Sitting of 7 March 1933

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into 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 Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Manchester Ship Canal Bill.
Bill committed.
Private Bills [Lords] (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing 'Orders not 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 Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

Salford Corporation Bill [Lords].
Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Preston Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  BRITISH ARMY.

    MECHANISED BRIGADES.
    Brigadier-General NATIONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will state the reasons why it has been decided that one of the experimental mechanised brigades is to be demechanised?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The trials which have been carried out successfully with two Infantry Brigades during the past years have now reached a stage at which only one Brigade is required to complete the experiment. The ultimate object of the experiments is a programme for the gradual mechanisation of the first line transport of the infantry.
    Brigadier-General NATION: May I ask whether there is any change in regard to the policy of mechanisation in the Army?
    Mr. COOPER: No, Sir; no change whatever.

    RESERVE PAY.
    Mr. ATTLEEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office on what basis and with reference to what standard of living the amount of Army reserve pay given to reservists is calculated?
    Mr. COOPER: The present rates of reserve pay are designed to give to Sections B and D the same amount as in 1914 taking into consideration the change in the cost of living as shown in the Ministry of Labour index figures, and to retain the difference of 6d. between the pay of Section A and that of Sections B and D.
    Mr. ATTLEE: Is the hon. Member aware that public assistance committees are taking these sums into account, and that when the money is paid monthly it is being reduced in cases where there is an unemployed man in the house; and it entirely fails to assist the soldier to keep himself fit?
    Mr. COOPER: We have been in communication with the Ministry of Labour in regard to taking this pay into consideration, and I understand that a satisfactory arrangement has been arrived at.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Ministry of Labour has been given cases—one case I have given myself—where they have taken one-half of the reserve pay?
    Mr. COOPER: That is a question for the Ministry of Labour.

    BRITISH TROOPS, SHANGHAI.
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Financial Secretary to the War

    969
    Office whether, before coming to a decision with regard to the withdrawal of one British battalion from Shanghai next trooping season, he will, through the Foreign Office, obtain the opinion of local British residents on the subject?
    Mr. COOPER: My hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that the question of the withdrawal of a battalion' from Shanghai will be discussed with the Foreign Office in all its bearings before a decision is taken.

    TERRITORIAL ARMY.
    Mr. LEVYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what steps are being taken to make good the shortage of 40,000 in the numbers of the Territorial Army, apart from the decision to hold the Territorial camps this year?
    Mr. COOPER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 7th February to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall).
    Mr. LEVY: Will the hon. Member do his best to see that this important reserve is not allowed to decline so seriously owing to the pursuit of undue economy?
    Mr. MANDER: Is it not a fact that many of the duties of the Territorial Force can be taken over by the Royal Air Force with considerable economy, and just as much efficiency?

    JERSEY.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why it is necessary to maintain in Jersey two officers and three other ranks of the regular forces other than the Lieutenant-Governor; and whether, in the interests of economy, he will consider providing the Lieutenant-Governor with a civilian staff drawn from local residents?
    Mr. COOPER: Military personnel are essential. The Lieutenant - Governor, who also commands the Royal Militia of Jersey, must have a staff officer and a military clerk to assist him in his duties; and the rest of the personnel are specialists in Royal Engineer services required for the maintenance of all barracks, roads, etc., and the administration of the War Department estate in the three Islands.
    Mr. PIKE: Will the Financial Secretary consider the advisability of increasing other ranks by 25 per cent. in order to allow them to enjoy the pleasure of forming fours occasionally?

  SCOTLAND.

    SMALLHOLDERS, BERW ICK AND EAST LOTHIAN (RENTS).
    Captain McEWENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the worsening conditions in agriculture, especially in respect of barley, oats, and potatoes, he will now take steps to give effect to the joint request of the smallholders in the counties of Berwick and East Lothian for an immediate reduction of rent?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the smallholders on the estates of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland in the counties of Berwick and East Lothian are entitled to periodical revision of rents by the Land Court with, in some cases, the alternative of a single Arbiter. I find that since entering their holdings, 96 of the 197 holders on the Department's estates in these counties have qualified to claim revision of rent, and that while the majority of them have had this right for several years, only 12 of them have exercised it. In all the circumstances I am not satisfied that it is necessary to take action on the lines suggested in the question.
    Captain McEWEN: Are we to understand that the State, as a landlord, is going to be less generous than private enterprise?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I do not think there is anything in my answer which would warrant the hon. Member giving it that meaning.

    MAGISTRATES' CONVICTION, GLASGOW.
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet reviewed the evidence in the recent bribery trial in Glasgow High Court; and if he is able now to announce the setting up of a judicial inquiry?
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the communication sent to him

    971
    from the town clerk of Glasgow, indicating the unanimous decision of the corporation to press for a judicial inquiry under the Tribunals Act in order to dispose of the allegations of graft now circulating in the city; and whether he will now take immediate steps to institute such an inquiry?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I have not yet completed my consideration of this matter and am not yet in a position to intimate a decision.
    Mr. McGOVERN: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the Crown statement at the trial, that five members of the committee out of nine were in the know in connection with the graft alleged to be going on, and the widespread interest in Glasgow due to these allegations, if he will give an undertaking to the House that he will be able, at a very early date, to make a public announcement on this matter?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I hope to make a statement on this subject on Thursday.
    Mr. LEONARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman state if he is preparing to accept, as one of the determining factors in coming to his decision, the unanimous decision of the Glasgow Corporation asking for this inquiry?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I can assure the hon. Member that all relevant considerations will be taken into account.

    OATS.
    Mr. JAMES STUARTasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now prepared to make a statement as to the steps which the Government proposes to take to assist the growers of oats in this country; and, if not, when he will undertake to make a statement on this subject?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I am sending to my hon. Friend a copy of a statement issued to the Press following upon a meeting I had last Friday with a representative deputation of agriculturists. I cannot at present add anything to that statement.

    PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE.
    Mr. GUYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will institute an inquiry into the public health service in
    972
    Scotland from the health, social, administrative and financial points of view, as recommended by the Committee on Local Expenditure (Scotland)?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): This was one of the recommendations in the report of the committee referred to. The report is at present receiving my right hon. Friend's consideration, and he is not in a position to intimate a decision on this one point.

    HOUSING CONTRACT (WAGES).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that 32 men who were working on the building of houses at Cardonald, near Glasgow, under a scheme for which the Government were providing a subsidy, received no wages for two weeks, and that the contractor, Mr. Coyle, failed also to stamp the men's insurance cards; what steps it is intended to take to see that no subsidy is paid until the wages due are paid; and what steps have been taken to insure the men's cards being properly stamped?
    Mr. SKELTON: I am aware of the facts in this case. Mr. Coyle, the defaulting employer, was engaged as a subcontractor for some preliminary work in connection with the erection of houses at Cardonald which are being provided by a company of builders under the corporation's scheme of assistance to private enterprise. I am informed that there has been no contravention of the rules and conditions under which the State subsidy is payable and provided that the houses are duly completed to the satisfaction of the corporation and of the Department of Health for Scotland, my right hon. Friend has no power to withhold payment of subsidy from the principal contractors. As regards the last part of the question, efforts which have been made by the Department to trace Mr. Coyle have so far been unsuccessful, but steps are meantime being taken to ascertain in the case of each employé the precise liability in respect of unpaid insurance contributions and an opportunity will be given to the men to safeguard their position as regards benefits by themselves stamping their cards.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Am I to assume that the Government are prepared to pay a

    973
    subsidy to the main contractors for houses completed when the men have not got their wages for work in connection with those houses; and, in view of the fact that this contractor knowingly gave a sub-contractor the job to undertake, although he knew that he was of no substance, will the Under-Secretary not reconsider the case? May I also ask if a warrant has been issued for this man's arrest, seeing that he has been guilty of criminal neglect in not stamping the cards?
    Mr. SKELTON: In answer to the first part of the supplementary question, I regret that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Department have no power to take the action which my hon. Friend suggests. The payment of the subsidy cannot be conditioned as my hon. Friend suggests. With regard to whether a. warrant has been issued or not for the arrest of this man, I am not able to tell my hon. Friend that in terms, and upon that point I cannot add to what I have already said, that efforts are being made to deal with: this question. With regard to the issue of the warrant, I will make inquiries and inform my hon. Friend.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Am I to understand that, if houses are built, and the wages due to the men are not paid, this House will pay a subsidy on those houses, although the men have not received their wages. Ought not the subsidy to be determined, as any other payment would be, on the basis that wages should be the first charge upon it.
    Mr. PIKE: Can the Minister say whether the fair wages clause operates in respect of the houses?

  COAL INDUSTRY (RINGROSE ALARM).
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary for Mines when lie expects to receive the final report of the tests on automatic detectors; and whether such reports will be made available for Members of this House?
  The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I expect to receive reports within the next few weeks on the trials of the Ringrose Alarm at Mosley Common and Houghton Main Collieries. The report from Wales is not due till
  974
  next month. I cannot answer the last part of the question until I have had an opportunity of considering the reports.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Member say whether, when the report is available, the Miners' Federation will be supplied with a copy?
  Mr. BROWN: I will bear that in mind.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    CANADA AND UNITED STATES (RECIPROCITY).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he has received any communication concerning the negotiations proceeding between the Canadian and American Governments for trade reciprocity; and whether he will inform the House of the present position?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I have received no communication from His Majesty's Government in Canada as to any such negotiations, and am not in a position to make any statement on the subject.
    Mr. MANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no obstacle will be placed in the way of such a great and worthy attempt to reduce world tariffs?
    Mr. THOMAS: I can give no assurance in advance of information.
    Mr. HANNON: In reference to the point which has just been put by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), is it not the duty of my right hon. Friend to carry out our part of the bargain?
    Mr. THOMAS: As far as we are concerned, we intend to carry out our part of the bargain.

    BRITISH EMPIRE BUILDING, NEW YORK.
    Mr. RANKINasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to what extent the Empire Marketing Board is to co-operate in promoting the success of the British Empire building now in course of construction at New York for the purpose of encouraging Anglo-American trade?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: No proposal for co-operation in this scheme has been brought before the Empire Marketing Board.

    COTTON INDUSTRY.
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if any steps have yet been taken to offset the competition of the Japanese with the Lancashire cotton export trade by reason of depreciated currency and lower wages;
    (2) whether His Majesty's Government have considered denouncing the commercial treaty with Japan in order that this country may be free to take all steps to recover the export markets lost due to Japanese competition; and what decision has been arrived at?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hammersley) on the 14th February, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. CHORLTON: Is it not possible to speed up the decision, seeing that this is an exceedingly important matter as far as employment in Lancashire is concerned?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: We are in close touch with the representatives of the industry on the subject, and are doing what we can.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether, so far as his Department is concerned, a decision has been reached?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: My hon. Friend has not stated the subject of the decision about which he asks. I am afraid I cannot answer his supplementary question until I know what he means.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: A decision on the question of the desirability, from the point of view of the whole of British trade, of abrogating the Anglo-Japanese Trade Agreement?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir, that question has already received our consideration.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: And decision?
    Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now state on what date he received
    976
    the representations submitted by the cotton trade in respect to Japanese competition; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I received a deputation from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce on this subject on 21st October last, and since then I have been in constant touch with that chamber. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member for the Platting Division (Mr. Chorlton).
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is it not a fact that representations in favour of the abrogation of the Anglo-Japanese Agreement have been made to the Board of Trade; and, if that be so, how is it that I receive a reply which is in the contrary sense?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think that my hon. Friend must have misunderstood the situation. There are many ways in which the Anglo-Japanese Treaty may be dealt with. The use of the word "abrogation" is not precise enough to enable us to give a complete and emphatic answer to the question which my hon. Friend has put.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: If the use of the word "abrogation" is not sufficiently precise to enable a reply to be given in an affirmative sense, why was it sufficiently definite to enable a reply to be given in a negative sense?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has not the whole difficulty arisen owing to the fall in the value of the yen relative to sterling?

    BRITISH MACHINERY (FRENCH SURTAX).
    Mr. O'CONNORasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that lace machinery imported from Great Britain into France bears a surtax of 15 per cent. over and above the import tax of 6 per cent., whereas no surtax is imposed upon identical German machinery; whether he is aware that this surtax prevents British manufacturers from competing in the French market against German manufacturers; and whether he will make representations to the French Government regarding this discriminatory tax?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Strong representations on the subject of the surtax have already been addressed to the French Government, but so far without result. The whole question of discrimination in France against United Kingdom goods is at this moment receiving my serious consideration.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: Will my right hon. Friend point out to the French Government that this amounts to a discriminatory tax against their late allies, and a preference in favour of their late enemies?
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman making full use of his bargaining powers in this connection?

    ARGENTINA.
    Captain HUNTERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will be prepared to make a statement setting out the results of the present discussions with the Argentine trade delegation on an appropriate and early date?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I shall be prepared to make a statement in due course, but I cannot at present name a date.
    Mr. HAMILTON KERRasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, as a result of the visit of the Argentine trade delegation, it has been possible to make arrangements to eliminate the exchange difficulties which are preventing an expansion of British exports to Argentina?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Negotiations are proceeding, and I am not at present in a position to make a statement.

    LINSEED AND LINSEED OIL.
    Sir FRANK SANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the large imports of linseed oil into the United Kingdom in December, 1932, 3,787 tons, in January, 1933, 1,253 tons, and during last week, 790 tons from Russia; and whether, in view of the effect of these imports upon the seed-crushing industry of this country, he will give to the Government of India the necessary notice under the Ottawa Agreement, with a view to removing the duty of 10 per cent. on linseed imported from the Argentine?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the facts stated by my hon. Friend. The
    978
    duties on linseed and linseed oil provided for in the Trade Agreement with India were not imposed until 1st January, and there is no present intention of notifying and consulting with the Government of India, in terms of Article 14 of the Agreement, with a view to a change in these duties being agreed upon.
    Sir F. SANDERSON: Is my right hon. Fritnd aware that the imposition of 'a 10 per cent. duty on Argentine linseed without an equivalent increase in the duty on linseed oil is jeopardising the industry; and would he consider asking the Advisory Committee to speed up their reply in regard to the recommendations put forward by the industry for an equivalent duty on imported linseed oil?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not myself aware of what has passed between the industry and the Advisory Committee, but I have no doubt that any representations made to them will receive their prompt attention.

    TIMBER CONTRACT.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the contract under which Timber Distributors, Limited, is importing a large quantity of Russian timber at low prices is likely to frustrate the value of the preference given to Canadian and other Empire timber under the Ottawa Agreements; and if any statement to this effect has been conveyed to the company in question?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The contract, to which my hon. Friend refers, was discussed with the directors of Timber Distributors, Limited, who were made fully aware of the position under Article 21 of the United Kingdom-Canadian Agreement.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the contract referred to in the question will not interfere with the due carrying out by the British Government of Article 21 of the Agreement?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have made it clear to those who are concerned that, if there is any infringement of the stipulations of Article 21, that Article will remain in force.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman still regard it as a crime to buy cheap timber from Russia or anywhere else?

    TIMBER-GROWING INDUSTRY.
    Earl of DALKEITHasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what arrangements are being made in the current trade negotiations between Great Britain and foreign countries specialising in timber exports to ensure that the position of the home timber-growing industry is not overlooked;
    (2) Who are the advisers of the Government on matters affecting the home timber-growing industry in regard to the current trade negotiations with foreign countries and also general policy?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: My Noble Friend may rest assured that the interests of the home timber-growing industry will be borne in mind in connection with the negotiations with foreign countries and that any representations from that industry are carefully considered. The advice of the Forestry Commission and of trade bodies is sought in appropriate circumstances.

    RUBBER FOOTWEAR (IMPORTS).
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the volume and value of rubber boots and shoes imported into this country from Japan in the years 1931 and 1932, respectively; what is the average price, including the duty for children's and misses'

    The following table shows the total quantity and declared value of the imports of rubber boots and shoes consigned from Japan during 1931 and 1932. I am unable to state the average value of children's and misses' wellingtons on importation into the United Kingdom or the cost of production in this country of corresponding goods, as these articles are not separately distinguished in the trade or production returns.

    Imports of rubber boots, and shoes into the United Kingdom consigned from Japan (including Formosa and Japanese leased territories in China).

    1931.

    1932.

    Quantity.

    Declared Value.

    Quantity.

    Declared. Value

    Doz. pairs.

    £

    Doz. pairs.

    £

    Boots

    68,447

    95,320

    170,405

    145,657

    Shoes:

    Bathing shoes and sandals and the like

    167,014

    103,411

    20,289

    10,887

    Goloshes and overshoes of all descriptions.

    7,225

    4,991

    Sports shoes, plimsolls and shoes of like character.

    318,051

    176,074

    Note.—The figures for 1932 are provisional.

    wellingtons at English ports, and the corresponding cost of production of similar articles by British rubber-shoe manufacturers; and if he will take measures to safeguard the interests of British manufacturers and their workpeople equal to the difference of the cost of production in this country and Japan?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving such of the information as is available. As regards the last part of the question, my hon. Friend is no doubt aware of the action taken in accordance with the report of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, dated 23rd September, 1932, containing certain recommendations regarding the duty on rubber footwear.
    Mr. HANNON: May we have an assurance that, in the case of competition of this kind where the costs of production are so far below those in this country, the Board of Trade will carefully watch it and take steps at the appropriate moment to prevent unfair dealing
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Gentleman will refresh his memory as to the report made by the Advisory Committee, he will find that they said that, if abnormal competitive conditions continued, they would be prepared to reconsider the matter.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is not part of these goods in payment for the munitions that we are sending?
    Following is the statement:

    EMPIRE IMPORTS (SEA TRANSPORT).
    Mr. RANKINasked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of imports into this country from Empire sources was carried in British-owned ships during 1931 and 1932, respectively; and what steps are being taken to increase this percentage in view of the recent increase in imports from Empire sources?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the question is not available. As regards the second part, it is not clear that any action could usefully be taken by the Government.

    WILTSHIRE AND DANISH BACON (PRICES).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the quoted wholesale price of prime Wiltshire bacon for the latest convenient date, including backs, smoked lean, sizeable, medium, and stout, and the price of similar qualities of Danish bacon per cwt.?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the percentage increase of the former over the latter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have not worked it out in percentages, but I am sure the hon. Member will do so quite accurately when he gets my answer.
    Following is the answer:
    The wholesale prices of Wiltshire and of Danish bacon on 3rd March, as recorded in the "Grocer," were as follows:

    Shillings per cwt.

    Wiltshire smoked sides:

    Lean, sizeable

    110

    Sizeable

    108

    Medium

    104

    Stout

    100

    Danish:

    No. 1 sizeable

    68

    No. 2 sizeable

    65

    No. 3 sizeable

    62

    No. 1 heavy

    68

    No. 2 heavy

    65

    No. 1 sixes

    62 to 65

    No. 2 sixes

    62 to 64

    CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (MARKING).
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the advisability of taking steps to make it illegal for films to be advertised or shown without a clear indication of the country of its creation or origin, in the same way as certain goods have to be marked under the Merchandise Marks Act?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As at present advised, I cannot see my way to introduce the legislation which would be necessary to give effect to my hon. Friend's proposal, but I have noted his suggestion.

    SALTED FISH (RE-EXPORTS).
    Mr. BURNETTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether an early decision may be expected upon the recommendation of the advisory committee to the Government with regard to a drawback upon the re-export of salted fish, in view of the arrival of the buying season
    The FINANCIAL. SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I regret that I can add nothing to the official statement which appeared in the Press on the 23rd February.
    Mr. BURNETT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the export fish curers are at present without stocks, and, unless a decision can be reached at an early date, they will be unable to compete in the South American markets?

    IMPERIAL PREFERENCE (EMPIRE CONTENT).
    Colonel GOODMANasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government will consider appointing Customs officials to reside in the Dominions to check the British requirements for Empire content in the way that Canada and Australia have officials here to check content in respect of articles imported into those Dominions as British made?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion has been noted. The Customs authorities are fully alive to the importance of obtaining correct declarations of Empire content, and my hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that whatever steps are necessary to secure this end will be taken.

    FOREIGN COUNTRIES (NEGOTIATIONS).
    Captain FULLERasked the President of the Board of Trade how trade negotiations with foreign countries are proceeding; if any trading agreements have yet been made or are likely to be made in the near future; and, if not, what is preventing it?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No definite agreements have yet been concluded, but negotiations are proceeding satisfactorily.

  IRISH FREE STATE.
  Mr. CHURCHILLasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the total amount of the annuities and other payments for which the Irish Free State is now in default; the total amount received from the duties which have been imposed on Irish imports; and what steps he proposes to take, by increased duties or otherwise, to secure the British taxpayer against loss?
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: As regards the first and second parts of the question, the sums withheld by the Irish Free State amounted to £ 1,750,000 by the 15th July, 1932, when the special duties came into force. The sums withheld between that date and the 28th February, 1933, amounted to £ 2,910,000. The approximate total amount collected up to the 28th February in respect of the special duties and the duties under the Import Duties Act, 1932, on goods imported from the Irish Free State, is £ 2,123,000. As regards the third part of the question, I can assure my right hon. Friend that the matter is receiving my constant personal consideration.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with these figures?
  Mr. THOMAS: I shall certainly not be satisfied until the British taxpayer gets what is due to him.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman divide the last figure, namely, £2,123,000? I understand that that includes the ordinary Import Duties that are levied on everyone. Would he tell us how much of that represents special duties?
  Mr. THOMAS: I could not divide the figure. I would point out to my right hon. Friend that, in consequence of the action of the Irish Free State, they do
  984
  not participate in the benefits that arise from Ottawa, so that the two must of necessity be kept together.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Is it-not possible to tell the House what is the actual amount that we have received from the penal duties that are inflicted?
  Mr. THOMAS: There are no penal duties, and it would be a profound mistake if there were any such impression. The duties imposed were the only means open to us for obtaining what was due to the British taxpayer. They are not penal.
  Mr. MAXTON: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that all the steps he has taken up to now, penal and friendly, leave this country £ 2,000,000 to the bad?
  Mr. THOMAS: No. All the steps that I have taken up to now have obtained £ 2,000,000 from those people for the people of this country, which they would not have obtained if I had not taken those steps.
  Mr. MAXTON: But we are still £ 2,000,000 short.
  Mr. LUNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the trade between the two countries has been affected by this policy within the last few months?
  Mr. LANSBURY (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he has received any recent communication from the Irish Free State as to the financial dispute?
  Mr. THOMAS: Yes, Sir. I received officially on 3rd March the following letter from the High Commissioner for the Irish Free State:
  "3rd March,1933.
  Dear Mr. Thomas,
  You will remember that I wrote to you on the 4th of July of last year confirming what I had already told you in conversation, namely, that the sums received from the Land Annuities and other charges were being set aside by the Irish Free State Government in separate Suspense Accounts in anticipation of arbitration.
  My Government now consider that no useful purpose can be served by the further retention of these monies in the Suspense Accounts. They have, therefore, decided to use them to finance normal Exchequer requirements and they desire me to inform you accordingly.
  Yours sincerely,
  (Sgd.) JOHN W. DULANTY.''
  I have replied to-day as follows:
  " 7th March, 1933.
  Dear Mr. Dulanty,
  I have received your letter of the 3rd March in which you intimate that the Irish Free State Government have decided to appropriate for normal Exchequer requirements the sums received from the land annuities and other charges which have hitherto been placed in separate suspense accounts in anticipation of arbitration.
  The United Kingdom Government have received this intimation with regret. Their offer of arbitration or negotiation still remains open and they cannot be understood to acquiesce in the action now announced.
  Yours sincerely,
  (Sgd.) J. H. THOMAS."
  Mr. THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that both Governments are committing felo de se?
  Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will consult the Cabinet as to the advisability of reconsidering the whole question of the terms of arbitration, as the issue now appears to be so narrow to outsiders, being concerned only as to whether both Governments cannot agree on some man in the world to be chairman of the board of arbitration? Neither nation is gaining anything but both are being injured, and in the end someone will have to settle the matter. Why not try again?
  Mr. THOMAS: No one would suggest for a moment that any member of the Government or of this House is happy about it or desires this state of affairs to continue, but we think it would be a mistake not to keep the facts clearly in mind. If it were such a narrow issue as my right hon. Friend suggests, there might be possibilities of meeting it, but it is not a narrow issue. Apart entirely from the financial question involved, there is also the political aspect which is involved in the violation of the Treaty. With regard to the suggestion that there is no man in the world who can act as chairman, I do not for one moment say that there is no man in the world who may be chairman of the tribunal, but equally I resent the suggestion that there is not a man within the Empire who is capable of acting as chairman.
  Mr. LANSBURY: If there are these other questions, these political questions, is it not a fact that the British Government and the Irish Free State Government have both agreed that the subject
  986
  matter dealt with in the correspondence should be settled by arbitration? I understand that the only outstanding question is where you shall select the chairman of the arbitration tribunal, and all I am asking the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues is to consider whether in all the circumstances of the case, and the injury which is being done to both countries, it would not be an act of grace on the part of His Majesty's Government to give way on that one point?
  Mr. THOMAS: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to two things? The first intimation that this Government received was not a communication from the Irish Free State asking for a discussion to consider or review the question, but a bald intimation that they were not going to pay. Notwithstanding that, from the commencement in answering questions and in every public speech I have made, I have never shut the door. The communication I have just read from Mr. Dulanty, as representing Mr. de Valera, is again a bald intimation that they propose to use for another purpose money that by Statute was intended to be earmarked for a specific purpose. Notwithstanding that I have replied, even to-day, that, as far as we are concerned, the offer of arbitration or negotiation still remains open. Surely no greater indication could be given of our desire for a friendly settlement, but there are times and occasions, there are circumstances, when we must not simply humiliate ourselves.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I do not propose to pursue the matter further except to say that it is a well-known fact that the right hon. Gentleman in making that offer knows perfectly well that the one obstacle to its acceptance is that he himself lays down a condition for the arbitration tribunal which he knows the Irish Free State cannot accept. I wish to make that quite clear.
  Mr. THOMAS: So that it shall be quite clear, let me say that I did not lay down that condition. The condition I laid down is that I am prepared on behalf of the Government to confirm and offer to the Irish Free State the arbitration which was unanimously endorsed by the Imperial Conference, to which the Irish Free State were parties.
  Mr. LANSBURY: That is not true.
  HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
  Mr. MAXTON: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he does not consider that the over-riding political consideration in this matter is the establishment of friendship between the two nations, and whether he does not realise that the failure of his policy is embittering feeling and widening the breach?
  Mr. THOMAS: I agree with the hon. Member; the over-riding consideration in this, as in most matters, is the friendly relations between the two nations, but I would also remind the hon. Member that there are such things as honour and justice, which must be observed by others.

  AGRICULTURE.

    MEAT IMPORTS.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the President of the Board of Trade what precautions are taken to prevent any foreign countries evading the restrictions on the import of meat, for instance by sending in best cuts packed in sacks, etc., and labelled offal, or in any other way; and whether he is satisfied that no such evasions are taking place 7
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: An assurance was obtained from the South American Meat Importers' Freight Committee (representing the great majority of the South American trade) that meat of descriptions not specifically limited by the "agreed programme" in the Ottawa Agreements would be strictly regulated. Imports of foreign frozen beef cuts in January amounted to under 1,000 tons out of a total of some 36,000 tons of foreign chilled and frozen beef imported in that month. I understand that the freight committee have arranged for imports of frozen beef cuts to be substantially reduced after the end of the present month.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is there anything to prevent people who are not parties to the agreement from sending this meat here in bags and describing it as offal?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think that there is any abuse of the regulations
    988
    which are at present in force. That applies both to those who are in the agreement and to those who are outside.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that there is no breach of the regulations?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: A licence would not be issued in an improper case, and we have control of the licences.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Were these agreements entered into between this Government and the importers, or between this Government and the Government of the exporting country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Member will put that question down, I can give him an answer, but it does not arise out of the Question on the Paper.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman certain that no evasions at all are taking place'?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir; I am never certain of that.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied that the restrictions which he has imposed on the import of meat and bacon have been successful in raising wholesale prices sufficiently to give the home producer of these articles a reasonable profit?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave to a similar question by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Mol-ton (Mr. Lambert) on 7th February. Since that date all classes of livestock have shown further improvement; and the total rises since the imposition of restrictions have been as follows: First quality fat cattle from 37s. 3d. per cwt. to 42s. 3d. per cwt.; fat sheep from ld. per lb. to 11d. per lb.; and pork and bacon pigs from 10s. 5d. and 9s. per score to 13s. 8d. and 11s. 9d. per score respectively.
    Lieut. -Colonel ACLAND -TROYTE: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the success of his policy, will he answer the last part of the question, whether there has been a sufficient rise to give a reasonable profit?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hem. Gentleman give us his version of what price will give a reasonable profit, and what is a reasonable profit?
    Major ELLIOT: I refer both hon. Members to the answer that I gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton, in which I said it is impossible to say whether any given price would afford a profit to home producers generally.

    Crown Lands (Rents).
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN (for Major CARVER)asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will state the abatement of rent allowed to any tenants of Crown agricultural land in the calendar year 1932?
    Major ELLIOT: Abatements of agricultural rents made by the Commissioners of Crown Lands for the period ending at Lady Day in each year amounted in 1931–32 to £9,907, and will amount in 1932–33 to approximately £7,666. The Commissioners do not make abatements at a flat percentage rate, but consider the case of each farm on its merits.

    SUTTON BRIDGE FARM SETTLEMENT.
    Brigadier-General BROWN (forMajor CARVER)asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the loss sustained in 1932 upon the Sutton Bridge smallholdings and allotments, he can state whether this loss is still being incurred; and, if so, what action he proposes to take to effect economies?
    Major ELLIOT: Of the items on the debit side of the Estate Profit and Loss Account of the Sutton Bridge Farm Settlement for 1931, amounting in all to £32,659, only £4,400 (which includes £2,813 for repairs) represents items over which the Department has any control, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the most rigid economy will continue to be exercised in regard to such items. The remaining sum of £28,259 includes the permanent annuity of £18,500 in consideration of which the property was purchased, £5,087 interest on Exchequer advances, £2,876 for depreciation of buildings, and £1,407 for tithes, rates, etc. These charges are for the most part in respect of obligations entered into in connection with the post-War scheme of land settlement, and reflect the general high level of prices and rates of interest
    990
    which obtained at the time. On the other side of the account, the receipts consist almost entirely of the rents of the small holdings and allotments which are full fair rents and cannot be increased.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: Does not the very heavy loss suffered by the Government in farm management show the plight of agriculture, and will the right hon. Gentleman do what he can to start proposals for altering it?

  POLICE, (CASTS AND MOULDS).
  Captain CUNNINGHAM-REIDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is the intention of the police authorities to adopt the Poller process for use in cases where casts or moulds are required by them; whether British police officials have yet attended demonstrations of this process by the Austrian police; and what was the nature of their report?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir J. Gilmour): It is not at present the intention of the Metropolitan Police to adopt this process as it is not regarded as suitable in most of the cases in which casts or moulds are required. Demonstrations of Dr. Poller's process were attended by a representative of the Commissioner in 1928 and the conclusion reached was that whilst it might be useful for very delicate work, cases in, which it could be usefully employed would he extremely rare. In fact none has occurred in recent years.

  TRANSPORT.

    MOTOR CAR HEAD LIGHTS.
    Captain CUNNINGHAM - REIDasked the Minister of Transport if he has reached any decision on the problem of overcoming dazzle in motor car head lights; and if, in framing regulations, he will insist that anti-dazzle devices should be automatic and not driver-operated?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The Ministry of Transport recently circulated a revised draft of regulations on this subject, and certain representations which have been received are now under consideration. I am not prepared at the moment to say precisely what form my decision will take.

    TAXIMETER CAB FARES.
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Home Secretary if he can make a statement regarding the proposed increase in taximeter cab fares?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Representations were made to me by the taxicab proprietors urging an increase in taxicab fares and, after the views and specific proposals of the various sections of the trade, which were submitted to me at my request, had been considered, I decided to convene a conference of all the parties concerned. That conference has recently been held and the whole question is now under my consideration in the light of the various representations which have been made.

  SUNDAY CINEMAS, SIDCUP.
  Mr. BATEYasked the Home Secretary what communications have passed between his Department and the Sidcup District Council regarding the Sunday opening of cinemas since the rejection by this House of the Draft Order; and if he is aware that the proposed amalgamation of Chislehurst with Sidcup has been rejected by the Chislehurst Council, thus removing the chief objection to the Order?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: On 17th February I informed the Sidcup Urban District Council of the rejection by this House of the Draft Order, and on the same day I received a copy of a resolution passed by the council on 15th February. As regards the proposed amalgamation of Chislehurst with Sidcup, I understand that this proposal forms part of the review of districts by the Kent County Council under Section 46 of the Local Government Act, 1929, that a local inquiry has been held and that the whole question, including a recent resolution of the Chislehurst Council against the proposed amalgamation, is now before the Minister of Health, with whom the decision rests.
  Mr. THORNE: Was any reason given in the House for vetoing the vote of the people of Sidcup?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that there was 'a Debate and a vote on the Subject.
  Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand that, as the decision rests with the Minister, it is possible for him to renew the Order?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The decision does not rest with the Minister. My duty is to receive the record of any poll that is taken. As long as I am satisfied that the poll is correct, it is a matter for this House, and there, as far as I am concerned, my duty is at an end. It is open to the House to reject it or accept it.
  Mr. BATEY: Can the Order that was rejected be submitted again to the House?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: As far as I understand it, if they desire to raise the matter again they can do so, but it would rest, I understand, not with me but with Mr. Speaker as to whether he would accept another question within the present Session.
  Mr. THORNE: Is the House entitled to rescind the decision given the other day?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: If the matter comes before the House again, of course it will be competent for the House to rescind its former decision.

  POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE TRUNK LINES).
  Mr. DORANasked the Postmaster-General if, in order to provide work for many thousands and minimise the risk of interrupted telephone service due to gales, he will consider the advisability of arranging that part of the Post Office profits should be devoted to laying the main telephone lines underground instead of replacing or extending the present overhead system which disfigures the countryside
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTE-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): The main system of telephone trunk lines in this country is already in underground cable to the extent of over 90 per cent.— a higher proportion than in any other country in the world. The telephone service has to be self-supporting, and the rate of substitution of underground for overhead lines must be governed by economic considerations. Substantial progress is being made within the limits so imposed.
  Mr. DORAN: In view of the enormous profits made by the Post Office, is it not possible to devote a certain amount of this money to putting the cables underneath the ground?
  Sir E. BENNETT: The hon. Member did not listen to my answer. I said 90 per cent. are already underground.
  Mr. McGOVERN: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Postmaster-General to see that there is no monkeying about with these poles?

  EMPIRE BROADCAST STATION.
  Mr. DORANasked the Postmaster-General if he is in a position to state the cost to date of the Empire radio station at Daventry; the estimated annual upkeep; and whether any of the Dominions have yet undertaken to contribute towards the cost?
  Sir E. BENNETT: The decision to establish an Empire radio station was taken by the British Broadcasting Corporation and announced by them in November, 1931. As my right hon. Friend has already stated, the corporation is for the present bearing the full cost. The responsibility for expenditure on individual broadcasting stations rests entirely with the corporation, and my right hon. Friend is not aware of the cost of the Empire station.
  Mr. PIKE: Is there any intention to ask the Colonies to bear part of the cost?
  Sir E. BENNETT: When the Colonies realise the benefits that will come to them from this system, one naturally hopes that arrangements will be made.
  Mr. MAXTON: Does the Assistant Postmaster-General mean that the Postmaster-General does not know the cost of the new station at Daventry or is he saying that he knows but will not tell us?
  Sir E. BENNETT: I must ask the hon. Member to accept what I said on the subject. The corporation is for the present bearing the full cost, and my right hon. Friend is not aware of that cost.

  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  Mr. KIMBALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is
  994
  aware that the Derby Customs and Excise Office have refused to exempt from Entertainments Duty the proceeds of a concert given in aid of the Loughborough centre for the unemployed; and whether he will take steps to extend the existing exemption in favour of charitable and philanthropic purposes to entertainments in aid of recognised centres for the unemployed?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHAI am informed that a certificate of exemption from Entertainments Duty was at first withheld by the local officers pending a decision by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise as to whether the statutory condition that the whole of the takings of the concert must be devoted to philanthropic or charitable purposes could be regarded as fulfilled. The Commissioners are satisfied that this concert is entitled to exemption from duty, and a certificate of exemption was issued on the 3rd March.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    CLERICAL CLASSES.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will suspend any further recruitment to the established general and departmental clerical classes from open competition until the whole question of the future pay and status of the new special class has been settled and whether, in the meantime, steps will be taken to review the necessary clerical class complements in the various departments so as to afford promotion for the existing members of the new special class?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Clerical class complements are fixed in accordance with the requirements of the work and cannot be specially increased for the purpose of providing additional promotions. It would not be in the public interest to suspend open competition for these classes but a large proportion of vacancies are filled by the promotion of suitable officers already serving. A substantial number of such promotions have been made from the P class and it has been agreed that members of the special class, which was set up as a result of the discussions with the recognised staff representatives on the Temporary Staffs Committee, should also be eligible for such promotion.

    "P" CLASS (PROMOTIONS).
    Rear-Admiral SUETER (forLieut.- Commander BOWER)asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the reason for withholding a list of ex-service P class clerks in the tax inspectorate for promotion to the established class, as contemplated under Clause V of the Government Memorandum of 12th January, 1925, and in accordance with the practice of the board, to authorise such promotions each year?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Between 1928 and 1931 386 P class men were promoted to be tax clerks. The question whether further promotions can be made from the ex-service class is being considered in the light of all the relevant circumstances including the availability of vacancies.

    ECCLESIASTICAL ESTATES (BUILDING LEASES, SOUTH SHIELDS).
    Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONEasked the hon. Member for Central Leeds, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whether he can now make any statement as to the policy of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in granting or renewing mineral leases in the South Shields area?
    Mr. DENMAN (Second Church Estates Commissioner): Parties interested in the question of the terms of building leases in the mining area to which the hon. Member refers have been invited to a conference which I hope will shortly take place.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Has not the time arrived when, in the interests of economy, this body should be entirely abolished?
    Mr. DENMAN: It is one of those bodies which involves no expenditure on the State whatever.

    INDIA (JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE).
    Mr. CHURCHILLasked the Secretary of State for India whether a committee of Indians is being invited by the Government to participate, in a consultative capacity or otherwise, in the work of the Joint Committee of both Houses shortly to be set up; and whether he can assure the House that he will in no way prejudice, by the form of his invitations,
    996
    the decision of either House of Parliament upon the method of consultation or the status of such Indian nominees in relation to the Joint Committee?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): Ever since the Simon Commission was first appointed successive Governments have, as has been constantly stated, had the intention of proposing that the Joint Select Committee set up to consider the proposals for the revision of the Indian Constitution should be given power to confer with Indian representatives. The Government therefore propose to ask Parliament to give the Committee this power. It will however be for the Committee alone to decide upon the manner in which effect is given to this arrangement. The second part of the question therefore does not arise.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any invitations have yet been sent out?
    Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir, no invitations in the sense of my right hon. Friend's question, but the Viceroy and I have bad some informal correspondence as to the Indians whom we might think would be useful to the Committee, but no commitments of any kind have been entered into which will embarrass the liberty of action of the Committee.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Have the Government envisaged the exact nature of the consultation the Government have in mind in this matter?
    Sir S. HOARE: I have just said that the Committee themselves will be the judge of the way in which the deliberations will be carried out.
    Sir A. KNOX: Would it riot be much better to lay down the procedure first, and not put the onus upon the Committee to say what the procedure shall be and perhaps set them at variance with the Indians?
    Sir S. HOARE: I should think that the House, in appointing a committee of this kind, would desire to leave liberty of action to its own representatives.
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Can my right hon. Friend say whether His Majesty's Government will have a majority of the representation on the Committee?
    Sir S. HOARE: The hon. and gallant Member had better wait and see the Resolution under which the Committee will be selected by this House.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Are we to understand that the Joint Committee will be the judge of the method of conferring with the Indian representatives?
    Sir S. HOARE: If my right hon. Friend will look at the answer I have just given, he will see that that is exactly what I have said they will do.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am very glad indeed to hear that, but I do not think that it was clear.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICERS (INSURANCE WORK).
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that some county and county borough councils have not increased the pay of their relief staffs for the extra work and responsibility in connection with duties consequent upon the operation of the Unemployment Insurance (National Economy) (No. 2) Order, 1931, in connection with transitional payment cases; and whether he will take steps, under the provisions of paragraph 6 of the Order, to ensure that the local authorities concerned award the officers affected reasonable remuneration for this work?
    Captain AUSTIN HUDSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. This is a matter within the discretion of local authorities in whose service these officers are. My right hon. Friend has no reason to believe that authorities generally are not fully aware of his powers under the Order in Council to approve for reimbursement additional expenditure incurred by them in the administration of the Order.

    WORK SCHEMES.
    Mr. MACLAYasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the undesirability of paying out transitional benefit for no work and also in view of the present low rate of interest and general costs, he will take several concrete examples of useful schemes submitted by local authorities of distressed areas or Members of Parliament, and have them
    998
    analysed in order that the House of Commons may be advised on up-to-date figures as to the numbers likely to be given employment, the amount of unemployment benefit to be saved, and the extent of the Government loan which would be required to put such schemes into operation?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend doubts whether a useful purpose would be served by adopting the hon. Member's suggestion. In so far as it is possible to estimate the situation arithmetically, it is already known that. £1,000,000 spent on capital works in a year may be expected to give employment, directly and indirectly, to about 4,000 men. If all these men or an equivalent number would otherwise have received unemployment benefit or transitional payments for the whole year, which is unlikely, they would be paid about £200,000. There are no doubt other considerations involved that cannot be estimated arithmetically. Local authorities, with whom my right hon. Friend is concerned, raise their own loans for capital works. My right hon. Friend is always prepared to sanction loans for works which are remunerative or really necessary.
    Mr. MACLAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the figures which he has just given are based upon the expenses of the Department during the last six months or so?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: They are the nearest estimates used by ourselves based on the latest figures available.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Will the Minister inform the House if there is any arithmetical difference between the £200,000 and the £1,000,000 and can he give an explanation of the £800,000?

  HOUSING.

    HUT DWELLINGS, HORDEN, DURHAM.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the case of disabled ex-service men living in huts at Horden, Durham; and if he will sanction a scheme or schemes for the erection of houses to meet such cases?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend's attention has not been called to this matter, but he will be glad to consider any information which the hon. Member may be in a position to submit to him.

    SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACTS.
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Minister of Health the total amount of advances made by local authorities under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts in 1932 and the number of houses purchased?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: During the 12 months ended 30th September, 1932, the latest date to which figures are at present available, local authorities in England and Wales advanced £2,670,415 under the Acts in question, in respect of 5,032 houses.
    Mr. McENTEE: Can the hon. Member say whether in recent months the Ministry has refused several applications from local authorities to loan money under the Act, and whether it is the policy of the Government in future to refuse to administer the Act in the way in which it has previously been administered?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: It is not within my knowledge that that is so, but if the hon. Member will bring the matter to my notice, I will have inquiries made into it.

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AUDIT BILL.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health how many borough and county borough councils have made representations to him in favour of the Municipal Corporation Audit Bill?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: No representations have been made to my right hon. Friend for or against the Bill itself, but from time to time inquiries have been received from borough councils asking whether district audit could be applied to their accounts without the expense of promoting a private Bill.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Association of Municipal Corporations is opposed to this Measure as being an unnecessary extravagance?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: No, I am not aware of that fact.

  KENYA GOLDFIELD.
  Mr. PARKINSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the amount of compensation paid to natives in Kakamega for disturbances or destruction; and whether precise records have been kept of the amount of such compensation in individual cases?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): Under Section 26 of the Kenya Mining Ordinance the owner or occupier of land is entitled to fair and reasonable compensation for disturbance, and in the case of native owners or occupiers the administrative officer in charge of the district is empowered, if the native so wishes, to assess the amount of compensation. It would not, however, be possible to keep full records since the administrative officer could not have any knowledge of cases not brought to his notice, which would naturally be the subject of amicable arrangement between the prospector and the native owner or occupier. I learn from a despatch which I have received that the rate of compensation generally in force is one cent per square yard per quarter for damage done to the surface in cutting trenches or digging pits. This is equivalent to about £9 13s. 6d. per acre per annum.

  FOREIGN LOANS (EMBARGO).
  Mr. WHITE (for Mr. MANDER)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to maintain the present embargo on loans for foreign states, in particular for those unanimously found guilty of breach of treaty obligations by the Assembly of the League of Nations?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The existing embargo on foreign loans is of general application and is due to financial and not to political motives, as suggested in the question. As regards the period during which it will be necessary to maintain the existing restrictions on issues of capital in this and certain other cases, I would refer to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse) on the 16th February.
  Mr. MACMILLAN: Will the hon. Member draw a distinction between loans

  1001
  which are made solely in the form of money and loans which are for the purpose of financing work in this country?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The question endeavours to draw a distinction between loans made for a political purpose and loans made for a financial purpose. My hon. Friend's supplementry question is not quite related to that.

  VISA FEES.
  Mr. WHITE (for Mr. MANDER)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if be will consider the advisability of remitting the fee at present charged for visas with a view to encouraging foreigners to visit this country?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): No, Sir. I regret that His Majesty's Government still feel obliged to adhere to their decision that it is not possible, at present, for financial reasons, to enter into any further agreements for the reduction or abolition of visa fees.

  SELECTION (PRIVATE LEGISLA TION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899) (PANEL).
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That, in pursuance of the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, they had added the following Five Members to the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House to act as Commissioners: Mr. Jamieson., Mr. James Johnston, Mr. McKie, Mr. Milne, and Mr. James Reid.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provision for the enforcement in the United Kingdom of judgments given in foreign countries which accord reciprocal treatment to judgments given in the United Kingdom; for facilitating the enforcement in foreign countries of judgments given in the United Kingdom; and for other purposes in connection with the matters aforesaid." [Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Bill [Lords.]
NSOLIDATION BILLS.
That they have appointed a Committee consisting of Six Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons as a Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in the present Session, and request the Commons to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with the said Lords.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (GENERAL EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.48 p.m.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  I do not think it will be necessary for me to go into great detail as I did when the Financial Resolution was before the House. Under this Bill we are asking for an amount of new money of £5,350,000 in respect of England and Wales, which is the amount of new money for the second grant period. That figure shows an increase of £350,000 over and above the amount of £5,000,000 which was fixed for the first grant period. As regards Scotland, the amount of new money for which we ask is £850,000, which is an increase of £100,000 over the amount of new money in the first grant period. This is really a routine machinery Bill to give effect to the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1929. I need not go into any elaborate explanation but for the benefit of hon. Members who were not present on the last occasion or who have forgotten perhaps I may be allowed in a few sentences to say why the Bill is necessary.
  Under the 1929 Act a system of consolidated block grants for the general Exchequer Contribution was made payable each year in respect of a grant period lasting in the first instance for three years. That general Exchequer Contribution was made up of three items: first, the amount of loss under the derating provisions of the Act; secondly, the loss of grants, and, thirdly, an amount of new money then fixed at £5,000,000 which would allow for the normal expansion of local government services during the first fixed grant period. The equivalent amount of the losses of rates and of grants was £38,580,000 and that as I have explained before was fixed for all time according to the facts ascertained in the year 1928–29. The amount of new money falls
  1008
  to be determined at the start of each grant period. On 1st April as regards England and Wales, and on 16th May as regards Scotland, we shall be entering the second fixed grant period, one of four years. Therefore, according to the 1929 Act, we have to fix the amount of new money which shall be part of the general Exchequer Contribution to be paid annually as a block grant for the next four years.
  I need not go into the elaborate method of calculating what is to be the general Exchequer contribution at the start of a grant period. The House will remember that in the 1929 Act there is a minimum proportion, and, in asking the House to fix the amount of the new money for England and Wales at £5,350,000, we are asking the House to accept the machinery of the 1929 Act and to fix the amount of new money approximately in accordance with the minimum proportion. Three courses were open to us: We might have increased it or decreased it, or we might have kept it on the minimum proportion basis. As regards an increase, I should find it very difficult to stand here in these times of generally straitened financial circumstances and ask the House for any further increase in a grant which is already £350,000 over and above the £5,000,000. As regards a decrease, that would be breaking faith with the local authorities, breaking a bargain made with them three years ago, and would put a strain on their financial resources. Therefore, we have adopted what we think to be the wise and middle course, and therefore we submit that the £5,350,000 is about the right figure for England and Wales and £850,000 for Scotland. With that short explanation perhaps the House will understand what this Bill is about. Under paragraph (b) of Clause 1 we ask for a contribution of £3,000,000 from the Road Fund in respect of the second grant period. On the Order Paper there is an Amendment for the rejection of the Bill, in the name of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), with which I need not deal at length. The right hon. Gentleman had better develop his own case, but I think I can say briefly that that Amendment takes no account of three considerations. It takes no account of the fact that in 1929, when £5,000,000 of new money was granted to local authorities as part of the general

  1009
  Exchequer contribution, that was considered a very generous concession by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. If it was generous in 1929 to provide a new sum of £5,000,000 for the expansion of local services, it cannot be less generous now in these hard times to increase the £5,000,000 by £350,000.
  The second consideration is this: The Amendment for the rejection of the Bill calls particular attention to the condition of distressed areas, but I do not think it takes account of the way in which the general Exchequer contribution will normally be distributed under the operation of the famous formula. The House will remember that of the £43,000,000 of general Exchequer contributions paid annually, roughly one-third, or nearly £15,000,000, is distributed according to need, and the need is determined by taking the population of a given area and weighting that population to allow for certain factors. Weighting really means increasing the actual population by a percentage in respect of rateable value, unemployment and other factors.
  I. pointed out on the Financial Resolution that if any one factor was accentuated under the normal operation of the formula more money would be attracted by it. That has in fact happened. During the first grant period only S per cent. of that £15,000,000 was attracted by the unemployment factor. During the second grant period, which we shall enter on 1st April, 20 per cent. of the £15,000,000 will be attracted by the unemployment factor. As regards the increase in the amount of new money, that. is the £350,000 additional to the £5,000,000, the House might be interested to know how that goes. No less than £145,000 of it. goes to 20 county boroughs and three counties in which unemployment is the severest. In other words three-sevenths of the increase goes to those counties and county boroughs which are what we call necessitous areas. Therefore it is idle to pretend that even under the operation of this formula the increase of £350,000, plus the normal operation of the formula, will not substantially help many areas where unemployment is high. That is the second consideration.
  The third consideration is this: It would be inappropriate to ask the House to increase the pool to help those who
  1010
  are saddled with a heavy expenditure on outdoor relief when, as everyone knows, the Government are still considering the report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance. I notice that in the last part of the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Wakefield he seeks to arraign the whole principle of the Local Government Act, the whole principle of de-rating. I am not going to enter into that controversy and I very much doubt whether J should be in order in doing so. But I want to say that if he now feels about it as strongly as he appears to do he had ample opportunity, when a. Member of the Government in 1929 and when indeed he was Minister of Health, to change the principle on which de-rating was granted by giving effect. to what was called differentiation between industries. The right hon. Gentleman had two years of tranquillity and prosperity compared with the hard times in which we now live.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Not with the same majority.
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Truth remains the truth whatever the majority, and if de-rating was so iniquitous then it is amazing to find that the right hon. Gentleman did not alter it. I will give an even stronger reason. When the financial crisis fell upon this country towards the end of 1931 and we were confronted with the need for bringing in a second Budget, when we were faced with a deficit of £70,000,000 in the current year and £170,000,000 in the subsequent year, it was never even then suggested.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: That is not so; it was considered.
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: It might have been considered, but it was never accepted by the right hon. Gentleman as part of those economies that he did, in fact, accept before he quitted his post, that there should be any change in the de-rating part of the Local Government Act. If in times of acute financial stringency, with a deficit of nearly £70,000,000 in sight, no change was suggested, I think that we are on strong ground in asking the House in these times that we should still keep faith with local authorities, stick to our bargain and grant them this amount of new money which will allow them to go on and make up their budgets year by year.

  1011
  Having said that, one thing only remains for me to say. The Local Government Act has worked smoothly, and without friction. I think we can say for it that it has achieved the hopes of its architects. I very much doubt whether there is any desire anywhere in the country as far as the local authorities are concerned to go back to the old system that obtained before the Local Government Act, 1929. Therefore, I hope that the House will give a Second Reading to this Bill, which is simply a matter of routine and machinery for which some Parliamentary Secretary or Minister of Health may ask sanction at the start of every grant period, and I ask the House to give us permission to determine this amount of new money without raising any fresh controversy, without stirring up the embers of past controversies, and without prejudice to any future help that the Government in their wisdom may determine is necessary for the distressed areas.
  4.3 p.m.
  Mr. CHARLES BROWN: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
  " this House cannot assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which merely provides the statutory minimum amount of financial aid to local authorities at a time when additional assistance from the national Exchequer is urgently needed by many of them who are suffering excessively from the present economic conditions whilst those in necessitous areas are practically bankrupt, takes no account of the largely increased expenditure on poor relief thrust upon the local authorities by the National Economy Act, 1931, and fails to amend the law under which industrial and freight transport undertakings and land are largely or entirely relieved from the payment of rates."
  We have listened to the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health as to the reasons why the House is asked to give a Second Reading to this Bill to-day. He has characterised the Bill as a routine machinery Bill. I should like to say that it is too much of a routine machinery Bill in the sense that His Majesty's Government, apparently, have not looked out on the wider problem that needs to be faced in connection with the issues raised by this Bill, and have merely confined themselves to introducing what the Parlia-
  1012
  mentary Secretary has called a routine machinery Bill. He has asked us, incidentally, to admire the generosity of the Government. He has told us that several alternatives were open to them. They could either increase the amount of this new money, or, alternatively, they could decrease the amount; but, instead of doing either of those two things, they have strictly carried out the letter of the law, and they have merely given, so far as new money is concerned, what the law requires, and the sum of £350,000 to which he referred is, indeed, a negligible sum.
  I do not think that anyone in the House will gainsay the fact that to-day the local authorities in many parts of the country are in a very difficult position indeed. When I say so, probably I shall be told that the country as a whole is in a very difficult position. I refrain at this stage from making any comment upon that, because I want, first of all, to say a few things about the difficult position in which the local authorities find themselves, and to do that I would like to call the attention of the House to a few figures, because this Bill is a Bill directly arising out of the Local Government Act, 1929. That Act, as we all know, and as the Parliamentary Secretary has reminded us, has brought quite a considerable number of changes in the country in regard to local government, and, incidentally, the subsequent policies of the Government have thrown new burdens on local authorities, as I will try to show in a little while. But first of all, I want to quote some figures to the House to show in what circumstances some local authorities find themselves at this moment. I will give only one or two illustrations.
  Take, for instance, the case of the county borough of Bootle, where the public assistance and assessment committees' rate in 1931–32 was 4s. 2½., whereas the rate for 1932–3½ is 5s. 3½d. In the case of Lincoln, the rate was 5s. 6d. in 1931–32, and it is 5s. 8d. in 1932–33. If we take the case of Manchester, the rate in 1931–32 was 2s. 4¾d., and in 1932–33 it is 3s. 9¼d. I could quote a number of other cases, but I will refer only to one, Merthyr Tydvil, where the public assistance rate in 1931–32 was 12s. 7⅝d., and in 1932–33, 13s. 10⅞d. Taking the larger areas I will quote the

  1013
  cases of Durham County and Glamorgan County. In the county of Durham the charge on the rates for public assistance will be £1,312,815, an increase of £100,000 in the last 12 months, and of £400,000 for the last three years. I am merely giving these figures to show the extraordinarily difficult position in which many local authorities are finding themselves. In the county of Glamorgan, £1,038,000 has to be found for public assistance, equal to a rate of 8s. id. in the pound. I could give other illustrations, but I do not want to weary the House with too many figures. I am only quoting figures to show how difficult the position is for many local authorities in various parts of the country.
  May I now make a reference to Manchester? During 1932–33 the over-spending of the public assistance committee which had to be financed out of the 1933–34 rate amounted to £100,369, and the additional requirements for 1933–34 were estimated at £106,816, making altogether a total of £207,185. Since the Manchester Corporation assumed responsibility for public assistance the annual rate charge has increased by no less than £275,000—from £365,000 for 1929–30 to £639,000 provided for in the present estimates. I notice that at a meeting of the Manchester City Council on 15th February, Alderman J. H. Birley, deputy-chairman of the finance committee, said:
  " While this charge continued to grow he saw little prospect that they would be able to reduce the rate unless they received additional assistance from the National Exchequer."
  He went on to talk about the report of the Royal Commission on Unemployrnent, which the Parliamentary Secretary has used to-day as one of the reasons why at this stage His Majesty's Government should not do anything particular in regard to those areas to which I have called attention. Mr. Birley said:
  " The report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment contained recommendations designed to alleviate the burden of able-bodied unemployment upon the rates, but until the Government's scheme was announced, it was impossible to say what relief might he derived from it. It was not even clear that certain proposals in the Commission's report would not add further charges to the rates."
  And there is in some circles a fear of even that taking place. Here is another
  1014
  statement of a similar kind from a Conservative and former Mayor of Manchester, Alderman J. H. Swales:
  " The time has come when the big cities should no longer have to bear the brunt of this burden. The weekly cost of relief in Manchester went up to £14,460 last week, an increase of £2,710 on the cost in the corresponding week last year. The amount for one week is now equal to the yield of a halfpenny in the pound on the rates."
  That is taken from the "Times" of 22nd February. I could go on to call attention to places like Merthyr Tydvil, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Sunderland and other places, but I think I have said enough to show that, as far as the local authorities are concerned, we are certainly in the midst of steadily deteriorating conditions, and we are entitled to-day to ask ourselves to what those steadily deteriorating conditions are due.
  So far as the additional charges for public assistance are concerned, perhaps two factors are primarily responsible. One is the operation of transitional payments. I know that transitional payments, in the main, are a charge on the National Exchequer. They are provided by the Ministry of Labour. Anyone who knows anything at all about the administration of transitional payments, knows quite well that all kinds of devices are employed to get men off the live registers of the exchanges, and they are steadily passing increasing numbers on to Poor Law relief. I think that there is no doubt that, as long as the present system operates, that will be a tendency to which we shall have to pay attention. The other factor which may be largely responsible for the increased burden of public assistance is the actual increase in unemployment and poverty throughout the country. I may be reminded, when I mention that fact, that the increase in unemployment and poverty is not due in any way to the policy of the Government. I shall probably be told that it is due to causes over which the Government have no very direct control. I do not know whether they would use that argument to suggest that they should not in any way more than is suggested in this Bill come to the assistance of the public authorities in the dire difficulties in which they find themselves.
  I shall not argue as to who is primarily responsible for the ever-increasing unemployment and poverty which we find to-

  1015
  day. I do not know how far we should be in order on this occasion in dealing with the operation of the Local Government Act of 1929 and all that has followed in its train, but this Bill arises out of that Act and makes it necessary for the Government to ask the House for £5,350,000. I take it therefore that it will be possible to say something about the operation of the 1929 Act in certain directions and especially its effect in casting increased burdens on some sections of the community while relieving others of burdens which they could, perhaps, quite easily have carried. I do not think anybody in the House will disagree with me when I say that the incidence of rating in the last three or four years has changed considerably. It is now falling increasingly on the householder, the shopkeeper, and the professional classes. Where there are increases of rates under the present system it is obvious that they will fall most upon the three classes I have named.
  So, when I call the attention of the House to the increasing difficulties of local authorities I stress, at the same time, the fact that we are placing to a greater extent on the shoulders of the ordinary 'householder, the shopkeeper and the person of the professional class, the burden of dealing with the poverty and distress which is prevalent in so many of our towns and cities. I do not think that I would be in order in arguing as to the rights or wrongs of the de-rating. I might quote figures to show how certain industries have been relieved although judged by their present position they ought to be asked to carry a far greater share of the burden than they are now carrying. I shall not weary the House, 'however, with details about certain types of undertakings which have all the benefits of de-rating and which according to the returns of their profits and dividends, might be asked to carry a larger share of the burden. If I am asked for those details I can give them.
  4.20 p.m.
  Mr. SPEAKER: As the hon. Member has raised the question of what is in order in this discussion I may point out to him that were it not for the Amendment which he is now moving, the Debate on the Bill itself would be confined to very narrow limits. All the Bill does
  1016
  is to fix the amount which is to be paid in the form of block grants to local authorities. The Amendment, however, seeks to bring in all sorts of matters which are really outside the Bill and as far as I can see the only connection between the Amendment and the Bill is that those questions are covered by the Local Government Act of 1929. While I have allowed the Amendment to be moved, I do not think that it would be in order on this occasion to enter into a detailed discussion of the merits of the de-rating part of the 1929 Act. The hon. Member might be in order in referring to it but he would not be in order in going into any parts of the Act of 1929, except those which are directly affected by this Bill. I think there are only two sections of the Act of 1929 referred to in the Bill. One is Section 86, Sub-section (3) and the other is Section 54, Sub-section (1). It would be in order to discuss those Sections which are referred to in the Bill but it would not be in order to discuss, to any extent, the other parts of the Act of 1929 which are only dragged in by the Amendment.
  4.22 p.m.
  Mr. BROWN: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for your Ruling, and, as far as possible, I shall try to keep within its terms and not discuss the de-rating provisions of the Act in more than general terms and by way of passing reference. One aspect of de-rating is that agriculture, for instance, was entirely de-rated, and the saving to agriculture is said to be somewhere in the region of £4,000,000 a year. The Government are pursuing 'a policy which they imagine will restore agricultural prosperity to this country. If that policy succeeded, surely there would be ground for maintaining that revived and prosperous industries ought to be asked to bear greater burdens than they are now bearing, having regard to the general poverty of the country, especially in those areas which I have mentioned. I have already referred to the present incidence of rating. I have suggested that there are certain industries which could bear more than they are bearing now in view of the profits they are making and the dividends which they are paying.
  We are bound to look at this Bill in the light of the general policy of the Government. The Parliamentary Secretary said that he would not be justified in present

  1017
  economic conditions in asking the House to agree to more new money than the £350,000 to which he referred. He said he did not think that anyone in his position could ask the House at present for more money for expansion of the social services. We are bound to judge that statement in relation to the general policy of the Government. We know that within a few days—even in the present economic condition of the country—a Minister will be asking the House of Commons for more money for the Army, and another Minister will be asking for more money for the Navy. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary, having regard to that fact, cannot find any satisfactory excuse for saying that in present economic conditions he does not feel justified in asking more for the social services.
  There seems to be a contradiction in the Government's policy. If they are so much perturbed about the general economic condition of the country as is suggested, they would not ask for any more money for any purpose. If they are going to ask the House to vote any more money, then, we say that that money ought to be for the social services rather than for the Army and Navy. About a week or a fortnight ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House of the change which had come over the situation since the National Government assumed office. He spoke of restored confidence, but he went on to say that confidence was not sufficiently restored to set in motion and put to use the dormant capital lying in the banks. His argument seemed to suggest that the present situation, in the minds of some Ministers, raises psychological rather than economic questions. One cannot help thinking that some of His Majesty's Ministers must be trying to qualify for diplomas in psychology instead of addressing themselves to the economic question which is primarily their concern.
  The Parliamentary Secretary deprecates asking more money for social services under existing conditions. I suppose he thinks—remembering those who sit behind him and around him—that if he did so he would be greeted with a howl of execration. On the other hand the Lord President of the Council told us the other night that there were to be no further cuts in social services. That was a very admirable statement. I notice that an hon. Member on the back
  1018
  benches opposite shakes his head. Probably back-benchers opposite know more about what is going to happen to the social services than those on the Front Bench. I cannot say. I have no inside knowledge of the workings of the Conservative party. But the Lord President of the Council spoke of the undesirability of further cuts in the social services. In this Bill we have an indication of the policy of the Government in regard to social services. I think it is obvious that that policy is more or less a standstill policy. The full measure of what they propose to do is this £350,000. That is an indication of their view. But in these matters one cannot stand still. One must either be progressive or reactionary.
  Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Or sensible.
  Mr. BROWN: As to what is sensible and what is nonsensical in national policy there is a difference of opinion, but I should say that the policy advocated by the hon. Member for Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) is not very sensible if we take the larger view of national life and national development. I should describe that policy, generally speaking, as rather reactionary. In conclusion, I want to put this to the House. During a recent period, in regard to which I will not for the moment fix dates, there has been going on in this country an ameliorative process which has humanised large stretches of our social life. Everyone will be prepared to pay a tribute to the beneficial effects of that process in one direction or another. We, on these benches, feel very strongly that His Majesty's Government are calling a halt to that ameliorative process.
  In asking the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill to-day, the Government had an opportunity, had they so desired, considerably to assist the local authorities, which are in very great difficulties, by putting in new money. The Government are refraining from doing that, and we feel that we are doing them no injustice when we speak of what they are doing in this matter as being reactionary and as, in a way, playing up to those who have made the most clamant demands in all sorts of ways for the curtailment of our social services. We feel, in spite of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said about the need of economy, that the money spent on our social ser-

  1019
  vices, taking the long-time view, is actual economy. If you take the view that the lives of our people, their health and their general wellbeing are our greatest assets, then the money you spend on the social services is real economy. Let us remember, when we talk about gold in the Bank of England, about financial transactions, and about the world's financial system tumbling to pieces that, although these things are important, our real assets as a nation are healthy human beings able to live decent human lives. In so far as the Government pursue a policy which makes that more and more difficult, we are bound to criticise them.
  4.33 p.m.
  Mr. LOGAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I wish to call attention to one or two particular points. I shall not deal with ancient history in the Tudor days but with the needs of local rating in regard to the Poor Law, and compare questions of Poor Law and rating to-day. There was an agrarian movement then, and to-day there is a mechanised movement, which surely calls for better treatment. I am convinced that the extra grant given under the Bill, although the Government may think that it is going to give relief will, from the point of view of many of the distressed areas, be infinitesimal. The sum of money allocated is inadequate. I should have thought that in putting this matter to the House the Minister would have been prepared to ask for something more liberal, and in fact would have gone on an entirely different system, because 1929 and 1933 differ very materially. Every hon. Member must understand that so far as trade depression is concerned extraordinary remedies must be found to deal with the distressed areas. We cannot wait much longer, and the proposal of the Government to-day is no solution of the problem.
  I know that on this occasion I cannot go into this matter very deeply, but I will give reasons in one or two instances why I think a different system should have been introduced and the question of rating dealt with on different lines. The distressed areas are burdened to-day up and down the country. I will take the City of Liverpool as being typical of many of those areas. The Merseyside is
  1020
  badly suffering from unemployment, and much of the distress is in consequence of the transitional period. Many of these men, having been refused transitional payment, have now come on the rates, and locally we have to bear the burden. In the City of Liverpool the increase this year is estimated approximately to be nearly £200,000. In 1931–32, £1,517,705 was paid out in relief; our estimate for this year is £1,710,798. We are having a rate for public assistance alone equal to 5s. 11⅜d. We are a seaport, and we have many returned migrants from Canada. This extra burden is being thrown on the shoulders of the citizens of Liverpool while neighbouring seaside boroughs are able to get along with a much cheaper rate. Therefore, we ought to get a much bigger grant than we are being offered. From. the point of view of economy, and in justice to the area which I represent, I am bound to put this matter forward and to point out that what is applicable to the great seaport town of Liverpool is also applicable to other areas.
  Let us take the question of London. We find in these great seaports that there is ingress and egress of people moving to and fro. In bad times the people do not flock out but stay there, and, as a result, these seaports have to carry what is not a local but a national burden. When you come to deal with Liverpool and London, two great seaports, you are dealing with the two most important arteries of Great Britain. The trade of England is dependent mostly on the shipping interests of London and Liverpool, which are performing not a local work but one of national importance. If we do not ask for preferential treatment, we have at least a right, equal to that of other districts, to come here and put forward the case of these areas, distressed through no fault of their own, which ought to get increased assistance to carry on this work of national importance. If you take 100 per cent. as your standard; if you realise that 25 per cent. of the carrying trade of England is done by London and 25 by Liverpool, and that the remaining 50 per cent. is distributed among the other ports in a smaller degree, you will see how very important this question is to the seaport towns from the point of view of trade depression; and it will not be thought ungenerous or uncharitable that a Member representing a depressed seaport town should ask, equally with the repre-

  1021
  sentative of a factory town or a mining area, for due consideration of its pressing claims.
  We are burdened to this extent, because we are performing national work, and therefore, when we are doing that work and taking the responsibility from the Government for which we never asked, the cost should not be thrown on the Poor Law or the local rates. 1 have a right, when the burden of national expenditure is cast on local districts, to ask the House to be more generous. Equalisation in the distribution of rates should have been a corollary to the bad effects from which we are suffering to-day, but if we cannot get that it is no good talking about economy and only giving the smallest grant that can be allowed. Unless the Government are generous and take the full burden of national responsibility, we shall have nothing but misery, squalor and bankruptcy in the distressed areas, and it is difficult to see how these large areas, with this great burden, will be able to carry on. The tradesmen in the big cities cannot meet their accounts, and, with the middle classes, are being so badly hit that every city is on the brink of bankruptcy to-day.
  The Government have a majority in this House unparalleled in its history. I expected that they would have risen to this great occasion of national responsibility, and every town and borough was expecting the Government to assist generously. We can hand out loans to a depressed country, and we want to bring stability to other nations. My firm impression is that stability ought first to be secured at home. If you wish to be generous, come to the aid of the distressed areas and give public contributions to those who can get the wheels of industry going again. You should revive those municipalities which are anxious to bear the burden, but which lack the means at present to meet the situation. I am convinced that, although the National Government may consider this grant to be generous, it does not meet the requirements of any of the distressed areas. I appeal to Members of the Government, whether they be composite Liberal or one hundred per cent. National Tory Members, to raise their voices and ask that this Bill shall be rejected, and that the Minister and the Government shall rise to the occasion and face the
  1022
  responsibility. Every municipality is demanding from their representatives here that they should voice their opinion and ask for strong action from the Government. The Government are only playing with the situation. It is because I feel that we cannot locally stand this great strain, and because I feel that if ever there was an important matter before the House this is one, that I second the rejection of the Bill. That is not to say that I am not anxious to aid the Minister in any proper way to give relief, but because I think his effort at present is inadequate to meet the situation.
  4.44 p.m.
  Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I must apologise to the House for troubling it again on this question, but I hope not to trouble it for long. I do so because I do not think that any more important Bill has been or will be before this House for some time. It is quite possible and very arguable that this Bill represents the right policy, but I confess I should like, if I may ask for it, for a clearer statement from the Government of their policy. We cannot but be alarmed to see this Bill, important as I believe it to be, introduced as a purely routine Measure. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, in the Debate on the Financial Resolution, assured me that the introduction of a Bill of this kind a, month or six weeks before the Budget was quite normal. The Parliamentary Secretary has informed us that this is a purely routine piece of mechanism. He comes into the House apparently glorying in being:
  " A being that moves
  In predestinate grooves,
  Not a 'bus, not a 'bus, but a tram."
  But surely we cannot treat this Bill in this way. Not unusually Governments, in the second year of their office, Borne-what heedlessly engage themselves in Measures which tie their hands and determine their whole policy by limiting their finance for the rest of the life of that Parliament. I could quote an instance where that happened to a previous Government in 1926, but I will not go into ancient history. What are the Government doing here? The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us, in the Debate which took place just before the Summer Adjournment, that quite clearly any hope of economy, of reducing Government ex-

  1023
  penditure, depended mainly on the possibility of reducing grants to local authorities. The Private Members' Economy Committee came to precisely the same conclusion, as would be natural. It would be out of order for me to go in detail into the recommendations of that committee, but, if the House will allow me to say so, the only object of Private Members concerning themselves with actual proposals for economy is that, after they have done it, they will henceforward refrain from merely general adjurations to the Government for economy, but will concentrate on those conclusions which they themselves have arrived at. The conclusion at which that committee did arrive, obviously, was that the only chance for major reductions of expenditure lay in reductions of grants to local authorities; and by far the greater part of the reductions which that committee suggested were not reductions in education expenditure, which is covered by percentage grants, but reductions of expenditure which is covered by main block grants.
  The Government come before us and say: "Before we have introduced our Budget, before we have announced any policy for future finance and taxation, we are going to tie our bands by resigning any hope whatever of securing reductions in expenditure for the national taxpayer. Any reductions in expenditure which may be effected by local authorities as the result of the report of the committee presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray), are to go to the ratepayers and not to the taxpayers." That may be sound policy, but observe the position in which we are living. In every quarter of the House there is a desire to see the Government have in their hands some margin of finance. Some hon. Members desire to see the Government obtain that margin in order to reduce national taxation. Some desire to see it in order to stimulate works of capital development and for the purpose of contributing something towards a return of prosperity. A third section, as we heard in the Debate the other day, would desire to use any such margin for the purpose of increasing payments to the unemployed. But whatever may be the opinion of hon. Members in various quarters of the House as to the way in which they wish that
  1024
  margin to be used, this at any rate is clear, that, if the Government cannot secure any such margin, their activities, their policy for the whole of the remainder of their life, will be confined by the continual preoccupation of barely making both ends meet. That is a, prospect which every enthusiastic supporter of the Government like myself, if not for every hon. Member opposite, is a very dismal prospect; but even for hon. Members opposite, who, however much they dislike the Government, do desire in the national emergency to have a Government strong enough to act in some direction or another, must view with considerable apprehension the prospect of the Government losing all power to build up a margin which will enable them to take positive action.
  Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: The noble Lord said they never had it.
  Lord E. PERCY: They have never had it during the last 18 months, and it is the continual preoccupation of making both ends meet that is clogging the actions of this Government. The Minister, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) in the previous Debate, said quite justly that he did not think that it was fair to attack the local authorities for extravagance, because they had statutory duties and, their expenditure was governed by statutory obligations from which they could not escape. That is true, but observe what has happened. For what object was the Local Authorities Economy Committee, presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, appointed? It was appointed precisely in order that local authorities might tell the Government and the House in what respect their statutory obligations interfered with their proper administration of social services, tied their hands, and withdrew from them the freedom that administrators of social services should have. They were asked in what direction the Statutes of this House were too onerous for them. While the Ray Committee recommended many economies in detail, it recommended practically no alteration in those statutory obligations. They did not go to the Minister and say: "We are bound to spend this and hound to be slightly extravagant because of the onerous nature of our statutory obligations"; their report showed that the

  1025
  local authorities hugged their chains and would not part with any of their powers.
  That means one of two things. Either it means that local authorities will not be able to economise at all, or, under the policy inaugurated by this Bill, that all economies made in local administration will go in aid of the rates and none of them in aid of the taxes. Apart from the problem of the distressed areas, which is a separate and restricted problem, great though it be, we all know that local authorities are making economies in the administration of their services which are not seriously, or indeed at all, affecting the efficiency of those services. Although they may be creating a certain amount of unemployment, they are certainly reducing expenditure. The House has only to look at the Education Estimate, the totals of which have already been laid before the House. The reductions in the Education Estimate mean, so far as I can calculate, a reduction of at least £2,500,000 a year in the expenditure of local authorities, other than expenditure on teachers' pensions. That indicates a tendency to very large reductions in local expenditure, and the Government are here, in advance of the Budget, resigning any interest in those economies, any share in the results of those economies except economies in education—a somewhat ominous attitude for those who, like the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), take a great interest—
  Mr. COVE: Is not the Noble Lord arguing now against the block grants?
  Lord E. PERCY: I have always told local authorities that they would enjoy very much greater security under a block grant. It would be out of order for me to go into the general question of block grants, but I am arguing now that the block grant is right. It is sound to give the local authorities the whole benefit of their economies in ordinary times, and it may be, as I have said, that the Government policy is perfectly sound in this matter. If they will say, "We agree that the Government must have a financial margin on which they can act, but in our judgment that which is most important in order to restore prosperity is the action of local authorities. 'We wish to give local authorities that margin of finance, that extra credit on which they
  1026
  can engage in capital works or a margin which they can translate into a reduction of rates which may well encourage local enterprise." If they say that, if that is the main ledge on which the Government intend to stand, it is an intelligible policy, but let it be stated clearly.
  I would implore the Minister to reply on this Debate in its relation to the Budget with which the House is bound to be faced in the future. The Government are taking a most important step. They are asking the House to enter into a most important commitment, a commitment of the whole of their financial policy for the next four years. As such, surely it deserves a fuller statement of policy than has yet been made by the Government. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment spoke a great deal about social services. That is a phrase I sometimes feel that I should like to eliminate from the political dictionary. According to the hon. Member's argument, it is a social service to give more transitional payment to unemployed men and women without giving them any work to do in exchange, but it is not a social service to vote money for the Army which it spends in making roads and in the development of camps on a large scale on Salisbury Plain. Such is the confusion of thought into which this talk about social services is apt to lead.
  The great problem of the social services in the future is this: If the anticipations of most of us are right, and if the policy which has always been pursued and is desired by hon. Members opposite turns out to be successful, then inevitably the social services will have to be financed more and more out of the pockets of the householder, the small shopkeeper and the professional man, and less and less out of Income Tax. The capitalist accumulations of wealth which the Income Tax taps are now dwindling, and, if our anticipations are right, will never be restored to their former total, and more and more the whole development of the social services will depend upon their being so reorganised that they can be financed out of the pockets of the million rather than out of the pockets of the few. It is because I attach such importance to the social services that I think it is vital to assure ourselves that they are so organised that in the future they can be financed in that way. I do not think we could have foreseen it in

  1027
  1921 when we passed this Act, but I am absolutely sure that in days to come it will become impossible to finance health or education or any of the social services out of Income Tax to the extent represented by the present scale of grants. That is the real danger of the future, and that is a final reason why I think the Government ought to offer to us very much more serious arguments before they invite us to commit ourselves for four years ahead to grants at the present rate.
  5.2 p.m.
  Mr. McGOVERN: The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) commented at the outset of his speech on the fact that the Government were inclined to treat this Bill as of rather a routine character, and to give scant consideration to the desires of the House, but I regard that as rather a reflection on the back bench supporters of the Government in this House, and I would congratulate the Government and the party Whips on having reduced their back benchers almost to absolute silence on Government policy. It is a grave reflection on the Members of this House that they should allow the Government to treat them with so little consideration. I do not blame the Government, but blame the ordinary Members, who are very brave in their constituencies and in their week-end political speeches in telling the people how they will go to the House and defend the interests of the depressed areas and see that the Government pay heed to them. I want to associate myself with the Amendment put down by the official Opposition. We feel that the Government are inclined to go on with these small grants, in the spirit in which the Prime Minister suggested the granting of small sums of money to local charitable organisations in the hope that they would be able to carry on the ordinary business of the country but with no desire or determination to face up to the difficulties which surround many local authorities.
  Since the National Government came into power their policy has placed a large number of people on the unemployed register; their application of the needs test and the shortening of the period of ordinary unemployment benefit have tended to throw more and more of the working class on to the rates; and with
  1028
  the growth of unemployment and the "cuts" the people who pay rates are incapable of bearing those additional burdens. We are entitled to expect larger grants to be given to the local authorities to enable them to meet the needs of the local areas. In Glasgow, which is not one of the worst areas in the country, although there are something over 100,000 persons there who are unemployed, we find that since the National Government came into office there has been a gradual alteration in the matter of public assistance. A Glasgow authority have stated that the amount of money they are compelled to pay from week to week has risen by from 210,000 to 212,000 since the beginning of this year. If that be true, and it is so according to statements made locally by the budget committees and public assistance officers. and if the Government, according to the statements of their official spokesmen, do not expect any serious alteration in the numbers of the unemployed during the next 10 years, then the Government arc failing in their duty to get down to this business seriously and devise a plan for bringing some measure of relief to local authorities. Many areas are in a tragic position. Even with the best will in the world they are quite unable to keep their poor. The poor are being expected to maintain the poor, although having themselves suffered "cuts" and reductions of a serious character.
  Do the Government seriously think they can continue with this policy? In cities like Glasgow there arc businesses which have been de-rated, although they have made tremendous profits. We may take the tobacco trade as an example. With the increase in cigarette smoking by the female sex profits have grown tremendously. Any reduction in demand on the part of the male part of the population has been made up by the female part. Yet the Government came along and said to them, "Here, you poor fellows in the tobacco trade. We must relieve you of a portion of your rates. We must see that you do not suffer in any shape or form." In many cases a man and a woman with 23s. 3d. a week has to bear a share of the cost of de-rating these large industrial concerns. I say that such action is detrimental to the interests of any civilised State, and that no one can believe the Government to be seriously in favour of equality of sacrifice

  1029
  while they pursue such a policy. I meet people every day who are appealing for relief from rates. They have been driven to the door, they are in the eviction courts, they have been driven to desperation, and yet they are compelled to contribute their quota towards the rates. If the Government were desirous of bringing about equality o sacrifice, even of securing a reasonable application of that term from the capitalist point of view, they ought to begin the de-rating of the unemployed and the lower-paid wage earners. Grants ought be set aside by this House for the relief of those who are on the bottom rung of the social ladder, struggling with adversity and despair.
  I am not inclined to treat the efforts of the Government to deal with this matter as being very serious. They go on in a mechanical, robot fashion, bringing in ordinary Bills, giving ordinary sums. They do not realise that they are living in a world which is crumbling under their feet. All over the world we see a collapse of prices which will eventually land us in catastrophe, yet they make no provision for the future. There are often sneers in this House at the efforts of Soviet Russia to plan for five years ahead. Our Government would be well advised to plan ahead for five or 10 years in their efforts to meet our growing unemployment and growing poverty, instead of sitting down comfortably with the expectation that the great mass of the working class will bear for all time the sacrifices they are compelled to suffer during these days of adversity. I ask the Government whether they have any plan to give to the House. Last week we had some discussion with the Prime Minister on whether the Government were going to submit schemes to the House which would give local authorities the power to deal with unemployment if they as a Government were not prepared to undertake the task. The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings talked about the reduction in social services and discussed what really were the social services, speaking or transitional payments in that connection. In industrial areas local authorities who desire to expand the provision made for dealing with the poor, their diseases and their ills, have attempted to plan for extensions of hospital accommodation, the extension of welfare schemes, the extension of many activities that might bring a ray of comfort and hope to the
  1030
  common people, but they have been compelled to cut them down drastically, because of their inability to raise money, and the Government have not attempted to come to their aid in any shape or form.
  I say the Government are failing criminally in their duty by their failure to provide larger grants. I do not look upon the Government differently from how I should regard an ordinary person who refused to provide money for local needs and in that way make himself guilty of a serious crime. If I brought a child into this institution and dashed its brains out at that Table there would be a cry of revulsion from every Member in the House, independent of party; but that is what the Government are doing in effect. They do not dramatically cut away a life by a single blow, but they do the same thing by their refusal to provide financial aid. They deprive children who are entitled to succour and nourishment of the essentials of life, and just as though they were to put them into a chamber in an attempt to crush out their lives, so they are successful in depriving large numbers of children of the opportunity to live. I repeat that the Government are failing in their duty. But let them go on. They sit there comfortably, believing that everything is right because they themselves are comfortable and well-fed. I can only repeat, as we have so often said in this House, that one day they will be awakened from their slumbers by the working class of the country and of the world, by financial catastrophe, by economic crisis, by the poverty and despair of the common people. They will be roused from their slumber by the working class knocking at the chambers of this House, taking control of the economic means of life, and restoring prosperity and the real economic foundations of society by instituting a system of common ownership of the means of life in place of the dying system of capitalism.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The situation in respect of this Bill is rather unusual, because every hon. Member who has spoken up to now has criticised it; I am going to do the same. The grounds of our criticism are not identical. The Minister says: "As nobody agrees with me, I must be right." That was the line of argument he took when we were discussing the Financial Resolution. The

  1031
  Parliamentary Secretary, in an admirable speech, defended the Bill on grounds that we must keep faith with local authorities. That implies that this Bill is a contract. The obligation is a statutory one and not a contractual one, and therefore no breach of faith is involved. My own view is not that Government grants should be reduced so that local rates should be increased; the circumstances are such that both grants and rates ought to be reduced.
  I would point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that since 1928, when the original Bill was introduced, we have had a, financial crisis, and that we are still in a financial crisis. The financial crisis of the Autumn of 1931 still continues, but since the Bill was introduced, the cost of living, as measured by the Ministry of Labour index number, has declined, but we take no account of that. We ignore the fact that the aggregate income of the people of this country is, I suppose, at least one-quarter less, measured in pounds, than it was when the Local Government Act was passed into law. We are going forward on the assumption that we can afford these things. There was not the faintest recognition on the part of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, in their eloquent speeches, that the things for which they asked would have to be paid for. I have never thought that the government of the country differed in principle from the government of a household. If my income is diminished, I have to cut down in some direction or another. There is hardly a single grant of public expenditure which at the present time ought not to be reduced.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: What about the Army and the Navy?
  Mr. WILLIAMS: May I give an example? I think it was the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) who made a contrast between the proposal to cut social services and the fact that the Army Estimates are up by, I think it is, £1,500,000, consisting to a large extent of replacements of stores and the reestablishment of the annual training of Territorials, without which the force would come to an end. The alternatives are either wipe out the Territorials entirely, or restore their camp. Let us examine the Defence Estimates, and see what contrast they make over a substan-
  1032
  tial period of time. Let us take a period of 10 years, at the beginning of which the Defence Estimates were roughly the same as they are to-day. What has happened to the Civil Service Estimates, of which the Local Government Services are a very large part? They have risen from £226,000,000 to about £350,000,000. I have to say "about," because we do not know the final Estimate for the Ministry of Labour, and I have made my own estimate that the additional sum will be about £25,000,000. In place of that increase, it is absurd to institute any comparison between the Defence Services and the social services.
  Mr. COVE: Are the unemployed in that figure?
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Certainly. Where else would the hon. Member expect to find them? Very largely, the unemployed are in that figure because our taxation is excessive. That is why they are there. [Interruption.] Well, let us look at it. Under the auspices of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, every conceivable encouragement was given to local authorities to spend more money on every conceivable device for the creation of work. What was the result? Complete, absolute and colossal failure. You had a contemporaneous increase in unemployment when you had the largest schemes of relief work ever undertaken. I am one of those who would never inaugurate one penny piece of expenditure on the abstract ground of the artificial manufacture of work. That is a policy that has always failed in the past and will always fail in the future.
  The hon. Member for Mansfield complained of the increased burden falling upon many local authorities owing to the growth of public assistance, because of the fact that a certain number of people are receiving public assistance who otherwise might not receive it. I am not going to argue the merits of that. if you have greater expenditure in one direction, that is all the more reason why you should economise in another. Why cannot other local authorities follow the example of the London County Council? The social services are better run in London than in any other part of the United Kingdom. There is a higher standard and a greater measure of efficiency, while there is a smaller increase in expenditure compared with

  1033
  pre-War days, than is the case with any other municipality, despite the fact that in London, as everybody knows, everything is rather more expensive. At this moment, despite the fact that the London County Council are under pressure because they are providing for an increase in public assistance, they are reducing their rates, and they are doing so at a time when they know that, as a result of the application of the formula in the Bill, they are to have their Government grant reduced. Authorities who find that their expenditure is increasing, ought to take steps to reduce it, as every private citizen has to do.
  It is not as if all this expenditure produced a beneficial result. The plain truth of the matter is that there is great waste in the administration of the social services. Will anyone say, at a time when our engineering efficiency is highest, that the cost of collection and disposal of house refuse in this country could not be reduced It has risen from a figure of £2,687,000 in 1913–14, to £7,141,000 in 1930; why should it be nearly two and a-half times as great?
  Mr. LOGAN: Despite the fact that the National Government were elected to clear up the mess?
  Mr. WILLIAMS: If the National Govment were to sweep out the rubbish which is on the opposite benches it might he necessary to introduce a special supplementary estimate for the purpose. I merely mentioned the subject of house refuse as an example. Any hon. Member who goes to the Vote Office and studies the analysis of the expenditure of local authorities in England and Wales for 1913–14 and for 1929–30, the latest year for which the analysis is given, will be able to see the figures for themselves. The Paper is Command Paper 4233, the Statistical Abstract for the United Kingdom, and the page is 192. There hon. Members will see example after example of great increases in cost for which there cannot have been any comparable advantage to the public. I am not saying by that that all the increases have not led to advantage. I am contending what is obvious to any hon. Member, that a great many of the services could be rendered at higher efficiency and at less cost.
  That is perfectly obvious when you study what happens in certain authorities,
  1034
  when one or two competent people take charge of a thing and produce higher efficiency at lower cost. Other authorities merely drift along, and the Minister, as is his duty, defends all his fellow-conspirators up and down the country. He is duty bound to say how self-sacrificing local authorities are. They are, but that does not prove that they do their job well. Because a man is virtuous it does not make him wise.
  Mr. LOGAN: The hon. Gentleman dare not mention in this House any particular place in the country.
  Mr. PIKE: Sheffield, during the last Government.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I have not had the slightest hesitation when speaking in certain areas, to criticise the local government of those areas when I thought it necessary. I do not want in this House to be invidious, or to pick out one when the real thing to do would be to pick them nearly all out. The hon. Member for Mansfield, in dealing with public assistance, says that we are taking people off the live register and putting them on to the Poor Law. That statement is not true. A man may be disallowed benefit, but that does not take him off the live register. If a man is in receipt of public assistance on the ground of unemployment, in practically every case he is required to maintain registration at the Employment Exchange. That mistake has been made so often in this House, and I have contradicted it so often, that whenever it is made I regard it as part of my duty to contradict it.
  There is collaboration between the public assistance committees and the Employment Exchange authorities. If hon. Gentlemen will study the quarterly returns issued by the Ministry of Health dealing with the Poor Law, they will find therein the number of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief from public assistance committees on the ground of unemployment, and who are simultaneously registered at the Employment Exchanges. They will find that the number of people who are receiving relief and who are not so registered is very small indeed.
  Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the conditions do not prevail as they existed before 1931 when local authorities did insist upon registration as a condition of Poor Law relief They

  1035
  do not do it now for the simple reason that the same people are getting benefit as transitional payment.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: The quarterly returns of the Ministry of Labour, I regret to say, are not published as a Parliamentary Paper but as a Stationery Office Paper, which can only be got if you fill in one of the green slips. It is not automatically available to all of us. If hon. Gentlemen will get one of those documents they will see that my statement is substantially true. The Minister, when he was discussing the Financial Resolution, said that there had been economies of £20,000,000 on the basis of 1929–30. I could not understand that statement, and I asked him a series of questions, but I am still not quite clear about it. The information in my possession shows that the expenditure in 1930–31 was, roughly speaking, £20,000,000 more than in 1929–30 and the difference was borne partly out of the rates and partly out of grants. According to the Ray Report, economies were effected, broadly speaking, on the basis of the expenditure in the Autumn of 1931, aggregating about £l220,000,000; which means that, roughly speaking, we are now back to the expenditure of 1929–30, and not £20,000,000 below the expenditure of 1929–30.
  Merely to have got back to 1929–30, when meantime the cost of living has fallen in the way that it has—it is now down by 12 per cent.—and the nation as a whole is very hard up, does not represent a satisfactory degree of progress. A substantial part of those economies were not economies in current expenditure, but were reductions in capital expenditure on road-making and other things. Hon. Members opposite speak all the time about social services. The best social service of all is the social service that a man can buy for himself because he has got a job. A very large proportion of our social services consists of maintaining unemployed people, or people who are distressed in one way or another because trade is not very good. My main object in urging economy is to restore people to employment. I believe that I am right, and, as my method has not been tried in recent years, and every other device has been tried, it might be worth while, even on experimental grounds, to try a bit of
  1036
  economy. Up to now we have not had a large measure of economy. We have had just enough to irritate people, but not enough to reduce taxation. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan) made a very eloquent speech, which was full of humanity, but which gave no indication of how all these things were going to be financed.
  Mr. LOGAN: May I ask the hon. Member whether he has not been sitting in the National Government for 18 months?
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I have not sat in it at all up to the present. That may be one of the things that is wrong with it.
  Mr. LOGAN: In case my point is not clear to the hon. Member, may I ask him how it is that he has been so silent, and has not given to Members of the Government the benefit of his advice?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I must remind hon. Members that they must not address questions directly to other hon. Members.
  Mr. LOGAN: I beg pardon.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I am sorry the hon. Member thinks that I have been unduly silent. Sometimes, when the Debate is over and we are refreshing ourselves in another part of the building, I am criticised by my friends on the ground that I take an unfair share of the time of the House. As a rule I try not to be too long when I speak, but I like to join in often. My sole reason for taking part in the Debate to-day is that I believe that we have allowed our local government expenditure to get quite out of control. I gave the figures in the Debate on the Financial Resolution. We have passed from spending roughly 7 per cent. of the whole income of our people on local government services, so far as they are borne by rates and Parliamentary grants, to spending something over 10 per cent., as far as I can make the calculation, in four years. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) shakes his head, but he will not deny that at the present moment in Great Britain our local authorities are spending, roughly speaking, £300,000,000, partly out of rates and partly out of Parliamentary grants, excluding all their trading services. I am speaking of those services which are borne directly on the people's backs. I

  1037
  do not think that anyone to-day would estimate the aggregate income of the people of this country at more than £3,000,000,000. I think that that is a fair estimate. In 1929 the total was in the neighbourhood of £4,200,000,000 or £4,300,090,000. It the meantime, local government expenditure has increased, while our national income has diminished. We are sapping the foundations of our whole future prosperity.
  I believe that we can restore our people to employment if we only give some encouragement to those who alone, in the long run, provide employment. It is employers, and not governments, who in the long run provide employment, and, so long as those who are responsible for the conduct of industry are working under existing conditions, every kind of enterprise is checked. If we had a Socialist system, and if private enterprise were abolished, other arguments might be applicable, but, so long as we are under a system of individualism or capitalism, whichever it may be called, we must permit it to have an opportunity to function. If its freedom to function is entirely destroyed, naturally the result is unemployment and widespread distress. It is because I believe it to be possible for the local authorities to render necessary services at a far lower cost, and because I think that a reduction in the cost both of the rates and of Parliamentary grants will react on our national taxation, that I express profound regret that His Majesty's Government have not given a decisive lead to the local authorities of the country.
  I have met members of local authorities who have said to me, "How can we be expected to take action in this matter when the Government encourage our colleagues to go on spending at the same rate, because they are going to give us grants on the old basis, or on one slightly higher?" There is no impulse towards economy in local government, and I believe that that is vital. I believe that local government could be run much better without entailing suffering on our people. We want to provide all the necessary and essential services. We are providing a great many trimmings, and we are administering those trimmings at a very heavy overhead charge. It will be found that these administrative costs have risen in a manner which I think is
  1038
  not justifiable. It is only necessary to go round' any borough and examine the details of expenditure and consult the annual accounts to find a great many items which could be cut out because they are not essential or vital, and nobody's well-being depends upon their continuance. There is no need to go into the precise details; everybody is familiar with examples of them. I hope that a large number of my colleagues in the House of Commons will continue to press upon Ministers the vital necessity of economy, and will guarantee them their unhesitating support in all the measures of economy which they adopt.
  5.37 p.m.
  Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: It is surprising, and almost alarming, to find what a large variety of texts this small Measure has provided in the course of the Debate. The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) finds in it a text for calling upon the working classes to come here and take over control of everything. They already do that, by the way, by their votes, although they are not always given wisely. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), on the other hand, asks that this should be the occasion for a great demonstration on behalf of economy. I should have thought that this Bill provided as much economy as anyone could have wanted. The Government appear to have gone as far as they could in doing as little as possible. The hon. Member for South, Croydon makes a general attack on the social services. I do not mean that he wants to stop them all, but, when he regards the social services as expenditure upon which enormous new cutting is possible and desirable, I think he might reflect that, after all, these social services are in a large measure the foundation upon which not only the poorer people of this country, but he himself and his friends rest. If those services had not been provided in sufficiently ample measure, it is impossible to suppose that the people of this country would have gone through the difficult years during the War without our reaching some kind of violent convulsion which would have been far more expensive than anything which the hon. Member himself has contemplated.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member says that we should not have gone

  1039
  through the War but for these social services—
  Mr. GRIFFITH: The years after the War.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I would ask him, does he think we should have had to go through all these things if we had not been so wasteful?
  Mr. GRIFFITH: The hon. Member's contention is that the unemployment from which we are suffering is due wholly, or in a large measure, to the large amount of expenditure. We are often told that this is the highest taxed country in the world, and a contrast is drawn with other countries which in that matter, according to the hon. Member, are more favourably situated. But, when we look at those countries, we find in point of fact that they have quite as bad unemployment as we have, and in some cases worse. [HON. MEMBERS "No !"] Undoubtedly, that is the case. Merely saying "No" does not get us any further. I would advise hon. Members to look at the comparative figures for themselves. I agree that we do not want wasteful expenditure; I do not know that anyone in this House is advocating wasteful expenditure; but when we are asked, after very heavy cuts, pretty nearly to the bone, to carry that painful operation still further, and when we can see in front of us the certainty of the sufferings that it will bring, for a purely speculative gain in the matter of employment, I ask His Majesty's Government not to be lured by the prospect which the hon. Member for South Croydon has put before them. He is just as much taking a risk in proposing his short cut to prosperity as anyone else is in the various schemes which have been put forward, and in my opinion his short cut—that is to say, cutting down further when the people are already strained almost to breaking point—is quite as dangerous and speculative as anything that could be put forward.
  In the present Bill we are considering something a great deal smaller than that. Many of us disliked the original Local Government Act, and I myself, when it was before the House two Parliaments ago, fought it to the best of my ability Clause by Clause. That Act, however, represented a far-reaching change in our local government which, once having been
  1040
  made, cannot be merely pulled down and taken away at a moment's notice. Certainly I think it would be unreasonable to expect the Government to take this occasion for undoing the work that was done by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and Postmaster-General in that previous Parliament. That being the case, we really ought to regard this Bill as a mere instrument for carrying an appointed stage further the Measure that was passed in 1929. The only thing one can say in that regard is that, being bound by that previous Act to do a certain amount, the present Government have taken very good care to do no more, except to the extent of a derisory sum of £2,000 in the one country and £500 in the other. From that aspect I regret the way in which the Bill has been brought in.
  Circumstances have changed, and the changed circumstances since the previous Act was passed can be argued both ways. The hon. Member for South Croydon says that the financial crisis is so much more severe that we ought to cut down more. Hon. Members opposite would say, and I would say, that the needs of the people have become so much more acute that in this matter some kind of expansion is necessary. The Government have their choice between deciding either to stay where they are or to contract further, but I do not think that that process can be carried on. I believe that a wise Government must find a time, when it is over its immediate crisis, to expand a little, because otherwise nothing will ever get moving. From that point of view I would rather see a more generous treatment given than a provision of the bare amounts which the previous Act requires.
  Certainly I should not advise, as far as my advice could carry any weight, anyone to vote against this Measure. It would appear to me to be idle, when we are being given this step, merely to vote against it and try to bring the machinery to a standstill. I suppose that, if no Bill were passed now, although the previous Act says that Parliament has to determine the amount for the second fixed grant period, in that case what would happen would be that the amount laid down for the first fixed grant period would go on, although that period had expired. I am not quite sure what would happen in such an event. It is idle to

  1041
  try to express on this occasion all our root-and-branch objections to the machinery of the Local Government Act, which is there, with its block grants and many other things which I dislike, for good or for ill. We can only consider it on the comparatively narrow basis on which this Bill presents it to-day, and from that point of view, although I much regret that the Bill has not been couched in a more generous spirit, I think it is one which canont be voted against for any good reason.
  5.44 p.m.
  Mr. BANFIELD: I rise to support the Amendment. I was interested by the speech of the bon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), and its general attack upon local authorities on the ground that they were spending far too much money and were not getting sufficient efficiency or return for it. I was particularly interested to hear the hon. Member's statement that he believed that the administration of the local authorities in London was very much superior to that in other parts of the country. He made a special point of a reduction of 3d. in the in the rates of the London County Council. If the assessments in the other parts of the country were on the level of the assessments in London, you would get a very material drop indeed in the rates in the other constituencies. If there is one thing more than another on which so many people go wrong, and on which there is so much misunderstanding, it is in this comparison of rates as between one area and another.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS; If we compare with the year 1913–14, the amount spent in London has gone up 50 per cent. and the amount spent by the other county councils has gone up 150 per cent.
  Mr. BANFIELD: There, again, one sees how easy it is to fall into misunderstanding by comparison of figures. In London, as compared with the rest of the country, unemployment has been nowhere as severe. In other parts of the country it has been five or six times more than in this area.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: This excludes the whole of the expenditure on the Poor Law, and the question of unemployment does not arise.
  Mr. BANFIELD: The fact remains that the bearing of unemployment in the other areas and all the contingent expenses that fall upon local authorities have led to far more expenditure by local authorities in other areas than has happened in London. The Parliamentary Secretary said that, if the Government were as generous in 1933 as they were in 1929, he was of the opinion that they were doing the right thing. Circumstances have altered very considerably for the worse, so far as local authorities are concerned, in 1933 compared with what they were in 1929. The increasing burdens in the great industrial towns are becoming almost intolerable.
  I want to call attention to what, I think, is a very important factor inasmuch as the effects of it will fall upon local authorities. In June next there will come into operation a very important change in the working of National Health Insurance. The effect will be that almost immediately some hundreds of thousands of men who have been unemployed for a considerable period will immediately fall out of national health benefit so far as actual cash benefit is concerned. But that will not be the end of it. Next year their position will be still worse, provided they are still unemployed, and a very high authority has stated in this House that there is very little possibility of at least 1,000,000 of those who are now unemployed getting back into industry. These persons in 1934 will be out of National Health Insurance altogether. They will only then be entitled to pension benefit but if, unfortunately, they are still out of employment in 1935 they will not only lose payment and medical benefit in case of sickness but they will also lose pension rights. This will inevitably create a very large charge ultimately to local authorities under the Poor Law. I am quite convinced that these people, already so poor, and punished in the way of losing National Health Insurance benefit, not through any fault of their own but simply because of their unemployment, not able even to claim a pension at 65, will become a very great charge indeed upon the Poor Law. Therefore, the provision made in this block grant is not sufficient, and is not likely to be sufficient, and it will prove a. burden upon the local authorities.

  1043
  I wish it had been possible for the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the whole question of de-rating, upon which this grant is fixed. It would not be unreasonable to have some kind of means test so far as de-rating is concerned and those great industrialists who are paying profits up to 50 per cent., scores of them 25 per cent. and who are getting 75 per cent. of their rates excused.
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I am not concerned in the amount of grant in respect of de-rating at all. The Bill does not affect the amount of the grant in respect of de-rating.
  Mr. BANFIELD: This is a block grant paid to local authorities. Our complaint against it is that it does not make sufficient provision for the needs of local authorities in view of their special circumstances at this time. With all the will in the world, it will be impossible for cities like Liverpool, great as they are, powerful and rich as they have been, to continue without some assistance from the national Exchequer. The hon. Member for Croydon has argued that the Government policy should be to cut off all block grants of this nature altogether. What the effect of that would be I leave to the imagination of the House, but there is a feeling in many parts of the House that in some way or other Exchequer grants made to local authorities lead to extravagance and waste. I have been a member of a local authority for the greater part of my life. I have served on local councils and local guardians and bodies of that kind. Everyone in the House who has served on a local authority must be conscious, as I am, that the first thing in their minds is the question of expenditure, and that they have a very real desire not to tax their ratepayers more than they can possibly help.
  I have been astonished to hear general charges of extravagance and wastefulness cast at local authorities. The vast majority of them are composed of men who subscribe to the doctrines of Conservatism, and have a desire for economy in all directions. They never go out of their way to pander to the poor, as they call it, but have always been careful not to be extravagant in that direction. I wonder what some of them will think
  1044
  about the speech of the hon. Member for Croydon, and not that speech alone but the fact that it represents a considerable volume of back bench influence in this House. I hope some of the big municipalities, like Manchester and Liverpool, will take notice that while, on the one hand, they are at their wits end to keep down local expenditure, they are charged on the Floor of the House with being extravagant and not caring about the way their expenditure grows.
  That is the case that we have against this Bill. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith) said he did not see very well how they could vote against it because, if the money were not granted, something or other terrible would happen. I do not think he need worry very much about that. He can vote against the Bill with a good conscience. This House is like a stamp that stamps automatically everything that Ministers want to do. If by any means we defeated the Bill, we should have brought definitely to a head the very important question as to what should be done for the local authorities in view of the distress in their areas, and in view of the tremendous increase of expenditure under the Poor Law, an increase which must inevitably continue according to the expert authority that we have in the House. I wish it had been possible for the Minister to be far more generous to local authorities because, whether he likes it or not, he will sooner or later have to find money to help many of the distressed areas.
  5.58 p.m.
  Sir JOHN SANDEMAN ALLEN: The Parliamentary Secretary said that this Bill, as far as the bulk of the amount in question was concerned, was merely carrying out obligations to which we are already committed. At the same time, there is a small addition—one regrets that it is so small—of which I wish to speak. We heard my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. Williams) speak very airily and brightly, but not brotherly altogether, about the large municipalities some of whom are at their wits' end to know how to make ends meet, and do not know what is going to happen in the near future. They have had to practise economy at every turn. We live in. hopes that the Minister knows how serious the condition

  1045
  is in distressed areas and how they are suffering in that very matter of Government regulations in regard to transitional benefit placing upon them an increasing burden which they are quite unable to bear. The matter is of desperate seriousness, and I am convinced that the Minister knows of it. I want, however, to bring the question more forcibly before the House. There have been some hon. Members in the House to-day who would get up and preach economy. Economy is a most vital and important matter, but when economy in one direction can cause immense losses in other directions, it is not a question of economy; it is nothing but folly.
  I think it is time that the economy stunt was brought to a proper state in relation to what is going on in the country as a whole. There is the very serious problem of distressed areas which really must be faced, and I am not altogether convinced that the Government are facing it. There has been a recognition in the Bill of what, I believe, will have to be done a little later on. It is because the Government realise these difficulties and the certainty that the Minister knows our troubles that I support the Bill. To throw out those people would be to dishonour our neighbouring municipalities throughout the country. However small is the extra relief, it is worth while. We can only support the Bill and count upon the continued interest and understanding of the Minister so that the House and the country generally may realise that these troubles are no longer local, that it is absurd to keep them in local quarters, and that they must become a national burden and responsibility if we are to deal with this great issue in a proper way as a National Government should.
  6.3 p.m.
  Mr. BATEY: The major portion of the speech of the hon. Member for West Derby (Sir J. Sandeman Allen) was an inspiration to many of us. We were glad to hear one of the supporters of the Government coming from one of the large cities urging upon the Minister that the Bill was not sufficient and that something else should be done. As long as he merely does that he can express his discontent as much as he likes; the Government will go on in an easy way penalising the distressed areas and the big cities. I come
  1046
  from one of the most distressed areas in the country, and I listened very carefully to the speech delivered to-day by the Parliamentry Secretary, because I wanted to know whether there would be anything in the Bill which would benefit that area. After he had sat down, I was bound to confess that there was nothing at all in the Bill that would be of the least help to that distressed area. He told us that out of the £350,000 of new money, £145,000 would go to three counties and to several county boroughs. If there is only to be £145,000 of new money distributed among three counties and several county boroughs, then God help the distressed areas, especially the county areas.
  I wish to take a line altogether different from what has been taken in this House for a long time. We have frequently debated that something should be done for the unemployed. To-night one is pleading that something should be done for the householders and the shopkeepers in the distressed areas. As I look at the Bill which has been brought forward by the Minister, I see no hope of any relief for either the householders or the shopkeepers in the distressed areas. I would like the Minister, when he comes to reply, to tell us how much of the £145,000 a distressed area like that of Durham will receive. It would be a piece of very useful information to us. In my opinion, the amount will be extremely small. In 1929 de-rating was an experiment, and the pool of £47,000 which was formed was an experiment. No one knew how it would work out. The money allocated to the various districts was an experiment. The Minister has missed a golden opportunity presented to him in the Bill because he has had an experience of four years to go upon. But he came before us to-day and said that the Bill deals merely with the second grant period. The Bill decides the grant, not for one or two years, but for four years, and year after year the expenditure of local authorities is increasing. Nobody can tell to-day how much the expenditure of local authorities will have increased by next year. To come after four years' experience for the second grant period and decide the amount of money to he given to local authorities for another four years is a huge blunder.

  1047
  As far as one can see, there is no sign of the expenditure of local authorities decreasing. If one could see any sign of the expenditure decreasing there might be some justification for the action of the Minister, but all the signs are that the expenditure of local authorities will increase, and, as I have said, to decide to-day what shall be the grant for a full four years is a huge blunder. The grant provided for to-day ought not to have been for more than two years. In fact the grant ought to be annual, as it would give the House a chance of reviewing the situation at the end of each year. The past four years ought to have taught the Minister that local authorities need to have some new sources of revenue. The sources of revenue in distressed areas are decreasing. In my own county, since the last grant period was decided in 1929, a large number of collieries have closed, and the revenue from those collieries has been lost to the local authorities. Seeing that there is a tendency especially in the distressed areas, for revenue to decrease, the Minister ought to have taken this opportunity of considering some new sources of revenue or of re-establishing some of the old sources of revenue.
  The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) said that he believed in block grants. The experience of the area from which I come is that block grants are not good, but dangerous. An authority who has spent all his life in local government has assured me that the block grant has been tried before and has failed. It is failing on this occasion, especially in the distressed areas. Block grants, as a matter of fact, have a tendency to put far more of the cost of the semi-national services upon the rates and to relieve the taxes. We believe that part of the policy of the Government is to relieve taxes at the expense of the rates. The effect of the block grant has simply been to throw the cost of semi-national services more and more upon the rates. I mean by semi-national services education, roads, police, public assistance and some of the health services.
  Lord E. PERCY: Police and education are not on block grants.
  Mr. BATEY: I am speaking at the moment of the tendency of relieving the taxpayer at the expense of the rates, and
  1048
  they all seem to me to be semi-national services. The tendency seems to be to relieve the taxes of those semi-national services, and to throw more and more of the burden upon the rates.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think that shows that the hon. Member is getting a little beyond the scope of the Bill at the moment.
  Mr. BATEY: I rather gleaned from the discussions which have taken place that we were allowed rather a wide latitude and that we were not confined strictly to the wording of the Bill. If you pin me there I have only to obey, and will obey, your Ruling.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, has, I believe, already intimated to the House the lines of the Debate and has given considerable latitude under the wording of the Amendment. I was only reminding the hon. Member that in discussing general questions of taxation he was going beyond its scope.
  Mr. BATEY: I did not intend to do so, and I will leave the matter there. In 1929 when the De-rating Bill was passed a Government communication was sent to local authorities which said:
  " The aim has been so to adjust the distribution as to make the assistance vary with the need for local government services in any area in relation to the ability of the area to meet the cost."
  I have not the slightest doubt that in 1929 the objective was to assist the area in relation to its ability to meet the cost, but since then there have been enormous changes, and the ability of the area to meet the cost in 1929 does not apply to the same extent to-day. Therefore, the Government should have gone further than is the case in the Bill. They should have provided far more new money. After the allocation in 1929 the county of Durham was said to have gained £270,000, but the grievance of that area is that the gain which it was supposed to have received has been swallowed up by the increase in the cost of relief. To-day the increased cost of relief in Durham County, compared with three years ago, is over £400,000. That increased expenditure compares pith three years ago. If in 1929 we were supposed to have gained £270,000 by allocations under the De-rating Act and that has been swallowed up by increased expenditure of £400,000

  1049
  during the last three years, the Minister will see that we have a case for far more money than he is proposing to give.
  The rateable value per head is extremely low in the distressed areas. In Durham last year the figure was £3 11s., in Surrey £9 9s. 7d., in Bournemouth £13 4s. and in Blackpool £12 19s. The rates in Durham last year were 13s. 6d. in the pound, in Surrey 5s. 5½d., in Bournemouth 7s. and in Blackpool 7s. 6d. This year there is to be an increase in the Durham rates. In consequence of the increased expenditure on Poor Law relief the Durham rate this year will be 14s. 6d. in the pound. The Minister ought to have taken the opportunity to get more revenue for the distressed areas, so that the rateable value per head might have been increased. It is unfair for one part of the country to have a rateable value of £13 4s. per head while an industrial area has a rateable value of only £3 11s. The district with a rateable value with only £3 11s. 10d. per head cannot, with the same rate, raise anything like the same amount of revenue as the district with a rateable value of £13 4s.
  Seeing that the distressed areas are in this serious position, the Minister should not have been content to continue what has been happening during the last four years, because that means continuing to all intents and purposes the present condition of affairs. One authority says that if each district bore an equal share of the demand for roads, education, police and the relief of the poor, at least £700,000 would accrue to Durham County. That shows the very serious disadvantage that we are in. If the Minister does not agree, and it is clear from the Bill that he does not agree, to making the grants for less than four years, we can make out a case for an annual grant for unemployment. Unemployment is so serious and is rising so rapidly that the grant for unemployment ought to be annual, and not fixed for four years. In 1929 the Bill opened up a very wide field which the Minister would have been wise to explore. I am not sure that we have not come to the time when we ought to consider whether industry should not again contribute to the rates. I base that suggestion on the ground that industry to-day is in a different position from that in which industry found itself—I am thinking more of the basic industries—in 1929.
  1050
  In most industries to-day machinery has supplanted men to an enormous extent. Seeing the important part that machinery is playing in industry—
  Sir H. YOUNG: On a point of Order. Shall I be in order in replying on the subject of de-rating?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have listened very carefully, and it seems to me that the subject is outside the scope of the Bill and of the Amendment.
  Mr. BATEY: I know that we cannot discuss the Act of 1929, which provided for de-rating, but I think that on a discussion like this when we have to consider the extremely small sum of new money, £350,000, for the local authorities, we might be entitled to suggest to the Minister that he should give consideration to some of these proposals.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has made suggestions to the Minister that the contribution from the Exchequer is not enough, but I do not think he can suggest that he should amend the other parts of the 1929 Act.
  Mr. LAWSON: May I point out that the latter part of the Amendment reads:
  " and fails to amend the law under which industrial and freight transport undertakings and land are largely or entirely relieved from the payment of rates."
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member could not have been in the House when I gave my previous Ruling. I drew special attention to the last few lines of the Amendment, and said that I doubted whether those lines were in order.
  Mr. BATEY: It seems to me that the Bill is not sufficient. All that it provides for is for a second grant period for four years, and it only provides for £350,000. I want the Minister to consider other sources of revenue in order to help the local authorities, in addition to this new money.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot do that on this Bill.
  Mr. BATEY: There were other suggestions which I intended to put to the Minister, and I shall have to take some other occasion to do that. We cannot leave this question where it is, because the condition of the local authorities is so serious that there is every prospect of

  1051
  many of them getting into such a position that they will not be able to carry on. If we cannot discuss these matters now we shall have to take some other opportunity of doing so. For some months past I have thought the Government would take this opportunity of doing something to help the distressed areas. I remember reading in the northern Press that the northern Members of Parliament had been approaching the Minister and asking him to do something to help the distressed areas, and one got the impression that this was going to be the occasion when the Minister would help the distressed areas. If all that he is going to do to help the distressed areas is to find this paltry sum of £350,000, God help the distressed areas ! Expenditure is bound to increase.
  My colleague reminded the Minister that the National Health Insurance Act will tend to increase the cost of Poor Law relief. The Minister was responsible for the National Health Insurance Act in the middle of last year. At the end of this year when a man has been unemployed for two years he will lose his medical benefit and there will be only the Poor Law doctor when the man can no longer go to his panel doctor. Therefore, in that respect as well as in other directions, that Act will tend to increase the expenditure on Poor Law relief. Does the Minister intend to do something for the distressed areas beyond this Bill? Is this the final word and the last effort, or have the Government something else in mind in order to help the distressed areas? Unless they do something more the distressed areas will continue in a deplorable condition and no one can say what will be the end of them.
  6.27 p.m.
  Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Earlier in the afternoon we had two very interesting speeches from hon. Members for the Liverpool area and, curiously enough, as so often happens in this House, we saw two hon. Members who, by their politics are very wide apart making a common and joint appeal in the best Scottish and Irish fashion to bleed the general taxpayers for the benefit of Liverpool. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan), in his eloquent speech, said one thing with which I thoroughly agreed, and that was
  1052
  that every town and borough want help from the Government at the present time. I realise that every town and borough want help not only in relief of their rates but in relief of taxation. Once one accepts the position that local authorities want help because of the badness of their trade, I should like to make it perfectly clear that the extra concessions that are being asked for are not in the best interests of the country. I do not say that this or that area is not distressed. Everyone knows that they are and that the needs of some areas are very much higher than others, but that is dealt with in the weighting Clause in the original Act.
  If I may say so with great respect, the noble Lord the right hon. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) did the House a very great service in bringing back the mind of the House to the fact that the work of the Government is so to reorganise its finances, that it has a surplus either for the relief of taxation or for some other purpose. The quarrel I have with the Bill, and I think it is the same quarrel that the noble Lord has, is that it means a small increase in taxation. If I understood the noble Lord correctly, I think he is right in supposing that every small Bill of this kind which distracts the attention of the Government and of the House of Commons from the main guiding factor is really doing a disservice to the Government. I have always regarded the Minister of Health as sound financially, and I am shocked that he should be bringing in a Bill which increases the amount which the taxpayer has to find. He might have kept it on the old basis, not increased the amount, and when I look into the figures and remember that the right hon. Gentleman sits for an English constituency I am still more shocked. The bleeding of English constituencies by Scotland has been carried to a terrible excess in this respect.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Oh!
  Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) may dislike my exposition of this fact, but he must remember that he gets away with the cash, and I never knew a Scotsman who objected to walking away with English money. In this Bill the actual increase for Scotland is £100,000, and for

  1053
  England £350,000. The original basis for estimating the proportions of Scotland and England is, I believe, eleven-eightieths, and, although the formula which governs this Bill is slightly different, I am not aware of anything which lays it down that a Scotsman should have two additional pounds for every seven pounds which an Englishman is to get. 'Phe amount of additional money which is to go to Scotland is grossly over-estimated in this Bill. It is simply another instance of this Government, which is dominated by a Scotsman, bleeding the English authorities on every hand, and it is about time someone representing an English constituency, or a Welsh constituency if Welsh Members ever attend, protested strongly against the Government using an occasion of this kind to make a, far higher grant in proportion to the people over the Border. No attempt was made by the Parliamentary Secretary in his excellent and interesting speech to prove why this excess payment should be given to Scotland.
  Mr. KI RKWOOD: But surely we are not getting too much?
  Mr. WILLIAMS: If the hon. Member will read the Bill he will find these words:
  " shall be respectively the sum of £5,350,000 and the sum of £850,000."
  If the hon. Member had listened to the excellent speech of the Parliamentary Secretary in moving the Second Reading, he would have heard that ale additional money which goes to Scotland is £100,000 and to England £350,000. The conscience of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs may be moved. As a matter of fact, about £44,000 or £46,000 would be the right proportion for Scotland to get. As long as this kind of thing occurs in a Government Bill, I shall see whether it is possible to get it altered. I am not going to walk into the Lobby for a half-baked thing like the Amendment, but I am not going perpetually to vote for Government Bills which propose to take more money out of England and give to Scotland more than is her proper proportion. I do not like the way in which the Government have used this occasion for over-balancing the sum. After all, the Government were returned to cut down expenditure, and I do not suppose that any hon. Member in his election address
  1054
  mentioned the additional guarantees which are being given, or intimated that we were going to alter the whole balance in favour of Scotland. It would not have been popular.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD:Ah, but it would.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: It would have been. popular with the hon. Member, but I cannot always spend my time in being. popular with him. It is about time that someone representing England and Wales protested against the perpetual way in which we are being bled for our very worthy and highly esteemed Northern neighbour.
  Mr. LOGAN: Will the hon. Member tell us the condition of his depressed area?
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I certainly should not be in order in going into that matter, but we have a considerable amount of unemployment due to the fact that for some years we have been taking men from South Wales and other places and giving them employment. But I do not put it on that basis. I recognise the difficulties of depressed areas, of places like Liverpool, but it is not right that we should be continually asked by the Government to vote for Bills of this kind. They should have kept to the old formula, which would not have given the offence which this proposal has given to many hon. Members.
  6.38 p.m.
  Sir ROBERT ASKE: I must associate myself with those hon. Members who have expressed a strong sense of disappointment that in this Bill no substantial extra assistance is being given to depressed areas. We have been led to believe that something of a substantial character would be done in this Bill. Last July representatives of depressed areas, Members from all parties in the House, met the Minister of Health and laid before him the position of these areas.. As a result, the Minister indicated that he would institute an inquiry as to how the formula provided by the 1929 Act might be altered, particularly the weight in respect of unemployment, and we felt confident that as a result of that inquiry something of a more drastic character would have been done in this Bill, and particularly because since July the

  1055
  position of depressed areas has grown immeasurably worse. It was bad enough then when every one in a depressed area was being faced with an enormously increased expenditure, but since then the increase has been far beyond what anyone anticipated at the time when the Minister gave his promise. In Newcastle alone we are faced with an increased expenditure of over £70,000 in one year. That expenditure has somehow to be found, and the way it has been found, to a great extent, is by increases in the rates of the poorest of the people, thousands of whom are actually unemployed.
  When one realises the fact that this increase of expenditure is largely due to the shifting of a burden which should have fallen on the shoulders of the Exchequer on to the depressed local authorities, one feels a sense of injustice at the present situation. This increased expenditure is due almost entirely to public assistance. Large numbers of people have gone off the receipt of standard benefit or transitional payment, either because they are no longer normally engaged in an insurable occupation, within the decision of the Umpires, or they have failed to qualify by holding the requisite number of stamps. Therefore, these depressed areas have to maintain an ever-increasing number of able-bodied unemployed and their dependants. That burden should fall on the shoulders of the State. Another direction in which expenditure has been increased is by the attitude of the Treasury, combined with the Minister of Health, in cutting down expenditure on local works. In these depressed times this has always been a source of great advantage, because it has enabled a large number of our people to be given some employment. This has been cut down, with the result that the Exchequer has saved money in this way, but it has simply fallen back on to the shoulders of the depressed areas.
  It comes to this. The more depressed an area, because of the greater unemployment, the greater the burden on that locality. Areas which are least able to bear the burdens are having to bear the heaviest burdens. That is entirely illogical; and I want to put it to the Minister that the existing policy should be reversed. Depressed areas have a right to the utmost consideration from
  1056
  the Government. If the Minister of Health had seen his way to alter the weighting formula it would have been of great advantage to us. I should like to ask him whether he has given up all thought of altering the unemployment formula under the 1929 Act, and also whether we are to take it that he sees no hope for our local authorities, who will have to go on bearing the ever-increasing burden which is resting upon us at the present time? I must confess that I had hoped that the Government would have seen their way to adopt a bolder policy in this matter. The depressed areas throughout the country, so far as I can ascertain, feel that the attitude of the Government towards them is entirely unsympathetic. I hope that that is not the case. I trust that the Minister will try to give us some fresh hope when he comes to make his reply.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would not have entered this Debate at this moment had it not been for the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) It is not usual for him to make personal attacks. He was not just personal this time, but he attacked Scotland, and it ill becomes him to attack Scotland in this fashion. The only explanation that I can give for it—I can scarcely credit that he would be so mean—is that Scotland, 'when things were going well with trade, sent hundreds of Scottish folk to Torquay for their holidays, but that now, because trade is bad in Scotland, the Scots people are no longer able to go to Torquay and to spend their hard-earned cash there. These are the thanks that we get to-day. I do not say that it is the attitude of the usual Englishman. It is the attitude of an Englishman who has run riot and does not know what is wrong with him; who is trying to find some way out of the difficulty and trying to show that Scotland is getting more than her share. On this occasion Scotland is getting just what is her usual share. There is a formula in all these things that Scotland is to get 11/80ths of any sum, and that is what we are getting now.
  The hon. Member for Torquay and the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) represent two watering places that may be all right as health resorts, but for producing wealth and for producing men and women they are not

  1057
  to be compared with Scotland. Unemployment and the misfortune which have resulted from the conditions which prevail to-day, are hitting the industrial centres. They are conditions over which we have absolutely no control. It is not our fault that men are unemployed. It is not our fault that my country is a distressful country at the moment—more distressful than the South of England. Glasgow and the West of Scotland are more distressful than Hastings or Torquay. That is not the fault of the inhabitants of Western Scotland. We have rendered yeoman service not only to the Empire but to civilisation in general.
  I speak particularly for the West of Scotland and for my own industry of shipbuilding and engineering. During the War we surrendered every privilege we had. We gave up all trade rights even against my advice, because I held at that time that those trade rights were ours to defend, not ours to surrender, But it was done, and the whole of the shipbuilding and engineering trade was transferred from peace work to war work. All our heavy industries to-day are shattered. Then when we come to consider what is to be done for them we get speeches like that of the hon. Member for Torquay. These are the thanks that the working-class constituencies get from aristocratic constituencies. It is not what the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) promised, and I am saying that in his presence. It is not what the right hon. Gentleman promised when he came to the Clyde, when he asked me to use my influence with these men, which I did at his behest because he said, "When the War is over you can take it from me, Kirkwood, that conditions will never be the same as they were before. We are going to make this a land fit for heroes to live in." There is the right hon. Gentleman and here is the land. What is it? A land in which only heroes can live. Now we are being twitted by individuals who are high and dry, who represent those who are not being hard hit.
  Surely the Government Bill will yet reconsider the attitude of mind they have adopted, and not demand that all this poverty be borne locally when it should be borne nationally. As I said on the housing question, the Government are
  1058
  making the poor carry the poor. They are making the industrial centres that are heavily hit at the moment bear the burden locally instead of distributing that burden over the whole of the country. Take my own centres of Clydebank and Dumbarton. There you have an essentially working-class constituency. That is where the wealth is produced and everything is all right when they are all working. To-day over 60 per cent. are unemployed. They are right up against it. No finer type of men and women can be found in the world, and they are in poverty. They do not know what another day will bring forth. They gave of their best when they were working, when it was demanded of them; they made this great Empire possible, they played their part, and now they are unemployed. Dumbarton and Clydebank have to maintain the unemployed of Dumbarton and Clydebank, whereas just outside my constituency there are two middle-class townships, which are better off and which escape from the rates imposed on Clydebank and Dumbarton.
  That sort of thing is going on all over the country, and it is most unfair. It is not statesmanship to act in such a way. It would be statesmanlike to take a broad view and to make this distress a national charge. The load has become so burdensome that local authorities are becoming bankrupt. Then along come the Government with this Bill to ease the situation, but the ease they give is so infinitesimal that it is a disgrace. Other generations will laugh at this great country and this powerful Government, this all-powerful Government. There never was a Government, not even that of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs when he had the mob behind him during the War, which has had the same power. If the Government were in earnest, if their courage was as great as their capacity, all would be better than well. But the present Cabinet have not the courage to face the situation like men. They are always hoping for something to turn up, something round the corner. They say better days are in store. Spring is with us, and
  " the voice of the turtle is heard in our land."
  Mr. C. WILLIAMS: What is that?
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: If the hon. Member would read his Bible he would know

  1059
  what the turtle is. It is not for me to expatiate on it. The hon. Member is supposed to be a learned Englishman according to the lecture that he gave the House a few minutes ago. Has he never heard of the turtle dove? [Laughter.] He that laughs last laughs longest. The people of the country are watching what the Government are doing to-day. If the Government think that they can continue in the willy-nilly fashion that they have adopted this year, they are mistaken. There never was such a "dud" House in all my experience—" dud," and nothing doing. This House is dull. Nobody makes an effort to get this country out of the Slough of Despond in which it is at this moment. In the midst of all that is going on, the Minister of Health comes with his Housing Bill, this little two-penny-halfpenny Bill. It is a standing disgrace to a man who claims, as the Minister of Health can do, that he has not only a national, but an international reputation as a financier. Why cannot we get the benefit of his services? I want to ask, in all sincerity, where is all the ingenuity of this Cabinet? Tell me what they have done to justify their existence? What has this Cabinet, including the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) done to justify the great trust the British electorate reposed in them when they sent them to this House? Was it to bring in a Bill such as this? Certainly not. They should be ashamed of themselves. It is all right for Members who are well-fed and well-clad, but it is quite a different thing when one goes to one's constituency. There is no smiling when you see men up against it just now—men who are starving. Poverty rampant in Britain!
  Fear has got hold of the entire working class to-day in a manner such as never existed before. The Government think they can go on "kidding," doing nothing, and that folk will just allow them to meander. The Prime Minister said that to meander was a nicer phrase, and more classic language, than to say "pegging away." If they think they are going to keep the even tenour of their way in this fashion, they never made a bigger mistake. Not only in Scotland, not only in industrial areas, but all over the country, not only simple, ordinary members of the working classes, but the
  1060
  thinking section of the community are to-day getting heartily sick of the Government, and the manner in which they are handling this poverty problem. It is a problem which is engulfing millions of our people. I hope that when the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland makes his reply, he will be able to tell us that, so far as the Scottish Office is concerned—and this has never yet happened with regard to the Scottish Office—both he and his chief are going to keep harassing the Cabinet and that dead, cold individual called the Chancellor of the Exchequer, until they agree to give Scotland far more in the immediate future than they have conceded to us in the past.
  7.5 p.m.
  Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Now that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) has broken the ice on behalf of Scotland, it may be as well to have the Scottish part of this Debate grouped, rather than have speeches at intervals. I want to ask one or two questions of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I thought Scotland was not to have any share in this Debate because there was no reference to Scotland, nor was there any appearance of a Scottish Minister on the Front Bench. Will the Under-Secretary tell the House exactly how much extra Scotland is going to receive in the next period of four years? I would like to ask him, further, whether there is any possibility, in the event of matters becoming worse in Scotland than they are at present—and they are bad enough—of Scotland receiving, in order to meet that worsened period, a higher contribution than that stated in the Bill—whether there is a possibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and his lieutenant, introducing a Bill to endeavour to obtain for us a higher contribution than we get in the Bill now before the House?
  Another point to which I would like the Under-Secretary to reply is, how does he intend to allocate the sum mentioned in this Bill? It is mentioned here as a lump sum. I take it that he is going to allocate it to the various districts in Scotland. I know, of course, that it may be somewhat difficult at present for the Under-Secretary to give us definite details for all areas, since we have a different financial period from that obtaining in England. He might, however, give tie an approximate idea of

  1061
  how the distribution of this grant is going to effect the areas in Glasgow to which it has got to be given. I want to point out, for his consideration, when he is going over the areas in Scotland and finding out how much he is likely to allocate, that there are various districts in Scotland which are harder hit than other districts. There are districts of Scotland which might be looked upon in the same manner and from the same point of view, as the Member for Dumbarton Burghs looked upon Hastings and Torquay. There are industrial areas, and there are districts that have not felt the industrial blizzard which has struck this country and brought into being so many distressed areas in England, Wales and Scotland. I would like to know how the Under-Secretary intends to dispose of this sum when allocating it to the distressed areas in particular.
  The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs mentioned the areas of the Clyde — Dumbarton, Glasgow, Renfrew, Greenock, Port Glasgow, and the Lanarkshire mining and steel areas. It stands on record, in spite of the laughter which sometimes is raised in this House when the Clyde is mentioned, that the reputation of the Clyde for work is second to none throughout the world. The ships which have been laundhed on the Clyde, and which have been designated "Clyde-built" have been held to be standards of efficiency on every sea throughout the world. A "Clyde-built" ship is considered to be synonymous with A.1 at Lloyds. A "Clyde-built" ship is looked upon as the highest standard of shipbuilding. From the first shipbuilding yard at Glasgow, right down to the lowest in Greenock, every shipbuilding yard has been struck by the depression in trade. The shipbuilding workers, of all trades, have a higher percentage of unemployment in the Clyde area than in any other part of the country. That unemployment has been going on for several years now, and even with the slight orders that have been coming their way during the past few months the diminution in the numbers of unemployed has not amounted to very much. Towns like Glasgow, Dumbarton, Clydebank, Greenock and Port Glasgow are affected severely by unemployment because, owing to the methods adopted by transitional committees and Ministry of Labour officials in putting people on to the local
  1062
  authorities for public assistance, practically the bulk of the unemployment in the Clyde area is being borne by the local authorities. The grant mentioned in the Bill is insufficient to meet the needs of the people in the adequate manner they should be met.
  Even the allocation to those distressed areas that may be made by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary, although they may be more generous to depressed areas than other areas, will not be sufficient to meet the needs, and higher rating will be required by the local authorities to give to the unemployed, who are not receiving unemployment pay or transitional benefits, assistance through the public assistance committee. If this Government in its Derating Act intended that local authorities should be relieved, out of grants and by various taxes as compensation for the loss of rates due to that Act, then, surely, these authorities have a right to expect from the Government a sufficient amount to be given by means of the present Bill to compensate them for the loss they have already suffered through the De-rating Act. Surely it is not too much to ask that this Government which passed the Derating Act, and can bring in any Measure it chooses and pass it through by the majority behind it, should render justice to those authorities which have been suffering loss in their revenue due to the large measure of unemployment.
  It is not merely the shipyards which have not been rated. In every shipbuilding area throughout Lanarkshire, and in every one of the industrial towns, we see streets which were once thronged with people to do business in the shops. Now because there is no trade for them—because the workers and their wives have not the necessary money to buy the goods these shops formerly exposed for sale—the shops are closed, and there are no rates. There are no rates being taken from them or from the workshops, now closed, which housed trades ancillary to shipbuilding. I suggest to Members that the Bill, so far as Scotland is concerned, is not going to meet the situation. The amount mentioned in the Bill will certainly not meet the situation in Scotland. It is perhaps too much to ask the Under-Secretary for Scotland for a definite statement of the exact amount, but I want to know, and I am certain the people of Scotland want to know how

  1063
  we are to meet the poverty existing in our country, particularly in the industrial areas, with the small sum mentioned in this Bill.
  I know that there is a formula—the Goschen formula. Some Members laughed when the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs spoke of the formula and the amount which Scotland is supposed to get out of Government grants in relation to the amounts received by England and Wales. It is an old formula which ought to be known to every Member of Parliament, and the fact that mention of it was received with laughter shows that some Members have yet something to learn about the workshop into which they have entered to perform the duty of law-making for the country. Even though the formula be 11/80ths, even though it be, according to one part of this Bill, 11 /90ths, it is not going to help if it is insufficient to provide starving people with food. These formulas ought to be dropped. These grants ought to be allocated having regard to the necessities of the areas concerned. Instead of saying to the different districts, "This is your share and that is your share," we ought to find out the amount of poverty existing in an area and give that area the proportion which is considered most likely to meet its situation and satisfy the needs of the starving people in that area.
  That, to my mind, would be a statesmanlike approach to this question, rather than this distributive method of so much to one part of the country and so much to another based upon a formula made many years ago. I hope we shall have some explanation of the way in which it is proposed to deal with these matters in Scotland and, if we consider that the explanation of the Under-Secretary does not meet the situation, as we think it ought to be met, I hope we shall have opportunities in Committee of endeavouring to bring these matters a little more into line with what we consider ought to be done in Scotland under this Bill.
  7.19 p.m.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): My colleagues from Scotland will, I am sure, acquit me of any disrespect to our native
  1064
  country in not intervening earlier in this Debate but I was anxious to hear the speeches of the Scottish Members before I rose in order that I should be able to make as comprehensive reply as possible to the questions raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) suggested that I had not been in the House during the whole of this Debate but as a matter of fact I was here during the whole of his speech as well as during the speech of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). The speech of the hon. Member for Dumbarton has fortunately made it unnecessary for me to engage into an international feud with my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). I do not think I ever remember having heard a. Scotsman in this House stand up for himself and his country to better purpose than the hon. Member for Dumbarton and I leave my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay entirely to his tender mercies.
  I proceed to deal with the questions very clearly and very rightly put by the hon. Member for Govan. First, with regard to the extra sum of money which is to be found for Scotland, that is £100,000, and that depends upon the amount which local government cost in Scotland during the year 1930–31. The hon. Member for Torquay drew attention to the fact that Scotland is taking proportionately a larger increase than England. That, of course, in turn depends upon the increased charges, broadly speaking, of local administration in Scotland in the past year and those charges are to a considerble extent due to the unemployment prevalent in Scotland. Let me take the opportunity of recalling the fact to which many Scottish Members in various contexts and in various Debates have drawn attention, namely, that our industries in Scotland are largely the heavy industries, such as coal, steel and shipbuilding. Those industries during the depression from 1921 onwards, have suffered most and suffered longest and are consequently the industries in connection with which the burden of the support of the unemployed is more and more falling on the local authorities. That is one of the main causes of the relatively greater increase of Scottish local administration compared with that of England in the relevant year and that is

  1065
  the broad reason why the money to be found for the second period is proportionately greater in Scotland than in England.
  Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Is that an excuse for making the proportion as much as 2/7ths or 2/9ths?
  Mr. SKELTON: It is not a question of excuse or want of excuse, but a question of following out the provisions of the 1929 Act which laid down the methods by which these grants are to be fixed in each succeeding period.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Is this an exact figure?
  Mr. SKELTON: Within, £500. So much for the new money. The hon. Member for Govan asked me how, as between various local authorities, the grants would be allocated in 'a new period. I am sorry that I am not yet in a position to do so. The figures have not been worked out and I should be loth to give anything like experimental figures to the House on this topic. But I can give the hon. Member and the House this assurance, that before the first period of payment for local authorities come, and before the date when local authorities examine their financial situation and make up their budgets for the forthcoming year—generally speaking, in Scotland, about the month of July—they will have exact figures, or figures as exact as possible, of the grant which they will receive. I, myself, would like the House to be in early possession of those figures, and I will take the opportunity of telling the hon. Member for Govan, or some other hon. Member interested in the matter, the earliest possible moment at which a question addressed to us would elicit the definite reply for which he seeks.
  Mr. MACLEAN: While we are on this point may I ask the hon. Gentleman about the depressed areas which are being heavily hit? Is there any method by which they can receive more generous treatment during the next period than they have received during the period which has just elapsed?
  Mr. SKELTON: I am obliged to the hon. Member for recalling that point to my mind. The answer to the question as he puts it is "no." The grant is distributed in accordance with the formula
  1066
  with which we are all familiar and which was the subject of so much discussion in 1929. But I think I may safely say, without raising false hopes or giving false impressions, that, because one of the factors in the formula is unemployment and because unemployment has seriously increased in the shipbuilding and coal industries in many parts, since 1929 or 1930, the hon. Member and the House would be safe in saying that the seriously depressed districts will get to some extent an allocation which will deal with the problem in which they are vitally concerned. I cannot say more because there are other factors which may be at work in rural districts and which may to some extent counteract that.
  Mr. MACLEAN: With regard to those large tracts of Scotland which the hon. Gentleman and I know, which are devoted to deer forests and the like, can we be assured that they shall not take away a larger proportion of the grant than is absolutely necessary for them having regard to the population which they have?
  Mr. SKELTON: I follow what the hon. Member has in mind but I can only reiterate that the actual allocation depends on the working of the formula. I cannot say more than that, except that the fact that one of the vital factors in the formula is the amount of unemployment gives, I think, reasonable hope that those heavily-hit areas will in the new allocation have their misfortunes represented in a larger proportion of the grant.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Does that apply to England and Wales as well?
  Mr. SKELTON: The hon. Member must put that question to my right hon. Friend the Minister. I am not going to be led into matters which are sacrosanct to him. The hon. Member for Govan seemed to be under the impression that in the allocation of Exchequer grants for the purposes of both England and Scotland the Goschen figure was taken.
  Mr. MACLEAN: No, my point was that when the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) referred to the formula some hon. Members laughed. I wished to draw attention to the fact that that formula had been established long before any of us here had come to the House.
  Mr. SKELTON: Then I need not pursue that subject further. I could not

  1067
  imagine that the hon. Member was suggesting that the Goschen formula dominated this matter. I regret that I am not able to give an estimate of the allocation of this grant with regard to Scotland but in the absence of detailed figures there is little more that I can say. I hope bon. Members will keep in mind that I am anxious that the House should be in possession of the allocation figures as soon as possible and I shall take the necessary steps to that end.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he reply to the speech that I made?
  Mr. SKELTON: I did, at the beginning of my remarks.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg pardon, but I wish to ask whether the allocation which we have now got is simply according to the eleven-eightieths formula, or whether we are getting special consideration because of the terrible conditions of the heavy industries in our country.
  Mr. SKELTON: The Exchequer grant given to Scotland, the origin of which is the 1929 Act, has no connection with the Goschen formula at all. It is based upon various factors, which I will not go into further than to say that, if I remember rightly, it is made up of three things. The first is the loss of rates owing to the de-rating scheme, the second is the loss of grant owing to the abandonment in 1929 of the fifty-fifty principle, and the third factor, with which we are vitally concerned, is the new money. With none of those three elements does the Goschen formula have anything to do, except in one very small matter with, regard to roads. The principle on which Exchequer contributions are brought to the assistance of local authorities is exactly the same in England and Scotland and depends on the main factors which I have described.
  7.32 p.m.
  Mr. CURRY: The Bill is somewhat of a disappointment to me. Like the hon. Member for East Newcastle (Sir R. Aske), I remember distinctly discussions in this House last summer with the Minister of Health with regard to the condition of the depressed areas, and we were led to believe that an inquiry would be set up with a view to ascertaining
  1068
  if it were not possible to give some extra weight to the factor for unemployment in this formula. If that extra weight is not given in this Bill, I do not see how we are going to get relief for the depressed areas during the second grant period. That is a very serious and important matter for the distressed areas, because the condition is even worse now than it was last summer, and it is going to get worse as the weeks go by. The cost of our poor rates is increasing from various factors, but mainly from the factor that unemployed insured men and women are being passed out of the scheme through the "not normally insured" section, with the result that you have an increasing burden of poor rates in those areas. Because we were led to hope that this relief would be given, the Bill which is now before us becomes an even greater disappointment.
  In the county of Durham, from which I come, the rates have increased by tad in the pound, and we have had during the last three months a lowering of the average of transitional payments through the administration of the Commissioners. We have in the county of Durham this dual operation of a depression of the people's income and an increase of the burden of rates. That burden of rates is very largely recovered through the increase of rents, through adding to the rents the proportion of the increased rates. We in these districts cannot contemplate the immediate future without serious misgivings, and I would implore the Minister to give us some hope as to the method by which the distressed areas are going to be given the relief, not for which we are asking, but without which we cannot go on and lead our normal lives. We are not here pleading for the sake of pleading.
  The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams)—I am sorry he is not in his place at the moment—talked about the injustice of Scotland getting more than England. I think, if he went into the figures in detail, he would find that the North of England is getting the same proportion, compared with the South, as Scotland is compared with England, but that is merely an indication of the increased poverty in the North of England and Scotland as compared with the South of England. I implore hon. Members representing constituencies in the

  1069
  South and South Eastern parts of England to come up into these depressed areas. I could take them through my constituency, through villages that are nearly towns, wherein they would find whole populations who have been out of work, not months, but years. I could take them into what were once prosperous towns, where the shopkeepers and business men would tell them that their turn-over is going down week by week, because the out-relief and the transitional payments are being reduced on account of the situation.
  I want to make a serious appeal to the Government, not to go on with this Bill as if it were an automatic piece of machinery, but to tell us quite distinctly in what way, if not through this Bill, they hope in the immediate future to give us some relief. Particularly would I like to ask whoever is going to reply to tell us what amount of block grant the county of Durham is going to get in the second grant period, and how that compares with the grant which we have received in the past. My final word is that I want to impress upon hon. Members in the more prosperous parts of England to believe that those of us who represent depressed areas, and in many cases people amongst whom we have lived our lives and for whom we have a great regard, do not wish to be regarded as appealing for them out of sentiment, but to believe that we carry before our mental vision—and I think this is true of every representative of a depressed area, to whatever party he belongs—the picture of a mass population which is going down and down in its standard of life and which has no immediate hope, other than the hope of some relief through the adjustment of the formula which was started in 1929, when no man could foresee the terrible depression through which we are now passing.
  7.39 p.m.
  Mr. E. WILLIAMS: I was very interested in the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy). If I interpreted his remarks correctly, he said that we had reached a stage at which we could not possibly find any further help from the Income Tax payers for the distressed areas.
  Lord E. PERCY indicated dissent.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Well, I want the Noble Lord to appreciate that the means of rectifying these things are at hand, and that it is easily possible to produce a greater capital accumulation, for, after all, increased taxation and increased rates throughout the whole country are attributable to unemployment. I think the speech delivered by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) last week, on a private Member's Motion, conclusively proved—it certainly has not yet been answered in this House—that increased taxation is attributable to unemployment, and not as hon. Members opposite would have us believe.
  We heard a very interesting speech from the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), who certainly has an old grey mare, and one appreciates that apparently it is his job to trot this old grey mare before the House every time he rises to speak. It is that all local authorities are in their present plight owing to extravagance. If he had been in the House, he would have heard an effective reply from the hon. Member for the West Derby division of Liverpool (Sir J. Sandeman Allen), one of his own colleagues, who reprimanded him pretty severely when he said that the hon. Member could not possibly have appreciated the position in Liverpool and other distressed areas, otherwise he would never have made such a statement.
  I welcome the stress that has been laid in this Debate upon the importance of the Minister doing something of a very radical nature in order to help the grave situation with which we are faced in the distressed areas. South Wales is the worst. Glamorgan, for Poor Law purposes alone—and I wonder whether it is possible for hon. and right hon. Members fully to appreciate what this figure means —is faced with a rate of 8s. 1d. in the pound. For 1933–4 the estimate has increased by £43,750. That is the position in the county of Glamorgan. I shall leave a part of the geographical county to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Wallhead), who will be able to stress the alarming position with which that portion of the geographical county is faced. I am speaking of the administrative county when I refer to the figure of 8s. 1d. In the neighbouring county we are faced with a figure of 6s. 8d. in the pound, while you have the

  1071
  figures adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) indicating that the rate for Poor Law purposes in Blackpool—and, I suppose, for the constituency represented by the Noble Lord opposite, although I do not know what the exact figure is—is somewhere about ninepence, and there are many of the larger towns in the South of England where, for Poor Law purposes, the rate is not more than about 1s. in the pound.
  In addition to that the determinations per head are dead set against the distressed areas. Last year we had a full-dress Debate in which Members of all parties representing distressed areas explained the position with which they were faced. Figures were placed before the House showing the amount of rates in the pound paid by most of the towns and cities of the South of England. They ranged from as low as 8d. to 1s.11d., while Durham was 7s. 6d., Monmouthshire 6s. 8d. and Glamorganshire 8s. 1¾d. These enormous burdens are carried in areas which for more than 50 years have been mainly responsible for producing the wealth enjoyed by people who are living in the South of England and in residential areas. It is difficult for me to appreciate how any Member can possibly object to the spreading of that burden over a whole nation. I try to examine the remarks that are made from time to time by Members representing the more prosperous areas, and I am sure that, if they were representing constituencies such as my constituency in the centre of Glamorganshire, they would be very fluent in their advocacy of throwing this burden off their shoulders on to the rest of the nation.
  Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. Gentleman is addressing his remarks to me, may I tell him that the whole point of my speech was that by distributing such a vast sum of money on a general grant formula you dissipate resources which you need, to give special help, for instance, to depressed areas.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I am obliged to the Noble Lord for that correction. I was not, however, addressing my remarks to him in particular, but to the observations we have had from time to time from hon. Members representing areas which are not faced with these heavy burdens. I should like to emphasise what I have
  1072
  said about South Wales by giving a few figures. During the 1926 stoppage in South Wales and prior to the Local Government Act of 1929, large sums of money were borrowed in order to feed the population. They are designated as coming within the category of the Goschen loans. In Glamorgan we are faced with a debt burden arising from the old Poor Law unions that were then in existence, which have now come under the purview of the Glamorgan Public Assistance Committee, of £1,701,000. It is to the credit of the Ministry that we pay no interest, but we have to repay that debt over 15 years at the rate of more than £35,000 a year. During the last fortnight my colleagues took a deputation from the Glamorgan County Council to the Minister's Department to ascertain whether it would be possible to be relieved of that burden. I know that the Minister will reply that it is conditional upon an Act of Parliament, but surely, when a county is faced with such heavy burdens, and those burdens are becoming greater each year, most hon. Members will agree that such a distressed area should be relieved, and the Minister, I think, could easily obtain powers to help Glamorgan to be relieved of that annual payment.
  It is expected of Glamorgan, of course, that that amount should be repaid, but it is practically impossible to contemplate that the people who borrowed the money can ever hope to repay it. From £15,000 to £16,000 was collected last year. Collectors are engaged and sometimes money is deducted from the colliery office and handed to the collectors, but the amount is so infinitesimal that the county cannot hope to repay from collections alone the enormous amount that was borrowed It is certainly unfair to the county itself in that the very badly distressed areas within the county owe more than £250,000 of that substantial figure, while other parts of the county where distress was less have managed to pay the whole of the Goschen loans that they had borrowed. In 1929, when the administration of Poor Law relief was placed upon the county council, a portion of Merthyr Tydvil came within the administrative area of the county, and the other portions of the county that had actually paid the Goschen loans are again faced with the problem of having to pay part of the loan of Merthyr Tydvil and such

  1073
  like towns which they were owing prior to their absorption. The county of Glamorgan is doing what we should like the whole nation to do. It is carrying on its back the heavily distressed areas such as Merthyr Tydvil which were obliged to borrow prior to 1929 owing to the very adverse economic conditions with which they were faced.
  The Ministry in this regard is as mean as it can possibly be. Why it should do what it has done, that is, merely carry out the minimum in accordance with the Statute, realising, as it must, the terrible plight of the distressed areas, passes my comprehension. It was impossible for this House to have fully appreciated prior to 1929 the terrible economic consequences of international and national depression that have expressed themselves so virulently in South Wales. Surely the time has come when the formula should be revised. I have a document that has been sent to my colleagues and myself by the clerk of Glamorgan County Council. He says that the produce of a penny rate in Glamorgan is now £10,000. Prior to 1929 it was £15,000. The estimated public assistance gross expenditure for the year ended 31st March, 1932, was £1,020,790, and for the year ended 31st March, 1933, £1,053,145, or a rate of 8s. 8d., against 8s. 5d. For 1933–34, the estimate is £43,730 above the current year for out-relief only, and in the absence of easement this means a further increased rate of 4½d. for the current year. We have an increased estimated education rate of 3d., and an increased public health rate of ld. Consequently, we are faced with an increased rate of 8½he average public assistance rate for Wales is 4s. 8d. Glamorgan has the highest county public assistance rate in England and Wales at 8s. 1.
  The clerk to the county council states that the incidence of destitution in Monmouthshire and Glamorganshire is the same, whether helped through unemployment insurance benefit or public assistance. He adds:
  " Glamorgan's position is a reflection of the greater weight of destitution to be borne—due to failure of formula to take into account the effects of economic collapse, coupled with the disproportionate effect of de-rating on these collapsed revenue-producing sources. The formula visualises a universally proportionately equal effect from the same causes. But the effect of the economic collapse in
  1074
  Glamorgan, which operated before 1929, but which did not come into rate-able calculation until after that date, had required a loosening of the bonds of administration of public assistance as far back as 1922. There is a difference in kind created. It is impossible to treat with derelict and bankrupt areas as with areas which have even small resources. A vicious circle of destitution, needing higher relief costs, which enforces higher rates, which in turn raises the destitution level, has been going on since 1922."
  One could elaborate that at length. I quote it because it is from the chief administrator of the county, and it certainly should have much weight with the Minister and with the House. We have received a letter from the insurance committee for the county of Glamorgan, which has passed the following resolution:
  " That this committee view with great concern the effect of the National Health Insurance Act, 1932, upon the provision of medical and sickness benefit to unemployed insured persons and implore the Government to make' provision whereby health insured and pension rights will not be forfeited owing to inability to continue contributions through unemployment."
  No doubt hon. Members have seen in the Press to-day that the chairman of the Approved Societies has made a computation which shows that this year more than 80,000 persons will be affected by last year's Act. It can be appreciated how that will hit us in Glamorgan, for we have 174,000 persons totally idle; 58 per cent. of that number are on transitional payments. Those figures apply only to the county and not to the boroughs. Hon. Members will appreciate what that resolution means in those circumstances.
  Really the House cannot be quiescent about this matter, but must realise its grave responsibilities. It cannot be said that the South Wales coal trade has been affected by anything done in the South Wales area. In the policies which have been advocated in this House, whether tariffs, the question of the Gold Standard, or the currency question, all that has been said has had a bearing on the coal trade, and particularly on the export coal trade, and in South Wales practically 60 per cent. of the coal produced is, normally, exported. Collieries have been going into liquidation at an ever-increasing rate year by year. A colleague has told us of the large number of colliery concerns rendered idle in his

  1075
  constituency, and it is precisely the same in my constituency. Is it not possible for the Minister instead of fixing this grant period at four years, to arrange to analyse the question annually? Then it would come before the House each year, and we could explain the position in our particular areas. The whole of South Wales is speedily becoming derelict. Shutters are on the business premises, more than half the grocers' shops in our valleys are closed, and, being closed, are paying no rates. With the collieries which are going into liquidation and those on short time, the coal output is becoming almost infinitesimal. With so little employment, with the unemployed getting only 15s. 3d. and with the application of the means test, we are faced with almost absolute penury in our mining valleys. I appeal to the Minister and the supporters of the Government to give heed to the position with which the distressed areas are confronted. The time has come for us to put aside academics and rhetoric and realise that we are fighting for our lives in an existence which is becoming almost intolerable.
  8.4 p.m.
  Mr. McKEAG: I want to add mine to those voices from all parts of the House which have supported the demand that additional assistance should be given to the depressed areas, and that the growing and intolerable burden of rates caused by unemployment should become more of a national charge rather than be left to be borne by the hard-pressed areas. The Parliamentary Secretary, in introducing this Bill, spoke of it in almost eulogistic terms. He explained the marvellous generosity of the Government in increasing the grants to the extent of £350,000. I find it, difficult to understand his conception of generosity. To what extent will this additional sum relieve the distresesd areas? The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) referred to this Bill as a. two-penny-halfpenny effort, and with that view I find myself in hearty accord. This Bill is a very poor response to the representations made by Members representing the depressed areas over a period of 18 months. Last year we were promised by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health that some assist-
  1076
  ance would be given by means of some alteration in the system of calculating block grants.
  Sir H. YOUNG: May I ask the hon. Member to refer me to the words of the promise of which he is speaking?
  Mr. McKEAG: In any case it is quite clear that the assistance which is being given is entirely insufficient for hard-pressed areas such as Durham County, and we are entitled to ask when the State will really come—and when I say "really" I mean in the true sense—to the rescue of 'these hard-pressed industrial areas. Durham County, like other industrial districts, has borne the stress and storm of trade depression in its most acute form for many years. Industries are crippled by high rates and poverty is rampant. Some time ago the Minister of Health chose to characterise as an exaggeration the picture which I was then endeavouring to paint of the terrible plight of Durham County. I wonder whether he still thinks it was an exaggeration? Our Debates on the means test and on unemployment should have removed any lingering doubt which may have been in his mind as to the difficulties of those areas. So much has been said during recent weeks about their hardships and difficulties that it is unnecessary for me to take up time by recalling them. The right hon. Gentleman cannot any longer plead ignorance of their plight.
  What are the Government doing to assist? Only a few days ago I called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, by means of a question, to the fact that the charge on the rates for public assistance in Durham County was estimated to amount to no less than £1,312,815 for 1933, an increase of £100,000 in the last 12 months and £400,000 in the last three years. After pointing this out to him I asked what steps it was proposed to take to relieve this burden falling on the local ratepayers. I was politely referred to an answer which had been given to the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Major Owen) on the 28th February. I looked up that question and answer and found that the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire had asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would state what proposals the Government had in contemplation for relieving the increasing burden imposed

  1077
  upon local authorities due to additional demands for public assistance. The answer which was vouchsafed to him was that nothing could be added to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman in the course of the Debate on the Financial Resolution introduced for the purposes of the Local Government (General Exchequer Contribution) Bill. The hon. Member for Carnarvonshire persisted in his point, however, and drew attention to the rate increases in his district, and he was then informed by the Parliamentary Secretary that these increases were being considered by the Government in connection with the whole survey of the question. What indication is there in this Bill that the Government intend to come to the aid of these districts in any real sense? Are we to go back to our people and say that there is no hope of the Government doing anything? Perhaps we may have a real answer to that question to-night. In any case I hope the Government will not fob us off once more as we have been fobbed off time and time again in the past.
  8.12 p.m.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The Minister of Health is again, unfortunately for him, on the rack. He travels down the valley of desolation day by day. I do not remember since the War a Minister who has had a more unfortunate experience. So far as I can recollect, up to now he has as Minister of Health contributed nothing to the welfare of his countrymen. In his Health Insurance Bill he deprived them of things, in his Housing Bill he has butchered the housing programmes of the country, and in this Bill there is nothing whatever to his credit. We have had from him and from the Parliamentary Secretary promises. The truth is that the authentic voice of the majority of this House is that of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). He believes in private enterprise. He honestly thinks, in spite of the undoubted influence he has had on this Government, that there is no impulse to economy from the Government. He talked of the social services as trimmings, and when challenged as to what the trimmings were he rode off from the point, but there, behind the Treasury Bench, are the forces which believe that economy is the only way to save the country.
  Mr. PIKE: In the absence of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) I think it is fair to say that he did not ride off when challenged on the question of trimmings. I am in the recollection of the House. He said that many economies in the administration of local affairs could be effected.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: It is not within my recollection or that of my hon. Friends. When challenged for particulars he failed to give them. The right hon. Gentleman, having been driven into the position of practising economy, partly by election policies and partly by pressure from his back benchers, waves the olive branch of promises. He has been making promises ever since he took office. Yesterday he was making promises about the slums. The Parliamentary Secretary today wound up his speech by promises about the depressed areas. He told us that what he was saying was without prejudice to what the Government might do about depressed areas. Jam yesterday, jam to-morrow, never jam to-day. We are told that certain things cannot be considered until the Government have finished their deliberations on the Report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance. A great promise, there, that something may ultimately eventuate. I consider that the Minister is in a more unfortunate position to-day than he has been in before. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, this Bill is routine machinery. The hon. Gentleman who preceded me, corroborating what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), said that this is a two-penny-halfpenny Bill. It is not even a two-penny-halfpenny Bill. What it will add to the resources of local authorities will certainly not work out at anything like 2½. per head of the ratepayers in England and Wales, without including Scotland.
  The first argument which was used by the Parliamentary Secretary in opening the Debate was that it was very difficult, in these straitened financial circumstances, to defend an increase in expenditure. Let it be clear that the Government in this Bill are not adding anything that they could have avoided adding. In a sense it is true that the Bill is routine machinery. No credit is due to the Government from the fact that it is to increase the grant to local autho-

  1079
  rities by £350,000 per year. That was not settled by the Government. The Parliamentary Secretary speaks as though there were some credit due to the Government in carrying out the law. The Government said: "We could not give less than this." Of course, they could not; the law does not permit them to do so. They have done just what the law requires. They have carried out the letter of the law; the pound of flesh exactly, neither more nor less. The fact that they have not given any less is because they could not do it. They have given just what they were bound to give under existing legislation.
  Mr. PIKE: They could have run away.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: One of the chief characteristics of hon. Members opposite is their irrelevancy. The £350,000 is almost exactly what the formula invented by the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer required. The Parliamentary Secretary says that it is difficult in these times to increase that minimum amount. It has been said from these benches to-day that it has been found possible to increase the expenditure on the Fighting Services for the coming financial year, but the vital social services are to have the minimum which the law demands. The Parliamentary Secretary bolsters up his case by saying that the arrangement in 1929 was generous. That was his word. The £5,000,000 per year as an addition, in order to meet the expanding social services, was generous. Let me remind him that the party to which he then belonged did not agree with him. It is within the recollection of many hon. Members that the party to which I belong, and the Liberal party, profoundly disagreed with the view that £5,000,000 was adequate.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: That is what landed us in the cart.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: What an Empire, that can be landed in the cart because of £5,000,000. I will give way to the hon. Member if he wishes to intervene.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: I meant to stand up. There were many other extravagances which caused the debacle of a year ago.
  HON. MEMBERS: Rub it in.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Rubbish.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: It was usual to believe, up to August, 1931, that the increasing economic difficulties of the world were due to the Labour Government, but I thought that the hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Campbell) was now a loyal Member of the National Government, and that since August, 1931, those difficulties have been due to a world crisis. I am so sorry that he is now being disloyal to the speeches that have been made from his own Front Bench. Let me return to the £5,000,000 that is supposed to have broken the Empire. That was generous. We said then that it was not. The Parliamentary Secretary says that the £350,000 at issue is generous, because of the plight in which we are placed. As I have said, the Government would not have given this money if they could have helped it. They have given it because the law says that they must. How generous is it? This point, to which I got no reply when the Money Resolution was in Committee, is one of tremendous importance. Year by year the social services have expanded. When the Local Government Act of 1929 was introduced, it was contemplated that this £5,000,000 would be reconsidered every five years, but hon. Members who now sit on that side of the House were very uncomfortable about that new expenditure, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then Minister of Health, said: "We will have a trial trip of three years, then we will have one of four years, and then we will come to the quinquennial basis." The formula on which the increase of grant is to be based was set out on the assumption that the fixed-grant period was for five years. During the first fixed-grant period of three years, the first and the last years on which the present addition to the £5,000,000 was based, were consecutive years. The first year was 1930–1931, when the rate and grant-borne expenditure was £188,000,000. The second year, the last year but one ending the fixed-grant period, was the immediately-following year, when the rate and grant-borne expenditure was £189,500,000. Suppose there had been a five-year period and that we are at the end of the five years; that £189,500,000 would be several millions more, because of the normal growth of the social services.

  1081
  I say now what I said in 1929, that the three-year period is a swindle on local authorities, and, as regards the next four years, since the calculation is based upon two consecutive years instead of there being a. period of three years between them, the increase in the rate and grant-borne expenditure will be much smaller. Therefore, the £350,000, instead of being generous, is far less than it ought to be. I hope that we shall have some reply to the argument—this is the second time I have put it during these discussions— that the £350,000 is inadequate because the whole principle of the Bill has not yet been brought into play. For the first three experimental years we did not have an opportunity of getting that development over the three-year period between the first and the fourth year of the quinquennial period of the social services.
  The Parliamentary Secretary spoke about the unemployment factor, and we have had one or two speeches about the famous formula. I strongly suspect that neither the Parliamentary Secretary nor the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland understands the formula, but they have made play with the fact that the unemployment factor will operate in a way to assist some of the most distressed areas. The Parliamentary Secretary said that, of this increase of £350,000 per year for the next four years, £145,000, or nearly one-half, will go to three counties and 20 county boroughs where unemployment is most severe. I did not raise the question of the unemployment factor, but I should like some kind of reply as regards the unemployment situation as it now exists.
  I will quote some figures. I dislike quoting figures in the House, but these are figures which ought to be burnt into the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Take the town of Barnsley. Between the end of September, 1931, when the National Government had been in office about a month, and the end of last year, in the county borough of Barnsley the number of people in receipt of Poor Law relief had more than doubled. In the city of Lincoln—an entirely different town—at the end of the same 15 months the number of people on poor relief was two and a-half times higher than it was at the beginning of that period. In the town of Lincoln one-seventh of the whole population was on poor relief. In the city of Liverpool, one-tenth of the popu-
  1082
  lation was on poor relief; in the 15 months from September, 1931, to the end of last year, there was an increase of 50 per cent. in the number of people on poor relief, sustained entirely out of local funds. Manchester showed an increase of 50 per cent.; in the city of Norwich the figure was nearly double, and in the city of Sheffield more than double. One-ninth of the population of one of the greatest cities in the country were on poor relief. In Cardiff, the increase in 15 months in the number of people on poor relief was two and a-half times, and, again, one in 10 of the population was on poor relief.
  These towns have heavy unemployment. In Barnsley, one out of every three insured persons is out of work. In Birkenhead, nearly half the insured population are out of work. In Sheffield, one-third of the insured population are unemployed, and in Cardiff the figure is the same, while in Merthyr Tydvil two-thirds of the insured population are out of work. This sum of £350,000 per year more is regarded as generous, but it does not nearly meet the additional burden cast upon local authorities by the policy of the right hon. Gentleman. In the county of Durham, during the last 12 months, there has been an increase of £100,000 in the expenditure on poor relief. That swallows up nearly a third of the £350,000. In the West Riding of Yorkshire, the county council has had to submit revised estimates amounting to nearly £100,000 for poor relief— another third gone out of the £350,000. In the case of Liverpool, which was quoted by my hon. Friend, the estimates for public assistance during the coming year, when this new formula will begin to operate and when this enormous sum of £350,000 is to be distributed, is over £1,500,000—an increase during the coming year of 1s. 4d. in the pound. The amount which Liverpool estimates it will need in the coming year is nearly £393,000 more, and yet £350,000 is to be provided for the whole of Great Britain. I could continue quoting town after town.
  If these sums are added together, the new burden falling on local authorities because of economic circumstances and because of the niggardly policy of the Government outstrips by hundreds of thousands of pounds the amount that is now going to the local authorities to

  1083
  assist them out of their difficulty. The London County Council—which is not a county council whose opinions I share— has made its budget for the next financial year. Two-thirds of all the money that it raises will go to public assistance, and not one penny of that comes from the Government. I claim that, because of the situation, because of the difficulties of local authorities, which are more hard-pressed even than the Imperial Exchequer in this matter, the giving of the bare minimum allowed by the Act of 1929 is utterly inadequate.
  I turn to a further point. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to de-rating, and he chaffed me by saying that I had ample opportunity to alter it. I reminded him that he has a bigger majority behind him than I had. I might have reminded him that I had a good many other things to do as well. It is no argument to say to a Member of a minority Government, faced with problems of housing and town planning and pensions, that he did not deal with this. Why? Because under the Act of 1929 it was possible, without dealing with the matter of de-rating, under the formula that is now being discussed, to have given far more than the formula prescribed as a minimum. There is no reason whatever why it should have been £350,000. We should have been able, had the House agreed, to be a little more generous to local authorities, especially in view of the plight in which they find themselves at the present time.
  The Parliamentary Secretary made a point about sticking to a bargain. He said that we must stick to the bargain. Of course, we must stick to the bargain. My case against the Government is that they have only just done it. There is not any margin. They have just stuck to the bargain. When the Parliementary Secretary goes on to say there is no feeling in the country among local authorities to go back to the days before the 1929 Act, let me assure him that he is entirely mistaken. He ought to have seen, and the Minister must have seen, a document which the Non-county Boroughs Association have sent him, and to which I understand they have had no reply. It proves conclusively, with facts and figures, that the operation of the 1929 Act is thoroughly unjust, has created
  1084
  enormous anomalies, has not done anything whatever to bring about a equalisation of rate burdens, but has accentuated the difficulties of local authorities, very largely because of the question of roads.
  The Parliamentary Secretary did not say anything about roads, but, in addition to this £5,000,000 for what is regarded as the expansion of the social services, a sum was set aside in the 1929 Act for roads. That sum, based on arithmetical calculations, was fixed 'at £3,000,000. There is no formula here. That £3,000,000 could be increased if the Minister, with the approval of the Treasury, cared to do so. It is still to operate for the next four years, notwithstanding the fact that in the last four years local authorities have been driven to neglect the maintenance of roads, apart, of course, from the general road programme of development, with the result that in certain counties and in certain non-county boroughs the toll for highway rates is higher than that for the maintenance of the poor. In the case of Durham public assistance accounts for 7s. in the pound. In the case of Huntingdon, maintenance of roads amounts to 12s. 6d. in the pound. The effect of all this, as the Non-county Boroughs Association points out, is to impose increasing hardships on local authorities.
  It is no use the Parliamentary Secretary saying that local authorities love the operation of the 1929 Act. They do not. For the second time I have to give the Minister credit for having succeeded in stupefying the local authorities. First, he drove them to hysteria, so that they rushed into economies. Now he has succeeded in stupefying them, and, if they are not making the progress that they ought to do, it is not because they have any love for him or his friends, but because they have been completely demoralised by the policy of the Government. I assume, though argument would not lead me to believe that it should be so, that the Government will get the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a Bill of the meanest possible kind. It holds out no hope to local authorities, who are going through a time of difficulty as great as that of the Government. It does nothing at all for them, indeed it stabilises their impecuniosity and their difficulties for four more years, all based on a false formula, and at the end of

  1085
  four years, as things are now, under the operation of the Bill we shall find that, because of the formula, the local services of the country have been seriously discouraged.
  There is this final point. It is true that one cannot argue de-rating in detail tonight, but one effect of the De-rating Act has been to throw the whole burden of expansion of the social services on to the householder, the shopkeeper and the professional man. We have had again a speech about these derating provisions having been made for all time. That is true, but the point that the House has to consider is that, having deprived local authorities of a very large proportion of their means of revenue, that expansion falls upon those who pay the rates, and that now, when social services are being discouraged, when local authorities are in increasing difficulties because of economic circumstanes, when they are having trebled burdens cast on their shoulders deliberately by the Government, when they are having to face half their revenue going to the maintenance of the poor, if they are to keep their social services during the next four years they can only do it by increasing the burden upon the ordinary householder, the shopkeeper and the struggling professional man.
  The Bill is wrong. The Noble Lord complains, as he did on the Financial Resolution, that it has been introduced before the Budget. The Minister would not have introduced it at all if he could have helped it. He had to do it before 31st March. He had to make legislative provision before the end of March, not because he wanted to do so, but because the present Chancellor of the Exchequer legislated in 1929. I agree with the Noble Lord that this is a problem that has to be considered in relation to the financial resources of the nation. He and I might not agree as to what the financial resources are, but this Bill has nothing whatever to do with the financial resources of the nation. It is, in the immortal words of the Parliamentary Secretary, a routine, machinery Bill, a Bill without a heart, a Bill without a soul, a Bill that gives no hope whatever to local authorities, a Bill that gives the least that it must give under the law of the land, and a Bill which will give, not merely to the old distressed areas but to
  1086
  those which are becoming distressed, no hope for the future. It will get its Second Reading. Unfortunately, I cannot help that. If I could prevent it I would. I am sorry, not because of any defeat of my hon. Friends in the House, but because of the discouragement that it will bring to struggling areas and because of the increasing burdens falling on their backs. They did at least hope, having rallied to the national cause 18 months ago, that the National Government would do something to assist them in their difficulties. There is no hope for them now apart from a change of Government.
  8.44 p.m.
  Sir H. YOUNG: The right hon. Gentleman began with some words which in intention were hard. It would be waste of time for me to reply in kind, because I believe him to be quite impregnable in the armour of his own self esteem. He seems to have erected an idol of his own imagination—the idol of his own tenure of office. He sits and worships in a temple of his imagination. We do not grudge him the innocent amusement, because in that temple he is the only worshipper. Let me test some of the logic and accuracy of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman because in the greater part of his speech he made use of an extremely familiar device. He described all the well-known and acknowledged evils of the country, and he said that the remedy was not to be found in the Bill. Nobody ever suggested that the remedy was to be found in the Bill. It is not a part of the mental make-up of the party of which I have the honour to be a member or of the Government to which I have the honour to belong to try and delude the country into believing that the remedy for all those evils can be found in a single Bill. The Bill is devoted to a minor and specific purpose. The very rhetorical effort on the part of the right hon. Gentleman was most misleading in the effect it might have upon the House, and it is an effect which I should like to try to remove. He was constantly referring in derision to the circumstance of the Government's making provision for only £350,000 for the distressed areas. Did he, in the vulgar phrase, expect to get away With that? He could only do so with someone who had not read the Bill

  1087
  and was quite unacquainted with the legislation within its province. The amount which will be distributed subject to the unemployment factor is £15,000,000, and the total amount which has been voted is over £44,000,000.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: New money?
  Sir H. YOUNG: The new money is £5,350,000.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: No, the new money is £350,000.
  Sir H. YOUNG: The right hon. Gentleman, in talking about new money, has forgotten what passed when he was administering the Measure.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The new money under the 1929 Act was £5,000,000 per year for the first three years. It is now to be £5,350,000 for another four years, an increase of £350,000. That is all that I have said.
  Sir H. YOUNG: I am glad that I have induced the right hon. Gentleman to spring the amount up to £5,000,000, and if he gets upon his legs again I may be able to get him up to a completely accurate amount. I should like to refer to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman more in detail and clear it away, but I think that it is rather an example of the slow vision which I have observed at times in his observation. He protests that justice is not done in the recalculation of new money because of the shortness of the grant period and because 1930–31 and 1931–32 are only one year apart owing to the fact that the first grant period was only three years. If anyone makes a mistake in logic he is sure to be found out. The first mistake is that the sooner the recalculation takes place the sooner the distressed areas will benefit by an increase in the grant. Let me deal with the mistake in fact. The right hon. Gentleman has not informed himself—possibly he had not the means of informing himself of the fact—that the expenditure of local authorities is not increasing. If he were to wait any longer there is no reason to suppose that there would be any increase in the amount of this new money. Such are some of the errors, large and small, which, in logic and in fact, I detected
  1088
  during my careful attention to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman.
  As was inevitable, the Debate has covered a wide ground, and I think that it is very desirable that it should have done so, because of the very wide considerations which underlie what is quite rightly described by the Parliamentary Secretary as a Measure small in scope and really routine in its operations in the sense that it has to come up at a certain time and also has to do things in a certain manner prescribed by the Act of 1929. As on the first occasion, and also very naturally, there were two currents of opinion, the current of opinion of those who wanted more scope, and the current of opinion of those who wanted less scope. It is very far from being my intention to take advantage of the course so kindly suggested to me by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and say that the one argument outbalanced the other and that I might be content to escape by walking off in the middle. Not at all. I should like to deal with both of those arguments to the best of my ability.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) was most agreeable in form but most dangerous in substance. It was, I think, a shining example of the essential fallacy of the Socialist party that all you need to do in order to improve matters is to spend more money regardless of how you spend it or what you spend it upon. The plea of the hon. Member was really nothing more than a plea for larger expenditure, and he measured the merits of the Bill by the amount of money it provided without regarding the objects of the expenditure. That, as is well known, is not the principle which we follow. The word "generosity" has been used very often in these Debates. I do not think that it is so much a matter of generosity which we have to have under consideration. We are simply thinking of the amount of public money which, in very hard times, it is necessary to devote to some essential purposes. We look at it from a commonsense and business point of view, and, I trust, free from some of the more emotional aspects introduced into the Debate to-day.
  The chief contention, as I understood it, of those who complain of the inadequate provisions of the Bill was that

  1089
  new burdens had been cast upon the local authorities by the action of the Government, and so the Government ought to provide means to meet them. Let us get the situation into perspective. Broadly speaking, that is not true. Nobody disputes that there are heavy new burdens cast upon the local authorities. We know that to be the fact. Many of the figures which have been produced are perfectly accurate. But it is not the case that more than a very small portion of those new burdens is due to the action of the Government. It is due, in the first place, simply and solely to the fact that the country is passing through very bad times, and local authorities are feeling the pinch of those bad times just as much as the central Government. That is responsible for the greater part of the new burdens of which we have heard. The means test is not responsible for any of those burdens. There has been a certain amount of misapprehension about that, but I think that the position will have been made clear now. If, by reason of the means test, a man is not qualified for transitional payment he is not qualified for poor relief either, so that the means test has not had the effect of increasing the burdens at all.
  It is said that the increase in the burden of the Poor Law is due to the disallowances of courts of referees, and there has been some such increase in the burden in the past. What we observe now is that one encouraging circumstance, from the point of view of Poor Law relief, is the rate at which the disallowances are being made. They have passed the peak and are now falling off. There is another influence which is at work, undoubtedly, in increasing the burden of poor relief at the present time, and it is simply the difficulty of maintaining high standards of administration under the pressure of the bad times. We have to look to the local authorities for assistance in the maintenance of high standards in order to assist the nation in its need. If it be, and I think it can be proved to be, that the burden of bad times causes these increasing difficulties, we are forced to the conclusion that the difficulties to be faced are on the same basis as these which have always faced the local authorities in the past. There has been no new call upon them although the call may be more severe in quantity than in the past, but actually, in quality
  1090
  and in nature it is on no more difficult a basis than it has been in the past.
  One must get a true perspective of this matter and in order to get a true perspective let me glance at the other side of the picture and refer to certain helps that have been given recently through the action of the Central Government for the benefit of the local authorities. First, there was the new money itself, the £5,000,000 which came in 1929, the equivalent of a 5d. rate over the whole country. That is a very important aid. It must not be forgotten when we are thinking of what is the right distribution of burdens between the National and the local purse. Let me remind the House of the enormous step that was taken when we accepted the liability for the National purse that the whole of the transitional payments should be met by the Exchequer. That did not relieve the local authorities of any burden which had fallen on them before but it relieved them of an enormous apprehension for the future. It relieved them finally, once and for all of that charge and established the position that the liability for transitional payments rested on the Exchequer alone, a most important fortification of the financial position of the local authorities.
  Finally, we come from the larger things to the smaller ones. There is the financial help given in this Bill. I have never suggested that it is a big help, because it is not. It is a comparatively small help, but it gives something substantial if you consider the distressed areas and that the new help of £350,000, under the Bill, owing to its being distributed on the basis of the formula, is particularly available for the distressed areas. I pointed out that it would give that assistance when we were dealing with the Financial Resolution. One town, West Hartlepool, stands to gain to the extent of a 7½d. rate from this new money and Sunderland will gain 6.2d., and so on in smaller amounts.
  Mr. BATEY: What is the figure for Durham County?
  Sir H, YOUNG: I have not the figure by me. I am afraid that nothing would satisfy those who have spoken for the distressed areas to-day. They have however got considerable assistance. Let me deal with, one case which has been put vigorously, the case of the County of Glamorgan and the position in respect

  1091
  of its old loans. I gave the only answer which it is possible for a responsible Minister to give when that matter came up on the Financial Resolution, but since the matter has been referred to again, in order to get it in true perspective I would remind the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams) that, in respect of the mitigation of its outstanding loans, Glamorgan is already enjoying, under Section 114 of the Act of 1929, a benefit of a capitalised value of £176,000. One must have regard not only to what one would like to get in the future but what one has got in the past, and that applies all through, these calculations.
  There is one phrase or word in the Amendment against which I most vigorously protest and that is the word "bankruptcy." It is not true and it is monstrous to use the word bankruptcy in connection with the cities and towns of this country. I am sure that it was an inadvertant phrase but let us see how far this reckless phraseology can be carried. I would refer to what was said by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) today. He said that every city is on the brink of bankruptcy. That is not true and such a saying ought not to be allowed to go out from this House without the most effective and thorough protest. Our cities are financially sound and they are, entitled to the high credit which they enjoy in the world and it is doing a very false service to the cause of the country and the cause of the local government and the cause of the cities themselves, including the cities which the hon. Members concerned represent, to allow so complete a misrepresentation of their position to be circulated.
  Mr. LOGAN: I definitely make the statement that so far as Liverpool is concerned on the figures that I have supplied that that is the position of Liverpool from the Tory point of view and not from the point of view of this bench. The right hon. Gentleman had better study the figures.
  Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member's statement now does not cover the point. What I protest against is not any figures used in connection with Liverpool, which I have had no opportunity to check, but
  1092
  what I protest against is the statement that every city is on the brink of bankruptcy to-day.
  Mr. LOGAN: I maintain it.
  Sir H. YOUNG: I submit that it is not true.
  Mr. LOGAN: If the Minister makes a statement in this House and says that when an hon. Member makes a statement in regard to accountancy figures that despite those figures, what he says is untrue, then I say that the figures I have given to-day prove that so far as the cities that have been quoted are concerned they are on the point of bankruptcy and I defy any Member of this House in regard to the figures I have produced, to prove otherwise.
  Sir H. YOUNG: I desire to give such authority as I can to an emphatic and deliberate statement in this House that the use of the word "bankruptcy" in connection with any city in this country was unwarranted. Let me turn from that side of the argument to deal with the other side of the argument which has been presented by those who say that less money should be spent. That argument was led by the noble Lord the right hon. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy). Let me make it perfectly clear that the introduction, and I hope the passage, of this Bill will have no effect in checking or damping down any effort for reasoned, ordered and scientific economy in local administration which it is the task of this Government as it is that of every Government to perform. In that regard we have received valuable assistance from the inquiry made by capable persons under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray) and full use will be made of their report by the Government and the Ministry of Health in particular in securing the highest possible standards of administration in all the matters referred to in the report.
  The noble Lord complained that we are introducing a Bill to provide for a fixed sum over a period of years. That is the very basis of a system of block grants. Block grants were introduced in 1929, after the utmost deliberation by this House, for the express purpose of securing reasoned economy. The system of block grants was considered then, and

  1093
  should be considered now, as one of the most efficient methods of securing economy in local administration. He referred to the percentage grant system, which, I think, he really preferred. The block grant system has this great advantage, that it gives a stated income to local authorities over a period of years and enables them to make reasoned and ordered plans for expenditure. Both these things are absolutely vital to good financial administration, and I believe the Noble Lord, on reconsideration, will find that the system of a fixed block grant over a number of years is really the foundation stone of good and economical administration by local authorities. May I put to him this point that a fixed block grant over a period of years by no means prevents or hinders a continuous effort for economy. Such an effort ought to be part of the normal work of all local authorities and of every Minister of Health, and there is every motive for local authorities to make this effort under a block grant system. In order to finance local developments local authorities must economise in order to make the best use of the grant and, therefore, you have the strongest motives for economy under the block grant system.
  The Noble Lord asked me to expound the policy of the Government in this Bill in relation to the Budget. The constitutional answer, which would apply to any expenditure proposed to the House of Commons at this time of the year, is that the expenditure provided for in this Bill will come up in due course in the Estimate to be presented to the House, and when it is presented there is the implied declaration of the Government that the expenditure proposed is essential for national purposes, and that in due course the Government will ask the House of Commons in Committee of Ways and Means to provide the finance to meet the expenditure. That is what is to be said of the Government's policy in regard to such expenditure when it comes forward in the preliminary stage of a Bill; when it comes forward as an Estimate the Estimate will contain the policy of the Government in relation to the expenditure.
  Mr. LOGAN: In regard to the four years, suppose the Government find some difficulty, is there any possible chance of the policy being reconsidered?
  Sir H. YOUNG: In the few remaining words I have to say the hon. Member will probably find that I shall cover that particular point. Let me turn to the subject of the depressed areas. Occasions such as this, which enable the great difficulties of these areas to be ventilated by those who are best informed about them, are of the greatest possible value to the Government. I have already pointed out that the Bill will bring some help to depressed areas and I have given figures in relation to one or two towns to illustrate the effect of the provision we are making. Let me point out again that we are not in this Bill dealing with the distribution of the money; we are only dealing with the total amount. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Sir R. Aske) asked several questions on this subject. Probably he was not present when I dealt with the Financial Resolution, because I answered his points on that occasion. Let me answer them again. An undertaking was given by me on behalf of the Government that we would advance the recalculation of the distribution of the block grant, and undertake it at once, in order to see how in the second block grant period it would work out as regards the depressed areas. I gave my undertaking then that when these calculations were finished I would enter into negotiations with the representatives of local authorities to discuss the basis of the distribution, as to whether it was working fairly or whether there should be some alteration of the basis in the interests of depressed areas. The fact that we do not deal with distribution in this Bill is without prejudice to these investigations and negotiations. I have said that they are in active progress, and I shall continue them until they are concluded.
  I mentioned on a previous occasion, and I must mention it again, that a new circumstance has arisen in the Report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance. That report has made sweeping recommendations which go all over this region of financial responsibility, and I must point out to the House that any conclusions come to may be affected by the conclusions on the larger matters in the Report of the Royal Commission. The Debate has taken a wide sweep, and it is useful that it should have done so; but, on the other hand, the scope of the Bill is small. I believe

  1095
  the House will come to the conclusion that in acting as they have, and in following the strict letter of the guarantee given to local authorities in 1929, the Government have done what is demanded in justice to local authorities, on the one hand, not to break the guarantee, and in justice to the taxpayer and
  ratepayer, on the other hand, not to increase the provision of public money at the present time beyond what is essential in the national interest.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 259; Noes, 45.

  Division No. 71.]

  AYES.

  [9.14 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

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

  Ford, Sir Patrick J.

  McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

  Forestler-Walker, Sir Leolln

  McKeag, William

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

  Fox, Sir Gifford

  McKie, John Hamilton

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Fuller, Captain A. G.

  Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  McLean, Major Sir Alan

  Atkinson, Cyril

  Gibson, Charles Granville

  McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

  Baldwin, Bt. Hon. Stanley

  Gillett, Sir George Masterman

  Magnay, Thomas

  Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

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

  Maitland, Adam

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

  Balniel, Lord

  Goff, Sir Park

  Mallallew, Edward Lancelot

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

  Gower, Sir Robert

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

  Bateman, A. L.

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

  Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

  Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Martin, Thomas B.

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

  Greene, William P. C.

  Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Sklpton)

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

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

  Boulton, W. W.

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

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

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

  Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

  Guy, J. C. Morrison

  Milne, Charles

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Hales, Harold K.

  Mitcheson, G. G.

  Brockiebank, C. E. R.

  Hanley, Dennis A.

  Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

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

  Harbord, Arthur

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

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Hartland, George A.

  Moreing, Adrian C.

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

  Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

  Morgan, Robert H.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

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

  Burghley, Lord

  Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)

  Morrison, William Shepherd

  Burnett, John George

  Hepworth, Joseph

  Muirhead, Major A. J.

  Butler, Richard Austen

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Munro, Patrick

  Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G

  Nail, Sir Joseph

  Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

  Holdsworth, Herbert

  Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

  Caporn, Arthur Cecil

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

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

  Castle Stewart, Earl

  Hopkinson, Austin

  Nunn, William

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

  O'Donovan, Dr. William James

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Hornby, Frank

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Christie, James Archibald

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Patrick, Colin M.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

  Pearson, William G.

  Clayton, Dr. George C.

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

  Penny, Sir George

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hurd, Sir Percy

  Perkins, Walter R. D.

  Conant. R. J. E.

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

  Peters, Dr. Sidney John

  Cook, Thomas A.

  Iveagh, Countess of

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

  Cooke, Douglas

  Jamieson, Douglas

  Pike, Cecil F.

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Janner, Barnett

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

  Copeland, Ida

  Jennings, Roland

  Procter, Major Henry Adam

  Courtauld, Major John Sewell

  Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

  Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

  Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

  Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

  Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

  Craven-Ellis, William

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

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

  Crooke, J. Smedley

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

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

  Ker, J. Campbell

  Ramsbotham, Herwald

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

  Ramsden, Sir Eugene

  Cross, R. H.

  Kimball, Lawrence

  Rankin, Robert

  Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

  Kirkpatrick, William M.

  Ratcliffe, Arthur

  Curry, A. C.

  Knight, Holford

  Ray, Sir William

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

  Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Lees-Jones, John

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

  Dickle, John P.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Remer, John R.

  Drewe, Cedrie

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

  Duckworth, George A. V.

  Levy, Thomas

  Renwick, Major Gustav A.

  Dunglass, Lord

  Liddall, Walter S.

  Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

  Eastwood, John Francis

  Lindsay, Noel Ker

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

  Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

  Rosbotham, Sir Samuel

  Elliston, Captain George Sampson

  Liewellin, Major John J.

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Eimley, Viscount

  Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

  Runge, Norah Cecil

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

  Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

  Ersklne, Lord (Wesfon-super-Mare)

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

  Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

  Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

  MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

  Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

  Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Salmon, Sir Isidore

  Salt, Edward W.

  Stevenson, James

  Wayland, Sir William A.

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

  Stones, James

  Wedderburn, Henry James Serymgeour-

  Samuel, Samuel (W'diworth, Putney)

  Storey, Samuel

  Wells, Sydney Richard

  Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

  Stourton, Hon. John J.

  Whiteslde, Borras Noel H.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

  Strauss, Edward A.

  Whyte, Jardine Bell

  Selley, Harry R.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Sutcliffe, Harold

  Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Templeton, William P.

  Wills, Wilfrid D.

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

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

  Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

  Skelton, Archibald Noel

  Thomas, James P. L. (Hertford)

  Windson-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

  Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Somervell, Donald Bradley

  Thorp, Linton Theodore

  Womeraley, Walter James

  Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

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

  Wood, Sir Murdech McKenzie (Banff)

  Somerville. D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Touche, Gordon Cosmo

  Worthington, Dr. John V.

  Soper, Richard

  Train, John

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

  Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

  Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

  Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Spencer, Captain Richard A.

  Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

  Captain Austin Hudson and Mr.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

  Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

  Blindell.

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

  Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

  NOES.

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Macdanald, Gordon (Ince)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  Banfield, John William

  Grenfell, David Reel (Glamorgan)

  McGovern, John

  Batey, Joseph

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Maxton, James

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

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

  Milner, Major James

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

  Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Parkinson, John Allan

  Buchanan, George

  Hicks, Ernest George

  Price, Gabriel

  Cape, Thomas

  Hirst, George Henry

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Cove, William G.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Kirkwood, David

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Dagger, George

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

  Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

  Lawson, John James

  Williams Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Leonard, William

  Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)

  Dobble, William

  Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

  Edwards, Charles

  Logan, David Gilbert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

  Lunn, William

  Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Thursday.—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

  INDIAN PAY (TEMPORARY ABATEMENTS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1932.
    CLASS II.

      DOMINION SERVICES.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      " That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £166,570, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for sundry Dominion Services, including certain Grants in Aid, and for expenditure in connection with Ex-Service Men in the Irish Free State, and for a Grant in Aid to the
      1098
      Irish Free State in respect of Compensation to Transferred Officers."
      9.25 p.m.
      The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): Happily this is in the same category as the last Order which went through, being non-contentious and non-controversial. This is a Supplementary Estimate which is entirely accounted for by a new subhead for a grant-in-aid for Newfoundland. The House will be well aware that following the economic difficulties of the world, our Dominions were naturally and obviously affected like everyone else, and no Dominion was more affected than the oldest of our Dominions, Newfoundland. For reasons into which I need not go, they found themselves in a very difficult position in 1931, and very wisely they sent to this country and said, "Here is a very serious state of affairs. We want your help and co-operation." We gave them the assistance of a financial adviser, but, in spite of all the recommendations and economies effected in 1931, they found themselves in December, 1932, entirely unable to meet their commitments which were due in January— commitments not only to this country, to themselves and Canada, but commit-

      1099
      ments outside the United Kingdom and the Empire.
      The matter received our immediate attention and we took, shortly, this view, that whatever might be the reasons or causes, a default by one of our own Dominions would be a very bad thing, especially when we knew that it was due to circumstances over which they had no control. The Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Bennett, happened to be in this country at the time. Canada was, and is, vitally interested in the position and the future of Newfoundland. It would naturally be affected by the default of a fellow-Dominion. It would be affected because of the close proximity and connection between Newfoundland and Canada, and also because of the financial interests between the two Dominions. As a result of the discussions that took place, the Prime Minister of Canada agreed with us that it would be a very bad thing at that time and for the reasons I have already given, for a default to take place. I think I am entitled to pay tribute to the Canadian Prime Minister and to the Canadian Government for so readily responding. The result was that we sought to arrive at an agreement whereby, jointly, we were prepared to meet the 'situation at once, and prevent a default that would have occurred in January.
      But it would be unfair and unwise for me not to explain to the House that we were not only taking an unprecedented step but a step that naturally might have repercussions. The result was that we decided, not on our own, but after consultation and agreement with the Newfoundland Government, that we could not let the position merely rest there. It was agreed between Canada, Newfoundland and ourselves that we should appoint a Commission at once to proceed to Newfoundland to investigate the whole situation. The reason for that was that the next payment would be due in June, and the object of the Commission would be to review the situation on the spot in consultation with the Newfoundland Government and their representatives, take all the evidence necessary and report to us as to their findings on the whole situation so that the matter could be reviewed before the next payment was due in June. I have already explained to the House the appointment
      1100
      and personnel of that Commission. They are at this moment en route for Newfoundland. They will apply themselves immediately to the situation and their instructions are to report in time for us to consider the situation before June.
      Therefore, in presenting this Estimate to the House I make no apology for the action of the Government. Everyone who gives a moment's consideration not only to the situation then but to the situation to-day will come to the conclusion that it would have been a very bad thing, it would have reflected against us and would not have tended either to the unity or strength of the British Commonwealth which we all desire, if in an emergency of this kind we had failed to respond to the appeal which was made. It was because of all those circumstances and for the reasons I have given that the Government arrived at this decision, and we now ask the House, by passing this Estimate, to confirm the action we took.
      9.35 p.m.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: I rise only for the purpose of asking one or two questions which, no doubt, the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, with his usual courtesy, will answer. I should like to ask, for how much is Canada responsible? I notice that the right hon. Gentleman stated that Canada had come into the agreement, but he did not say if Canada was taking any responsibility and if so, what was the sum for which she was responsible.
      Mr. THOMAS: Fifty-fifty.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: Thank you, I thought the answer would be in terms like that. The second point which I wish to raise is this. There is no use in trying to skate over the fact that there has been, among a great section of the population in Newfoundland, to put it no higher, grave uneasiness. Everybody knows that that uneasiness has found expression in many ways. There may have been cause for the uneasiness or there may not but we must all agree that in a colony, which is not very large, a thing like this would cause uneasiness. I presume that that is one of the reasons why a commission has been appointed— in order to report on this subject and help to put matters on a proper footing.

      1101
      Has this commission power to investigate what happened in the past and what caused a situation which almost amounts to default, if we along with Canada do not go to the rescue of Newfoundland Has the commission power to examine the past actions and conduct of those in control of Newfoundland affairs?
      Far be it from me to claim to be an authority on Colonial matters. I am always content to be a student of those things but there is at least this to go upon—that among certain people there is a feeling that if things had been properly managed this question would not have arisen now and there would be no need to go to the rescue of New-foundland. Are there any limitations placed on the commission? Is it to find out where this default arose and what was the cause, whether any persons were directly responsible or whether it was merely the outcome of economic conditions and world trade conditions over which Newfoundland had no control? It may be that the latter is the case but it would be well for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us exactly what are the powers of the commission.
      Naturally we do not object to helping Newfoundland or any other Dominion if such help is required but it is only natural that people at home should point out that they also need loans. I am not in favour of putting any barriers between this country and Newfoundland or indeed any part of the world but naturally people here say "we need help also." Yet people at home see the Government embarking on Austrian loans and Newfoundland loans. They see that the House of Commons passes these loans almost unchallenged while there is great need for assistance at home. I was recently in a mining area which is suffering acute distress, which is, indeed, in a pitiable state because the people there are working and yet have to put up with shocking conditions. People there ask how it is that the Government can find money for Austria and Newfoundland and for various other purposes yet when loans are asked for essential objects they are refused.
      Only to-day I heard of a town which was asking for a loan to carry out certain desirable works, works to which no one could take exception, and one of the town councillors, a Conservative, writes
      1102
      to me to this effect: "How is it that this town is refused a loan of £25,000 for the improvement of the town, and yet the Government can make loans to Newfoundland and elsewhere?" I do not say that the Newfoundland loan will not come back. I think that anything which is given to another human being even in a foreign country comes back in some form or another. On the other hand these questions to which I have referred are raised in the people's minds by such proposals as this. The Government take credit for and indeed glory in making a loan of this kind and yet they also glory in refusing loans to towns within our own borders for equally estimable purposes. I hope therefore that the right hon. Gentleman will state what limitations if any have been placed on this Commission; whether they will have power to send for documents and witnesses and find out what has happened in the past and whether they will in due course present their report to this House and to the Canadian Parliament in order that Members may know the exact position.
      9.43 p.m.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not like to offer opposition to the large-hearted generosity whether of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs or the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). We are all only too anxious to give money to everybody. At the same time we ought to see where we are going. This is only a matter of £166,000, a mere bagatelle, although, I think, there are not 166,000 people there. But this only represents a half year's interest. How long is it going on? Will the Government not be faced next June with precisely the same difficulty—the difficulty with which America, next door to Newfoundland, is being faced? How long is the generosity which has been lauded here going to continue? Is this to be a permanent additional charge on the British taxpayer of £332,000 a year?
      This is a deadly precedent. What you have done for Newfoundland are you also going to do for the other Dominions? Australia is a heavier borrower than even Newfoundland. Then, there is Canada or, to come to a place where we have even greater responsibilities, there is Kenya. There

      1103
      are large loans, rising, I think, to £10,000,000. That is a Crown Colony governed from here. They raised the money on their own security. Are we liable? Are we to take a liability on our shoulders by this precedent which may run into hundreds of millions of pounds The real difficulty is this: Now that you have done this for the Newfoundland loan, everybody who has invested money in that loan immediately says: "Well, now the British Government is behind it, I can afford to stick to my loan." I do not know what the price was down at, but let us say 50, and it bounds up to 75, all on the strength of the Government guarantee. If this is to be a precedent for other Dominions as well, think of the effect, over all the loans of our Dominions, on the price at which those loans will stand. It is more than that. If we are to guarantee all loans raised by British Dominions, every one of them could have raised their money much cheaper than at the present time. The investor in those loans bought without the British guarantee. Are you now going to make him a present, a valuable financial present, which will increase the value of his security in some cases out of all reason?
      Really, the right hon. Gentleman must have thought of all these questions before. It must have been present in his mind when this loan to Newfoundland came up, and I cannot help thinking that he and the Treasury have been jumped into this through the co-operation of Canada. Bennett was at it again. I mean to say that Mr. Bennett was naturally a moving spirit in this matter. But let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the positions of Canada and ourselves vis-a-vis any loan to Newfoundland are very different indeed. He knows that under a recent arbitration award Newfoundland has added to its territory an infinitely larger territory in Labrador. The arbitration award cut away a large part of what was previously considered to be Canadian territory and transferred it to Newfoundland. The Canadians are naturally anxious to get back that territory, which is always held to be rich in minerals, timber resources, and so on. They make an advance, fifty-fifty, of £333,000 in a year, but they have security.
      1104
      I do not think that this is a good precedent to make in any case, and I hope we shall be told that it is not to be taken as a precedent of any kind, but I think it was unfortunate that we made it in connection with Newfoundland. The Government of Newfoundland has not been above criticism. It is not a very good advertisement of British rule, and I think the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs ought to contemplate, as no doubt he will when his commission reports, the possibility of putting Newfoundland back in the position of a Crown Colony and administering it by this House.
      The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that would involve legislation.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: It certainly would involve legislation, but we have to consider what the position of the Government will be when it is asked to find another £166,000 only three months hence. How much longer are we to go on paying? If we have control of the taxation and of the expenditure of a place, we can afford to lend money there, but we cannot afford to lend money to Newfoundland if the administration of that Colony by its politicians is to continue in future as in the past. Canada can. They have security. We cannot. I think the House should consider very carefully the whole principle of this idea of guaranteeing loans that have been raised by our Dominions. It is presenting money to the bondholders in the capital appreciation of the value of their bonds, and it is a liability upon the taxpayers of this country which this country is really unable to meet.
      9.50 p.m.
      Mr. DAVID MASON: I agree that we must be careful in lending money to anyone, but it is not right to call this a guarantee. It is a Grant-in-aid, and I think it is right and proper. This is a, time when we are suffering in all parts of the world, and if we are able, by nursing certain debtors who are in distress, to save what we have already lent, that is surely the part of wisdom rather than of recklessness. This is a Grant-in-aid to avoid default.
      Mr. McGOVERN: To pay to the moneylenders.
      Mr. MASON: No, but to help Newfoundland to maintain its credit. If other people have already lent considerable sums to Newfoundland and other parts of the British Dominions, is it not wise finance to nurse these people, who in the present depression need to be brought back to solvency? Does not that benefit every class, whether the capitalist or the working class? If we suffer great losses all over the Empire, will not all classes be affected? I think this is a wise measure, and it has been defended in moderate language by the Secretary of State for the Dominions. I see it is stated that the terms of the loan and replacement of the advance will be determined in the light of the report of the commission which is about to visit Newfoundland. Might I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be very wise—because I agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend opposite that we should not be reckless in making advances to anyone without provision for repayment—that there should be a very stringent sinking fund provided? It would be quite in order for us to instruct the right hon. Gentleman and for him to instruct this commission that there should be a very stringent sinking fund, so that my right hon. Friend would be assured that the money will be repaid.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: How about Turkey?
      Mr. MASON: We are discussing Newfoundland at the moment. I hope my right hon. Friend will bear that in mind. I wish him well and hope the money will be well spent.
      Mr. MAXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not going to reply?
      9.34 p.m.
      Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I will answer the questions submitted to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and others. There is no connection whatever between the situation arising out of our action and the dispute which took place 12 months ago in Newfoundland. Last year the Government were asked to intervene, and the dispute to which the hon. Member referred took place nearly 12 months ago. In any case, I assure the hon. Member that the commission are free to investigate the whole circumstances responsible for the present
      1106
      financial position and to make recommendations. The hon. Member then asked what were the real causes that brought about this loan. There is a confusion, for this is not a loan in the sense in which it has been described. It was an action on our part to enable Newfoundland to meet their obligations and interest under a loan. The reason is simple. There are two primary industries in Newfoundland—cod liver oil and iron ore. The depression in the rest of the world found Newfoundland in the position that they were unable to sell the ore which bad found employment for large numbers of their people. That was aggravated by the depression which also hit their other industry. In all fairness to the people of Newfoundland, I am able to say from all the information I have that no body of people has struggled harder than these people under very difficult circumstances. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) said that in his view Newfoundland ought to revert to a Crown colony—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I stopped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman discussing that question, because it cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply.
      Mr. THOMAS: I was only going to observe that I could not answer my right hon. and gallant Friend's question, for I did not want him to feel that I was discourteous by not referring to it. In reply to another question of my hon. Friend below the Gangway, the commission are entrusted with the responsibility of investigating not only the whole circumstances, but what in their view ought to be the future position. In answer to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, I assure him straight away that this must not be taken as a precedent. I want to make it clear that if it were assumed for a moment that the action which we took in the circumstances which I have already described implied an obligation to meet similar circumstances in any other Dominion, it would be a position which we could not for a moment undertake. I give that assurance right away. I also assure the House that the position will be considered in the light of the circumstances which arise from the commission's investigations. It is not true to say that the position of Labrador

      1107
      is in any way prejudiced. The commission are not instructed to look at the position of Labrador or of Canada in relation to Labrador. They are instructed to investigate the whole circumstances and report to the Government, and I am sure that the House on reflection will agree that, faced as we were in December with this crisis, and a situation which in the circumstances would have proclaimed to the world that for the first time one of the oldest of our Dominions had defaulted, there would have been many Members in the House who would have asked, "What steps did you take to meet the situation?" We took the only steps open to us to meet the situation. It is not to be taken as a precedent in any way, I hope that it will never be necessary to repeat it, and that as a result of the investigation of the commission we will reach a stage that will be satisfactory to everybody.
      10.0 p.m.
      Mr. MAXTON: The statement of the right hon. Gentleman is a very adequate one. He assures us that this will not be taken as a precedent for other parts of the British- Dominions. I want his definite assurance that, should the result of the investigation about to take place show that the position of Newfoundland in December, 1933, was no better than it was in December, 1932, we shall not be asked to continue this for another year.
      Mr. THOMAS: I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance right away that when the report of the Commission is received and has been considered by the Government, the House will have an opportunity of seeing the recommendations and will be able to judge then what ought to be done in the circumstances.
      Mr. MAXTON: That is certainly very satisfactory. The only other thing is that I hope the right hon. Gentleman understood, and meant us to understand, that we have not committed ourselves in the survey of the situation as it will be put to us in the report. I do not follow the markets in the way that the right hon. Gentleman does, but I can see no reason to expect that the cod liver oil market in 1933 will be much better 'than it was in 1932.
      Mr. THOMAS: If it is castor oil, it will be.
      Mr. MAXTON: The right hon. Gentleman is thinking of a different part of the Dominions. I do not know anything that is likely to make Newfoundland's iron ore a more marketable commodity in 1933 than it was in 1932. Therefore, I do not want to be called upon next year at this time to repeat the £160,000 grant to Newfoundland. I am told that it is £320,000. I am afraid, therefore, that I shall have to make a speech. I understand that the total payment was £600,000, half to be borne by Canada and a similar amount by this country.
      Mr. THOMAS: That is not true. It would be true if a similar circumstance arose in June, but I explained clearly to the House that I expected to receive the report before June, and therefore the £160,000 addition need not arise until then. I explained that to the hon. Member for Gorbals, and I thought that his Leader understood it.
      Mr. MAXTON: I have had the opportunity of consulting with my associates. We work rather as a Soviet than as a Cabinet. I thought I understood fairly well, but the right hon. Gentleman now lets me understand that we must make another decision on this matter before June. Is it his attitude that we as a country are not going to pay any more to keep up Newfoundland's financial reputation in the eyes of the world, that if in June they are unable to meet charges which they have undertaken to meet Newfoundland's external debt will just have to flop? Do I understand that that is the position? It is no good the right hon. Gentleman assuring the right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway that this is not to form a precedent. If Newfoundland is to be allowed to flop financially in June it seems to me that it would have been better to let her go now. I am inclined to think this commitment was entered into in a very lighthearted way. All of us know the generous and sporting nature of the Dominions Secretary. We know that he is always ready to do a kindly act, always ready to take a sporting risk, and I think that in this matter he has committed us very much in that spirit. He has done a generous act which is a very, very sporting risk indeed, and he knows from long experi-

      1109
      ence that the losers crop up more frequently than the winners.
      The final point I wish to make is this. It seems to me that his generosity of spirit towards the Dominions increases with the distance that they are away from our own shores. The further away they are and the less valuable properties they are the more he is concerned to maintain their reputation in the eyes of the world. Had he adopted the same spirit of generosity towards our nearest Dominion as he is adopting towards this one I, for one, would have been much more ready to give him ungrudgingly a free hand to help this colony to maintain itself and carry itself through its difficulties.
      Resolution to be reported upon Thursday; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

  VISITING FORCES (BRITISH COMMONWEALTH) BILL [Lords.]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
  VISITING FORCES (BRITISH COMMONWEALTH) BILL [Lords.]

    CLAUSE 1.—(Provision with respect to the discipline and internal administration of visiting forces.)
    10.10 p.m.
    Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, after the word "proceedings," to insert the words:
    " other than proceedings instituted by writ of habeas corpus."
    The question raised by this Amendment standing in the name of myself and some other hon. Members has already been discussed in this House and another place, and is one which I regard as of the most profound importance. The Bill in its first Clause makes provision with respect to the discipline and internal administration of military, naval or air forces which may come to this country from the Dominions. The object of Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 is to take away from the courts in this country any power whatsoever of reviewing any of the proceedings of those courts-martial or of reviewing the circumstances under which any prisoner remains in prison as the result of a sentence by such court-martial. The reason for inserting the Amendment is to preserve what has hitherto been con-
    1110
    sidered to be the inalienable right of every person in this country to challenge the cause for their imprisonment. The clause as it stands is presumably designed particularly to take away that right which at present exists. The writ of Habeas Corpus, as all hon. Members know, is a very ancient prerogative writ which was devised for the defence of the liberty of the subject. It has been described many times, in very profound language, as being the great bulwark of the liberties of the people. If I may quote two passages from 17th and 18th century lawyers, it is a writ:
    " Of such a sovereign and transcendent authority that no privilege or person can stand against it."
    Of course, the colonel of the visiting forces will be able to do so in future if this Bill goes through in its present form. The reason for the writ of Habeas Corpus is stated to be:
    " For that the King ought to have account rendered to him concerning the liberties of his subjects and the restraints thereof."
    It is because we want means by which the restraints of persons in this country should be brought before some competent court that we desire to insert this Amendment. If the Bill is passed the position will be as follows, as I see it—the courts of this country will have no power at all to inquire into the legality or illegality of imprisonment of members of the visiting forces, and similarly the courts of the Dominions from which they come will have no power whatsoever to inquire into the legality or illegality, because writs from the Dominion courts cannot run in this country. Up till the year 1862 the writs of Habeas Corpus from the High Court here could run in any part of the King's Dominions, in any colony or any dominion. There were cases right up to 1861 when writs were issued. There was one particular case in 1861 where a writ issued to Canada, and the reason that right was discontinued was because adequate provisions had been, made in the Dominions that the writ should issue out of the local courts. The words of the Act which made it no longer possible to issue a writ from these courts were that the courts in the Dominions
    " Had authority to pursue the- writ and ensure its due execution throughout their territory."

    1111
    That basis, so far as these particular persons are concerned, does not exist. These persons, though they are brought by this Bill under the jurisdiction of what are foreign courts so far as this Bill is concerned, that is the particular service courts of the Dominions, will not be persons to whom Dominion writs of habeas corpus can run. They will be left in a position of having no remedy here, because the remedy is expressly taken away by this Bill, and no remedy in the Dominion courts, because that remedy is not given by this Bill.
    They will, therefore, be left in a position in which no other person in this country can possibly be left, be he foreign or British. Every person in this country has a right to go to the courts and demand A writ of habeas corpus and to challenge the reason why he remains under restraint. These persons who, one would think, were persons that this Government and the Dominion Governments were particularly desirous to protect, being fellow-citizens of the British Empire, alone of all people are to be deprived of this right. I can hardly imagine any circumstances which could possibly justify such a deprivation. It might be that some overpowering argument might be brought forward for the purpose of justification, but, so far as I have been able to appreciate the Debates that have so far taken place, there has been no argument in support of this most extraordinary provision.
    It was suggested on one occasion by the hon. and learned Solicitor-General that the courts in this country would have difficulty in administering Colonial or Dominion law. The hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head. If he will look in the OFFICIAL REPORT I am sure that he will find what I have referred to. I agree with him as to the value of the argument. It is an impossible argument to put forward. The courts of this country are perfectly competent to decide matters of habeas corpus. The law throughout the Colonies and the Dominions is exactly the same as the law of this country. It is all derived from the old common law of this country, and is no different in its application here and in the Colonies and Dominions. The questions that arise in cases of this sort are no more difficult for a court to decide
    1112
    here than a question of habeas corpus which would arise out of a court-martial held here. It is precisely the same sort of case.
    Then there was some vague suggestion that a matter of international or inter-Imperial law arises. No such question arises here. This is purely and simply a question of domestic law, a question of the rights and privileges of persons resident in this country, and the reason why they can be and are entitled to get this form of protection, which is inherent in the English common law, is that they are in this country, upon British soil. It does not depend upon nationality or international comity, or anything else. It is inherent in the right of a person who comes within the protection of the British Crown. We say that no argument based upon international or inter-Dominion law can in any way shake that fundamental right. It may be said that this is a convenient course, and that it does not very much matter. I have no doubt that that is what was said at some convention or at some meeting, when this matter was arranged between the Dominions as a matter of convenience between naval and military experts. This was thought to be a handy way to deal with it. It may be convenient, but, surely, liberty is more important than convenience, and there can be no force in any argument which suggests that, because it may be convenient, this great right which belongs to everyone in this country should be taken away.
    There is another aspect of the argument. It may be that, if this fear of interference in the case of improperly constituted courts, or improper procedure in courts, is removed entirely, it will make court-martial among the Dominion forces in this country a very slack sort of procedure. It will be a temptation to people to ignore all rules, to say that it does not matter since they cannot be challenged, and to go forward in a somewhat slapdash manner. I have put as shortly as I can most of the main points which we must take into account in considering this matter. It is really a matter having nothing to do with any party consideration. It has to do with one of the great basic conceptions of our constitutional liberty. I ask the House to rise up as the protectors of that

    1113
    liberty, and, although it may seem to be a small thing in itself, to prevent what it is now sought to do for the first time in our history, namely, to select a particular class of people and deprive them of this right which for centuries every person in this country has always enjoyed.
    10.23 p.m.
    Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: I have added my name to the Amendment which has been placed on the Order Paper by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), and should like to speak briefly in support of his argument. He has raised a point which, as he says, is not trifling or insignificant, hut brings up for review a grave question of principle. Lord Buckmaster, an ex-Lord Chancellor, has stated, in opposing the provision in the Bill as it now stands, that this is one of the gravest matters with which he has ever had to deal; and one of the most distinguished Law Lords, Lord Atkin, writing to the "Times" on this very point, has said that the matter is one of great constitutional importance affecting the liberty of the subject. Hitherto, in these Debates, only members of the legal profession have taken part, either in the one House or in the other, and it is with some diffidence that I venture to intervene. But, after all, on a matter of this kind laymen have also a right to be heard, for the question touches all our fellow subjects.
    It is odd that although, in the Debates which have taken place in both Houses, many lawyers have taken part, belonging to many parties, all are of one mind except those who are members of the Government. Every legal authority in this House or in the other has expressed objections to this Bill precisely on the ground that has been put by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol. I hope that the Solicitor-General, when he replies, will not say that I am estopped from criticising on the ground that the Bill may have been approved in principle by the Cabinet when I was recently a member of it. It was regarded, of course, as a purely departmental matter. This point had not been drawn to our attention by anyone, and I cannot regard myself as being debarred from criticism on the ground that it was introduced some time ago when, it may be, I was a member of the Government, though I am
    1114
    not sure that it passed the Cabinet at that time.
    That the Bill as a whole is needed, no one denies. There must be a Bill of this character. Neither the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol nor anyone else in either House has objected to the necessity of the Bill. It is made necessary by the Statute of Westminster and, if such legislation were not put upon the Statute Book, there would be no military law and no discipline for any forces visiting this country from Dominions which had adopted the Statute of Westminster. But the point is simply whether or not a court-martial established by one of these visiting forces should be absolute in its determination, and its decision not open to review even under a writ of habeas corpus. It has been said in previous Debates that cases in any event will be exceedingly few, and hardly ever is a writ of habeas corpus issued in connection with a court-martial. That may be true, but it is also perhaps the fact that the possibility of such a writ being issued keeps courts-martial up to the mark. Recourse may be had to the civil courts, and the courts-martial are aware of that fact. If recourse to the civil courts is abolished, a right which is thought to be unimportant may have become most urgently needed. If in any given ease it is said that there are few appeals, or practically none, from the lower to a higher court and, therefore, appeals may be abolished, that is obviously a most unsound and illogical argument. It may be because there is a right of appeal that few appeals, in fact, become necessary.
    Let it be remembered that a military court may consist of a single commanding officer. These visiting detachments will often be small detachments. There will not be all the organisation and paraphernalia of an army and of military courts on a large scale. These may be very small and not highly organised tribunals. It is very possible that one of these courts might stray outside the confines of military law, not purposely but through lack of knowledge, military officers not being trained lawyers. Mark the provisions of the Sub-section against which criticism is offered. The Bill says:
    " For the purposes of any legal proceedings within the United Kingdom the court shall be deemed to have been properly constituted, and its proceedings shall be deemed to have been regularly conducted,

    1115
    and the sentence shall be deemed to be within the jurisdiction of the court and in accordance with the law of that part of the Commonwealth, and if executed according to the tenor thereof shall be deemed to have been lawfully executed, and any member of a visiting force who is detained in custody in pursuance of any such sentence, shall be deemed to be in legal custody."
    No one has a power of review. We are asked to enact that. The only matter in which there is a power of review is whether or not a particular person was, in fact, a member of that force and, if that is not challenged—if he was admittedly a member of the force—anything that the military court does is to be deemed to have been rightly done and no one is empowered to challenge it under a writ of habeas corpus. It goes on to say:
    " For the purposes of any such proceedings as aforesaid a certificate under the hand of the officer commanding a visiting force that a member of that force is being detained for either of the causes aforesaid shall be conclusive evidence of the cause of his detention, and a certificate under the hand of such an officer that the persons specified in the certificate sat as a service court of that part of the Commonwealth to which the force belongs shall be conclusive evidence of that fact."
    So that a single officer has the right to sign a certificate to say that he has sat as a court, that he has taken such and such action, that he has arrived at such and such a conclusion, that he has sentenced such and such a person to such and such a sentence, and no one can challenge any of those facts. The Bill states that all the proceedings of the court shall be deemed to have been properly conducted. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that that is a provision which this House ought not to be asked to enact. An individual may have a legitimate grievance. You cannot assume that an error of judgment is never made. A grievance may not be trivial. It may be right. He can get no redress in this country. A British soldier in exactly the same position sentenced by a British court-martial can, in a proper case, sue for a writ of habeas corpus and the civil courts can intervene. The Dominion soldier cannot, if the Bill is passed, have the same rights as the British soldier in this country, He will have no effective rights also in his own courts, for, in the first place, in those Dominions, some of which are distant, it might take a very long
    1116
    time to set them in motion, and while they are being set in motion the sentence may be completed and served. Even if Dominion courts were to take action, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, their writ will not run in this country, and therefore they cannot give him any effective redress.
    There is another point which appeals to me very much as having been Home Secretary recently and at an earlier period. The Home Secretary is responsible for the prisons in this country. Everyone confined in a prison is under his supervision and the guardianship of the Prison Commissioners who come under his authority. These soldiers in the Dominion forces may be sentenced, and if they are sentenced they may be confined in a British prison in this country under the supervision of the Home Secretary, or in detention barracks. Clause 2 (2) states that His Majesty's Government may by Order in Council 20 provide, and it is obviously intended that there should be such provision. If a Service court such as has been described sentenced any soldier to penal servitude, imprisonment or detention, he may be confined during the whole or part of his time in prison in the United Kingdom or in detention barracks of the War Office or the Admiralty. The Home Secretary would have no right to advise the exercise of the Royal Prerogative and to release such a man even if he were convinced that injustice had been done. He would have to be detained under the powers of this court and under this Statute. It could only be by moving the Dominion Government that anything could perhaps be done. Therefore, the Home Secretary might conceivably be in a most unenviable position into which, I submit, he should not be placed, and he would know that no recourse could be had, either under his direction or initiative to a court of civil justice in this country to determine whether the man was rightly imprisoned or not.
    The Financial Secretary to the War Office in a previous Debate said that we were not concerned with all this, and that it was a matter simply for the Dominions. If they were willing to run the risk of such things happening that was their business and not ours. He used these words:

    1117
    " So far as rights hitherto enjoyed by British subjects living in those Dominions are concerned, it will in future be their own funeral to look after those rights and to see that they are preserved. Therefore, when members of the British Empire coming from South Africa visit this country, it will be for them and for their own nation to look after their liberty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1932; col. 1092, Vol. 270.]
    In the first place, I do not think that we can accept that as sound doctrine. Someone ought to look after the liberty of British subjects living in this country sentenced within these territories, and perhaps confined in a prison for which this House provides the charge and which is supervised by a British Minister of the United Kingdom. There is another reason. This is part of a reciprocal arrangement. What is being done for Dominion forces here is to be done for United Kingdom visiting forces in the Dominions. That, to use the hon. Gentleman's colloquial phrase, is our funeral. We have to look after the liberties of our United Kingdom soldiers who may be in the Dominions. If what he says is true, that, if there is any derogation of responsibility, it is the Dominion's concern and not ours, it is very definitely our concern to take cognisance of all these facts, in view of the circumstances that this precise provision is to apply in Dominion legislation and that United Kingdom soldiers visiting South Africa or Canada, or wherever it may be, are ultimately to be deprived of all recourse to the civil courts of the Dominions which hitherto they have always enjoyed.
    Until now a British soldier sentenced by a court-martial in any part of His Majesty's Dominions, if there is reason to think that the court has overstepped its jurisdiction or acted wrongly, has a right through habeas corpus to appeal to the civil court. That is to be taken away not only from Dominion soldiers here but from United Kingdom soldiers in the Dominions. Therefore, it is a matter which affects us very closely in this House to-night. It is not derogatory to the Dominions to say that we wish to maintain the right of habeas corpus here. It is said that the Dominions wish it to be done in this way, that they object to their soldiers having recourse to United Kingdom courts, and that it would be derogatory to insist on our civil courts having the right to intervene. It might
    1118
    be derogatory if it were one-sided, but if we are ready to accept a decision of the Dominions courts in exactly the same way that we have done hitherto when our soldiers are visiting the Dominions and are sentenced by a military court, there is nothing derogatory, and the Dominions and the United Kingdom will be on precisely the same footing in law and in practice, as the Statute of Westminster requires.
    Therefore, it appears to me that the matter should be reconsidered. It is true that an arrangement has been made but perhaps these considerations were not prominently before the minds of those who were engaged when the mutual arrangement was made. The Dominion of South Africa has passed legislation on these lines, but that legislation could very easily be modified by an amending Bill passed through the Dominion Legislature to modify their Measure by embodying the small alteration which the late Solicitor-General has now brought before this Parliament. It is far better that that should be done than that we should consider ourselves bound by the fact that South Africa—the only one of the Dominions so far to do it—has passed legislation in this way, to do what is obviously a wrong thing.
    Habeas corpus is a fundamental right of the subject and always has been so regarded. A soldier is still a citizen. He has the obligations and the immunities of the civil law. A soldier who, when taking military action, is ordered by his commanding officer to fire on a crowd, and does it wrongly, is amenable to the civil law. He cannot claim military privilege; he is a citizen. According to the ancient Constitution of Britain the civil law is supreme over the military, and they have and should have the right of recourse to the civil law and to any protection that it can give. United Kingdom soldiers in this country are protected in this way. Dominion soldiers in their own country are protected in this way, and it is wrong: that Dominion soldiers in the United' Kingdom and United Kingdom soldiers, in the Dominions should be deprived of this protection. When we remember that an ex-Lord Chancellor, an ex-Lord Chief Justice, Lord Reading, and one of the most distinguished of our Law Lords, Lord Atkin, should have stated in Parliament and out of it, by speech or vote, that they consider this provision wrong,

    1119
    and that the right of habeas corpus should be maintained, I hope the House will support the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend.
    10.40 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): The hon. and learned Member for Bristol, East (Sir S. Cripps) said that this was a point of the most profound importance. I must remind him that when we were debating the Second Reading of the Bill, although he was in the House and speaking a few moments before the Bill came on, he left us to our deliberations unassisted. The hon. Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) was a Member of the Select Committee. He has put his name to the Amendment, but he did not attend the Select Committee. But the fact that the Amendment has been put down has enabled a new protagonist to enter the lists in the person of the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). He has this advantage over me, that I have already spoken twice on the subject and I cannot expect to say anything new about it. But I agree with the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol that this is a matter of profound importance. The whole question is what is the point that is of profound importance. If I am asked whether the Clause as it now stands does make an exception in the Habeas Corpus Act I say at once that it does. I admit that now if a Canadian soldier comes to this country with a detachment from Canada he could theoretically invoke the Habeas Corpus Act if any court martial exceeded its jurisdiction, and I admit that after the Bill is passed he will not be able to do so.
    But, as I ventured to remind the House on Second Reading, during the last 50 years or more since the Army Act has existed in its present form no single successful application for a writ of habeas corpus has been applied for. I agree that that may not in itself be 'an overwhelming argument, but I would invite the Committee to consider it as showing the sort of area in which we are discussing the importance of these habeas corpus proceedings. The point of constitutional importance, as I see it, is quite a different one. It is the propriety of acceding to the request of the self-
    1120
    governing Dominions, whose constitutional status, after all, is recognised rather than granted by the 'Statute of Westminster, that the same privileges should be accorded to their visiting forces as are by the comity of nations accorded as between Sovereign States. That is the real principle, as I see it, involved in these discussions, and I am bound to say that I was amazed to hear the hon. and learned Member use phrases like this, "This is a purely domestic matter," "No question of international consideration comes into it at all," "It is the first time in our history that any person resident in this country has been deprived of the right to apply for a writ of habeas corpus."
    I profoundly disagree with him. By the comity of nations any foreign troops coming here by the invitation of our Sovereign are accorded exclusive jurisdiction over their own discipline. I am not going to weary the Committee with detailed extracts, but will they allow me to quote one passage from a judgment of Chief Justice Marshall, of the United States of America, on this very point over 100 years ago, which I understand has been acknowledged to be the law by international comity ever since? He pointed out that there were three main exceptions to the sovereign power of any State within its own territory. The first is that the person of a foreign Sovereign visiting a, State is immune from any arrest or anything of that sort, and the second that the diplomats, the ambassadors, of a foreign Sovereign on the same principle are immune; and then he goes on, if I may read a couple of sentences:
    " The third case in which a Sovereign is understood to cede a portion of his territorial jurisdiction is where he allows the troops of a foreign Prince to pass through his Dominions. In such cases, without any express declaration waiving jurisdiction over the army to which this right of passage has been granted, the Sovereign who should attempt to exercise it would certainly be considered as violating his faith."
    Then, after another passage which does not matter, he says:
    " The grant of a free passage, therefore, implies a waiver of all jurisdiction over the troops during their passage, and permits a foreign general to use that discipline and to inflict those punishments which the government of his army may require."
    Writers on international law make it quite clear that in those cases, particu-

    1121
    larly in the case of a warship, there is no question of the issue of a writ of habeas corpus directed to the commander of a ship or anyone in the ship. When it is said that no one resident in this country has ever been deprived before of the right of applying for a writ of habeas corpus, the same thing is true if some foreigner who is imprisoned in the embassy of his country were to complain that he was illegally imprisoned and invoked the Habeas Corpus Act; our courts would not entertain the claim at all. After all, it is said that this was only used in this country in connection with the American troops during the War. But this very principle was at the foundation of the jurisdiction of our own Army in the War to manage the affairs of the British Expeditionary Force in France. We did not require any new law to enable our own people to run their own courts-martial entirely without any sanction from French law, and the same thing applied to other nations during the War. That being so, I venture to submit to the House that the principle with which we are concerned is this: Of course the Dominions which are asking us to pass this Bill are not and do not wish to be regarded as foreign countries; of course not. But we have already accorded to them a constitutional status which, as far as practical matters are concerned, is in many respects indistinguishable from that which foreign sovereign States enjoy. For example, they have got complete fiscal independence and complete control over immigration into their country. Similarly they raise their Forces and they pay for their Forces, and if any portion of their Forces comes on a visit to this country, it comes here on our invitation and not by our orders, in precisely the same way as a French force might come to take part in some tournament or whatever it might be. In that respect they are on exactly the same practical footing as if they were a foreign Force.
    Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to suggest that any visiting soldier or sailor, from whatever place he came, who had committed an offence would not be triable?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If the hon. Gentleman means that if one soldier or one sailor, straying away from the
    1122
    force of which he is a, member, committed an offence against our laws, he would be triable, certainly; yes; but as long as he is here as a member of a visiting force and remains a part of that force, that force has exclusive jurisdiction over him. That is precisely what the self-governing Dominions are asking shall be the case in regard to their forces. We are talking only about organised bodies who come to this country in order to take part in tournaments and so on, and they have asked for themselves that the same status shall be accorded to them as is accorded, by universal international law, in the case of French or German troops in the same circumstances. I am bound to submit to the House that the propriety of granting that request, when we have granted everything else to the Dominions, seems to me to outweigh altogether what, after all, is a very small infraction of the principle underlying the Habeas Corpus Act.
    10.52 p.m.
    Major MILNER: May I say one word in answer to the Solicitor-General? As I understand it, his argument in the first place was directed to endeavouring to persuade the House to believe that this Bill ought to pass because it was suggested that the point was but a little one. That seems the sort of argument that is often advanced—if I may say so without any intention of offending the hon. and learned Gentleman—when a pettifogging thief in any sessional court in the country pleads that the particular breach was but a little one. In point of fact, the breach which is being made in this inherent right is indeed a most serious one, and it is remarkable that the National Government should be the first to attempt to make that breach.
    The second point that the hon. and learned Gentleman made was that foreign forces were accorded exclusive jurisdiction over their own forces in this country. As I understand it, with very few exceptions —and the question of the immunity of an ambassador is one of them for very obvious and special reasons—any foreigner or alien in this country to-day can ask for a writ of habeas corpus and bring the matter before the courts. Are we going to permit worse treatment to be given to soldiers from British Dominions overseas than we grant to foreigners and aliens in this country? Are we going to

    1123
    refuse the protection we have always given to foreigners in this country—as we shall if we pass this Bill to-night—to our own Dominion soldiers coming to us from overseas and are we going to take any part or lot in taking away that protection from our own soldiers of our own forces visiting the Dominions I suggest this is a most serious matter and one which deserves the very full and earnest consideration of all the Members of this House. Certainly it should not be passed without some modifying phrase or Amendment such as is suggested. Just before I came into the House I looked up Blackstone's Commentaries, and I saw there that the right of a person to a writ of habeas corpus and the right of personal liberty is defined as a doctrine coeval with the first rudiments of the English constitution, handed down to us from our ancestors, asserted after the Conquest, reaffirmed by the Conqueror himself and established on a firm basis by the provisions of Magna Charta and a long succession of Statutes since. I hope that the House will uphold those rights, privileges and traditions which have been handed down over that long period of time.
    10.55 p.m.
    Mr. DINGLE FOOT: With all respect, I do not think the contention of the Solicitor-General on the point of international law can be upheld. If a foreign force were passing through this country, or were quartered in this country; if a member of that force were imprisoned by a court-martial, acting in excess of jurisdiction, and if a friend of the imprisoned man were to apply to the High Court for a, writ of habeas corpus, is it to be supposed for one moment that the Judges would refuse to issue that writ on any ground of international law? I quote the best authority I can find—Lord Birkenhead—who in his monumental work
    on international law says that "probably the British practice is accurately stated in the two following propositions." The first which bears directly on this question is:
    "International law is not administered by municipal tribunals unless it has been adopted by the State legislature and such adoption will not be presumed."
    It seems to be clear that the courts would not for a moment listen to this argument about international law, if a foreign soldier were to apply for a writ of habeas corpus in the circumstances which I have described. Secondly, what is this doctrine of international law upon which so much stress is laid? I read closely the Debates on this subject in another place, and I have listened to the Debates in this House, and I think that this argument about international law is practically the only serious argument which has been advanced in resisting Amendments to the Bill. As I understand the principle of international law, it is simply that if a foreign army is quartered in this country, a member of that army is subject exclusively to his own military tribunal in respect of what may be termed camp offences, that is, offences committed when he is within a camp or fortress or actually on duty as a soldier. But suppose he goes on a day's leave outside the area of the camp or fortress and commits an offence, then he is amenable to the jurisdiction of the civil courts of this country. It is complete nonsense to talk about exclusive jurisdiction belonging to his own military courts.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson)rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided: Ayes, 237; Noes, 65.

    Division No. 72.]

    AYES.

    [11.0 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

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

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

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

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

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

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

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

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

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

    Burghley, Lord

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

    Bllndell, James

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslle

    Atkinson, Cyril

    Boulton, W. W.

    Burnett, John George

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Balniel, Lord

    Braithwaite, J. Q. (Hillsborough)

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley),

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Bateman, A. L.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Carver, Major William H.

    Jamleson, Douglas

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Jennings, Roland

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

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

    Ramsay, T B. W. (Western Isles)

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Ratclifle, Arthur

    Choriton, Alan Ernest Leolric

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Ray, Sir William

    Christie, James Archibald

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Remer, John R.

    Col man, N. C. D.

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

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Conant, R. J, E.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Rosbotham, Sir Samuel

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Copeland, Ida

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Crooke, J. Smedley

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

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

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

    Salt, Edward W.

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

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Cross, R. H.

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

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

    Maclay, Hon Joseph Paton

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Selley, Harry R.

    Drewe, Cedric

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

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

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell).

    Dunglass, Lord

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Manning ham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

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

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Elmley, Viscount

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

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

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Somervllle, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clara

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Soper, Richard

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Forestler-Walker, Sir Leolln

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Morgan, Robert H.

    Stevenson, James

    Ganzoni, Sir John

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

    Storey, Samuel

    Gibson, Charles Granville

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Sugden. Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Nail, Sir Joseph

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Templeton, William P.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

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

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Graves, Marjorie

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

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Greene, William P. C.

    North, Captain Edward T.

    Train, John

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Nunn, William

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Grimston, R. V.

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Wallace. John (Dunfermline)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

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

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

    Harbord, Arthur

    Pearson, William G.

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Penny, Sir George

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

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

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Williams. Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Hornby, Frank

    Petherick, M.

    Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

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

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

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

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Womersley, Walter James

    Hume, Sir George Hop wood

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Hutchison, W. D. (Essex. Romford)

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

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

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward

    and Commander Southby.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

    Daggar, George

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

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Banfield, John William

    Dobbie, William

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Batey, Joseph

    Edwards, Charles

    Hirst, George Henry

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Janner, Barnett

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

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

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

    Buchanan, George

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Cape, Thomas

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Cove, William G.

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Kirkwood, David

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

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

    Knight, Holford

    Curry, A. C.

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Lawson, John James

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Stones, James

    Leonard, William

    Maxton, James

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Milner, Major James

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah

    Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

    Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Lunn, William

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Price, Gabriel

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    McGovern, John

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    McKeag, William

    Rea, Walter Russell

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mallalieu. Edward Lancelot

    Roberts, Aied (Wrexham)

    Mr. C. Macdonald and Mr. D.

    Mender, Geoffrey le M.

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

    Graham.

    Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 71; Noes, 232.

    Division No. 73.]

    AYES.

    [11.9 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

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

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Adams. D. M. (Poplar, Sooth)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

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

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Banfield, John William

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Maxton, James

    Batey, Joseph

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Milner, Major James

    Sevan, Anourln (Ebbw Vale)

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Nail, Sir Joseph

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Hirst, George Henry

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Holdsworth,,Herbert

    Price, Gabriel

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

    Janner, Barnett

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Buchanan, George

    Jennings, Roland

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Cape, Thomas

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

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merieneth)

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

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Curry, A. C.

    Kirkwood, David

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Daggar, George

    Knight, Holford

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Wedgwood Rt. Hon. Joslah

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Dobble, William

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Edwards, Charles

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Lunn, William

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    McGovern, John

    Mr. C. Macdonald and Mr. D.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    McKeag, William

    Graham.

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Magnay, Thomas

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Gibson, Charles Granville

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

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. p. G.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh

    Glossop, C. W. H.

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

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Christie, James Archibald

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

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

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

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Graves, Marjorle

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Greene, William P. C.

    Atkinson, Cyril

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Balniel, Lord

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Bateman, A. L.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Copeland, Ida

    Hanley, Dennis A.

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

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Harbord, Arthur

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

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Bennett, Capt Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Hellgers. Captain F. F. A.

    Birchalt, Major Sir John Dearman

    Crooke, J. Smedley

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

    Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Hornby, Frank

    Blinded, James

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

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Boulton, W. W.

    Cross, R. H.

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Cruddas, Lieut. Colonel Bernard

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

    Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

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

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Briscoe, Capt Richard George

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Drewe, Cedric

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

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Iveagh, Countess of

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

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

    Jamleson, Douglas

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Dunglass, Lord

    Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

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

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Burghley, Lord

    Eillston, Captain George Sampson

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Elmley. Viscount

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Burnett, John George

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Campbell, Edward Taswsll (Bromley)

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clara

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin

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

    Carver, Major William H.

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Leighton, Major B. G. P.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Pearson, William G.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Lockwood, John c. (Hackney, C.)

    Penny, Sir George

    Smithers, Waldron

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Somervile, Annesley A (Windsor)

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

    Patherick, M.

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Soper, Richard

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Peto, Geoffrey K.(Wverh'pt'n,Bllst'n)

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    McKie, John Hamilton

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

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

    Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradaston)

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Stevenson, James

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

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

    Storey, Samuel

    Makine, Brigadier-General Ernest

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

    Strauss, Edward A.

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

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Ratcliffe, Arthur

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Ray, Sir William

    Templeton, William P.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

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

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Reiner, John R,

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Merriman, Sir F, Boyd

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Train, John

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

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Rosbotham, Sir Samuel

    Wallace, John (Dunlermline)

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Morgan, Robert H.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

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

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

    Morrison, William Shephard

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Russell, Richard John (Eddlsbury)

    Whiteslde, Borras Noel H.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Whyte, Jar dine Bell

    Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Salt, Edward w.

    Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

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

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George

    North, Captain Edward T.

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Womersley, Walter James

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Savery, Samuel Servington

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

    Selley, Harry R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward

    and Lord Erskine.

    Bill to be read the Third time upon Thursday.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

    BENEFICES (PURCHASE OF RIGHTS OF PATRONAGE) MEASURE, 1933.
    11.18 p.m.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I beg to move,
    " That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Benefices (Purchase of Rights of Patronage) Measure, 1933, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."
    We have this advantage to begin with, that I am moving a Motion which is recommended for adoption by the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament that consisted of 15 Members of this House and 15 Members of the other House, presided over by an eminent Judge and lawyer, Lord Warrington. I do not know whether we shall have from the learned Attorney-General any legal criticism, but I submit to the House that, whatever may
    1130
    be the value of the judgment of the Ecclesiastical Committee on the main principle of the Measure, they are to be trusted about the question of legal propriety and about whether the general character of the Measure interferes with general rights or not. Its approbation, therefore, from that point of view, is, I conceive, important. I think, however, that the House will decide, not on small criticisms of detail, but on the main principle of the Measure.
    The principle of the Measure is simple. It is that parishioners, when the advowson has been transferred in such a way as to grant a patronage which they find profoundly unacceptable, should have the right to purchase the advowson back again on fair terms, determined by an arbitrator, and entrust it to the Central Diocesan Board of the diocese. The principle is that it is the right of the parishioners to be concerned about the patronage which is to determine the pastoral care of their spiritual well-being. The machinery also is simple. There must be a resolution of the parochial council, confirmed by a resolution of a meeting of the church electors of the parish, and then a proposal to purchase

    1131
    must be made. If after three months the parties cannot come to an agreement— as in general I hope they may—the matter will go to arbitration, the arbitrator being chosen from a panel of three set up by the Ecclesiastical Commission with the consent of the Lord Chancellor. The arbitrator will determine on the price to be paid for the advowson, and the transaction will be in that fashion concluded.
    The Measure relates only to a certain period. I know that some people say that the period might have been much more extensive, while others say that no transaction which took place in the past ought to have been dealt with. The period chosen is the period during which advowsons are changing from being saleable to being un-saleable, under the provisions of the Measure of 1923, which was passed in 1924. That Measure provided that, after two further presentations, in the case of every advowson, that advowson should become un-saleable, the theory being that the value of the advowson depended on two presentations ahead, and that, therefore, if the owner were allowed to sell for two presentations ahead, he would realise what was substantially the value of his advowson as it stood.
    I am sure that the House dislikes, and I know that the Attorney-General dislikes, the purchase of advowsons. In fact, the Attorney-General proposed to abolish altogether the sale of advowsons. But, although generally I sympathise with his dislike of the sale of advowsons, I thought that, as the property in advowsons has for so long been saleable, and the State has so fully recognised it, to abolish it without any compensation would involve an undue disregard of legitimate rights of property. Although I dislike exceedingly the idea of the cure of souls being a matter of property and saleable, nevertheless I think that strict justice should be done, and I conceive that that would not have been the case if all advowsons bad been at a blow made un-saleable, as the Attorney-General proposed. Moreover, his solution of the difficulty would not really have relieved the grievance of parishioners who had had an advowson sold or given over their heads and so had had a form of patronage set up which was profoundly unacceptable to them. In that case, the
    1132
    parishioners have a right to a remedy. They are deeply concerned with that. It matters to them immensely who is or who is not the patron.
    The patron certainly has a right to be compensated for any pecuniary loss but, apart from pecuniary loss, his concern in the matter is very much slighter than the parishioners, because a long period of years may follow during which the spiritual traditions of the parish are violated because an advowson has been purchased or given over the heads of the parishioners. It must be for years and it may be for many years. On the side of the patron, he is obliged to sell the right of appointment which he has had for a few years past but not more than nine. I am myself a member of a body to which advowsons are sometimes given. It does not buy them but they are given because of its particular religious traditions. I am, therefore, quite able to judge the feelings of those who are deeply attached to particular religious opinions and desire to exercise patronage in accordance with those opinions. I am a member of the Council of Keble College, which has a number of advowsons, this Measure is passed and made to operate against one or two of the advowsons which have recently been given to it, I shall not feel the slightest sense of grievance. I cannot understand how any self-respecting patron, or body of patrons, can wish to exercise patronage if they know that patronage is profoundly unacceptable to the great mass of parishioners. What benefit is it to them, and what a mischief is it to the parishioners. It surely is equitable that the parishioners should have a remedy.
    We are blamed because it is said that what we are doing is retrospective. It is not retrospective. We do not want to reverse any transaction that has taken place in the past. What we want is to relieve a present grievance that is felt in a number of parishes. We do not want to make anyone unhappy or to damage anyone. We think that if the parishioners have had imposed upon them, whether by gift or by sale, a form of patronage which is so profoundly unacceptable to them that they are ready to take the trouble to pass resolutions, collect money and purchase the advowson back again, that is a legitimate claim and they ought to have the right of re-

    1133
    lieving themselves from the grievance which has been imposed upon them and make the patronage such as is acceptable. Then some say it is not proper to give it to the Diocesan Board. The parishioners can choose. If they prefer the present patronage to the Diocesan Board, naturally they will not use the Bill. The Diocesan Board is representative of all schools of thought in the Church. It is not representative only of the Bishops. There are 10 members besides the Bishops, five clergy and five laymen. They are elected by the Diocesan Conference on the principle of proportional representation in order to ensure that all schools of thought shall be represented. What more impartial authority could you have? It would, indeed, be a grievance if you took it from the extreme Anglo-Catholic trust and gave it to the extreme Evangelical trust, and vice versa, but if you gave it to the Central Body you might reasonably have a moderate and reasonable consideration of the spiritual needs of the parish.
    I think everyone would be unanimous in supporting this Measure, except that some people feel so keenly their own old religious conviction that they conceive themselves justified in doing what seems to me to be a harsh measure unto others in order to impose their religious opinion upon other people. They are so convinced that they are in the right; they are so certain that their religious conviction is the conviction of religious truth, that it seems to them quite legitimate to purchase or acquire the advowson, however little the parishioners like it, however unwilling the parishioners may be and however they may protest against it, in order to impose their particular feeling upon that parish in perpetuity. And what is really objectionable is that what is called the trust goes on for ever while every other form of patronage changes. You have a bishop who is succeeded by another bishop, and you have the individual proprietor who dies and whose heirs may be of a different kind. There is no perpetuity. The thing does not hold with patronage. If you have a trust it is for ever. I think that that ought not to be, except when the parishioners, at any rate, acquiesce and give their approval. That is really the point of the Measure.
    1134
    If you think that it is legitimate to impose your religious opinion on a parish whether they like it or whether they do not like it, however much they may be indignant, then, I agree that you will disapprove of this Measure. If you think —as I do—that the parishioners have a real right to be concerned about the patronage of their benefice, if they are really entitled to be considered in the matter, then you will say that, given that the pecuniary rights of the patron are properly safeguarded and that he has a fair price for what he has to sell, they are perfectly entitled to buy the advowson back and so obtain relief from their grievance. This Measure will apply for a certain period; the period, that is to say, for which advowsons are usually sold. That period will be, I suppose, substantially for 15 or 20 years. I shall not then be a Member of this House, but I daresay that the Church Assembly and the House may contemplate some further dealing with the difficulties of patronage, which extend, of course, far beyond the confines of the present Measure. But in the meantime there is this transitional period which has its own danger and in which owners of advowsons may attempt to sell before it is too late. This Measure is put forward in order to meet the difficulties of that transitional period, and I believe that anyone who values the rights of parishioners in respect of patronage will vote for the Measure in order to be safe from having their advowson bought over their heads, in spite of their protests and without any right of redress.
    11.35 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I am sure the whole House will join with me when I say how delighted we are to welcome the Noble Lord back to his place in the House, and with what appreciation we have listened to his exposition of the Measure which he bas commended to the House. I do not quarrel in the least—perhaps that is not putting it quite accurately—at any rate, in substance, I do not quarrel with his description of the Measure, but there are one or two points of detail on which I must attempt to qualify some of the things he said. I am not a consistent opponent of Church Measures brought to this House. I forget how many have been brought here, certainly well over a score. I have not agreed with many of

    1135
    them, or with some of them, but I have not spoken against them, with one exception, and I still think that my opposition on that occasion was not only justified but was acceptable to the great majority in this country. I say that, not in the least to go back upon a controversy which has nothing, or very little, to do with the present controversy, but lest anybody might say, as indeed my Noble Friend seemed to hint, that it was a little difficult for this House to reject a Measure which has come from the Church Assembly and has had the advantage, as he put it, of having been approved by the Ecclesiastical Committee of this House. This House was not the only House to reject a Measure from the Church Assembly. The other House rejected a Measure, the Shropshire Bishopric Measure, which most certainly concerned the Church more exclusively and in a much larger degree than this Measure concerns the Church exclusively. Again, I mention that act of another place lest it might be supposed by those who are unused to these Church Measures that there is something improper in our considering them on their merits.
    The Measure as presented by my Noble Friend, as we should all expect, looks very well, but on closer examination I suggest that it will not bear the same attractive appearance as he, quite honestly, has made it seem to appear. My Noble Friend has said that the Measure will apply to all. In a sense it may be true that it will apply to all, but even if I accept that view it really would not reconcile me to the Measure. It seems to me no argument in favour of an injustice, if injustice be done, that the injustice is impartially distributed over the whole community. If it be wrong to apply the methods of this Measure to transactions which have taken place in the past, I cannot find any satisfaction in the fact that it will affect all alike. But I cannot help feeling some little doubt as to whether this Measure really is designed to fall alike on all, for I have received from some anonymous correspondent a circular, which is not anonymous, signed by a gentleman giving the name of Mr. Merit, with the heading: "Anglo-Catholic Group." This document is dated 17th February, 1933, and it says:
    1136
    " I understand that the Benefices Measure is likely to be considered in the House of Commons shortly. I am advised that the most effective means of assisting its passage into law is for individuals to write to their own Members of Parliament asking them to be present in the House when the Measure is debated, and to vote in its favour. You might wish to write such a letter and try to persuade your friends to do the same. Each writer should use his or her own words, in order to avoid the appearance of a letter drawn up by some organisation for mass correspondence. All letters should be deposited by the end of February."
    I am sure that no such invitation to what has been called mass correspondence has been sent out in connection with this Measure from any people who happen to hold the same views as myself. Some letters may have been written, but I doubt whether there has been any mass correspondence.
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: I must contradict the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Letters have been sent out by such organisations, and I could give him the names if necessary.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I accept the statement of the hon. and gallant Member and perhaps later on he will give me the reference and confirm his statement. I only mention this document emanating from the Anglo-Catholic group because it suggests that that group feels that it is not going to fall upon them. My group says that it will fall very hardly upon them. The hon. and gallant Member's group says that it is going to fall hardly upon them. Yet they ask for as much support of the Measure as is possible. There is an obvious difference between the two positions. But, quite apart from that, I ask the House to consider the Measure upon its merits. Consider the nature of the patronage of the Church of England. It is of a varied character. There is official patronage, private patronage, episcopal patronage, clerical patronage, and lay patronage, and on the whole it provides a variety of opinion and permits a certain elasticity, a certain adjustment of opinions in adjacent parishes. It enables people to find a church, according to their desire, in which they may worship. To my mind, nothing could be more disastrous than to embark on a course of concentrating patronage of this country in the hands of what I may call official patrons. I must remind the House that

    1137
    the Diocesan Board of Patronage is presided over by the Bishop of the Diocese and it is naturally and properly sensitive to the wishes and directions of the bishop of the diocese. It is largely composed of persons who represent what I may call the official trend in the particular diocese concerned. No one can deny that, least of all the Noble Lord.
    Lord H. CECIL: There is Mr. Barker, who the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows is a strong Evangelical churchman.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am myself a member of the Diocesan Conference, but my disadvantage is that I am one of two as against 10 of the opposite opinion, and it is obvious that my chances are not very great. I am not complaining on the score that Evangelicals are not well represented, it is true, but it does not affect my argument. My argument is that it is not in the interests of the Church of England that patronage should be concentrated in official hands. If we had a wholly different system in which episcopal patronage was the rule it might have its advantages, or, if we had the Scottish system in which the congregation were the patrons of their own churches, that might be of advantage, but as we have neither system, it is better, broadly speaking, that we should preserve it in its essential principles.
    Colonel CROOKSHANK: If one belongs to the Episcopal Church, surely one would follow the rule and guidance of the bishop.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not follow the relevancy of the interruption of the hon. and gallant Member. I was merely citing the Scottish system of patronage in comparison with our own system. The two are widely different. But let us recognise what has been done in connection with patronage. In more than one quarter we have heard arguments that this Measure increases the rights of the parishioners, that it gives the parishioners a voice in the appointment of their own incumbents. A few years ago it may have been true to say that the parishioners or local church council were powerless in face of the patron. That can no longer be said. By a Measure passed in 1931 the parochial church council were given the power of
    1138
    imposing a temporary veto upon the appointment of any incumbent who was uncongenial to them, and there is a right of appeal to the Bishop and from the Bishop to the Archbishop, who in that way may prevent a patron from imposing an unwelcome incumbent upon an unwilling congregation.
    I am not aware that sufficient attention has been given to this feature of the present patronage system. The whole burden of my Noble Friend's speech this evening was that patrons had bought their right of patronage, and are now in a position—to use his own words—to impose or force their opinions upon the unhappy parishioners. That is not really true; they are not in a position to impose an unwelcome incumbent upon unwilling parishioners unless the consent of the Bishop or the Archbishop to the action of the patron has been obtained. That remarkable qualification of the one-time powers of the patron deserves to be borne in mind when one is trying to weigh up the necessity for this Measure and the advantages to the parishioners. Now it is said that this Measure is intended to remedy the parishioners' grievances. I take leave to say that there is a certain speciousness in that argument, which is the result of confounding two things which are not always the same—the parishioners and the parochial church council. I am aware that many a parochial church council may disagree with the appointment made by the patron, but it very often happens that the appointment made by the patron is the salvation of the parishioners and that the parochial church council do not truly represent the parishioners. Everyone knows that a churchman, high or low, can often, within two or three years, obtain a parochial church council that is a reflection of his own opinions. Sometimes a High Churchman, sometimes an Evangelical, empties a church in the process. We remember the cases in the North of England lately, where the appointment of an unwelcome incumbent has had unseemly consequences, resulting in brawling, sometimes inside and sometimes outside the church. What I do want to represent to the House is that it is not accurate to suppose that because the parochial church council for the time being objects to an incumbent that therefore he is unwelcome to the whole of the parishioners. One has to

    1139
    remember, whether it be the parochial church council which has the grievance, or the parishioners or the outgoing vicar, in every single case there is this right of appeal to the Bishop to protect them against an unauthorised and unjust use of his powers by the patron.
    Let me assume that the grievance is felt as the consequence of the purchase of advowsons. Against whom ought the grievance to be most strongly felt Is it against the man who sold the advowson or against the man who stood by and allowed the advowson to be put up to sale and did not spend his money to buy it or against the man, however fanatical he may be, who, at any rate, stepped in and bought it? Let the House understand I am not defending the sale of patronage. The Noble Lord has justly said that I have consistently opposed it for years. I have spoken in the Assembly against the sale of advowsons. At last, goaded by the inaction of those whom I hoped and believed would have taken steps to abolish the sale of this spiritual duty, I myself moved and my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) opposed the Measure on the ground that I was proposing an interference with the sacred rights of property. I was no more proposing an interference with the sacred rights of property than this House was when it abolished the rotten boroughs without compensation. Be that as it may, I mention it, because it illustrates the radical difference of opinion between my Noble Friend and myself in approaching this question.
    I do not view the right of patronage as a right of property. I regard it as a trust. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"] My Noble Friend says, "Hear, hear," but really it does not lie in his mouth to deal with it as a trust, because he persuaded the Church Assembly to resist my proposal—with which he said he had a great deal of sympathy—on the sole ground that I was interfering with the rights of property which had existed for eight hundred years. I disagree with my Noble Friend in toto on that point. I regard it as an affront to the parishioner that the right of property has been sold over his head. I am quite willing to concede, and I have always recognised in my objection to the sale of advowsons, that
    1140
    the sale does cause a grievance that rankles in the minds of people whose advowsons have been sold over their heads, but if that injustice and that grievance exists, is there any hon. Member who will tell me that it justifies a Measure to deprive the existing trustees, who have not bought their patronage, of their position as trustees in order that another body of trustees may be substituted, because that is what this Measure is doing?
    Let me concede to my Noble Friend, for the purpose of argument, that the fact that in a few cases, whether it be a score or two score out of the ten thousand benefices which exist in the country, there has been a purchase of advowsons, as he put it, over the heads of the parishioners and the Parochial Church Council. Then let a Measure be framed to deal with that injustice or that grievance. I do not know whether it is possible, but will anybody tell me that it is a justification, or that the desire to remove it is a justification, for depriving the trustees, who have committed no breach of trust, of their position as trustees—for what purpose? That another body of trustees should be substituted? [HON. MEMBERS: "Impartial ones !"] Let me try to deal with the question, because the House is likely to be confused over the proposals of this Measure. After all, it is the fifth Measure which has proceeded from the Church Assembly dealing with patronages. That does indicate a little want of due caution on the part of that distinguished body, and I am not surprised that hon. Members find difficulty in dealing with this question. The point which I would put to the House is this. Regarding the position of patrons as that of trustees, I cannot see how anyone, in the absence of any breach of trust, can defend the displacement of one set of trustees in order to substitute another, even though the others are elected.
    Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean breach of trust to the fellow-trustees or to the parishioners?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I use the words in their fullest sense. I am assuming that the existing trustees have not sought to make private profit out of their position as trustees. The effect of

    1141
    this Measure is to enable, shall I say, a rich and well-disposed person to provide money for the parochial church council in order that that council may claim to exercise its right to purchase and thus secure for the diocesan board, patronage which properly belongs to the private patron who is trustee. I know of scores of cases—I have checked the figures—in which private patrons, as a result of the break-up of their estates and their unwillingness to profess to be able to carry out a duty which is becoming very burdensome owing to the present shortage of clergy and smallness of livings, have given their advowsons to existing trustees for the purpose of appointing in the terms of trust deeds— illustrations of which I have copied out — "a fit and pious person, of Godly life and conversation, being in holy orders." If they had not made those gifts, those persons would not have been subject to the operations of this Measure. But in order to make the duty of appointing clergymen one which would be as perfectly performed as possible they have given it over to other persons and, immediately, that patronage comes within the scope of the Measure, and it is possible for a parochial council inspired it may be by some wealthy friend, to expropriate the trusteeship of the existing trustees and transfer it to the diocesan board.
    If the House really understands that such is the effect of the Measure— though I quite agree that it is not the main aim of the Measure—I cannot persuade myself that the House will accede to such an injustice as I deem that to be. The Measure is far wider than it was ever intended to be. When the "Times" newspaper was commending this Measure to the Church Assembly it desribed it on two separate dates as a Measure the full aim of which was to remove actual grievances now felt by many parishes where advowsons had been subject to recent purchase. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear !"] But it goes far beyond that. That is my whole point. If it were limited to that end I should not be opposing the Measure in this House to-night. An Amendment was moved in the Church Assembly to omit those cases where private patrons had transferred by gift their trusteeship—
    Lord H. CECIL: How are you to distinguish gift from purchase?
    The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: My Noble Friend asks how are we to distinguish gift from purchase. If that means that we cannot do what he wants without committing an injustice, my answer is that you cannot distinguish and you cannot bring in your Measure. It does not seem to be any answer to my point to say that in as much as we cannot distinguish gift from purchase, therefore we must include gifts, which we do not desire to include, in order to include sales which we do desire to include.
    Lord H. CECIL: It is unfair to the parishioners whether it is a gift or a purchase. A purchase may be more odious, but a gift over the heads of the parishioners, is just as unfair to them.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am very astonished at the lengths to which my Noble Friend's own argument drives him. Apparently, he regards it as an affront to the parishioners that—
    Lord H. CECIL: It is not a Measure to remedy a past wrong, but to remedy a present grievance.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I cannot answer my Noble Friend's arguments if he interrupts me half way through every sentence. I am surprised that he should be driven to the length of saying that it is an affront to the parishioners, or to the parochial church council, to find a patron appointing, by way of gift, new trustees to exercise the duty which he feels himself unable properly to carry out, having regard, it may be, to his age or to some other consideration.
    I place myself in opposition to this Measure on three principles. I say that it enables trustees to be removed against their will in favour of other trustees, although no breach of trust has been committed by them. That is wrong. No argument of expediency will persuade me that it is right. You can only proceed with that argument if you are determined to confiscate somebody's rights. The second principle is that it makes the matter no better, but rather the worse, if my Noble Friend tells me that the trustees are to be compensated for what they are to be forced to give up. Is it not an affront to tell a man that he is to receive money for what has no money's

    1143
    worth in his estimation? His duty is the performance of a solemn trust. I am speaking of cases of gift, and leaving out purchase at the moment. You tell that man, as trustee, that he must surrender his duty as trustee, and you try to make it better for him by telling him that you will pay him a sum of money if he surrenders. The sum of money will be assessed by a gentleman who will be appointed by a bishop, and will be the chairman of the board of patronage and will say to whom the patronage should be transferred. He is to be chosen from a panel of three persons. If I am wrong in my conclusion, I shall fully accede to what my Noble Friend may say. The payment of compensation money to a trustee does not improve the position one whit, but seems to make it infinitely worse. I lay this before the House: Here is a trustee who is in a position to receive compensation, as I am, in many cases. If this Measure is made operative against me, what am I to do with the money? I have not power to use it; I should have to go to the courts or to the charity commissioners to have a scheme approved to spend the money which has been forced upon me by the operation of my Noble Friend's Measure.
    The third principle on which I base my opposition is the retrospective character of the Measure. That is wholly objectionable to every principle of sound legislation. I am surprised at the way in which some hon. Members overlook this objection. My Noble Friend says that the Measure is not to remedy a past wrong, but a present grievance. Present grievances are nearly always caused by past wrongs. People who want to find an excuse for retrospective legislation almost invariably point to some existing grievance. I cannot lend my support to the transaction that is made by way of purchase. It would be contrary to the principles which my party have always respected, that we should tear up contracts by way of gift legally entered into at the time they were made and acted upon in such a way as to make the advowsons un-saleable, at the instigation of a Measure passed by the Church Assembly. Many a transferee has accepted the gift and made a declaration of unsaleability, and this Measure comes along retrospectively and says that that acquisition, that patronage, shall be sale-
    1144
    able at the instance of the parochial church council or of persons who may use the vehicle of the church council. While my Noble Friend agrees that it should be retrospective, so friendly a supporter of the Measure as the "Times" pointed out on the 6th February that retrospective legislation of this kind has obvious drawbacks; and again in June the "Times" pointed out that the retrospective character of the Measure involves a number of obvious dangers. I take the same view.
    I might detain the House with what I think is the view of Evangelical Christians of this country. I do not propose to discuss these matters here in this case; I do not think that the House desires it or that it will be helped by it. I base my view on something much deeper than a discussion of that sort or of differences of religious opinion. I base myself on the broad principle that even removing a. partial wrong in some cases cannot do anything to remedy that wrong if it encourages people to perpetuate other injustices. I regard the taking away from patrons of their existing rights as a grave injustice which will cause affront to a number of people who have committed no wrong.
    It may be that the House will pass the Measure and that the weight of support which it has received from notable quarters will persuade hon. Members that it must be right, and that the dislike that many Members feel for the actions of some patrons, some persons who have bought patronage, will blind them to every other consideration of justice or equity. It will be a Pyrrhic victory, if victory there be I venture to say that, if the House passes the Measure, the day is likely to come when the Church of England will bitterly regret that it has put its hand to a Measure in which for the first time the ugly features of the confiscation of the rights of trustees have appeared. On these broad grounds, I beg the House to defeat this Measure. As I began by saying, I have not been a consistent opponent of Church Measures. It has been a. difficult duty for me to perform to represent the view that I hold, but I have some confidence in the justice of the House, and I believe that the Measure will be dealt with as I ask.
    12.8 a.m.
    Major MILNER: I want to support the Measure and to give some explanation to my colleagues of the unaccustomed company in which I find myself to-night. I support the Measure on quite simple grounds. In the first place, I support it on good Socialist grounds. I deny the right of owners of property to control the economic life of other people, and, similarly, I deny the right of owners of patronage to control the religious opinions and education of the people. The state of affairs in this connection is little less than a scandal. In many instances, something like a corner in advowsons has been created. I am surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should come to the House tonight to preach as he has done. He himself is particeps crimines. I see from a list of these trusts which has been sent to me that he is a trustee of at least two. In one of them there are something 100 benefices, and in the second something like 30 or 40 benefices are disposed of.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggesting that I have been a party to purchasing benefices?
    Major MILNER: I have no knowledge of how these trusts have obtained the rights of patronage they hold, but I do suggest that they are using their power to appoint to those benefices individuals of a particular school of thought. I am not here speaking for any school of thought—I may or may not agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point of view in that connection—but I do suggest that it does not lie in his mouth to come here to talk about a breach of trust, because no breach of trust has taken place, and to claim that power should not be taken away from these trusts in two of which he is himself a trustee. I understood his second argument to be that he did not approve of these proposals, because it would be putting the right of patronage into official hands. As I understand it, the Diocesan Board of Finance is an elected body. It may or may not be actually representative, but it is an elected body, and I suggest that it is far better to have the power exercised by that body than concentrated, to use the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own words, in the hands of a particular body of individuals
    1146
    holding particular 'views whether constituted as a trust or not. My third reason is that this Bill does give some rights to parishioners which they do not possess at present. The parochial church councils are elected by Church electors, and I suggest that the Bill does give them, through their representatives on the Diocesan Board, a voice in the selection of those to be appointed to benefices. The Bill harms no one and appears to me to afford full and fair powers of protection to all interests concerned.
    Finally, I would ask, "What is the use of this House committing to the Church Assembly certain powers if, when that Assembly has passed a measure on three occasions, the House does not pay some regard to the decisions of the Assembly and some regard to the Ecclesiastical Committee, composed of all parties, which has considered and recommended the Bill to the House? "I submit that the Bill will remove a real grievance, that the grounds which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has urged are not sound or serious ones, and that the House will do an excellent piece of work if it passes the Measure.
    Sir JOHN HASLAM rose in his place, and claimed to move " That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
    12.14 a.m.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I cannot quite understand why a question of this kind is so vitally interesting to all of us. I think it is because we are taking part in an age-long struggle which has been going on throughout the centuries. We are tonight merely a reimbodiment of our ancestors. Recalling to mind all the Members for Newcastle who have stood for the same liberties for which I stand to-night, I beg the House to have some feeling for the sort of Debate that should take place at this time of night. This Bill is so mean. Everything is on the Catholic side to-day. We have seen in our own lifetime the Church of England churches throughout the country become gradually changed. You have on your side all the bishops, all the wealth and all the commerce. It is inevitable that clericalism should appeal to one who is engaged in the ritualism of religion. Against that, we have only to put the

    1147
    same old fight that was put up by our ancestors—that it is the individual that matters and not the ritual.
    I had my education at the same college at which the learned Attorney-General happened to be. I was there before him. All that I have felt since I learned then. Archdeacon Wilson, our headmaster, preached always in a black Geneva gown. There you had an exposition of the Bible and of the Faith. There you had a minister of the Gospel; and now, all over the country, ministers of the Gospel have gone and priests have taken their place. The only effort to stop this has been made by a handful of fanatical Protestants. Why not? A handful of fanatical Protestants have moved this country not merely in religious matters, but in political matters. These people have subscribed money which they could ill afford to build up one or two trusts. The senior trustees are those whom I know best, because several of their churches are in my constituency—the only churches in the constituency where one can still get the faith of our fathers.
    What have the other trustees been doing? They have been buying up, and receiving gifts of, advowsons of churches, in order that there might be some kernel of Protestantism left. All that this Bill asks is that you should not stop this effort, and destroy the little chance they have—[An HON. MEMBER: "Against the wishes of their parishioners "]—I have seen the churches emptied in my constituency. I have seen one emptied completely by an Anglo-Catholic parson who then built up his own following who are in future to be the voice of the people. The voice of the people is outside the Church now. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the parochial electors?"] How often do they take the trouble to elect? Once you have the churches going backwards, the decent people, the people of opposite views, leave it.
    You have here an effort to put an end to something which has been painfully created to do the work of the Reformation, to preserve the teaching of the Bible, and to preserve that system under which, we were all educated in our youth. I beg the House to think twice before it destroys that, and hands over to a bench of bishops who are overwhelmingly
    1148
    Catholic, more patronage than they have already. In the exercise of their patronage up to now, they have constantly strengthened the Catholic Church. Here is one chance for securing a few isolated livings for Protestant clergymen. That is now being shut down, and the diocesan view favours the Anglo-Catholic Church. Only four years ago in this House we voted, after a year's Debate, definitely against the new Prayer Book, and yet that new Prayer Book is in use in more than half the churches, because the bishops wish it. Can we stop it now?— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think that we can. I think that if this House of Commons is inclined to go on to the clerical side, there will not always be a House of Commons like that. I would remind hon. Members that the last House, which voted for the Protestant religion against the new-fangled Prayer Book, was an overwhelmingly Conservative House. Religious people are divided on this question, irrespective of party, and therefore I believe that there will still be enough men in this House to see that fair-play is given to that struggling minority of Protestants in the Church of England who wish to preserve a corner for their Faith.
    12.22 a.m.
    Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: The House has sometimes been kind enough to listen to me when, as this evening, I speak definitely of my own knowledge and experience. I happen to be by consent a patron of livings in three dioceses. I have to do my best there to find incumbents when vacancies occur. All my traditions and the traditions of my family are, if one is to name particular things, Low Church and Evangelical. The parishes where I have to make these recommendations are similarly Low Church and Evangelical. When vacancies occur, people apply to me, as always happens, to be considered for the vacancies. I have to make the best inquiries I can. I very often find that the only men of any earnestness and any go are of the Anglo-Catholic school. If I appointed any of them I know that I should upset the parishes, and I do my best to try to find men who will not upset them. I have several times been unable to find among applicants people who would not upset the parishes. I have applied to the bishops and the bishops, after taking

    1149
    counsel with those who advise them, have, in several cases, advised me of people, but they have always taken care to try to suggest to me men who would not in any way upset the parishes which are Evangelical. I have never known any tendency on the part of the bishops to take a High Church view and to try to suggest to me people of High Church persuasion. The bishops have not tried to foist on the parishes men of High Church views. On the contrary, I believe, so far as this Measure works, they will try to select men of the views that the parish really wants. It is a piece of practical experience, and I thank the House for allowing me to deliver that plain story.
    12.25 a.m.
    Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: I want to emphasise the point that was made by the learned Attorney-General, that at any rate since 1930, this Bill has been entirely unnecessary. The rights of parishioners are already as great as they can expect under this Bill. They are notified of the vacancies, and within a few days they can pass a resolution saying the kind of man that they want. The patron is bound, within a certain number of days, to consult with them, either personally or through his representative. If the parishioners after that cannot accept the appointment of the patron, they have a right of appeal to the bishop. The bishop, under the present law, has to consult that body, which, if it is not the Diocesan Patronage Board, has exactly the same obligation and is elected in a similar way. They are the board to whom the patronage would be transferred. There is a right of appeal to the arch-bishop.
    Do the supporters of this Bill think that the parish, refusing to agree with a change of patronage, would not appeal to the bishop? Would not the bishop consider the traditions of the parish and the wishes of the parishioners? Would not he see that no violent change was made? Does not the present law give the promoters of the Bill all that they want? I think that there is a little bit of meanness and vindictiveness behind the Bill, in trying to get two or three cases where something might be happening at the present time. Another thing occurs to me to be slightly mean under this Bill. I am the patron of a living, and I desire, not thinking myself com-
    1150
    petent, but having a general idea of what I should wish to be done, to hand the matter over to the bishop. He is exempt from this Bill. I can give the living to the bishop. He is not subject to the parochial church council. If I give the living to trustees who hold similar views to myself, I am penalised under this Bill and I can be expropriated, and the trustees to whom I have transferred it can be expropriated. My wishes may be ignored; but by transferring it to the bishop one's views would probably be carried on.
    Comment has been made, particularly by the "Times" newspaper, that the parishioners would have to pay handsomely, but I think that in many cases livings are so small that they have no commercial value. If they are in the hands of trustees who do not wish to dispose of them and have no means, a few pounds compensation would be of very little value to them. If money was wanted, I do not think that it would be found by the parishioners on their own initiative. It would be found in certain cases by one side or the other—I do not say which side. I do not think that the parishioners would have to find the money actually—it would be found by others.
    This Measure is unnecessary. It is very mean. There are many illogical points in it which I have no desire to bring before the House this evening. It is not a Measure which has come unanimously from the Assembly. It is not a Measure to which, as the "Times" said, the opposition arose at the eleventh hour. When it came before the Assembly for last approval, which is like our Third Reading here, it was taken in the Assembly at a time which is similar to our Fridays. The attendance was very much smaller than is usual. Therefore, it does not come from the Assembly unanimously. As far as the Legislative Committee are concerned, I understand they do not consider the merits, but whether the Measure complies with certain statutory considerations, and can go forward to this House. I do ask the House to consider carefully before we do an act which will give a serious grievance, and cause heart burning, to a section of the Church which has suffered greatly by having provided for them incumbents who have entirely upset the parish. We have not been able to have any remedy, but

    1151
    when, for the first time, two or three grievances are felt they turn round upon us and bring in the full weight of the Church. I cannot help feeling that it is wholly ungenerous.
    12.32 a.m.
    Lord H. CECIL: I appeal to the House to come to a decision, because it is for the general convenience of the House. I will only say one or two words about this Measure.
    Mr. MAGNAY: On a point of Order. Is the Noble Lord in order in speaking again? Has he the right of reply?
    Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): Any hon. Member who moves a substantive Motion in the House has a right of reply.
    Lord H. CECIL: As to the last approval of the Church, Assembly, the figures were in hundreds, sufficient to indicate the mind of the Church. The real point is that the Attorney-General and we see justice in a different light. He thinks of the feelings of patrons sincerely animated— and all honour to them for their motives—by religious convictions. We think rather of the parishioners. That is really the whole discussion. Are you on the side of the parishioners, or do you think the vexation of the patron ought to outweigh the right of the parishioners? In our view it should not. I hope the House will accept the view of the Church Assembly and support the rights of the parishioners.
    Question put.
    The House divided: Ayes, 103; Noes, 81.

    Division No. 74.]

    AYES.

    [12.35 a.m.

    Acland, Fit. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Eillston, Captain George Sampson

    Mills, Major j. D. (New Forest)

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Elmley, Viscount

    Milner, Major James

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Aske, sir Robert William

    Fox, Sir Gifford

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

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Balniel. Lord

    Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

    Pearson, William G.

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

    Graves, Marjorle

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Beit, Sir Aliped L.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Petherick, M

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Grimston, R. V.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. f Devon, Barnstaple)

    Bernays, Robert

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

    Blindell, Jamet

    Harbord, Arthur

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Bracken, Brendan

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Price, Gabriel

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Kellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Hirst, George Henry

    Rathbone, Eleanor

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

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

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Horobin. Ian M.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Cape, Thomas

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Carver, Major William H.

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh

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

    Slater, John

    Christie, James Archibald

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

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

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

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

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

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

    Daggar, George

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

    Womersley, Walter James

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

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Drewe, Cedric

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Viscount Wolmer and Sir Francis

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

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Fremantle.

    Edwards, Charles

    Margeeson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. O. R.

    NOES.

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

    Burghley, Lord

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

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

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Gibson, Charles Granville

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

    Cross, R. H.

    Greene, William P. C.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

    Entwistie, Cyril Fullard

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Ertkine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Hornby, Frank

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

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

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

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

    North, Captain Edward T.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Soper, Richard

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Penny, Sir George

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Mabane, William

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

    Stones, James

    McGovern, John

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

    Strauss, Edward A.

    McKeag, William

    Ratclifle, Arthur

    Sugden. Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Remer, John R.

    Templeton, William P.

    Magnay, Thomas

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Roberta, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Russell. Richard John (Eddlsbury)

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Mulrhead, Major A. J.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Nail, Sir Joseph

    Sandeman, Sir A, N. Stewart

    Mr. Michael Beaumont and Major

    Llewellin.

    Resolved,
    " That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Benefices (Purchase of Rights of Patronage) Measure, 1933, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."
    It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Seventeen Minutes before One o'clock.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.
  DOMINIONS (BRITISH DEPORTEES).
  DOMINIONS (BRITISH DEPORTEES).
  JUSTICES, CREWE.
  JUSTICES, CREWE.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  COLLIERY REGULATIONS, DURHAM.
  COLLIERY REGULATIONS, DURHAM.
  ROAD SERVICE LICENCES (INQUIRY, STOKE-ON-TRENT).
  ROAD SERVICE LICENCES (INQUIRY, STOKE-ON-TRENT).
  POOR LAW RELIEF (SCOTLAND).
  POOR LAW RELIEF (SCOTLAND).
  SUBSIDIES (DOMINIONS AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  SUBSIDIES (DOMINIONS AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
DONCASTER AREA DRAINAGE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; and to be printed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CHESTER AND LANCASTER) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la, to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (ETON JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la, to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (BOROUGH OF ACTON ORDER).
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Paper approving the Order for extending the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Acton.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section 1 of that Act to the Borough of Acton, and laid before this House on the 15th February, be approved.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (PENGE URBAN DISTRICT ORDER).
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move a similar Motion approving the
1036
Order for extending the Sunday Entertainments Act to the urban district of Penge.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section 1 of that Act to the urban district of Penge, and laid before this House on the 15th February, be approved.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BUCKINGHAM AND OXFORD) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LEEK) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (RUGBY JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (TAUNTON AND DISTRICT JOINT HOSPITAL DIS TRICT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

PHARMACY AND POISONS BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, the Bill to which I am asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to-day will be familiar to your Lordships as it is almost identical with the Bill which was passed in your Lordships' House in 1931 and sent to the Commons. It did

1037
not get beyond First. Reading there owing to the Dissolution in the autumn of that year. That Bill was intended to give effect to the recommendations of a Departmental Committee set up by the then Lord President of the Council, the late Lord Balfour, in 1926 to examine into the law as regards poisons. The Bill met with a, considerable amount of opposition both in Committee and on the Report stage, but I believe that when it left this House it commanded your Lordships' approval.
I have looked at the OFFICIAL REPORT Of the Committee and the Report stages of that Bill in your Lordships' House in 1931 and I notice that, among other noble Lords, my noble friend Viscount Bertie put down a considerable number of Amendments. They occupied several pages of the Amendment Paper. I find, however, that he nearly always ended by thanking the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, and so I think it is only fair to assume that my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, who was then in charge of the Bi:1, treated his Amendments kindly and sympathetically. I believe he was moving Amendments on behalf of the Pharmaceutical Society which was then opposed to the Bill. That society now, I understand, is in favour of the Bill and, indeed, presses for it to be passed into law. My noble friend Lord Dawson of Penn also took exception to the Bill as it was introduced in 1931 on the ground that the medical authorities had not been sufficiently consulted. However, the noble Lord in charge of the Bill assembled conferences between the representatives of the Government Department and representatives of the medical societies, with the result that all their objections, I understand, were overcome and a representative of the British Medical Association was added to the Poisons Board.
The present Bill is practically an agreed measure. It is urgently required in order to bring the law relating to pharmacy and the sale of poisons up to date. The existing law relating to poisons consists of three Acts of Parliament passed in 1852, 1868 and 1908. All those Statutes were subjected to thorough investigation by the Departmental Committee and His Majesty's Government, as did the last Government, accept the Report of that Committee and consider
1038
that its proposals should be given statutory force as soon as possible. The enforcement of the law and the control of the sale of poisons was originally, and still is, in the hands of the Pharmaceutical Society, but it was felt that a non-official association with insufficient resources was not the right body to regulate matters affecting large sections of the public and matters immediately bound up with the health and safety of the public. It was felt that the decision as to what substances should be treated as poisons, and 'also methods of control, should be in the hands of a Minister responsible to Parliament, acting on the best scientific and medical advice available. The duty of determining what are poisons and of administering the law is therefore transferred by this Bill to the Home Secretary, who will be assisted by a Poisons Board, the constitution of which your Lordships will see set out in the Second Schedule to the Bill. The Board will comprise representatives of medicine and pharmacy, technical experts and representatives of the Government Departments concerned.
While this Bill is similar to the measure of 1931 it alters the procedure as regards the sale of poisons by establishing a new Poisons List. That list is divided into two parts. Part I consists of those substances the retail sale of which the Poisons Board consider should be confined to registered pharmacists, and Part II of those substances for which more extended distribution may he thought desirable, and the retail sale of those substances will be permitted to persons or firms registered with the local authority. This division of the Poisons List is intended to meet the views of the agricultural and horticultural communities. It is contemplated that the poisons in Part II of the list will be sold only in sealed containers bearing appropriate words and that they shall consist of substances required for general use for sanitary, industrial, domestic, agricultural or horticultural purposes or as vermin killers.
Part I of the Bill deals with pharmacy, and is intended to strengthen the position of the Pharmaceutical Society and its representative character. It makes every registered pharmacist a member of the society and it also provides for a Statutory Committee, to be appointed by the Council of the Pharma-

1039
ceutical Society, who will consider the case of any pharmacist alleged to be guilty of a criminal offence or of conduct which renders him unfit to be on the register. As this Committee will exercise a judicial function it is required that the chairman, who will be appointed by the Privy Council, shall be of legal experience. I have only given your Lordships a very brief account of the provisions of this Bill as in its present form it is substantially, and in the matter of principle is exactly, the same measure as the Bill which your Lordships passed in 1931.
I will not weary you with any more details, but I will only say that the alterations made in this Bill as compared with the measure of 1931 are, firstly, that the membership of the Statutory Committee has been increased from five to six; and secondly, that the conditions required to be fulfilled before an authorised seller of poisons can be removed from the register have been more closely defined and now include a body corporate as well as an individual pharmacist. Guidance is given as to the considerations to be taken into account in determining the distribution of poisons as between Parts I and II of the Poisons List, and a further alteration is that the sale of poisons in automatic machines is prohibited. I may add that all the alterations have been made either at the request of or in consultation with the Pharmaceutical Society, who approve them. The Bill, as I have said, is practically an agreed measure and I hope that your Lordships will pass it so that it may be assured of becoming law during the present Session. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a(The Earl of Lucan.)
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, it is satisfactory to learn from the noble Earl that this is practically an agreed Bill. It is a Bill of very great importance and of a far-reaching character and it may be only the forerunner of other Bills which will come before your Lordships' House. In 1931, in conjunction with my noble friends the Lord Chairman of Committees, Lord Phillimore and Lord Cozens Hardy, I took considerable trouble over the Bill which passed through your Lordships' House that year but was not proceeded with in another place. Now it
1040
would appear that agreement has been reached between the Pharmaceutical Society and the Home Office and also, apparently, with those industries which raised objections in 1931. In 1931 there was considerable objection from the owners of private patent medicines and some of the heavy chemical industries and also as to the method by which poisons should be dealt with. Now this Bill establishes on a solid basis the Pharmaceutical Society and this Poisons Board. It goes without saying that this is a matter of great importance. Scarcely a day passes when you cannot pick up a newspaper and see some case of real or alleged poisoning. If some control can be exercised so as to reduce the number of poison cases, and the danger that may exist to so many members of the public, everyone ought to be grateful to those who have been able to come to an agreement and bring this Bill before your Lordships' House.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I only wish to say in a few words that I hope you will give this Bill a Second Reading. I well remember the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House in 1931. While there was then a good deal of discussion and criticism, I must say that on the whole I was very much assisted by the various suggestions of noble Lords in getting the Bill into a really businesslike shape. Knowing how urgent is the need for this Bill I hope very much that its passage through your Lordships' House now will also lead to its passage in another place. I notice that the noble Earl in moving the Second Reading told us something of additions and slight alterations that have been made, but I gather from what he said that, as compared with the Bill of 1931, they were improvements which would further add to the utility of the Bill. I hope there is nothing inherent in a Poisons Bill which leads to a Parliamentary Dissolution, but should that occur again I do not know that I should object.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, in regard to the Bill of 1931 I was closely associated with the Pharmaceutical Society and it was on what I learned from them that I spoke on many occasions during the passage of that Bill. I think I was also present at all the dis-

1041
cussions mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Askwith. While accepting at once the noble Earl's view that the Pharmaceutical Society, so far as he knows, are in entire agreement with the Bill in its present form, I rise to say, though of course entirely approving the Second Reading, that if the Pharmaceutical Society should bring to my notice something that ought to be altered—I hope that will not be the case—I hold myself open to bring forward an Amendment in Committee.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I received a letter from the Pharmaceutical Society stating that they had many amendments put into the Bill and were now in full. accord with it. My noble friend seemed to be apprehensive that I might be troublesome in Committee, but I shall not detain him for more than a few moments and that will only be to correct a grammatical inconsistency.
On Question, Bill read 2,a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROAD TRAFFIC (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to enable non-motorists, in which term I include pedestrians and pedal cyclists, who are injured by motor vehicles on the roads or are killed, to obtain for themselves or their dependants compensation for injury or death as the case may be, subject to two important exceptions. The first exception is that the accident has not been caused by the negligence of the claimant, the pedestrian himself. The second exception is that the accident has not been caused by the combined negligence of the pedestrian himself and some third person. If either of those facts is proved the claim fails. The Bill is in principle the same as that to which your Lordships gave a Second Reading on June 2 of last year, but there is this difference of detail—that the Bill as now presented is somewhat more favourable to motorists in certain respects to which I shall draw attention, than the Bill of last year.
1042
I am not going to inflict upon your Lordships my speech of June 2 of last year, but there are certain points to which, perhaps, with your Lordships' permission, I may be allowed to refer. First, is the position in regard to these accidents any better to-day than it was in June of last year1 The answer is no. The dangers of the roads from motor accidents to-day are just as serious, and in some respects more dangerous and serious than they were last June. The statistics, and I will only give one or two, are absolutely appalling. I am afraid there is some danger that familiarity with these figures tends, I will not say to produce indifference, but to blunt the edge of our sensibility and our imagination regarding the results of these accidents. The truth is that these deaths and injuries impose untold suffering on tens of thousands, not only of pedestrians themselves, but on their relatives. May I just quote a passage from a speech by the late Minister of Transport, Mr. Pybus, in the House of Commons on May 6 last? He said:
"The total figures of this ghastly record are not the end of the story. figures to anyone with imagination convey something else. They convey the fact that this tragedy spreads far beyond its immediate surroundings, and one's mind at once turns to the relatives, and often to dependants of the victims."
May I also, very shortly, give some figures to your Lordships which have been brought up to date? In the pre-motor days the deaths from injuries from horse-drawn vehicles were relatively insignificant. Last year I gave your Lordships some details which I got from the Home Office, and I will not repeat them, but the figures were really quite insignificant as compared with the present figures of deaths and injuries. The figures for the last three years of deaths and injuries on the roads are these: 1930, killed, 7,305, injured, 177,895; 1931, killed, 6,685, injured, 202,147; 1932 —and these figures are new since June—killed, 6,651, injured, 206,410. Of those killed rather more than half are pedestrians, including many old people and young children, and of those injured something more than two-fifths are pedestrians. My Lords, one has heard it said, and it is constantly said, that the pedestrians themselves are chiefly responsible for these immense numbers of deaths and injuries and no doubt there is a certain

1043
amount of carelessness and, I dare say in some cases, a certain amount of recklessness on the part of pedestrians, but to say that they are chiefly responsible for these results is not the fact. I have got some reports published by the Ministry of Transport as to accidents outside the London area. The result of those reports is this, and it is somewhat remarkable. In the four years 1927 to 1931 the responsibility for accidents on the roads was with the drivers of motor vehicles 50 per cent., pedestrians, 5 per cent. Those are the official figures given by the Ministry of Transport.
Such being the toll of the roads, we are all agreed, inside this House and outside, that there must be some remedy devised for this intolerable state of things. We are told sometimes that all that is wanted is better enforcement of the law. We have waited for that long enough. We have waited to see the numbers of deaths and injuries reduced, instead of which we have seen them very greatly increased. It is no good lulling our consciences to rest by hoping that the enforcement of the law will stop these accidents and will give the unfortunate victims any compensation other than that inadequate compensation which they now obtain. I have said that they get "inadequate compensation."
The difficulties in the way of the pedestrian getting compensation are very great, according to the existing law. In the first place he has to prove, under the existing law, negligence on the part of the motorist. To do that he has got to give evidence. If the man is killed, or seriously injured, it is quite impossible for him to give evidence himself, and as regards getting outside evidence it is both difficult, and for many of these men, who are very poor, very costly, and for that reason impossible.
Supposing the injured person, the victim, gets over that difficulty and happens to find evidence sufficient to prove negligence on the part of the. motorist. How is he then met? The insurance companies, naturally, in these eases take every defence which the law allows them, and they very often set up the case of contributory negligence—in other words, that the victim has himself been guilty of negligence as well as the motorist. I think any lawyer in this
1044
House, and probably any layman, will agree that the doctrine of contributory negligence is one of the most difficult and costly doctrines of the law. A noble Lord beside me says: "Not a bit." Probably he can see through these difficulties better than any jury, but I will give him one instance to show how it works. It is a case which was reported in The Times of May 14 last. The case was this. A girl was run down by a motor in the street and severely injured. She brought an action for compensation. The defence was contributory negligence. There were four trials, lasting over three years, and finally the case went up to the House of Lords, and the House of Lords gave her £750 compensation. Imagine, three years of anxiety, suffering and worry, and four trials, and then she gets £750 I wonder how much of that £750 went into that girl's pocket. That was an instance of the defence of contributory negligence.
I need not enlarge upon the innumerable hard cases which I have had brought before me, but with the law as it stands I venture to think that a case has been made out for altering it, and altering it. in the way which I suggest. Someone may ask what is the justification for this Bill? There are many justifications. One is this—and it is the broad basis of justification—that the laws of the land have been fundamentally altered in favour of the motorist, by which alteration the motorist has been enabled to travel at a, speed along the road under conditions which would be quite illegal but for this legislation. The roads, which were reasonably safe up to that time, are now some of the most dangerous places in the country, as is shown by the appalling dangers which beset pedestrians and others. Is it not reasonable, under those conditions, that if you have changed the law so fundamentally in favour of the motorist you should make this relatively small change in the law in favour of the pedestrian, to enable him to get compensation where he deserves it, and to protect him in his Common Law right to use the road as well as anyone else.
There are other justifications. Let me suggest two of them. In the first place there are well-known principles of the Common Law of England which are a justification for this Bill. Further than that there are important precedents in

1045
European countries for legislation of this kind. May I say a very few words on each of those topics? As regards the precedents of the Common Law of England, may I quote from the speech of the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, which he made on the Second Reading of this Bill on June 2 last? It is to be found at column 551 of Vol. 84 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. He said this:
"There is another principle in our law which says that a person who keeps a savage animal, such as a tiger or a lion, does so at his peril, and if he brings such an animal on to the highway and if the animal escapes or gets out of control the owner is liable for the consequences, apart from any negligence on his part. Ties is no new principle, but a principle which has been in our law for generations, and it does not seem to he a very alarming or revolutionary change to apply it to a potentially dangerous machine like a motor vehicle…which is being driven at a high speed."
So much for justification from the Common Law.
May I refer very shortly to precedents in the legislation of foreign countries? Again I quote the noble and learned Viscount, from his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill last year, in which he gave a complete analysis of the codes on this subject in some thirteen European countries. In no fewer than eleven of those countries the principle of legislation is the same as in this Bill—namely, the claimant need not, in order to bring his case into Court, prove negligence on the part of the motorist. There are two countries where the only defence open to the motorist is that the accident was caused by the negligence of the claimant himself. Then there are nine countries where this defence and other defences are open to the! motorist; and there are only two of the countries in Europe—namely, Belgium and Spain—where the law is the same as it stands now in our own country.
Such being the reasons which justify the introduction of this Bill and the necessity for it, may I very shortly refer to the provisions of the Bill itself? The provision in Clause 1 is that there is a right given to the pedestrian to claim compensation without proof of negligence on the part of the motorist, but there are two important exceptions, to which I have already referred—namely, (1), where the injury is solely caused by the
1046
negligence of the person injured; and (2), where the injury is caused by the negligence of the person injured coupled with the negligence of a third person. That second ground of defence has been inserted into the Bill since it was before your Lordships in June last, and it is an additional protection to the motorist; because it seems rather hard that whilst, if he were perfectly innocent, he should have a good defence if he could prove that the victim himself was the sole cause of the injury, he should riot have a good defence if he could prove that the cause of the injury was the negligence of the victim plus that of a third person. That is met by this clause. The proviso limits the operation of the Bill to pedestrians and pedal cyclists, the claims of motorists inter se being met by the existing law.
Clause 2, an important clause, is new since the last Bill. It gives an important right to the motorist, and the right is this. Supposing a motorist has to pay under the Bill because his car was the car which actually caused the damage, this clause enables him to obtain an indemnity from a third person by whose negligence the accident was really caused. I think that meets a point which was raised, if I remember rightly, in the course of the debate last time—namely, that it would be rather hard to make the man pay when the injury was really and in substance caused by a third party. Clause 3 extends the existing provision as to compulsory insurance, and so on, so as to cover the liability under this Bill. Clause 4 is a definition clause; Clause 5 preserves any rights or remedies outside the Bill as, for instance. under Lord Campbell's Act; and Clause 6 is common form.
It may be said—it has been said, and probably will be said again—that it is hard on the motorist to have to pay, as he undoubtedly would have to pay, a somewhat increased premium to insure him against liability under this Bill. I doubt if the premium would be very considerable, but I would ask your Lordships to consider this. The motorist has, under the existing law, which has been altered in his favour, the right to go over the roads at any speed he likes, and that causes this devastation and suffering. I ask which would be the harder case—to ask the motorist under

1047
these conditions to pay a somewhat increased premium to cover his liability in respect of these immense concessions which have been made to him by the law, or to deny, as the law at present denies, to something like 3,000 pedestrians every year who are killed and something like 60,000 or 70,000 pedestrians who are injured, the right to obtain adequate compensation for themselves or their dependants, for death or injury. There is only one other point which I will refer to shortly, because I hope that my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who speaks with great authority on these matters, will refer to it somewhat more fully. Owing to these accidents on the roads the hospitals throughout the country are to-day put to enormous expense and of that expense they only recover a small percentage under the existing law. Under this Bill they would be benefited, and I can only say that if there is an opportunity and this Bill goes into Committee in this House, I should gladly welcome any Amendment that is brought forward by the hospital authorities in this House to put the hospitals in a more favourable and a more reasonable position than that in which they now are. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Danesfort.)
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, in giving general support to the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Danesfort, I do so primarily for two reasons: in the hope, in the first place, that a further and continued inquiry may be made into the general position with regard to the working of the present law; and in the second place,. that by means of such investigation further truths will be brought to light with regard to the heavy burden suffered by the medical profession in this country, and by hospitals in particular, through the present administration of the law. I realise, as I suppose everyone must realise, that a new principle, or a modification of a new principle, is inherent in this Bill. It is a principle, I understand, of the Common Law in England that a man charged with an offence is considered innocent until he is proved guilty. Under this Bill guilt is assumed until innocence is established. There is, however, a precedent for this. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, with
1048
which in former years I had a good deal to do, the onus of proof of negligence, if any, rests upon the owner of the whirling and dangerous machinery in which a man may have been injured or crippled. There is no more dangerous machinery to-day than that which is contained within the engine of a motor car.
I have the figures here, given to the House of Commons on February 15 of this year, showing the number killed and injured in road accidents during the last two years. They have been quoted by Lord Danesfort. For purposes of interest I have gone to the Library here and have found that during the South African War which lasted two years and nine months, there were 7,726 killed and 21,143 injured. It appears, therefore, that we are having the tragedy of a South African War, whose duration was two years and nine months, concentrated every year into the one period of twelve months. The principle which is desired to be established in this Bill is, I think, already a principle recognised in other countries, and I use that not so much as an argument in favour of this principle as an illustration of the effect of its use. Everyone who has any experience whatever of inquiries made in Courts of Law in connection with these Acts must agree that with, on the one hand, an injured man, very often of poor circumstances and of meagre substance, and, on the other, an extremely wealthy insurance company, with almost limitless resources and with the very best legal authority to support it, the scales of justice seem hardly to be balanced evenly.
I would like to call attention in the first place to the grave disadvantages which the general practitioners of this country suffer in respect of the present working of this Act. Everybody will admit that when an accident occurs upon the roads it is essential that skilled medical attention should be at once available. By that means, and by that means only, a life may sometimes be saved. A simple injury may be kept simple instead of becoming serious. A simple fracture may be prevented from becoming compound. A grave wound may be prevented from becoming contaminated and later infected, and a limb may be saved which otherwise might have been sacrificed. But if you regard the

1049
position from the point of view of the medical man, you will realise that he may be and often is very rudely interrupted in his daily work and, perhaps on a busy morning or afternoon, taken away from other patients who are naturally exasperated at the interruption in his services to them. The patient may be taken into the surgery; drugs, dressings, restoratives, anodynes of various kinds may be supplied; a wound may be cleaned or dressed and a fracture set, and a great deal of time occupied at what may be the busiest part of the day.
Only yesterday I was in consultation with a medical man who informed me that twice within the last six months he has had to redecorate his consulting room because the carpets and chairs were so soiled with blood, oil, dung, and mud from the road that they could not be used again. All this of course is an immense disadvantage and a source of expense to the medical man. It is hardly credible, but I understand from the British Medical Association it is nevertheless a fact, that in only one case in five of the motor injuries he attends does a medical man receive any payment whatever. The medical man's chief concern at the moment is not to recover his fee but to render a service; but however much appreciated the service may be, I can assure your Lordships it is a service which is very rarely acknowledged by anyone, and still more rarely is it rewarded. The medical man must somehow or other receive payment, and I have ventured constructive suggestions for your Lordships' consideration in this regard. The insurance companies, of course, cannot be expected to make payment unless it is a, legal liability, still less can you expect medical men to continue to render service to the disadvantage of others of their patients and receive no remuneration for it.
The suggestions which are those of the British Medical Association are (1) that a central pool be established in which every insurance company concerned in motor insurance, co-operating in the scheme, shall pay a small sum annually—this sum may vary from year to year in accordance with, experience; (2), that the control of the pool or fund should be vested in the hands of a competent body; (3), that payment
1050
from the fund shall relate only to first-aid treatment; (4), that the registered medical practitioner giving first-aid and submitting a report thereon to the controlling board shall be paid a fee from the pool unless he is otherwise remunerated for his services; (5), that such payment shall not be regarded, as at present it is regarded, as an admission of liability by the insurance company; and (6), that the medical report shall be available, free to a co-operating insurance company and on payment of a fee to any other insurance company. These are suggestions which I think will do something to rectify the very great disadvantages, the unjust and expensive disadvantages, under which the medical practitioners of this country are now suffering.
May I very briefly also refer to the position of the hospitals of this country? The effect upon the hospitals of the Road Traffic Act, Section 36 subsection (2), was intended to be beneficial; in actual practice it has proved to be nothing of the kind. And I would say this, that whatever else in England may be a source of national pride there is nothing in the whole country which is so great a glory to the country as the voluntary hospitals. There is nothing like them in the world. I think on all occasions we ought to take the greatest possible care of their repute and of their financial welfare. During the year 1931, I am informed by the British Hospitals Association, there were 25,000 motor accident patients taken to the voluntary hospitals as in-patients; that the cost to the hospitals was £225,000; and that the claims received were £35,000; that is to say that 16 per cent. of the cost of the treatment of the patients was paid after claims had been made to the insurance companies. These figures cover 233 hospitals and are therefore well based if not perfectly accurate.
I have in my hand a table prepared by the Secretary of the Westminster Hospital, across the road, which shows the cost to the hospitals of the treatment of motor accident patients during 1932. The cost borne by the various hospitals varies from 45 per cent. at the Westminster Hospital to 81 per cent. borne by Guy's. It is a fair inference, I think, from these statistics—I wish this table could be published in our reports—that no small measure of an success of the insurance companies is dependent upon the medical treatment which is given to patients

1051
who are injured in motor accidents, but I think there is very small recognition of that on the part of insurance companies. Unhappily, the burden which is borne by the hospitals is borne chiefly by the smaller ones In those hospitals which have over 50 beds, 37 per 100 beds per annum are taken up by motor accident cases, whereas in those hospitals with less than 50 beds, 77 motor accident patients per 100 beds per annum are admitted thereto. The intended benefit of the Road Traffic Act, Section 36, to which I have referred results in only one-sixth of the cost of in-patients being borne by any authority outside the hospitals; nothing whatever is done for the hospitals in respect of out-patient treatment which may in itself be very costly—X-ray photographs have to be taken in the case of fractures, dressings have to be put on for which the average cost is assessed quite roughly, at 2s.
Having regard to the whole country, it is a really very serious matter that the hospitals should be burdened in this way. One of the grave disadvantages is that the supporters of local hospitals are finding that their money is being used for purposes for which. it was not intended. In my own hospital, for example, in 1931, the expenditure in respect of motor accidents was £3,485 7s. and we received in return £436 4s. Last year the expenditure was £4,922 8s. 6d. and we received £649 8s. 3d. The subscribers to my hospital therefore were concerned last year in providing over £4,000 for the treatment of motor accident cases, very often affecting people who had no connection with the district and left it as soon as they were well. This all results in a disturbance of the routine work of the hospitals which I think is most objectionable. The routine work of the hospitals is not only concerned with treatment of patients from the immediate neighbourhood and from very far abroad, as well; but the quiet clinical research which is carried on and which is so important in the cause of medicine has to be compulsorily set aside. If you are a patient, the most important fact to you is concerned with your individual necessities, but you also contribute to that great fund of clinical inquiry which is steadily pursued and which in the past and to-day has done so much to prevent disease. Clinical research is rudely interrupted
1052
by this invasion of patients who have no direct concern with the hospital engaged in that work and who add all the time very greatly to the hospitals' waiting lists. We have over 2,000 patients waiting to get into our hospital and we cannot get them in at the rate we desire because the beds are occupied in such large measure by patients who come in quite casually, but quite regularly nevertheless, as the result of motor accidents.
I think that there ought to be in some degree at any rate, a rather different point of view in any legislation of the future in this matter; we should regard ourselves, in passing or changing a law, not so much as inflicting punishment upon an individual who has been proved culpable, but as affording a measure of relief to somebody who by an accident has been injured, perhaps gravely. I understand that an objection has been taken—it has certainly been taken to me by some of my friends—that we are in this Bill creating a precedent. I have no great reverence for precedents. After all, a precedent is only an innovation which is created by most urgent necessity, or by very consuming desire. I can imagine no more righteous case for a new precedent than that which attaches to the working of an Act of this kind, which, so far as the medical men of this country and so far as the hospitals are concerned, has been proved to be a conspicuous and lamentable failure.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I have listened to the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down with the greatest interest and the greatest sympathy, and I am certain that should the noble Lord desire at any time to bring in legislation in order to help both the medical profession and the hospitals, he would receive a very sympathetic audience in your Lordships' House; but with the greatest respect to the noble Lord I have not the faintest idea how a word that he said has anything to do with the Bill before your Lordships' House to-day. This is a perfectly simple Bill. This is a question of recovering compensation in certain cases on proof of negligence on the part of the owner or driver or user of a motor vehicle. It has nothing whatever to do with the hospitals or with the medical people, nor would it give them a single penny more or give them any more facilities. It is a question as to who is

1053
going to be responsible for the damages done in an accident and nothing else.
If I may, I will come to the Bill before your Lordships' House. First of all, the noble Lord who introduced it referred to the Common Law, and he quoted something that was said in the debate the last time this question was before your Lordships' House by the noble and learned Viscount upon the Woolsack; that was a reference to what we all know as the "wild beast case"—namely, that a person who takes a wild beast anywhere is responsible for any damage that it does. But the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack never went as far as to say that lie considered motor cars were wild beasts. He was merely giving an instance of what the Common Law might be, and the Common Law—I speak subject to correction—is this, that if you take a motor vehicle upon the road today and you are guilty of negligence and that negligence causes damage, you are then liable to the person n ho has suffered the damage. It is a very simple proposition. It can be found laid down quite simply in a hook that. I think we all know, or at all events those of us who are lawyers know, the third edition of Bullen and Leake. You will find there three things that are necessary in order to succeed in an 'action for negligence. First, you have to show that the defendant was guilty of negligence: secondly, you have to show that the plaintiff suffered damage; and, thirdly, you have to show that that damage was caused by that negligence. That third thing this Bill cuts out altogether. It says you need not prove that at all; that all you have to prove is that somehow or another there was apparently a connection between the, person who was injured and the motor car, then the person who was injured can get damages irrespective of whether the person who was driving was guilty of any negligence or not.
Furthermore, when you come to Clause I you find it makes it quite clear. There is a word put is which the noble Lord who was introducing the Bill left out when he was speaking, but when he came again to the actual clause he put it in, and it reads:
".…except where the injury was wholly caused by the negligence of the person so injured…"
Why? Supposing it was caused by the negligence of both? The law at present
1054
is that if an accident is partially due to a person's own negligence he cannot recover. Why should he? I will give an instance of what happened to me on Saturday last. I was going to Waterloo Station in a taxicab, and as I was being driven over Westminster Bridge two people suddenly ran out from behind a tram car right in front of my taxicab. The driver swerved round, and by an extraordinarily good bit of driving did not run them down. But for that he probably would have killed them, or certainly would have done them harm. Supposing he had not had time to swerve like that and they had given him no chance at all, nevertheless under this Bill he would be liable. Why? Those of your Lordships who have driven your own cars know perfectly well that you get cases where pedestrians and bicyclists put you into a position no human being can get out of without possibly hurting or killing himself. What is going to happen then? If they are touched they can get compensation against you. You can only counterclaim against them if, in order to save their lives, you have smashed your valuable car by running it into a ditch.
This is a hopeless Bill. It is wrong from beginning to end. I shall not bother too much about the drafting, but let us look at what occurs in line 12 on page 1. What it says there is:
"or by the negligence of such person and of a third person."
Supposing the person injured is not negligent, but that the third person is guilty of the negligence, why has this motorist got to pay? For instance, I have, in order to save the noble Lord's life, because he has suddenly come out in front of me, to swerve and kill somebody else or hurt someone else. It is not my fault. I had to save the noble Lord for the country, and yet, having done that, I have to pay this third person. Observe, I have to pay the person who is injured. I cannot put it on to the noble Lord. The fact that I swerved to save his life is no excuse for me. I have to prove negligence in the person I have touched as well as in the noble Lord, although he is the sole cause of the accident. Surely that cannot be right, that you have to couple the two—the negligence of such a person and of a third person.

1055
Let me take another instance. Supposing I am driving the noble Lord in my car. Somebody else steps out and I have to swerve in order to save that person's life and to do so I have to drive into a ditch. The noble Lord can sue me and I must pay him. I cannot get out of it, because he was not guilty of negligence. It was only the third person Who was negligent. Let us see what is said about that. I know what the answer is to be. Let us see the teams of Clause 2:
"Where a person who has made a payment under Section 1 of this Act"…
So I have first to make a payment before I do anything else. Again I will assume that the noble Lord was the third person who was guilty of negligence as a pedestrian. I have to make a payment to somebody before I can claim anything against the noble Lord. By that time he may have spent all his substance in riotous living, and I shall not be able to get a penny out of him. Why is it to be put upon me that I have to pay somebody, and until I have paid that somebody I am not allowed to ask the noble Lord to give an indemnity?
Surely this Bill cannot be right from beginning to end. It may be said that these are drafting Amendments. It is not a question of drafting. The whole principle is wrong. You have got to find, first of all, that a person has been guilty of some negligence or some misconduct in driving his car before you can make him liable to pay anything, whether it be a pedestrian or whether it be another motorist or a bicyclist. Why should he have to pay? He has done nothing wrong at all. It is absolutely against all precedent. It is no good telling me that the Workmen's Compensation Act is a precedent. It is nothing of the kind. It has nothing whatever to do with it. That is not a question of negligence. That Act simply says that a person who is running works for profit must insure his workmen. That is all it comes to and nothing else. This means saying to a person: "Take your car into the road and if anybody is touched it is negligence and you must pay. They can be wilfully reckless but you must pay if they are touched. unless you can show it was wholly caused by their negligence." What does that mean? We have been told that contributory negligence is a difficult thing to understand. I should like to know who
1056
is to construe what is meant by "wholly caused." That will be far more difficult.
What does "wholly caused" mean? Is it "wholly caused" because the man is there? Otherwise the accident would not have happened. Is it "wholly caused" because he steps into the road? That happened in a case in which I was engaged the other day, where a man stepped into the road with his back to the oncoming traffic on a dark rainy night and went straight in front of a taxicab and was knocked down. Was that "wholly caused"? The taxicab was there being driven along the road. Therefore it was partly caused by the taxicab being there. Is that the sort of thing that is to be considered? Is that the sort of thing that the man in the street can understand? The whole principle is wrong. Go back to the old Common Law, where you had to prove, firstly, that the defendant was negligent; secondly, that the plaintiff suffered damage; and thirdly, that that damage was caused by that negligence. I hope your Lordships will not accept the Second Reading of this Bill.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, the terms of this Bill are simple and its purpose is plain. It only touches a very small part of a very large question. It does nothing to limit the slaughter that takes place daily upon our roads. It does nothing to remedy the obvious injustice of compelling heavily-burdened taxpayers to contribute out of their rates and taxes to the maintenance of roads for vehicles which destroy their peace and threaten their property. These great questions which both humanity and justice combine in demanding should be redressed are wholly unaffected by this Bill. And so far as 1 can see they are wholly disregarded by the Government, for may I say that the affecting passage read by the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, from the answer of some representative of the Government in another place affected me about as deeply as would the tears shed by a crocodile. This Bill deals with another and totally different question—the question as to what pecuniary compensation ought to be made if a man licensed to drive a motor vehicle causes damage to a foot passenger upon the road.
I would venture to suggest to the noble Earl who has just sat down that he has

1057
completely misapprehended the reason why this Bill is necessary. The reason is that by special legislation and special privilege people has e become entitled to put upon the roads machines which they may drive at any pare to the public peril. The result has been a lamentable list of figures referred to by more than one speaker this afternoon. It is in return for that privilege That this Bill is required and it is for that reason that the ordinary rules that affect ordinary questions of negligence have no application here. I wonder if your Lordships have ever realised the nature of these accidents. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, would tell you at once that the man who is struck, even if he is mercifully rendered unconscious, is so completely disturbed that he is frequently unable afterwards to tell you what happened. The man driving the motor car, even if he remains and does not avail himself of that privilege and temptation, which the existing law provides, that enables him to drive on and leave his victim on the road with no risk whatever beyond the mere chance of censure or a trivial fine, is not in that position. The man injured is in no posit: on to give evidence, and unless there happen to be people about, how is he going to get redress? The way he gets redress, if he is well-to-do, is to instruct competent solicitors who proceed at once to attack the insurance company, and then it almost always happens that the insurance company will pay. But if a person is poor what is he to do? He cannot employ competent solicitors. The small case is instantly met by the overwhelming weight of the insurance company, and insurance companies can save on the poor people while they have to pay for the rich.
I know that these things happen. There was a case within my own knowledge only the other day of a working girl struck down by a motor vehicle and, as said just now, knocked unconscious. When she recovered, proceedings were taken by her people against the insurance company. They declined absolutely to pay a shilling. They said they had two witnesses. So they had. They had the person on the motor bicycle and the person riding behind. What witnesses had this girl? What witnesses could she have? Fortunately, the girl had friends in a better position and they got a small compensation for her; but without them
1058
she would not have got a penny. That case is repeated day after day. It is to remedy that class of thing that this Bill is necessary and I say the motor car people have no reason to complain of this Bill as part of the price they have to pay for a privilege which, in many cases, they abominably misuse.
That is not all. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that it is a great pity that this Bill has not gone further, and I am by no means certain that his remarks were as irrelevant as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, suggested. I think it way even be possible to amend this Bill, and I was going to seggest to the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, that there are ways in which it should be amended. The first suggestion I was going to make was one to which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred. It is nothing short of a scandal that horn_ itals and doctors should be mulcted in order to pay for the recklessness of motor ear drivers. That is what is happening day after day. When these accidents occur I believe there is no instance where a doctor does not come at once, summoned from anywhere, and frequently his immediate attendance saves life. Where is he going to get payment? He can get nothing unless the person injured can recover from the insurance company or unless the person injured happens to be well-to-do. If not, he may have expended his time and energy and even gone to great personal expense and be left absolutely without a penny. It is a disgrace.
The thing that amazes me is that the people interested in the motor car industry have not realised it and have not said: "We must do something to see that when people, whether we are negligent or not, are injured by our machines and are attended by doctors, the doctors should receive proper compensation for their services." My idea of meeting it was not quite that of the noble Lord. My idea was that every insurance policy taken out by motorists should cover medical expenses, so that the hospital or doctor should be at liberty to recover from either insurance company in the first instance, arid then the companies settle which had insured the person who is to blame—but that the doctor should be able to get immediate payment. I

1059
suppose that would to some extent increase the insurance, but since when has it been that the care of life and limb and all the privileges we enjoy are to be swept on one side because it will cost a little more to those who drive motor cars? Until motor cars came along no such argument was ever heard in the House of Commons or the House of Lords.
Was it ever heard when railway companies were called upon to take steps for the protection of life They were bound to do everything necessary, sometimes more than was necessary, because everybody reckoned that life was far more valuable than the payment of a certain sum of money. I hesitate to use strong language, but to me it is a mean thing to say we will not provide for this because it will cost a little more on the insurance. If this Bill is capable of elastic amendment, as I trust it is, I sincerely hope that some such suggestion as I put forward may be incorporated in it, and that something may be done to indemnify one of the most public-spirited and hardworking professions who have hitherto been called to pay out of their own pockets for the misdeeds of those who drive cars.
The next thing is, as the noble Lord knows, that if a child is killed no one can recover any money at all. If the child is injured it is possible for his next friend to sue and to obtain compensation for injury, but if the child is killed there is no means of getting either the cost of medical attendance or even the cost of the last sad ceremony, which, if I had my way, I would compel the person who killed the child to attend. I would go further. In many respects the law of Scotland is far wiser than the law of this country-. Money can never be a compensation for the injury a man may suffer through the loss of his child, yet Scotland permits money to be recovered, not because you can compensate by money for life, hut because it is something that the person who has taken the life has to pay, I see no reason why that should not exist here to-day.
There is another thing which I think the Bill urgently requires. There is an old principle of English Common Law which provides that a personal action dies with the person. Let me tell your Lordships how that operates. I knew a
1060
man who was grievously injured by a motor car driven by a rich man. Proceedings were taken. It was really impossible to deny negligence—it was gross; but the discussion as to how much should be paid was prolonged and prolonged until the man who committed the injury died, and with that all right to compensation vanished. The personal action had gone and the man could recover nothing from the insurance company and of course nothing from the person who, although. his estate was abundantly able to pay, was by the law of the country relieved at his death of all liability. The same is true of a person injured. If he dies his representatives cannot continue the action against the person who has killed him, although if people are dependent on him they can get compensation by virtue of another Statute. I ask the noble Lord to consider whether it ought not to be provided that in all those cases death should not cause an end of the remedy.
Really that is all I desire to say. I would only appeal to those who are interested in the motor industry to see if it is not possible for them to bring themselves a little more nearly into touch with the feelings of the people who have suffered injury at their hands. That it is only a small number of motorists I do believe, but that their number makes them a peril to all decent people who walk down the roads is obvious to any one who will take the trouble to walk down a road like the Bayswater Road and cross it from north to south. I have begun to cross when the road was quite clear and before I have reached the middle of the crossing had a car on me. There is nothing to check that pace. The law has given that liberty and it is not too much to ask that the law should impose the mild liability that this would provide.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I did not like to interrupt the noble and learned Lord while he was speaking, but does he suggest that the railway companies insure their passengers against accidents short of the proof of negligence?
LORD BUCKMASTER: I am not prepared to suggest anything of the kind.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I thought the noble and learned Lord did so.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I have listened with the greatest attention to the arguments used by Lord Danesfort when introducing this Bill. The noble Lord at once related to us the terrible figures of the total number of accidents which take place on the highway. I would ask your Lordships to note the fact that the noble Lord's figures are those cif the total number of accidents which take place on the highway—that they relate to all forms of accidents, many of them not motor accidents at all and in which no motor vehicle has been concerned. Lord Danesfort went on to suggest that there were no fewer than 3,000 pedestrians killed every year in respect of whom it was impossible to obtain compensation, though presumably motorists were liable.
LORD DANESFORT: The noble Earl misapprehended what I said. I said that out of the total of those killed and injured about half of those killed were pedestrians—that would be about 3,000. I did not say that in respect of none of those could persons obtain compensation, although few can under the existing law.
EARL HOWE: I beg the noble Lord's pardon if I misquoted him or did not quite understand what he said, though I took his words down at the time. But the question we are dealing with indirectly in this Bill, the question of accidents, is one of the most appalling in this country. It is one to which I have ventured to draw your Lordships' attention on many occasions. It has often seemed to me that the figures, terrible as they are, are almost in danger of leaving people cold. Not half enough thought has been devoted to them in the past. I am glad to think that much more attention is now being paid to them and I am glad to know that the Ministry has taken special steps, I believe in conjunction with the Home Office, to collect really adequate statistics regarding the accidents on the highway and how they are caused.
I am sure that everybody who finds himself in a motor vehicle has, as I have, every sympathy with the case so ably and so splendidly put forward by Lord Moynihan. Everyone must have been enormously impressed by it. Speaking as a motorist—and here I accept what the noble and learned Lord has just said about what motorists should do and how
1062
they should deal with this position—I should welcome any well-considered and well-thought-out proposals to deal with what is obviously an intolerable injustice. to the medical profession, and indeed to the voluntary hospitals, but I do not quite see, as indeed Lord Halsbury did not quite see, how the question really connects up with this Bill. This is not really so simple a question as it appears to be in the Bill. The Bill first of all says, as has been pointed out by other speakers, that in any accident where a motor is concerned the motorist is at once to be presumed to be guilty, no. matter what may have happened, and he-has forthwith to pay. Lord Danesfort then -said that lie had given the motorist protection, because if he could prove that the accident was due to a third party then, after payment, he could recover from the third party. What happens if the third party is a man of straw? The compulsory insurance of motorists was instituted for that very reason, that the wrong-doing motorist was sometimes found to be a man of straw, and therefore it was necessary for the protection of those who were injured that all motorists should be compelled to insure. Is it conceivable that all pedestrians and users of the road should be compelled to insure? It is impossible, and therefore I think the protection in Clause 2 of the Bill is hardly practicable.
Then there are other objections. What I want to do—and I am perfectly certain that this is the way in which the question is tackled in other countries—is to fix the responsibility on every user of the highway for his acts, whatever he may do. The noble and learned Viscount and other speakers reminded us that the motorist has received great privileges by legislation. If that be so, well and good, and I agree that in other countries, as has been stated, the law is rather different from our own in this respect, but at the same time most other countries accept regulations for pedestrians. For instance, I believe that in certain of our Dominions the pedestrian is liable for his acts. I have here a letter which appeared in The Times a very considerable time-ago, where it was stated that:
"The pedestrian traffic in Sydney and Melbourne is the best regulated of any city I have ever seen, and London could well: take a lesson from them."

1063
I know of other cities, and all your Lordships will be familiar with the regulations in Paris, where the crossing pedestrian traffic is regulated by lines of studs. If the pedestrian crosses outside the studs he is liable for any accident that occurs, and must prove that the accident was not his fault. He can be haled up and fined for a breach of police regulations. I can recall one instance where 164 persons had been compelled to attend at one police court in Paris and were fined one franc each for having crossed the road not between the studs.
If this Bill proposes to fasten the responsibility upon the motorist, how would the Bill deal with a case like this I have here the report of an inquest held in the City Coroner's court, in respect of a fatal collision, when a motor lorry, in avoiding a pedestrian on the Victoria Embankment, killed a taxicab driver. Mrs. Lily Ford, of Grove Road, Brixton, said she ran across the Embankment near Temple Avenue. She always ran across the road. She added: "I have only a confused idea of what occurred. I am very nervous in traffic." The Coroner then intervened and said: "Refuges are erected for people like you. I think you are quite a danger to motorists." Then the lorry driver described the accident, and said that the lady stood still arid then, when he was only three or four yards from her, she darted forward, and in swerving to avoid her he collided with the taxicab, and the driver was killed. I suppose that under this Bill the lorry driver would have to pay the dependants of the taxicab driver, and then would be left to try and recover from Mrs. Lily Ford, of Grove Road, Brixton, the amount which he had paid.
It does not seem to me that this Bill is the way to tackle the question. If you want to get better conditions on the highway I think you have got to bring home to users of the highway that they are responsible for their actions, and I am perfectly certain that it is very little good having footpaths, refuges, and so on, and all the other devices for safety on the highway, unless you can compel people to use them, or, if they do not, let them take the consequences of their acts. You have only got to go out into Parliament Square to see how people instead of passing by the subways, or
1064
waiting until the crossing is clear, dart across between the traffic, often just as the policeman is waving it on. I am only concerned with the question of safety on the highways and I submit that this Bill will do nothing to promote that safety but will positively do harm, because it will have a very bad psychological effect, in making people think that they are free from the consequences of their own actions. It may also possibly lead to blackmail. Even under the existing law attempts have been made by individuals, or combinations of individuals, to try to secure compensation from motorists by methods of blackmail. I do not say that those methods are general, but I think we should be very careful not to increase the possibility of that danger. I shall certainly record my vote against this Bill for the reasons that I have stated. If Lord Moynihan can frame proposals—I do not like the idea of a pool very much, because the only compensation which a doctor would get would be out of the pool; but if some sort of legislation can be introduced on the lines which he and the noble Viscount suggested this afternoon, I should welcome it, so as to enable the medical profession and the voluntary hospitals to get payment.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the objects of this Bill, and I was extremely impressed by the speech of Lord Moynihan and the figures that he quoted. In fact, so impressed was I that I shall certainly not vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. I also agree entirely with what Lord Buckmaster said regarding the compensation that should be paid to doctors who have attended an accident, and who in many cases do not get paid. At the same time I think we are tending to have too much legislation against the private motorist. I am not saying anything about heavy vehicles, but if you keep on legislating like this you will drive the private motorist off the road altogether. After all, the private motorist is also a pedestrian, and you might just as well enforce legislation to make every pedestrian insure himself against being knocked down by a motor car.
I warmly agree with what fell from the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I am not a lawyer myself but I think he said that the Common Law is that you have to prove, first of all, negligence on the part

1065
of the driver of the motor vehicle, secondly, that the person who is knocked down receives an injury, and, thirdly, that it was through the driver's negligence that that injury was received. What would happen under this Bill which makes a third party jointly responsible? There are many occasions when it would he impossible to find a third party, although he might really be solely responsible for the accident. Supposing a dog runs out of a gateway and a motorist, in endeavouring to avoid hurting or killing it, swerves and knocks down a man on a cycle. It is not the motorist's fault. If the dog had not run out he would not have swerved. He might be on a wet road, and his car might get out of control. Is the driver of that car to proceed against the owner of the dog for allowing it to run across the road?
Again, supposing the case of a wet road. This particular instance happened to me three or four years ago. I was driving along the riverside at Kingston, where there are some tramway lines, and I was proceeding at 18 miles an hour, a speed of which I do not think anybody in this House would disapprove. It was an extremely wet day, but there u as fortunately nothing else on the road. What happened I do not know to this day. I imagine my back wheels must have caught in the tramlines, because I got into a skid, and before I could rectify it I turned completely round. Supposing there had been a cyclist there and I had knocked him down, would I, under the terms of this Bill, have had a case against the tramway company or the county council, or whoever it might be? Because it would not have been entirely my fault. I think that Clause 1 goes too far when it says that damages shall be recoverable in every case
".…sexcept where the injury was wholly caused by the negligence of the person so injured….
I think there is practically never a case where an accident is wholly caused by negligence of any one person. It is usually a case of there being a tremendous amount of contributory negligence. I certainly shall not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill in the Division Lobby, but I hope that very drastic Amendments will be moved on the Committee stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, speaking personally, and not as Lord Chancellor, I very much hope that your Lordships will see your way to give this Bill a Second Reading. I do not say that I approve of the wording of all the clauses, but I think the principle underlying the Bill certainly deserves to be worked out in Committee. May I give an example? The days are drawing out. I am very glad to think that many of your Lordships will soon be walking home. It is rather a late debate to-night, and you will probably have to walk home in the dark. Suppose you are crossing the street and you; are knocked down by a motorist. For the next three or four months matters would not very much interest you. You would probably be taken to some hospital where your wounds would be attended to, and you would have a long period of convalescence, and probably in the whole wide world you are the man who would know least about the accident. But the matter does not stop quite there. Supposing you are walking along a country road where there are not likely to be witnesses of the accident, and you are knocked down by a motorist, what chance have you of succeeding in an action? You will know nothing at all about it.
I suppose that when your Lordships get home to-night many of you will listen to the wireless programmes and you will have the usual experience of listeners, who hear something like this two or three times a week:
"An elderly woman was knocked down at 9 o'clock last Friday night in High Street, Wimbledon. Will anybody who witnessed the accident come forward or communicate with Scotland "Yard. Telephone, Whitehall, 1212."
And unless those witnesses come forward that elderly woman will not get a penny compensation.
How can this Bill be said to be unfair to the motorist? Because, after all, you are doing nothing more than this. At a certain period of the case you shift the onus. At present a man has to go into the witness box, and he has to prove, first of all, that the accident has taken place, and then he has to prove negligence, but he is the very last man who can prove it. Surely, it is only fair in those circumstances that the onus should be shifted. You are not in any way penalising the motorist, but you are in

1067
effect saying—I do not quite agree with the word "wholly," but I will come to that later—that if a man is knocked down and rendered unconscious, in the circumstances which I have described, then it is sufficient for him at first to say: "I was crossing the road and I was knocked down," and then the onus is shifted, and it is for the motorist to prove "It was not my fault."
I do not quite like the words of Clause 1, because I think the word "wholly" wants reconsideration. All you are asked to do in this particular case is to say that where a man or woman is knocked down and is the one person who cannot give evidence of it, as soon as he or she has proved that the accident has happened, you will put the onus on the motorist, and say to him: "You can go into the witness box, you can tell the jury what happened, and you will be able to persuade them it was not your fault, or that it was the fault of the other person." It is only to that extent shifting the onus. Then it is said: Why should you take away the right of the motorist to have the case proved against him; that is the Common. Law of England? The answer is this. You have given the motorist very, very great advantages. You have allowed him—I am not saying wrongly—to drive at any speed he likes along the road. Surely, in return for that, it is no very great hardship to say: "Well, if you are in charge of this potentially dangerous machine, and driving at that pace, and there is an accident, it is up to you at any rate to prove that it was not your fault."
May I give two or three figures to show that this matter has reached alarming proportions? Nearly all these cases of personal injuries are tried by juries, and I have the returns for the whole of England and Wales for last year. Altogether in special jury cases there were 452 actions, and of that number 258, or 57 per cent., were in respect of personal injuries. The figures relating to cases which came before common juries are still more remarkable. Altogether there were 745 cases tried in England and Wales last year and no fewer than 525, or 70.5 per cent, of the actions tried before common juries were in respect of cases of personal injury. In these circumstances it is, I think, in the public interest that this Bill should at any rate receive a Second Reading,
1068
and we can go into the matter very carefully when we come to Committee. I am free to confess that there are one or two features of the Bill which might be improved—there are one or two things that might well be added—but I do hope your Lordships will agree with me that this is not the time to put an end to the Bill.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I rise to say, so far as this Bill is concerned, that everyone who listened to the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, must be in sympathy with it. At the same time the Bill is not the simple Bill as it was described a short time ago by the noble and learned Viscount. In fact, the debate this afternoon has proved that there is a very great difference of opinion amongst all those who have spoken, not only as to what the Bill means, but as to how the Bill might be improved. We have heard the legal profession—that is to say, the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and the mover of the Bill itself—and they have expressed their views, differing views very largely, upon the effects of the Bill. We have heard the views of Lord Moynihan, representing the medical profession and the hospitals, and I am sure we all have the greatest sympathy with the views that the noble Lord expressed. We, have heard also the views of Earl Howe on behalf of the motorists. But we have not heard this afternoon a single voice raised in connection with the insurance side of this Bill.
I do not propose this afternoon to put up a case on behalf of the insurance companies, but I venture to say this: that this Bill as it is framed will alter entirely the fundamental principles upon which third-party risks are based and third-party payments have been made in the past, and I do not think that if that is the case—if it is going to alter the Common Law, as we have been told it will—that it is right that we should pass this Bill as a simple measure which would go through its ordinary stages in this House, nor that we should, by a Bill brought in by a private member, pass legislation which will increase, as we know it will increase, the whole of the insurance premiums payable throughout the country, both by pleasure motorists

1069
and by commercial motorists. I venture to say that the commercial motorists are the larger portion of the two, and therefore it will impose a much larger impost upon industry.
I do not think we should pass this Bill, and allow it to go into Committee stage in this House in the ordinary way. Supposing this Bill were to receive its Second Reading this afternoon, I venture to hope that the noble Lord who has in-traduced it will ask your Lordships to refer it to a Select Committee. I think it is perfectly obvious from the statements which have been made this after-neon and from the numerous suggestions which have been made for the amendment of this Bill, that it requires far more serious and far deeper consideration than can be given to it by the ordinary procedure through the Committee stage of your Lordships' House. If the Bill were referred to a Select Committee it would be possible also for the insurance companies to make their representations, and to explain to your Lordships what the real effect of this Bill is going to be from the technical and general insurance point of view. That is the reason why I have risen this afternoon to suggest that if this Bill receives a Second Reading it should be referred to a Select Committee of the House.
LORD COZENS-HARDY: My Lords, I do not propose to delay your Lordships by repeating the arguments which have been advanced against the Second Reading of this Bill, but to my mind it is monstrous to put on a motorist the almost impossible task of proving that an accident was due wholly to the negligence of another party. That would simply create a specially privileged class of "jay-walkers." The point that I wish to mention is quite a short one. It is this, that I think the Bill will defeat its own object to a very large extent. If the roads are to be made safer, it is eminently desirable to encourage the careful driver in every way possible, and the insurance companies lately have endeavoured to do this by. giving an increased "no-claim" bonus to those who make no claims. If this Bill is carried a person will have to make a claim on his insurance company, and thus will lose his "no-claim" bonus, whether he has been at fault himself or not, and that to my mind is a very strong point against the passing of this Bill in
1070
anything like its present form. I hope, my Lords, that this Bill will not be given a Second Reading.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, after what has been said by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack I do not wish to detain your Lordships for more than a comparatively short time. This Bill differs in two main respects, as has been already shown, from the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, introduced last Session. In the Bill of 1932 the only defence provided for the motorist lay in the words at the end of Clause 1: "Unless the injury was caused by the negligence of the person so injured." Now that has been altered. The defence provided now is! merely this, that he has to prove that
"the injury was wholly caused by the negligence of the person so injured or by the negligence of such person and of a third person.''
In other words, it affords the motorist an additional defence—namely, that of showing that the accident was caused wholly by the negligence of a third person if coupled with some negligence on the pact of the injured person. Clause 2 is a new clause. It provides that the motorist may recover any payment which he has made to the injured person and any costs which he may have incurred from a third party if he can show that the accident was due to the negligence of that third party.
I think it is clear that the noble Lord has attempted to meet some at any rate of the criticisms which were made against his original Bill. I do not know whether he has been very successful in doing so, but, if I may be allowed, before dealing with some of the major principles involved in the Bill I should like to say a word or two about Clause 2. Clause 2, as I have explained already, gives the motorist, when he has made a payment in respect of an accident of this kind, the opportunity of recovering what he has paid and the costs that have been incurred if he can prove that a third party has been really the cause of the accident. I honestly do not think that this provision is going to be of much effective help to the motorist in actual practice. To begin with he would have to take that third party into Court with all the attend-

1071
ant expenses. Again, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Howe, pointed out, the third party would not be insured against a risk of this kind, and, therefore, it is quite unlikely in many cases that the chance of the motorist obtaining anything by way of redress would be very great. However, I do not wish to dwell upon that point, because I do not imagine that the noble Lord looks upon it as the most important part of his Bill.
The situation at the present moment is this, that if a person has been injured upon the road by a motorist he must prove before he can recover damages that there has been negligence on the part of that motorist. I think the main purpose of the Bill is to shift the onus of proof in a case of this kind from the injured person, the plaintiff, to the defendant motorist. I think that is the primary effect of this Bill. At the same time it restricts the lines of defence of the motorist to two—namely, that the accident was caused wholly by the negligence of the injured party or wholly caused by the negligence of the injured party plus a third person. As a matter of fact the motorist would not escape liability simply by proving that the accident could not have been avoided by the exercise of any reasonable care upon his part.
The noble Lord in introducing this Bill referred in some detail to the practice which obtains in other countries with regard to the question of compensation in cases of this kind. I do not wish to go over all that ground again. May I go back for a moment to what I said last year when a similar Bill was before your Lordships? The Government had made a considerable number of inquiries to find out what the actual practice was in different European countries, and we obtained information with regard to thirteen. It appears that in eleven out of those thirteen cases the onus of proof is already to a lesser or greater degree upon the defendant motorist, and I think in only two cases out of the thirteen is the position exactly as it is in this country at the present moment. On the other hand, in only two out of the thirteen cases is the position of the motorist worse than it would be in this country if this Bill were actually passed into law. I think one can generally
1072
assume from that that at any rate there is a considerable precedent for altering the principle in so far as the shifting of the onus of proof is concerned.
As I have said, in a large majority of European countries the practice already exists that the onus of proof is upon the defendant motorist rather than the plaintiff. I am quite prepared to go as far as that. At the same time I do wan t to make it quite clear that in the opinion of the Government this measure goes a good deal too far. For instance, the motorist could be put in a very difficult, perhaps a very unfair position. He is left with no defence even if he can prove that there was no fault on his part, or if he can prove that the accident was due to force majeure, or that the occurrence was inevitable. These are defences which obtain in other countries, and which think may be looked upon generally as reasonable ones. I undertook when the Bill was before your Lordships last year to make further investigations with regard to the possible consequences of a measure of this description becoming law, and I dare say your Lordships might be interested to know to what extent it has been possible for me to implement. the promises I gave then. Inquiries have been made from representatives of insurance companies, and there can be no doubt that any Bill in the form submitted by the noble Lord would have the effect of greatly increasing the number of claims and the amounts payable in damages or compensation. I have no doubt that that is one of the objects of the noble Lord. but I think nevertheless these are facts which cannot be left out of account.
I think it is generally admitted that the passage into law of the Road Traffic Act of 1930 has on the whole improved the position of pedestrians, particularly in cases of this kind, in that they do receive more sympathetic treatment both from the Courts and from the insurance companies, although I am quite prepared to admit the position is not as yet satisfactory. am further informed that the effect of the compulsory provisions of that Act has in any case been to increase appreciably the liabilities of the insurance companies, not only from the point of view of increasing the number of claims, but, what is even more marked, in creating a tendency to raise still further the already high level of compensation

1073
obtained in English Courts, for the obvious reason that it is known that in every case the defendant motorist has an insurance company behind him. I am also told that the shifting of the onus of proof, as provided for in the noble Lord's Bill, from the plaintiff to the defendant, would inevitably have the effect of raising substantially existing insurance premiums, and in the opinion of the insurance companies would also tend to add to the already numerous class of fraudulent or collusive claims. I entirely agree that these arguments are not conclusive. At the same time, I think they are arguments of importance and should be very carefully considered before we make any fundamental alteration in the law of the country in respect to these cases.
The noble Lord who introduced this Bill spoke at considerable length on a subject which I know has exercised your Lordships on many occasions and that is the large number of road accidents which occur year by year and month by month and day by day in this country. I have every sympathy for his point of view on this matter, but I think it is only fair to point out—I am not sure that he did not point it out himself—that this Bill if it became law would really have no effect upon the number of accidents in this country. At the same time I entirely agree that that in itself is no reason why the law should not be altered if it can be shown that the law as it at present stands is not a just or fair one. As I see it, there are two main issues involved so far as this Bill is concerned. In the first place, we want to know whether the facts justify a reversal, in the case of injuries inflicted by motorists, and by motorists alone, of what has been for a long time a fundamental principle of English Common Law. In the second place, one wants to enquire whether it is just to deprive the motorist of any defence on account of the contributory negligence of the person injured. In a large number of cases where the motorist has been negligent and the person injured may also have been negligent the motorist under this Bill will have no defence at all.
These are questions which we must ask ourselves and on which, I think, we should come to a considered opinion before we pass any legislation which will make a fundamental alteration in the
1074
present law. With regard to the first point I want to say this. In my opinion the argument on the side of shifting to some extent the onus from the plaintiff to the defendant in the case of motor injuries is a very strong one. I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said in that respect. A motor vehicle on the road is a dangerous instrument and there is a great deal to be said for requiring the user of a vehicle to pay compensation in the case of bodily injury or death to a pedestrian unless he can show that the accident could not have been avoided by the exercise of any reasonable care upon his part. I frankly admit that I think there is a very great deal to be said for bringing about a change of that kind; but I do want to repeat what I have already said, that, at the same time, I think the Bill as it stands at present goes a great deal too far.
There is really very little more that I have to say. There is one thing which I think the debate has definitely proved—I am speaking now on the subject of the question of compensation and insurance generally rather than about this Bill—and that is that the subject; is very complicated and very technical indeed. It bristles with difficulties and requires very careful consideration. I listened with a very great deal of interest and attention to the extremely earnest plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on behalf of the medical practitioners and the hospitals of this country. That is another aspect of the situation which is perhaps not very germane to the Bill in its present form. I repeat that one thing the debate has made clear is that this subject is a very difficult and complicated one. Therefore I wish to reinforce the suggestion already made by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, to the noble Lord who introduced this Bill—that is, that if it receives a Second Reading, as I hope it will, he will be prepared to move that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee for examination and report. I think that that kind of body would be more suitable for going into the very complicated and in some cases controversial questions which are bound to arise in the examination of a Bill of this kind.
In Select Committee it would be possible for evidence to be tendered on

1075
the subject by all kinds of bodies who are interested—insurance interests, motoring organisations, the Pedestrians. Association and other bodies of a similar kind—and in addition to that you could examine alternative proposals which are quite likely to be made. You could examine proposals such as have been made in this House this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and others. These are two directions in which I feel that the possibilities are certainly worth further exploration. I make these suggestions quite tentatively in order to show that there are possibilities which ought to be gone into before any decision is come to on this subject. For instance, I think a scheme might be devised somewhat on the lines of the Workmen's Compensation Act for compensation in cases of motor accidents with limited liability and a fixed statutory scale without regard to negligence. That is to say, a statutory scale of compensation would be payable on proof of the injury having been caused by the motor vehicle. Of course, as in the case of workmen's compensation it would still be open to the plaintiff, if he is not satisfied with the scale of damages, to sue the defendant at Common Law in Court in order to recover further damages if he can. This is a system which I think has been recommended in America by a Committee set up under the ægis of the Columbia University Council of Research in Social Science.
There is another possibility, and that is of drawing up a scheme adopting the principle which has been adopted in certain European countries already—namely, the apportioning of damages in cases where it can be shown that there has been a degree of negligence on the part of both the plaintiff and defendant. That practice obtains in two or three European countries. I do not wish at

CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Astor, V.

Clwyd, L.

Burnham, V.

Conway of Allington, L.

Buxton, E.

Goschen, V.

Danesfort, L. [Teller.]

Iveagh, E.

Mersey, V.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Lucan, E.

Novar, V.

Howard of Penrith, L.

Munster, E.

Marks, L.

Plymouth, E.

Abinger, L.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Selborne, E.

Alvingham, L.

Moynihan, L. [Teller.]

Stanhope, E.

Arnold, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Strafford, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Charnwood, L.

Trent, L.

this stage to go into the workings of a scheme of that kind, and naturally I do not wish to express any definite and final opinion on the suggestions I have made. I have merely alluded to them this evening in order to show that there are all sorts of possibilities which I think ought to be looked into and examined, and I venture to say that in my opinion a body of the nature of a Select Committee is far more suitable to examine a question of this sort than a Committee, if I may be allowed to say so, of your Lordships' House. For those reasons I would ask the noble Lord whether, in the event of the Second Reading being carried, as I gather it will be, he would be prepared to move that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee for examination and Report.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I have to thank the noble Earl for his expression of the desire that the Bill should be read a second time and I most readily accept the proposal that has fallen from the Government that if the Bill is read a second time it should be referred to a Select Committee. I need not go into my reasons at length, but put shortly they are that a good many suggestions have been made in the course of the debate by Lord Buckmaster, Lord Moynihan, and one or two who have spoken for the insurance companies, which could be better enquired into through the machinery of a Select Committee than by a Committee of the Whole House. Therefore, if your Lordships are good enough to give the Bill a Second Reading, I will immediately propose that it be referred to a Select Committee.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 2.

NON-CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

Howe, E. [Teller.]

Resolved in the affirmative and Bill read 2a accordingly.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I now move that this Bill be sent to a, Select Committee. I do not know whether it is necessary to say anything relating to the terms under which the Committee will be appointed, but I trust that there will not be an array of legal talent appearing before this Committee—though perhaps I am speaking against my own profession —which would of course add greatly to expense and delay.
Moved, That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill referred to a Select Committee accordingly.

FOREIGN JUDGMENTS (RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that a Committee of six Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons as a Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in the present Session: that the Lords named on the paper be named of the Committee; and that such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.
Moved, That a Committee of six Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons as a Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in the present Session:
That the Lords following be named of the Committee—

E. Lucan.

E. Cranhrook.

1078

V. Mersey.

L. Addington.

L. Askwith.

L. Warrington of Clyffe.

That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a, Chairman.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to request them to appoint six members to be joined with the said Committee.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, before the House adjourns, may I ask the noble, Marquess if he can say what the work will be for the rest of this week and, if possible, for the early days of next week?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I will try to give the noble Lord the information for which he asks. Tomorrow (Wednesday) the Third Reading of the Austrian Loan Guarantee Bill will be taken. There is no business for your Lordships on Thursday, March 9. For Tuesday, March 14, there have been put down the Committee stage of the Pharmacy and Poisons Bill, and the Second Reading of the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Amendment Bill. It is proposed to take the Committee stage of the London Passenger Transport Bill on Wednesday, March 15. There is also on that day a Motion, in the name of Lord Kinnoull. On Thursday the 16th there is the Adelphi Estate Bill. I think perhaps that is all the business about which the noble Lord desires to know, but if I can give him any further information I shall be glad to do so.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before seven o'clock.

EVIDENCE (FOREIGN, DOMINION AND COLONIAL DOCUMENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the petition for additional provision in the following Bill:
Salford Corporation [H.L.].
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

SALFORD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION.
  Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.
BARKING CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  OXFORD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    ST. HELENS CORPORATION BILL.
    Reports from His Majesty's Attorney-General received and ordered to lie on the Table.

SCOTTISH RASPBERRIES MARKETING SCHEME, 1932.
Draft scheme for the regulation of the marketing of Scottish raspberries, submitted to the Minister, under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.