this Amendment, you will give considerable satisfaction to those who desire to own their own houses and to live in them without undue financial burden.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 15, leave out from ("buildings") to the end of line 18.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I hope the Committee will not accept my noble friend's Amendment. He seems to be afraid that new buildings will suffer because the price of the erection of these houses will be put up. I do not think that is so and, if your Lordships would look at the bottom of page 17, you will see that an appeal may be lodged, and that one of the grounds for an appeal is that the decision to regulate the design of the buildings and to deal with the material would involve an increase in the cost of the building which would be unreasonable having regard to the character of the locality and of the neighbouring

263
buildings. We all want to see beautiful houses erected and we do not want the cost of building to be put up, but this provision amply safeguards the question of cost and, if that is safeguarded, we ought to go as far as we possibly can to ensure that the buildings put up in the future are not as ugly as the buildings put up in the past.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am not sure that my noble friend who moved the Amendment is not right and I am inclined to differ from the noble Lord who has just sat down. The Bill leaves it in the power of the local authority to say "We happen to think that stone is better for houses than bricks and that Portland stone is better than Bath stone, which in certain climates deteriorates, and therefore the houses must be built of Portland stone," which is very expensive.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: If the noble Lord would look at the bottom of page 17, he would see that they may decide that one stone is better than another but only if it is not unreasonably more expensive than the other, and that there is an appeal.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for asking me to look at the bottom of the page and I would draw the attention of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to that passage. The Lord Chancellor told me a little while ago that a court of summary jurisdiction was not a proper tribunal to which to refer matters of this sort, but if he will look at the bottom of the page, he will see that the proviso says:
"….the scheme must also provide that any person aggrieved by any decision of the responsible authority under the provision aforesaid"—
that is as to the building, erection, site and everything connected with the house—
"may appeal against the decision either to a court of summary jurisdiction"…
which the Lord Chancellor told me only a quarter of an hour ago was not a proper tribunal on such matters. Yet here in his own Bill is an appeal on the same thing:
"to a court of summary jurisdiction or to a tribunal to be constituted for the purpose under the scheme."
The Lord Chancellor has kindly given me the assurance that he will consider
264
whether or not he can meet me on the Report stage. He may be able to meet me by inserting the words—
"or to a tribunal to be constituted for the purpose under the scheme."
I am much obliged to my noble friend for enabling me to understand the Bill.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: I fail to understand why it should be assumed that local authorities are reliable custodians of beauty and public taste. The most hideous collection of buildings ever erected in these islands are the houses begun under Dr. Addison's scheme which have been perpetuated ever since. The only chance it seems to me to get any architectural beauty is to give liberty for the individual and so get some variety. What the noble Lord said just now about the use of costly material and about costly plans is also àpropos because the greatest difficulty I experienced when I had to deal with municipal affairs was to obtain liberty for my fellow citizens to use cheaper materials instead of those which the builders upon the town council had prescribed.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Surely this is an extremely important Amendment and if accepted would seriously detract from the value of the Bill. There cannot be any real conflict between cheapness and beauty and fitness and if there were then, as the noble Lord opposite pointed out, the guarantee against it is contained in the words at the bottom of the page. I should like to point out that the clause as it stands is really directed to preventing materials being used which would depreciate the value of the property and produce further ugliness in our country. This would inevitably happen if local authorities were not allowed to control the materials used in building schemes. I have it on reliable authority that villages in Derbyshire, Buckinghamshire, Gloucestershire and Cornwall have been ruined by the intrusion of buildings in which the material used was foreign to local building tradition. I hope your Lordships will reject this Amendment.
VISCOUNT GAGE: It seems to me that a great deal more importance has been attached to this clause than perhaps was anticipated because the intention is really to apply these powers only in special circumstances. I would take as an example of the kind of thing to which it is in-

265
tended to apply, the Edinburgh town-planning scheme in which it was found desirable to preserve the special characteristics of Charlotte Square, which I believe is one of the outstanding architectural features of Edinburgh. There are several local Acts enabling local authorities to preserve the harmony of some special part of their area by means of a provision of this sort. It is true that an appeal is provided to a special tribunal. What is called "the Bath clause" is incorporated in several Bills which give power to appeal to a special tribunal. All the provisions in regard to this question of the materials to be used in construction would appear in the scheme and could be submitted to Parliament for consideration.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I should be glad if my noble friend would explain what is really the purpose and meaning of the words proposed to be omitted, because in the earlier part of the clause power is given to regulate the design and external appearance of buildings. What more do you want? Of course if you are going to regulate the external appearance of buildings you must do whatever is necessary to regulate that external appearance. The only thing that gives me a certain amount of apprehension is that you might have someone with a fancy against a particular kind of material. Architects are very fanciful about these things. An architect might have a fancy against some particular material and persuade the local authority never to sanction the use of that material in any part of the district. It is just the kind of thing an architect would do, and it is a thing that might involve expense. I should have thought the words unnecessary and I should like to know why they are thought to be necessary.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hesitate to intervene at this point, but as the noble Viscount has asked why it is thought necessary to put in these words "materials to be used in their construction" I would simply ask him, if I may, a question in rhetorical form. I expect he knows Dean's Yard. It is only about fifty yards from here and no doubt he has frequently been there. Dean's Yard has a most beautiful facade on the terrace, one of the most beautiful brick facades in London. If this was going
266
to be rebuilt would my noble friend like to see it rebuilt in stucco, or ashlar, or with the old bricks which are there at present and which would remind him of generations of people who have gone through Dean's Yard? That is regulation of material.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: The noble and learned Viscount has put a rhetorical question and perhaps he will allow me to answer not rhetorically, but as a matter of fact. It seems to me that whether you have these words in or not he would be able to regulate the external appearance, that is to say, to make any regulation necessary to retain the general aspect of Dean's Yard. The question I asked, which he did not answer, was why it is necessary to have this additional provision with regard to materials specifically.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: The noble Viscount in charge of the Bill said that this provision is only meant to apply to special circumstances, but the Bill does not say so. If it did one would perhaps appreciate it better, but in fact it says that it may apply to any scheme or any part of any scheme. When I originally saw the paragraph I wanted to move an Amendment to it to remove all words after "height" because I considered that the remainder of the paragraph would mean a most unwarrantable interference with the rights of the individual. Incidentally these amenities which it is desired to preserve have been created in the past by the individual and I have no reason to suppose that the transference of that responsibility to any great extent from the individual to the public authority is going to achieve any better result—in fact, one has strong reason to believe that it has achieved very indifferent results. I hope therefore that the noble Viscount will accept this Amendment. As I have pointed out I should have liked to move it in a stronger form. If he cannot see his way to accept it in the way I have moved it I am afraid I shall have to put the House to the trouble of a Division.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I always regret insisting on any provision of this sort against the wishes of the representatives of the landowners who are, of course, largely affected, but as the noble Earl has accepted the words "external appearance" and as my noble friend Viscount

267
Cecil says that expression means the same thing as "materials to be used in their construction," I suggest that he might be willing to retain the paragraph in its present form. As for any unreasonable use of this power the provisions to be inserted in a scheme must affect this particular point and this question of what buildings should be regulated in respect of materials used in their construction will always have to be submitted to Parliament.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think we have some reason very respectfully to criticise the way in which this Amendment has been treated. It has been put before the Committee in speeches of studied moderation and it is clear that the subsection as a whole has been accepted with some regret. These final words, which have an extremely vague and ambiguous meaning, have been definitely challenged. My noble friend and relative on the Cross Benches has asked the Government what they mean and what effect they have, and has received no reply. I am sure I am only saying what is well known in this House when I suggest that the Government are bound to give a reason for what they do. It is no use merely saying they are not prepared to give way. If they are not prepared to defend these words I would suggest that they should strike them out. They are putting us in a very great difficulty.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: May I make an explanation?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I would rather have it from the Government.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: After what has been said by noble Lords I do not think the Government ought to be unreasonable in insisting on this and I think that on the whole we will accept the Amendment to omit the words.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1) (d), after "used," to insert "but not." The noble Earl said: This Amendment rather bears on the meaning of the word "tenement." I should like to ask whether the clause covers, for instance, the case of a widow whose husband has just died and who wants to
268
continue to live in her house, but is unable to do so unless she takes a few lodgers; or a case where she has nowhere else to live, but is unable to sell her house and finds it necessary, to keep her head above water, to let to lodgers. One understands that the ordinary sense in which the word is used is that of large tenement houses, but there is this case of the individual who desires to let one or two rooms. If the paragraph covers that I would like to insist on my Amendment and I hope the Government will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 20, after ("used") insert ("but not").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My information is that the words "the letting thereof in separate tenements" do not include lodgings. In all these questions of definition there is considerable difficulty in saying exactly what words mean, but I think that in all the cases my noble friend referred to there would be no interference. It would only be in the case of conversion to the large tenement houses that some provisions could be legitimately incorporated in the scheme.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I do not think it concerns large tenements; you have that under other provisions.
LORD ASKWITH: If you expressly exclude restrictions connected with the letting of separate tenements and the number of people occupying a house you would be likely to crystallise the present development of slum conditions. The noble Lord says he does not know the meaning of the word. That can be interpreted by the Courts, but I think the Government should explain more clearly what they mean.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: It seems to me clear that this paragraph has no reference whatever to lodgings in the sense referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. It is obvious that persons are at perfect liberty to allow lodgers to come into their houses. What is provided for is the definite letting of portions of houses for various terms. One of our great fears is that unless there is some such provision there may be reproduced the conditions of overcrowding from which we are hoping to be

269
delivered. If you allow persons to let houses in various separate tenements for various periods you are encouraging the possibility of overcrowding.
LORD CRANWORTH: I have heard the last speakers explain this particular clause, but I have not got that explanation from the noble Viscount, Lord Gage. All I want to know really is whether this particular clause does prohibit, say, a widow from letting a room to one or two tenants. If it does not, I am satisfied.
VISCOUNT GAGE: When I said I thought there might be some difficulty in defining "tenement" of course I was only referring to the precise legal definition, but in reply to the point specifically put I should say it has no application whatever to the letting of lodgings in such cases as those to which my noble friend referred.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: If the legal definition of "tenement" includes letting a single room in a house to somebody—
VISCOUNT GAGE: It does not.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Then I am prepared to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (1) (d), to insert:
"Provided that in the case of any church, educational establishment or licensed premises no restrictions shall be imposed which conflict with any directions given by the ecclesiastical or educational authority or by the licensing justices as the case may be;"
The noble Lord said: If your Lordships will look at Clause 12 you will see that it provides for schemes prescribing the space about buildings, limiting the number of buildings, and imposing restrictions upon the manner in which the buildings may be used. The result of that might be that the local authority and the scheme might be in conflict with the ecclesiastical authorities, or the educational authorities, or the licensing justices, and where permissions have been given by the existing authorities to do certain things with particular buildings, it does seem to me that it is beyond the intention of the Bill to bring in provisions which would prevent arrangements already sanctioned by the local authori-
270
ties being carried out. I hope the Government will accept my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 22, after ("tenements") insert the said proviso.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I understand the noble Lord's object it is to exempt from control, under a planning scheme, any church, educational establishment or licensed premises, by preventing the imposition by the planning authority of restrictions which would conflict with the directions of the ecclesiastical or educational authority, or the licensing justices.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I wish I could put it as clearly as the noble and learned Viscount.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am obliged to the noble Lord. The objection to the Amendment is this. It is said, and I suggest to the noble Lord it is truly said, that the Amendment would make effective planning not only difficult but impracticable. Let me tell you why.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I did not say that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, but I say it. The "it" did not refer to the noble Lord. I would not address him in the neuter. In preparing a scheme for a new town or suburb the planning authority, if this Amendment were passed, would have to ascertain what "directions" had been given by these authorities, and draft their scheme to harmonise with those directions. I am not quite sure whom he means by the ecclesiastical authorities, but let us go on for a moment. I do not wish to take debating points. The scheme having come into operation, the authority responsible for carrying it into effect would be unable to prevent a great number of things. May I give him an example? It would be unable to prevent the erection of a public house in a residential area, which might be seriously detrimental to the area and depreciate the value of neighbouring property. I know that the noble Lord does not want to do that. The main object of the scheme would in a case like that be prevented.
May I suggest to the House that what is needed to secure the best results is not the "direction" of authorities of this

271
kind, but their active co-operation and assistance? It is the duty of the planning authority to see—and I attach great importance to this—that suitable provision is made for enabling the various social requirements of the area to be adequately met, including accommodation for churches, schools and public houses. That duty could not be properly discharged if the planning authority is hampered by bodies who represent particular interests. That is the real vice of the Amendment. In some areas the permission of a planning authority, subject to a right of appeal (which there is here) against refusal of permission, would be required, and restrictions on the legitimate control of the planning authority and the appellant authority in favour of particular interests, would merely result in the unfair treatment of the other interests affected, and bitter complaints from the latter. What would happen if we gave these particular interests—they are interests with which I personally sympathise—this privileged position? What would the other interests say about unfair treatment? I rather think that probably what this Amendment is intended primarily to consider are the licensed premises.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: No.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Let us suppose it were so. I would put the position of licensed premises. They come under the jurisdiction not only of the planning authority but of the licensing justices. So far as the licensing justices are concerned they have their particular ambit of power and their ambit of rights, which are strictly licensing considerations, as to the permissible number of licensed houses, questions of morals and moral influence, the conduct of the licensed premises, the size of the bar, and so forth. All that is done by the jurisdiction of the licensing authorities, and will not be interfered with here. The only object is that there should be a control over all interests as to where these particular sites should be, and how things are to be carried out. None of these interests will be at all hampered by the Bill as it stands. On the other hand we want to consult them, and have their co-operation. Once we begin to make exceptions in the case of particular authorities we have to make exceptions in the case of a great many authorities, and that is the
272
real objection to the Amendment. I trust that in those circumstances, although it appeals to me personally, the noble Lord will not press his Amendment, which is really for the benefit of these privileged persons.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I do not know whether the right rev. Prelates have anything to say on this matter, because it affects the Church. May I be allowed to answer the Lord Chancellor? He said that probably the real reason at the bottom of the Amendment was the licensing question. I can assure him it is not. The real reason at the bottom of it is that I do not like this continual interference with existing institutions, and where they have been in existence and sanctioned by the licensing justices, or anybody else, I do not think they should be interfered with. There is another reason. Your Lordships will remember that only a few moments ago I objected to a clause because I think it is wrong that the Minister should appeal to the Minister. It was contrary to my idea of justice. Now, if you will look at this clause, you will see this. The Lord Chancellor says that the licensing justices have in the case of licensed buildings given a license to the person holding it. Now comes the Town Planning Bill. They may say: "We are going to prevent your holding this license, because we think your building"—I think the words of the Lord Chancellor were—"injurious to the neighbourhood." To whom is the appeal? The appeal under my Amendment is to the licensing justices, who, the Lord Chancellor told us, have themselves given the licence. That is a fact which I submit cannot be got over. Therefore my Amendment is one which the Lord Chancellor ought to accept. The Bill is taking away from the licensing justices the appeal which he says they ought to have. I hope that on further consideration the Government will accept my Amendment.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: As the noble Lord has made an appeal to this quarter, may I say that I am not one of the parties interested in licensed premises, and therefore I cannot speak about that? But, as far as the other interested parties (as the Lord Chancellor described them) mentioned in his Amendment are concerned, I am bound to say the interpretation of the Amendment might give rise to very

273
considerable difficulty. "Any church"—what is a church? I suppose it is a building put up by any number of persons who can allege that it has some kind of religious significance. But I can imagine buildings put up by various bodies which might be used for purposes very detrimental to the amenities and quiet of the district which it is proposed to protect by these schemes.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: If the most rev. Primate looks at my Amendment he will see it is limited by the words "no restrictions shall be imposed which conflict with any directions given" by the ecclesiastical authority—which must be either the Church of England or the Church of Rome.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: That is an illustration of the difficulty of interpretation. I think it must give rise to a good deal of misunderstanding, to put it mildly, to say that nothing was ecclesiastical except what was ordered by the Church of England or the Church of Rome. My point is that you might have meeting houses put up which would claim to be churches, and quite rightly and naturally claim to be churches in that sense, whose use might, as I say, be very detrimental to the peace and quietness of the district. Then "educational establishment" what is an educational establishment? It might be a dancing academy, where proceedings might go on till all hours of the night, where those who attended were supposed to be learning that admirable art. That might not commend itself to the residents within the area protected by this scheme. And does "educational authority" mean the local education authority which has charge over the elementary schools, or the authority which is responsible for the management of that particular educational establishment? I only mention these difficulties because they would have to be very carefully considered, and I doubt very much indeed whether, in view of the disputes which might be raised over this interpretation, or of the uses to which churches or educational establishments might be put, the admirable purpose which I know the noble Lord desires to promote would really be promoted.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Apparently my desire to help the Church and to help education is not received with
274
As far as the owners of licensed premises are concerned they have an appeal to the very people who have given them the power. I do not think they matter at all, because they will appeal to the authority which has given them the permission, and the licensing justices will probably say: "Oh bother the Town Planning Act and the local authority. We have given the permission and we shall stick to it." In the circumstances I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL of RADNOR: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 28, leave out from ("buildings") to ("the") in line 29.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13:
Power to enforce and carry into effect schemes.
13.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the responsible authority may at any time—

(b) remove, pull down or alter, so as to bring into conformity with the provisions of the scheme, any building or other work, not being an existing building or an existing work, which does not conform to those provisions, or in the erection or carrying out of which any provision of the scheme has not been complied with; or

(5) If on any such appeal the court of summary jurisdiction are satisfied that the responsible authority are entitled to take the proposed action on the grounds specified in the notice, they shall dismiss the appeal and shall by their order empower the responsible authority, after the expiration of the period aforesaid of six months or twenty-eight days, as the case may be, to remove, pull down, or alter the building or work, or reinstate the land or execute building required work, or, as the case may be, shall by their order prohibit the building or land from being used in contravention of the scheme after the period aforesaid, but, if they are not so satisfied, they shall allow the appeal:
Provided that the court by which an order is made under this subsection may, if they think fit, direct that the order shall, instead of taking effect after the expiration of the period aforesaid of six months or twenty-eight days, take effect at such later date as they think fit, being a date not more than six months or twenty-eight days, as the case may be, from the date of the order.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved to leave out paragraph (b) of subsection (1). The

275
noble Earl said: I put this Amendment down, not because I object to the substance of the contents of this particular paragraph, but because I object most strongly to giving power to a local or responsible authority to "remove, pull down or alter" non-existent buildings, which is what the paragraph says. It is not till page 63 in the Bill that you find out what this particular paragraph means. Many people will never read page 63 and will therefore have an even greater contempt for the wording of Parliamentary Bills than they have at present. I hope that before the Report stage the noble Viscount will consider whether he cannot alter the wording of this paragraph so as at least to make it English, because it is not English at the moment. It may cause a certain amount of amusement, and possibly annoyance, to people who already have their knife in Governments generally. I would suggest for the noble Viscount's consideration that perhaps the wording covering this point in the 1925 Act might be more appropriate. It is shorter, and it will cover possibly paragraph (a) and paragraph (b).
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 34, leave out paragraph (b).—(The Earl of Radnor.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: I do not say any more than that I will consider that suggestion. The noble Earl has been accusing me of not being sufficiently clear about some definitions, and now when we define a thing he complains about that too.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 22, leave out ("proposed") and insert ("propose").—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Lord said: This clause deals with the removing, pulling down or altering so as to bring into conformity with the provisions of the scheme any existing building or other existing work which does not conform to those provisions or the demolition or alteration of which is necessary for carrying the scheme into effect. The result is that it gives power to the local authority to remove, pull
276
down or alter any such existing building. It seems to me rather a large order, and my doubts are a little bit removed when I see later on that there may be an appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. But in subsection (5) I see that
"If on any such appeal the court of summary jurisdiction are satisfied that the responsible authority are entitled to take the proposed action on the grounds specified in the notice, they shall dismiss the appeal…."

I presume as a magistrate that if a man comes before me and asks me to do a certain thing, and the person who objects appears either by himself or by counsel and says that what some person objects to his doing he is obliged to do by Act of Parliament, I have no jurisdiction.
I therefore do not understand what is the point of putting in those words. If the magistrates are to have jurisdiction, well and good. You are giving them the power to do certain things and I would appeal to my noble friend Lord Cecil, who is a legal authority, to say what actually is the point of those words. Do they really mean anything at all? One of the things I have learned in Parliament is that it is of no use putting into Acts of Parliament words that mean nothing, except from the point of view of the lawyer. I am sure the noble and learned Viscount does not wish to do that. I beg to move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 42, leave out subsection (5). —(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My noble friend has made this out to be rather a serious matter. We regard it as purely a machinery provision. It is laid down that the authority shall have certain powers against which an appeal shall rest with the magistrates. If the magistrates decide that the appeal is not one which they can uphold, then there must be some provision enabling the local authority to carry out or enforce their authority. I think that is the intention of Clause 13. The particular part of it which the noble Lord proposes to leave out simply says what happens. The court of summary jurisdiction decides whether the matter put before them is in fact worthy of upholding or not. We regard it as nothing more or less than machinery.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: As I understand him, the noble Viscount say

277
the clause really means nothing or very little, that if, when an aggrieved person goes before the justices, the justices think that he has not a good case, they will dismiss. They will do that in any case. Therefore it is not necessary to have these words in.
VISCOUNT GAGE: With all respect I beg to differ from the noble Lord. It gives the justices the power to extend the date by which this order should be carried out. Everyone knows something must be done in regard to what is to happen if the justices do dismiss the application.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Would the noble Viscount consider it and introduce words to carry out its effect on Report?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry that this clause should have excited the apprehension of the noble Lord, because we were of opinion we were doing in this clause exactly what he wanted us to do in another clause, but in that particular clause the justices were not a proper tribunal. All that is done here is this. Clause 13 empowers an authority to require, for example, that a building which is not in conformity with the scheme should be removed, pulled down or altered. We are all agreed upon that. Then it is thought that there ought to be somebody to whom you can have an appeal. Therefore we are going to give an appeal here to the court of summary jurisdiction, and it is the sort of case where it is quite fit for the court of summary jurisdiction to have jurisdiction, but what we define here is the particular sort of jurisdiction which they are to have, and what their order is to be. This makes it plain to the court what their powers are; in fact we are directing them what, on an appeal, their powers are. Without this subsection, which the noble Lord wishes deleted, there would be no appeal at all to the court of summary jurisdiction. I am sure he does not wish that. If he will read the clause quietly he will see it really carries out his intention, only at the same time defining the sort of jurisdiction we give to the summary court.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I do not think the argument against me amounts to very much, but I do not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 12, leave out ("which") and insert ("whom").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: I think this is one of the grammatical mistakes that we agreed to correct.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 16 agreed to.
House resumed.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, all this Bill does is to put a banker's draft in the same position as a cheque or a bill of exchange. It costs nothing. It will not inflict any cost upon any single person in this country, but it will remedy a small evil which exists. At present a banker's draft has not the protection which a bill of exchange has, and all the Bill does is to give the same protection to the banker's draft which a bill of exchange and a cheque have. It has passed the other House, and it is approved by the Member for the City and other people who are authorities on finance. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Banbury of Southam.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL.
Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, who unfortunately is absent to-day owing to indisposition, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 9 [Powers of juvenile court in respect of children and young persons needing care or protection]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the Amendment to this clause is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 9, after ("may") insert ("notwithstanding anything in Part I of this Act").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
Clause 18 [Power of any court to remit juvenile offender to a juvenile court]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 29, leave out ("a conviction") and insert ("the verdict or finding").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
Clause 52:
Amendment of law with respect to street trading.
(2) A local authority may make by-laws for regulating or prohibiting street trading by persons under the age of eighteen, and bylaws so made may distinguish between persons of different ages and sexes and between different localities, and may contain provisions—

(a) forbidding any such person to engage or be employed in street trading unless he holds a licence granted by the authority, and regulating the conditions on which such licences may be granted, suspended and revoked;

(b) determining the days and hours during which, and the places at which, such persons may engage or be employed in street trading;

(c) requiring such persons so engaged or employed to wear badges;

(d) regulating in any other respect the conduct of such persons whilst so engaged or employed.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: My Lords, you will remember that on the Committee stage I moved to leave out Clause 52, and it was pointed out that the first part of Clause 52, which dealt with persons under the age of sixteen, might be considered a good thing and ought not to be left out. The most rev. Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke upon it, and I pointed out to him that the remainder of the clause, which I think he did not approve of, could be amended on the
280
Third Reading in such a way as to meet his objection. I now propose to move the Amendment in the form in which it was approved by a good many members of your Lordships' House. I propose to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 52. The result of that will be that no persons under the age of sixteen shall be employed in street trading, except that bylaws may permit them to be employed by their parents. I leave out the next subsection, which deals with young people under the age of eighteen. As it stands now, a person under the age of eighteen may not engage in street trading or, as far as I can understand it, any trading without the sanction of the local authority, which has to determine the days and hours and places at which such persons may engage in street trading, require them to wear badges, and regulate their conduct in any other respect. In these days, when it is necessary for everybody to work as long, as often, and as much as possible, it seems rather absurd to give the local authority power to say that a person of seventeen, who, as Lord Mount Temple reminded us in the Committee stage, is considered fit to fight for his country, is not fit to sell newspapers in the street. I hope the Government will accept my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
page 42, line 13, leave out subsection (2). —(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, may I appeal to the Government, if they cannot accept the Amendment, at any rate to make some modification in the Bill? We were all agreed, when we had the debate the other day, that young people under sixteen should not be allowed, except in very exceptional circumstances, to trade in the street. Yet here we have a much more drastic proposal, that the local authority may tell a young man of seventeen that they will not allow him to trade or sell newspapers in the street and that, although he is fit to fight for his country, he is not responsible enough to sell newspapers at a street corner. That is a very considerable restriction on personal liberty. Is it necessary I would personally warmly support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Banbury, but one does not always get one's ideal in this life and I suggest that the Government could possibly compromise and substitute the age of seventeen for the age of eighteen. I would agree to such a com-

281
promise. Surely, this is not a time to restrict unduly the desire of young people to do some work. It is difficult enough for them to find work and many of them do not want to work. We do not want to discourage those who want to engage in an honest occupation. Is there any disgrace in street trading or in selling newspapers in the street? The only argument against it is that it may tempt young people to lead a life they should not lead. Surely when a young person reaches the age of eighteen and is fit to go into the Army, he is fit to sell newspapers in the street.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, both the noble Lords have made an appeal to the Government, but I am not sure that they fully appreciate the strength of the case against the Amendment. May I explain what the position is with regard to this Amendment? It has always been the law—at any rate for nearly thirty years past—that there shall be a certain age below which no one may be allowed to go in for street trading and that beyond that age there shall be another period—once it was three years and now it is two years—within which there is no general prohibition but a local authority, in some cases the local education authority, shall have power to make regulations prohibiting or restricting the employment of children. The law has always stood as we propose that it should stand to-day, except—and of course it is a material alteration—that we are raising the age both for the basic prohibition and for the power to regulate. In other words we are not introducing some novel doctrine when we ask the House to agree that, beyond the age at which no one in any circumstances will be allowed to trade in the street, there shall be a higher limit of age within which local authorities may prohibit or regulate the employment of children. That has always been the law and we are only seeking to continue that practice. It may, of course, be that for the last thirty years Parliament has been on the wrong track and we ought not to have that bar.
I ought to add that, as long ago as 1910, twenty-two years ago, there was a Committee appointed to consider the employment of children and that committee produced a Majority and a Minority Report. The Majority Report recommended that no girl should be allowed to go in for street trading below
282
the age of eighteen and no boy below the age of seventeen. The Minority Report recommended that local authorities should be empowered to prohibit street trading up to eighteen for both sexes in areas where other forms of employment were available. We have not gone as far as the majority because the absolute prohibition is kept at sixteen for both sexes. We have gone perhaps a little further than the minority in some respects but in others not so far, because we have given a power to regulate as opposed to a power to prohibit, which gives a certain discretion to the local authority. It was asked last time—and I am not sure that Lord Mount Temple did not ask to-day—why people should not be allowed to go and work in the streets, as it was a highly honourable and desirable thing that children should go to work—
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I did not say that. I said that when they reached the age of seventeen there was no great danger of contamination.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I pointed out that the Departmental Committee did not agree with my noble friend. Further there are two or three reasons of some little importance. Firstly, street trading is pre-eminently what is known as a blind alley occupation. It is the sort of occupation which does not give any scope to children when they grow to adult years to get any permanent form of livelihood and, therefore, it is the sort of occupation which one wants to discourage or closely to control. If you have the power of regulation, which this Bill gives, it has been found in practice that the local authority, by keeping a certain control over those engaged in this form of trading, have been able quite often to deflect them from street trading into some more useful and permanent employment and to prevent them from getting into the most hopeless condition of all, grown-up children remaining in an occupation which was only fit for them before they were grown up.
There is another reason. Street trading very often takes place at night. I am not sure that that is not the busiest time for a great many street trades. To have girls from sixteen to eighteen years of age thrown on the streets at night, exposed to the sort of contamination and temptation which is very apt to prevail then in the streets, is, in the opinion I think of everybody who has studied the problem—

283
and it is not studied for the first time by the present Government—an evil which society as a whole and the country as a whole is called upon to check and to regulate. By enabling the local authorities as we do enable them by this clause to regulate the hours of street trading we are able very largely to diminish that risk. I would remind your Lordships that these by-laws are all subject to confirmation by the Home Office. It is not an arbitrary power which we are giving to the local authorities. The Home Office have required in the past—they have been doing this for thirty years—and will require in future, proof that there is real cause for prohibition in such cases as prohibition is sought by the local authority, and they will take into account, as they always have taken into account, the prospects of other forms of employment for the children shut out from street trading.
There is reason, too, for giving the local authorities discretion because your Lordships will realise that in different parts of the country conditions vary in regard to employment. They vary according to the sort of town in which young people are working; the conditions under which they labour vary; and trades carried on in the streets vary a great deal according to the town. What might be harmful in one case might be innocent in another. Therefore it has seemed to the Government desirable that this power of regulation, and in extreme cases of prohibition under the check of the Home Office, should be kept in force in the Bill, that the rule which has hitherto prevailed, and which as far as we know every committee has always thought ought to prevail—the rule that there should be an age beyond the age of sixteen at which regulations should continue—should still prevail, and that the clause should be kept in the Bill by this House, as it has been kept in after discussion in another place.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, my noble friend said that in certain circumstances it was necessary to raise the age. I am not objecting to that. I have not made any objection to Parliament saying that no person under the age of sixteen shall be engaged or employed in street trading. What I do object to is giving powers to the local authorities—which, as my noble friend says, may be administered in different ways in different localities—to prevent
284
people who may be of the age of seventeen and three quarter years or seventeen and a half, perfectly fit and capable to understand what they ought to do, from earning an honest livelihood if the local authority in their particular area happen to be very cranky, foolish and narrow-minded people who will not allow them to do perhaps the only work which is open to them at the present moment. I am afraid it is useless to hope that the Amendment will be accepted and I shall have to ask the House to divide on it, because I think it is a very important matter. I do not wish to make too long a speech at this late hour, but I must ask your Lordships to consider the position in London. You might find people living in Camberwell not allowed by the local authority to trade in the streets and you might have people living in Lambeth who are allowed by the local authority to trade. It means that on one side of the street people might not be allowed to trade and on the other side of the street, which happened to be in the area of another local authority, you might see boys and girls under eighteen engaged in street trading. It seems to me most prejudicial, and I hope I shall get support in the Division.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, as the noble Lord indicates that he will press his Amendment to a Division, may I be allowed to say that while when I spoke before I expressed no opinion about subsection (2): I was only anxious to make certain that subsection (1) would be carried before I gave further attention to subsection (2)? Having had communication with some of those most closely concerned with the work of young people, not only in London but in other parts of the country, I strongly wish your Lordships' House to follow the lead given by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham. He said it is undesirable to permit any young woman under eighteen to be engaged in street trading at any hour. That is overwhelmingly true and it is corroborated by my own very special experience in that matter. I also feel quite sure that if there is a large amount of unemployment in any district and if any reputable young man makes application to engage in street trading the local authority will not

285
refuse the necessary licence, even though, quite likely, they make restrictions as to the hours during which it might be exercised. As to the point that it is ridiculous to allow youths of seventeen to fight for their country and not to trade in the streets, I think it is most undesirable to allow them to continue in their idleness when, if taken in hand, they might make first-rate recruits.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I do not often disagree with my
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 62 [Savings]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the Amendment to this clause is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 38, leave out ("a child taking part as a chorister") and insert ("a chorister taking part").—(Viscount Hail-sham.)
Clause 63 [Saving for British Broadcasting Corporation]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the two Amendments on this clause are drafting. I beg to move.
Page 49, line 2, leave out ("the employment of children and") and insert ("employment or on").
noble friend Lord Banbury, but I hope he will not press this Amendment to a Division. As the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House has pointed out already there is an appeal, and if anyone feels aggrieved under this clause he can always take an appeal to, the Minister.
On Question, Whether subsection (2) shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 3.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Gage, L.(V. Gage.)

Greville, L.

Sankey, V.(L. Chancellor.)

Allendale, V.

Hampton, L.

Astor, V.

Hanworth, L.

Somerset, D.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Harlech, L.

Wellington, D.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hay, L.(E. Kinnoull.)

Hailsham, V.

Heneage, L.

Bath, M.

Mersey, V.

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Marley, L.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Moyne, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Lauderdale, E.

Addington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Lucan. E.[Teller.]

Alvingham, L.

Redesdale, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Annaly, L.

Rhayader, L.

Midleton, E.

Arnold, L.

Rochester, L.

Morton, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Sanderson, L.

Plymouth, E.

Sinclair, L.

Powis, E.

Clinton, L.

Snell, L.

Radnor, E.

Clwyd, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Rothes, E.

Conway of Allington, L.

Stanmore, L.

Stanhope, E.

de Clifford, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Ernle, L.

Strafford, E.

Forester, L.

Templemore, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Novar, V. [Teller.]

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Page 49, line 5, leave out ("child") and insert ("person").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after Clause 70, to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of s. 14 of principal Act.
".At the end of Section fourteen of the principal Act (which relates to the punishment of persons who allow children to be in streets for the purpose of receiving, or inducing the giving of, alms) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
'(3) If any person while singing, playing, performing or offering anything for sale in a street or public place has with him a child who has been lent or hired out to him, the child shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be in that street or place for the purpose of inducing the giving of alms.'"
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, some of your Lordships may remember that on Report I moved an Amendment in the following terms:

287
"It shall be unlawful for a person to hire or let out on hire or borrow or lend an infant under nine years for the purpose of accompanying a person while engaged in street trading."
The noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal suggested that the point was already covered, but the Home Office on looking into the matter find it is not so, with the result that I have on the Paper this Amendment which I understand the Government will be good enough to accept. I am most grateful to them for doing so, as I think it will remove what was a great abuse. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 70, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, as the noble Viscount has said there was a discussion on this subject on the last occasion. I think the form in which the Amendment was down did not quite meet the difficulty, but it has been slightly altered and now the Home Office is satisfied that this subsection is a useful reinforcement of the provisions of the Bill and prevents possible loopholes from which mischief might ensue. The Government are obliged to the noble Viscount for calling attention to the matter and I advise the House to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 75 [Institution of proceedings by local or Poor Law authorities]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the two Amendments to this clause are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 56, line 31, after ("proceedings") insert ("for any offence").
Page 56, line 32, leave out ("for any offence in relation to a child or young person").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 82 [Special provisions as to the City of London]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the two Amendments on this clause are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 62, line 14, leave out ("the").
Page 62, line 14, leave out ("of children").—(Viscount Hailshum.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Second Schedule [Minor and Consequential Amendments of Principal Act]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the Amendment to this Schedule is consequential on the acceptance of a previous Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 79, line 34, at end insert:
S. 99.—Subsection (3) shall be omitted. —(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fifth Schedule [Adaptations and Modifications of this Act in its Application to Scotland]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the Amendment to this Schedule is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 100, lines 15 and 16, leave out ("the first section of Part II") and insert ("Section nine").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

MALTA CONSTITUTION BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN'S SPEECH IN INDIA.
LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether upon making his farewell address on leaving India, the Under-Secretary of State obtained the sanction of the Viceroy and the Secretary of State for India for the views expressed. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, as was announced at the time, before I left this country for India I was released by the Prime Minister from my duties as Under-Secretary of State for India, for it was clear that no recommendations to which I might append my signature as Chairman of the Franchise Committee would be binding on the Government of India or His Majesty's Government. In the same way therefore any public utterance which I made in India was made in my personal capacity and not as representing either the Viceroy or the Secretary of State.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past seven o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
[From Minutes of June 28.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Watford).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

GRANGEMOUTH AND STIRLING WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
HOVE PIER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Reported, without amendment.
LINDSEY COUNTY COUNCIL (SANDHILLS)BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

WORKSOP GAS ORDER, 1932.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Worksop Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

DUNOON ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION ORDER, 1932.
Special Order in respect of part of the parish of Dunoon and Kilmun in the County of Argyll:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

MALDON AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1932.
Special Order for the transfer of the undertaking authorised by the Maldon and District Electricity Special Order, 1925:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

SKELMORLIE ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1932.
Special Order in respect of part of the parish of Inverkip in the County of Renfrew:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

LIVERPOOL ELECTRICITY (EXTEN SION) ORDER, 1932.
  ROTHERHAM GAS ORDER, 1932.
  Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
SEA FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.