Sitting of 16 November 1933

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

  STANDING ORDERS—(PRIVATE BUSINESS).
  Resolved,
  "That the Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business as set out in the Schedule attached hereto be approved by this House:

  SCHEDULE.
  Standing Order 10, line 70, leave out "more than one county," and insert "one or more counties other than the county in which the principal office of the promoters is situate."
  Standing Order 10, line 79, leave out "referred to in Standing Order 10."
  Standing Order 12, line 6, leave out "not later than the Twentieth day of November."
  Standing Order 12, line 8, after "Days." insert "commencing not later than the Twentieth day of November."
  Standing Order 12, line 17, after "deposited," insert "for public inspection."
  Standing Order 29, line 2, after "or," insert "sanctioning a."
  Standing Order 36, line 11, after "deposited," insert "for public inspection."
  Standing Order 39, line 35, leave out "marked 'Tidal Waters.'"
  Standing Order 41, line 6, leave out "deposited at," and insert "delivered at or sent by registered post to."
  Standing Order 73, line 25, leave out "introduced or proposed to be introduced into this House," and insert "brought from the House of Lords."
  Standing Order 73, at end, add—
  Provided always that if such an approval as is mentioned in Standing Order 71 has been given to the Bill as introduced or proposed to be introduced into the House of Lords and by the terms of such approval the Bill shall have been approved subject to such additions, alterations, and variations as Parliament may think fit to make therein, then it shall not be necessary for the purposes of this Order
  1082
  to obtain any further approval in respect of any provisions inserted in the Bill in the House of Lords.
  Provided nevertheless that it shall be competent for the Committee on the Bill if they think fit, having regard to the nature and effect of such provisions, to require any further evidence of the approval of such provisions on the part of the proprietors of the Company.
  Standing Order 74, line 27, leave out "introduced or proposed to be introduced into this House," and insert "brought from the House of Lords."
  Standing Order 74, line 34, leave out "introduced or proposed to be introduced into this House," and insert "brought from the House of Lords."
  Standing Order 74, line 48, leave out "by the terms of."
  Standing Order 74, line 49, after "such," insert "a."
  Standing Order 74, line 49, after "consent," insert "as is mentioned in Standing Order 72 has been given to."
  Standing Order 74, line 51, after "Lords," insert "and by the terms of the resolution or consent the Bill."
  Standing Order 211, line 3, leave out "and ordered to be read a Second time."
  Standing Order 211, line 5, after "laid," insert "and ordered to be read a Second time."
  Standing Order 211, line 6, at end, add "the first time."
  Standing Order 220, line 3, leave out from the first "Bill," to "and," in line 5.
  Standing Order 220, line 7, leave out from "Bills," to "which," in line 9.
  Standing Order 223, line 6, leave out from "postponed," to "as," in line 7, and insert "either until some future day at the time at which private business is usually taken or until half-past seven of the clock on any day not being a Friday."
  Standing Order 243, line 11, after "Reading," insert "Provided that business not set down by order of the House shall have precedence of business 60 set down."
  Standing Order 243, line 12, leave out "and."
  Standing Order 269, line 4, after "1899," insert "as amended by any subsequent enactment."
  Standing Order 278, line 5, leave out "33," and insert "37."
  Appendix A, line 11, after "taken," insert "[or used]."
  Appendix A, line 11, leave out "for the purposes of the said undertaking," and insert "under the powers of the said Act."
  Appendix A, line 17, leave out "and Section of the said undertaking," and insert" [and Section] relating to the purposes of the said Act."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Return ordered,
  "showing with reference to Session 1932–33, (1) the total number of days on which the House sat; and (2) the days on which Business of Supply was considered."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  5.

  6.

  Date when Closure moved, and by whom.

  Question before House or Committee when moved.

  Whether in House or Committee.

  Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Speaker or Chairman.

  Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the (hair, decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion.

  Result of Motion and, it a Division, Numbers for and against.

  and (2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads—

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  5.

  Date when Closure moved, and by whom.

  Question before Committee when moved.

  Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Chairman.

  Assent withheld because, in the option of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion.

  Result of Motion, and if a Division, Numbers for and against.

  [The Deputy-Chairman].

  PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Return ordered,
  "of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, and Bills for confirming Schemes under the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, introduced into the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Session 1932–33:
  Of all the Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1932–33 have been reported on "by Committees on Opposed Private Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member has served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed:
  Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in Session, 1932–33, have been referred by the Committee of Selection to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, together with the names of the Members who served on the Committee; the number of days on which the Committee

  CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER No. 26).
  Return ordered,
  "respecting application of Standing Order No. 26 (Closure of Debate) during Session 1932–33, (1) in the House and in Committee of the Whole House, under the following heads:—
  sat; and the number of days on which each Member was summoned and on which each Member attended:
  And, of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, and Bills for confirming Schemes under the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which have been referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

  PUBLIC BILLS.
  Return ordered,
  "of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1932–33; showing the number which received the Royal Assent; the number which were passed by this House, bin not by the House of Lords; the number passed by the House of Lords, but not by this House; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills as did not receive the Royal Assent were dropped or postponed and rejected in either House of Parliament."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Return ordered,
  "of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in Session 1932–33, with the total number of signatures in that Session."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

  SELECT COMMITTEES.
  Return ordered,
  "of the number of Select Committees appointed in Session 1932–33 and the Court of Referees; the subjects of inquiry; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance of witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name of the Member who moved for such Select Committee; also the total number of Members who served on Select Committees."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  Return ordered,
  "of the days on which the House sat in Session 1932–33, stating for each day the date of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after 11 p.m.; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Proceedings."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

  STANDING COMMITTEES.
  Return ordered,
  "for Session 1932–33 of (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the five Standing Committees appointed under Standing Order No. 47, showing, with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings to which he was summoned and at which he was present; (2) the number of Bills considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of days on which each Committee sat, and the names of all Bills considered by a Standing Committee, distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing, in the case of each Bill, the particular Standing Committee by whom it was considered, the number of days on which it was considered by the Committee, and the number of Members present on each of those days,"—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT.
  Mr. LIDDALLasked the Minister of Labour the total number of juveniles aged 14 to 16 in employment in Great Britain; how many juveniles aged 14 to
  1086
  16 work without legal limits of hours; and how many work for hours so long or at such periods that it is impossible for them to attend evening classes?
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): Statistics are not available showing the total numbers of juveniles aged 14 to 16 in employment in Great Britain. As regards the second and third parts of the question, complete statistics are not available but some information is given in the fourth report of the National Advisory Council for Juvenile Employment for England and Wales and the sixth report of the corresponding council for Scotland, copies of which I am sending my hon. Friend.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour on whose authority courts of referees are disallowing claims for unemployment benefit on the ground that the applicant has failed to apply for work at certain industrial establishments outside their own area; and whether any special instructions have been given to courts of referees during the last three months?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The courts of referees are independent statutory authorities whose decisions cannot be questioned except on appeal to the umpire. No instructions are given to the courts but copies of important decisions by the umpire are sent to them.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Doncaster mine workers are being called before the court of referees because they have failed to apply for work at Sheffield, 15 miles away, where there are already 15,000 unemployed?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The hon. Member did not give me any particulars in his question, but I have made some inquiries of the cases in his district, and I find that in some the decision of the court of referees was unanimous; in others, it was not. Those cases in which the decision was not unanimous should be taken to the umpire.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask on whose authority courts of referees are suspending benefit on the ground that persons

    1087
    have not made application for jobs in districts other than their own where there are already thousands of unemployed?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: They do so on their own authority. I have no authority over courts of referees.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether in such cases he will make representations to the courts of referees not to apply the not-genuinely-seeking-work provision?
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the law the proper one?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The hon. Member must not ask me for my opinion on a point of law, certainly not across the Table of the House. As I have pointed out, the proper course is to go to the Umpire, over whom I have no authority.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELLasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who have been denied unemployment benefit by reason that they were not likely to obtain insurable employment, that they were seasonal workers, or that they had reached the age limit, respectively, during the two years preceding 31st October?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply is somewhat long, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    During the period 13th October, 1931, to 31st October, 1933, 278,291 claims were disallowed by courts of referees in Great Britain on the ground that the applicants had not proved that they were normally insurable and would normally seek to obtain a livelihood by means of insurable employment. The number of claims disallowed during the same period under Anomaly Regulation (B) relating to seasonal workers was 54,087. Statistics showing the number of persons who ceased to be entitled to benefit upon reaching the age of 65 are not available. These figures relate to claims and the number of separate individuals concerned is not available.

    INSURANCE FUND.
    Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Minister of Labour what is the estimated annual deficiency in the Unemployment
    1088
    Fund, based on income and expenditure, with the latest figures of employed and unemployed insured persons?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: During the current financial year to date there has not been a deficiency but a surplus in the insurance account of the Unemployment Fund amounting to about £5,470,000.
    Mr. GRENFELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman supply figures showing the details of income and expenditure?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I will consider that point. I can tell the hon. Member that the surplus amounts to £5,470,000.

    BENEFIT (REDUCTIONS).
    Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Minister of Labour the approximate amount of saving in payments of unemployment benefit effected by the operation of the cuts in unemployment benefit and the means test in the period 1931 to the latest convenient date?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: In the period of about two years up to the end of October, 1933, the reduction in payments due to the lower rates of benefit introduced in October, 1931, is estimated to have been about £26,750,000 and that due to the needs test at about £27,750,000.

    TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.
    Mr. HICKSasked the Minister of Labour whether it is in accordance with the recommendations of his Department that public assistance committees should ascertain the rent paid by applicants for unemployment transitional payments, and recommend them to get cheaper housing accommodation?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: This is a matter within the discretion of local authorities and one upon which I have no power to issue directions to them.
    Mr. HICKS: Is it not desirable to have a general standard of housing below which people should be regarded as being not properly housed, and, therefore, is it not desirable that a public assistance committee should not use their position for the purpose of telling applicants that they ought to move into a smaller house or let some part of their own house?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I am of course conversant with the point put by the hon. Member, but I have no power to issue instructions as the matter is entirely in the hands of local authorities.

    UNINSURED WORKERS.
    Sir ALFRED BEITasked the Minister of Labour the principal trades and occupations not covered by the existing Unemployment Insurance Acts, and the estimated number of persons employed in these trades?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: An analysis of the classes of employment outside the scope of unemployment insurance, and the approximate numbers of persons involved, so far as figures are available, are given in paragraph 93 on pages 56 and 57 of the final report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance, a copy of which is in the Library.
    Sir A. BEIT: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that he will at an early opportunity review the whole question with a view to the possibility of including certain trades which are not within the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Acts?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: This question and many others have been considered in the preparation of the Bill.

    UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.
    Mr. LIDDALLasked the Minister of Labour the estimated increase in the personnel of his Department, and in the administrative costs, involved by the new Unemployment Bill?
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Minister of Labour the estimate of the number of additional Civil Service staff which will be created under the new Unemployment Bill?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The proposals in Part II of the Unemployment Bill will necessarily lead to some increase in administrative costs borne by the Exchequer. I am not at present in a position to give particulars but I will include a statement on the subject in the revised memorandum which I have undertaken to issue before the Second Heading of the Bill.
    Mr. LIDDALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the President of the Board of Trade that the Civil Service is too large now and that we could do with a much smaller Civil Service?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: It is a matter of opinion, but I am inclined to think that
    1090
    I agree with what the President of the Board of Trade said.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman enable us to have the figures and estimates of the Government Actuary as to the cost of the Bill?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I will consider that suggestion. There will be a statement in the revised memorandum on the face of the Bill.
    Mr. MAXTON: Is that all the information that Members are to have—the revised memorandum as printed on the Bill I Will there be no White Paper?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Oh, yes; there will be a White Paper.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when a new Bill deals with National Health Insurance, as a rule we get a copy of the report of the Government Actuary on the Bill?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I am not very conversant with what happens in the case of a National Health Insurance Bill, but I will consider the point which has been raised.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the negotiations are yet concluded with local authorities with respect to future financial responsibility for the unemployed; and whether he can now inform the House of the agreed conditions?
    Mr. THORNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any agreement has been made with the local authorities in connection with the contribution of 60 per cent, towards the cost of relief of able-bodied unemployed under the Unemployment Bill?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The financial arrangements under Part II of the Unemployment Bill so far as they concern local authorities are still under discussion with them.
    Mr. LAWSON: As a settlement of this matter affects a great part of the Bill now before the House, what is the reason for the delay in a settlement?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot lay down an ultimatum and say that negotiations shall be concluded by a particulars

    1091
    time, but I have no reason to suppose that we shall not finish negotiations in time to give the House information when the Second Reading of the Bill is before us.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that local authorities are hostile to the second part of the Unemployment Insurance Bill?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot help what the hon. Member understands, but it is not correct.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is it not almost without precedent to have a section of a Bill so dependent as is this new Bill upon a settlement of this matter laid before the House 1 Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us a guarantee of an early settlement of this matter, so that the local authorities will know where they stand?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I cannot give any such guarantee.

    BUILDING INDUSTRY.
    Mr. ST0URT0Nasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed in the building industry at the latest convenient date?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: At 23rd October, 1933, there were 169,243 insured persons in the building industry classification recorded as unemployed in Great Britain.
    Mr. STOURTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government will take the necessary steps to set this army of unemployed building operatives to work again? Surely that would be a more practical step than leaving them to draw unemployment insurance benefit?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I am very glad to be able to inform the hon. Gentleman that the number reported as unemployed on 24th October, 1932, was 248,047, and that now the figure is down to 169,243.

    POOR LAW RELIEF.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Minister of Health if he will state, as on any recent convenient date, the number of cases in which unemployment benefit has been supplemented by grants from public assistance authorities?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): The figures given to the hon. Member on 23rd February last were derived from s, special not a periodical return. I have no later information.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health if he will state for the latest available date the number of persons, exclusive of dependants, who were in receipt of Poor relief on grounds of unemployment; and how many of these were persons insured under the Unemployment Insurance Act and registered at an Employment Exchange, not so insured but registered at an Employment Exchange, and neither insured nor registered at an Employment Exchange?
    Sir H. YOUNG: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Does the statement show that the bulk of the people receiving assistance on the ground of unemployment are registered in Employment Exchanges?
    Sir H. YOUNG: It would be possible to make such a deduction, but I think it would be better for the House to see the tables before coming to a conclusion.
    Following is the answer:
    The latest complete return of the number of men and women in receipt of out-relief on account of unemployment relates to the 1st January, 1933, and does not give particulars of their condition in respect of insurance or registration. The number then was 122,298 men and 8,273 women. The following table gives the weekly averages of persons in receipt of outdoor relief and registered at an Employment Exchange during September, 1933. The relief to an unknown number of these persons may have been due primarily to sickness and not to unemployment.

    Insured.

    Uninsured.

    Men

    …

    74,875

    33,926

    Women

    …

    2,927

    5,191

    Total

    …

    77,802

    39,117

    I am unable to say how many persons in receipt of outdoor relief on account of unemployment are not registered at an Employment Exchange, but the number cannot be large.

    ARMAMENT FACTORIES (EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour what increase there has been during recent months in the number of persons employed in armament factories?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.
    Mr. MANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to obtain this information, as it would be of considerable interest to the country?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The hon. Member will see that there are no separate details, because one firm may manufacture bicycles and rifles and another firm motor cars and warships.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Is paint used to make battleships?
    Mr. MANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give further consideration to the matter and see if it is possible to obtain this information?

  TRANSPORT.

    STREET ACCIDENTS, LONDON.
    Mr. LIDDALLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the recently published figures of London street accidents; and whether he proposes to take any action in London to prevent a further increase?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hammersley) on the 8th instant. For the present I can only add that the whole subject is receiving my close consideration in consultation with the Minister of Transport.
    Mr. LIDDALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the introduction of one-way circuses has decreased the number of accidents occurring at such places as Trafalgar Square and Parliament Street?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I prefer not to go into details. I am dealing with the whole problem.

    HORSE-DRAWN VEHICLES.
    Mr. DORANasked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce legislation restricting the use of horse-drawn vehicles in the main London and provincial thoroughfares?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): Powers already exist for the restriction where necessary of the use of any class of vehicular traffic upon particular roads whether in London or elsewhere.

    ALIENS (GERMAN).
    Mr. RHYSasked the Home Secretary the number of German citizens admitted to Great Britain during the last six months for which figures are available, and the number who have left?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: During the six months ended the 30th September last, the number of Germans coming to this country from all parts of the world, including tourists, business visitors, students and others was 33,140 and the number of those who embarked was 29,768. The corresponding figures for 1932 were 25,471 landings and 23,645 embarkations. There is normally an excess of landings over embarkations during this period of the year, but the balance tends to correct itself in the last quarter when the holiday season has come to an end. The excess of landings on the 30th September was 1,826 last year and 3,372 this year—a difference of only 1,546.
    Mr. MAXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman putting any difficulties in the way of Germans landing here—difficulties that would not apply to the nationals of any other country?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. Every case is considered on its merits.
    Mr. MAXTON: Is particular nationality one of the merits considered at the present time?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Oh, no, Sir.
    Lord SCONEasked the Home Secretary if he will state the conditions under which political refugees from Germany are permitted to take up employment in this country; and whether he is satisfied that no British professional men

    1095
    or skilled workers are being deprived of their livelihood through the competition of such refugees?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have explained in the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lewisham (Sir P. Dawson) the position with regard to aliens seeking employment in this country. A cardinal feature of the Government's policy is to secure the object which my noble Friend has in view.

  POLICE.

    COLLEGE.
    Mr. WHITEasked the Home Secretary if he can now make a statement with regard to the present position of the proposal to establish a police college?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: An officer, the present Chief Constable of Lincolnshire, has been selected to take charge of the college and the preliminary work incidental to its establishment is well in hand. I should prefer to postpone any detailed statement until this work is further advanced but I may say that it is hoped to open the college next spring or in the early summer.
    Brigadier-General NATION: Where is the college located?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have already given that information to the House. I cannot now remember the exact description.

    UNIFORMS.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Home Secretary if he will consider the advisability of arranging for the adoption of a similar type of uniform for all the various police forces in the country, with a view to greater economy?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: This matter is under consideration by a representative Committee and I hope that the result will be to secure a substantial measure of uniformity in the dress of the various forces and some saving in cost.

    ARMY, NAVY AND AIR FORCE PENSIONERS.
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Home Secretary if he will give particulars of the officers of the higher ranks of the Metropolitan Police who are in receipt of half or other pay from Army, Navy or Air Force services?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate particulars in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the particulars:
    Lord Trenchard, Commissioner—Half pay as Marshal of the R.A.F., £l,602 per annum.
    Colonel Laurie, Assistant Commissioner—Army pension, £140 per annum.
    Colonel Drummond, Deputy Assistant Commissioner —Army pension, £707 10s. per annum.
    Major Conyers-Baker, Chief Constable—Army pension, £230 10s. per annum.
    Major Ferguson, Chief Constable—Army pension, £200 per annum (was £235; £35 commuted).
    Major De Chair, Chief Constable—Army pension, £235 per annum.

    FRENCH LOTTERIES.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOTasked the Home Secretary if he can give any information upon the action of the French authorities in declining to accept the postal application of British citizens for tickets in the recent French public lotteries; and whether such action was the result of any representations made from this country?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have no information on this subject other than statements which I have seen in the Press to the effect that applications by post from persons in this country for tickets in this lottery were not entertained by the French authorities. No representations on this subject have been made to the French Government by His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. FOOT: If it is found upon inquiry that such action was taken by the French authorities, can that example be passed on to the authorities of the Irish Free State?

    IRISH SWEEPSTAKES.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOTasked the Home Secretary if he can give approximate figures showing the amount subscribed from Great Britain to the Irish sweep stakes since 11th July last and the estimated amounts spent, respectively, on sellers' commission, expenses, and prizes, on grants to hospitals and other public

    1097
    purposes, on payment of duties levied by the Irish. Free State, and on prizes distributed in Great Britain?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: There have so far been 10 sweepstakes promoted in Dublin by the Hospitals Trust Limited. In previous answers I have given information regarding the first nine up to and including the sweepstake promoted in connection with this year's Derby. The figures relating to the tenth sweepstake in connection with this year's Cambridge-shire have been calculated on the same assumption that the amount subscribed in Great Britain is proportionate to the prizes known to have been won in this country. As the answer involves a number of figures I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    On the basis that the amount subscribed in Great Britain is proportionate to the prizes known to have been won in this country, and that the contributions from that amount towards expenses, Irish Free State Hospitals, and Irish Free State Stamp Duty may be calculated on the same basis, the figures relating to the Cambridgeshire sweepstake are as follow:—

    £

    Total subscriptions from Great Britain (including sellers' commission)

    1,852,000

    Sellers' commission

    308,650

    Expenses (in addition to sellers' commission)

    176,450

    Available surplus for hospitals, etc.

    285,750

    Irish Free State Stamp Duty

    95,250

    Prizes won in Great Britain

    926,000

    Sellers' prizes received in Great Britain

    17,250

    It will be noticed that the disbursements fall short of the amount estimated to have been subscribed from Great Britain by £42,650. This balance may be taken as representing that part of the subscription from Great Britain which was expended in the award of prizes to subscribers in other countries.

    TOTALISATORS (GREYHOUND RACING TRACKS).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary whether, before any decision is reached on the question of legalizing
    1098
    totalisators on greyhound racing tracks, he will consult representative bodies and persons who are opposed to such legislation?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am ready to consider any communications that may be sent to me on the subject, but I believe that the Government are fully seized of the different points of view which are held on this subject and to which the most careful consideration will be given before a decision is reached.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Have personal representations been made to the right hon. Gentleman by any bodies other than those directly interested in totalisators?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, I received this morning a deputation representing all the churches.
    Mr. LEVY: Is there any justification for prohibiting the mechanical bookmaker when human bookmakers are allowed?

    FIRES (SEASIDE PIERS).
    Mr. DORANasked the Home Secretary whether he has investigated the recent series of fires on seaside piers; and if he will make a statement on the matter?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: These fires were not investigated by my Department and I regret I can make no statement regarding their cause.

    THEATRES ACT (UNIVERSITY CENSORSHIP).
    Captain CUNNINGHAM-REIDasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to the disapproval aroused by a recent use by the Vice Chancellor of Oxford University of the powers of censorship conferred under Section 10 of the Theatres Act, 1843, upon the Vice Chancellors of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, but withdrawn from the Vice Chancellor of Cambridge University by the Cambridge University and Corporation Act, 1894; and if he will consider introducing legislation to repeal so much of Section 10 of the Theatres Act, 1843, as is still in force?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As at present advised, I do not propose to introduce legislation such as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests.

    PROSECUTION AND CONVICTION, BAKEWELL.
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that on Saturday last at Bakewell a man was sentenced to three months' imprisonment for stealing a nut, valued at 2d., from another man's bicycle; and whether he intends to take any action to get the sentence reduced?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: My attention has not previously been drawn to the case to which the hon. Member refers, but I am making inquiry and will communicate with him as soon as I am in a position to do so.

    EDUCATION (TEACHERS' SALARIES).
    Brigadier-General NATIONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what is the present composition of the Burnham Committee on the salaries of secondary school teachers; what was the date of their last meeting; and whether a new chairman has been appointed in the room of the late Lord Burnham?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herwald Ramsbotham): The Standing Joint Committee on Scales of Salaries for Teachers in Secondary Schools consists of two panels, each containing 26 members, representing respectively associations of local education authorities and of teachers. The local education authorities' panel contains nine representatives appointed by the County Councils Association, seven appointed by the Association of Municipal Corporations, seven appointed by the Association of Education Committees, and three appointed by the London County Council. The teachers' panel consists of five representatives appointed by the Incorporated Association of Headmasters, five appointed by the Incorporated Association of Headmistresses, six appointed by the Incorporated Association of Assistant Masters, five appointed by the Incorporated Association of Assistant Mistresses, and five appointed by the National Union of Teachers. The Committee last met on the 16tJh March last. As regards the last part of the question, my Noble Friend would refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. R. T. Evans) last week
    1100
    of which he is sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy.
    Brigadier-General NATION: When is the first meeting under the new chairman likely to take place?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: According to present arrangements, on 29th November.

  HOUSING.

    STATISTICS.
    Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLEasked the Minister of Health the number of houses erected, respectively, with and without public financial assistance, during the year ended 30th September, 1933; the corresponding numbers for 1932; and the average cost of such houses of four-roomed non-parlour type?
    Sir H. YOUNG: 50,433 houses were provided with State assistance and 167,880 without State assistance in England and Wales during the year ended the 30th September, 1933, making a total of 218,313. The corresponding numbers for the year ended the 30th September, 1932, were 69,090 and 132,886 respectively, making a total of 201,976. (These numbers exclude houses of a rateable value exceeding £78 (£105 in the Metropolitan area)). The average cost of four-roomed houses cannot be separately stated, but the average cost of all non-parlour houses in contracts let by local authorities, other than the London County Council, or in approved direct labour schemes in England and Wales during the year ended 30th September, 1933, was £292. The corresponding figure for the year ended 30th September, 1932, was £312. These average costs include the cost of paths, drains and fences, but exclude the cost of land, roads, sewers and architects' fees.
    Sir F. FREMANTLEasked the Minister of Health the number of cottages erected in agricultural parishes during the years ended 30th September, 1932 and 1933, respectively; and the average rental at which such cottages are let?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The numbers of houses completed with State assistance in agricultural parishes in England and Wales during the years ended the 30th September, 1932 and 1933, were 4,392 and 3,103, respectively. I have no information as to the average rental of such houses.
    Sir F. FREMANTLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard this as a fairly satisfactory return, or does he consider that more could be done in gingering up the general policy of authorities in agricultural districts?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that all that is possible in the administration of these Acts is being done.
    Mr. LEVY: Are all these houses adequately supplied with a proper water service, or is that being left to chance?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I do not think that question arises out of the question on the Paper.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many agricultural labourers have become the tenants of the new houses; and what special steps the Ministry have taken to inspire rural district councils to build more houses for rural workers?
    Sir H. YOUNG: These are, generally, typical agricultural labourers' houses.
    Sir F. FREMANTLEasked the Minister of Health the number of houses reconditioned under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, 1926 to 1931, during the years ended 30th September, 1932 and 1933, respectively?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The numbers of houses reconditioned in England and Wales under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, 1926 and 1931, during the years ended 30th September, 1932 and 1933, were 1,286 and 869 respectively.
    Sir F. FREMANTLE: Is 869 the 1933 figure or the 1932 figure?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The 1933 figure.
    Sir F. FREMANTLE: In view of that extremely unsatisfactory result, cannot the right hon. Gentleman do something to move rural authorities to act in this matter, which has now been hanging over for a long time?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Gentleman is aware that I recently addressed a circular on the subject to the local authorities, and it is undoubtedly bearing good fruit.
    Sir BASIL PETO: Will the Minister point to the example of Devon in that matter?
    Major NATHANasked the Minister of Health whether he can state the total number of private families occupying one and two rooms, respectively, in the administrative county of London at a recent date?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The most recent figures available are those for the 1931 Census. These are given in full in Table 11 of the London County Report volume, to which I would refer the hon. and gallant Member.
    Major NATHAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that adequate steps are being taken in the towns to provide suitable housing accommodation for these unfortunate people?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The answer is in the affirmative.

    WORKING-CLASS HOUSES (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
    Mr. WHITEasked the Minister of Health if it is his intention to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the Moyne report?
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Minister of Health if he is now in a position to state what action the Government intends to take in connection with the report of the Moyne Committee?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The recommendations of this committee are receiving consideration in the light of the observations now received from the associations of local authorities concerned.

    DIRECT LABOUR.
    Mr. WILMOTasked the Minister of Health if he will give a list of the names of the local authorities which have built houses by direct labour under the Housing Acts within the last two years, and the number of houses so built in each case?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I am sending the hon. Member the detailed information for which he has asked.

    SLUM CLEARANCE.
    Sir A. BEITasked the Minister of Health the total estimated number of slum-dwellers in England and Wales; the estimated percentage of this number which will be affected by the various slum clearance schemes submitted to him by

    1103
    the local authorities in response to his recent circular; and the total estimated cost of such schemes?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The best estimate which I can give is that the five-year programmes now being submitted by local authorities, which deal with the existing slums in those areas, will involve the rehousing or more than 1,000,000 persons. The estimated cost of carrying out the programmes is £95,000,000.

    MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR.
    Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health what public provision is being made by local authorities to ensure the proper maintenance and repair of houses purchased through the building societies by working-class tenants?
    Sir H. YOUNG: Local authorities have powers under the Housing Acts and Public Health Acts to ensure the repair of working-class houses by their owners and these powers are widely exercised.

    SLUM CHILDREN.
    Mr. E. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health whether other public medical officers in addition to Dr. G. C. M. McGonigle, of Stockton-on-Tees, have reported signs of malnutrition and physical deterioration in children who have been removed from the slums into new housing estates?
    Sir H. YOUNG: No further report of the kind referred to by the hon. Member is known to me.
    Mr. E. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health if he will state what reports he has received from public medical officers and other medical authorities as to the extent of the physical, mental, and moral deterioration of children and adolescents occasioned by five years' up to ten years' residence in the slums, or during the period allotted by the slum-clearance programmes for completion?
    Sir H. YOUNG: No report has come to my notice dealing with the particular point referred to by the hon. Member. I do not regard the injurious effects to children and adolescents of residence in slums as being in doubt.

    RENTS.
    Mr. HICKSasked the Minister of Health whether any houses built by private enterprise are being let at rentals of from 15s. or less in the London area and 10s. or less in other parts of the country, and how many?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I regret that no statistics are available to enable me to reply to the hon. Member.

    UNOCCUPIED DWELLINGS.
    Mr. HICKSasked the Minister of Health whether the Government will consider legislation in respect to taxing or rating empty house property, much of which is now in evidence in the suburbs, so as to ensure that it is occupied at reasonable rents?
    Sir H. YOUNG: So far as the question relates to rating the answer is in the negative. So far as it relates to taxation it should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. HICKS: Does the Minister not think that if some such steps were taken, it would assist considerably in putting into use property which is now idle?
    Sir H. YOUNG: No, I do not think that that deduction can be made.

    BUILDING SOCIETY MORTGAGES (FORECLOSURES).
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Minister of Health whether the building societies supply information in regard to the number of house purchasers whose mortgages they have foreclosed; and what are the figures for each of the past five years?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative, and I am therefore unable to give the figures asked for in the second part.

    TOWN PLANNING (LONDON).
    Major NATHANasked the Minister of Health how many resolutions have been passed by the London County Council under Section 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, in respect of land already built upon within the administrative county of London; and whether he can give particulars as to the areas covered by any such resolutions?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The London County Council have notified me that they have passed a resolution under Section 6 of the Act in respect of an area within the Metropolitan boroughs of Finsbury, Holborn and St. Pancras. They have not yes, however, submitted the resolution, with particulars of the area, to me for approval.
    Major NATHAN: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Ministry have so far given no approval in these cases?
    Sir H. YOUNG: None have yet been submitted for approval.
    Major NATHAN: But does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a full and comprehensive planning scheme for London is a necessary condition precedent to any adequate programme of housing?

    RE-HOUSING ACCOMMODATION.
    Major NATHANasked the Minister of Health whether he intends to issue any manual with respect to the planning, design, and construction of the rehousing accommodation to be provided by local authorities for families displaced as a result of clearance operations under the Housing Act, 1930?
    Sir H. YOUNG: Yes, Sir, a manual on the subject is about to be issued.

    STATE INSURANCE AND PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (ADMINISTRATION).
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of setting up a Ministry of Insurance to take over the whole of the financial administration of pensions, unemployment benefit, health insurance, and public assistance expenditure in order both to save administration expenses and provide a nucleus for a comprehensive system of contributory all-in insurance?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): Consideration has been given from time to time to proposals on the lines of that of the hon. Member, but the conclusion has been that the financial and practical difficulties in concentrating the existing schemes in one administration and replacing them ultimately by such a scheme as the hon. Member has in mind are so serious as to outweigh any possible
    1106
    advantages. I do not think that a further review would be likely to lead to any different conclusion.
    Sir F. FREMANTLE: Is it not the fact that the insurance scheme originated in a single Measure in 1911, and that experience showed that the different branches had to be separated after a time, in administration?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is so.

    WATER SUPPLIES.
    Mr. R. DAVIESasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the scarcity of water which prevailed in many parts of the country consequent upon the recent drought, his Department has taken any special measures to press upon local authorities the desirability of providing a clean and adequate water supply for the future; and, if so, what are those steps?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The towns generally met the drought in a successful manner, the difficulties being mainly in rural areas. I have in a special circular urged upon Rural District Councils and County Council's the desirability of carrying out a thorough survey of the conditions of existing supplies and the availability of new supplies, and of liberally exercising their powers to make contributions, in order to effect improvements.

    INSURED PERSONS (WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION).
    Mr. R. DAVIESasked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the unsatisfactory position of health insured persons who are in receipt of workmen's compensation for total incapacity, referred by their approved societies to regional medical officers, certified by those officers as capable of following some but not their usual occupation; that the approved societies; on the information of the regional medical officers then refer such insured persons to the Employment Exchanges on instructions that they will not be excused arrears for the purposes of health insuance and old age pensions benefits unless they secure franks on their health insurance cards; and will he take steps to remedy this position?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I am not aware of any special difficulty having arisen in connection with the matter referred to by the hon. Member. If, as a result of the report of a regional medical officer, an approved society decides that a member is not incapable of work within the meaning of the National Health Insurance Acts, excusal of arrears of contributions can be given only on the ground of proved unemployment. If a member is not able to obtain franks for this purpose, it is open to him to submit to his society other evidence that he was in fact unemployed.
    Mr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have already called the attention of his Department to this anomaly by which a doctor, for the purposes of workmen's compensation, certifies an injured workman to be totally incapacited, while the regional medical officer for the purposes of health insurance, certifies him not to be totally incapacitated; and will he look into the question again?
    Sir H. YOUNG: Yes, Sir. I will certainly look into the matter, but I must remind the hon. Member that the standards for the two Acts are different. They cover different conditions. He will find, I think, that the fact of the obtaining of a frank is not the only evidence of unemployment but merely one form of evidence and that on application to the approved society, other evidence can be given which would deal with the cases to which he refers.
    Mr. DAVIES: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that, when the approved society sends the injured man to the Employment Exchange, the insurance company which is paying the workmen's compensation becomes suspicious at once that the man is not totally incapacitated from following his own employment?

    MENTAL TREATMENT.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction that exists at the manner in which the powers of the Board of Control are being used in cases where those dealt with are alleged to be subnormal; and whether he will set up a committee to investigate the operations of the powers granted to the Board of Control?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The Board of Control have no power to certify mental defectives or to grant leave of absence. I assume, therefore, that the hon. Member refers to their power of discharge, and if he will furnish me with any specific case which is the subject of complaint, I will have inquiry made. I am not aware of any general dissatisfaction, and I am not prepared to adopt the suggestion contained in the last part of the question.

    MARRIAGES WITH FOREIGNERS (CERTIFICATES).
    Sir WILFRID SUGDENasked the Minister of Health if he will consider amending the law so that the proper official of the register office shall require the production of a certificate from a foreign consul if an English person is to marry a foreigner at the register office exactly as is required when similar parties are married in British churches or chapels?
    Sir H. YOUNG: Provision is already made in the Marriage with Foreigners Act, 1906, enabling regulations to be made forbidding any person to solemnize a marriage of the class in question without the production of such a certificate. It has not, however, yet been found possible to make the necessary arrangements with foreign countries for the provision of a satisfactory form of certificate. But in the meantime, no further amendment of the law is required for this purpose.
    Sir W. SUGDEN: In view of the difficulties that are arising, in London particularly, will my right hon. Friend consider, in collaboration with the Law Officers of the Crown, a method whereby the foreigner may not invade our home life in this country?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I will certainly consider any suggestion of my hon. Friend, but the difficulties are not in the powers, which are adequate, but in getting the necessary information or satisfactorily dealing with the situation by foreign countries.

    PUBLIC EXPENDITURE (ECONOMY).
    Mr. BROCKLEBANKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make any statement as to recent

    1109
    steps to secure economy in public expenditure; and whether he will indicate his future policy?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is, and will continue to be, the policy of His Majesty's Government to pay the strictest regard in its day to day administration to the possibility of securing all practicable reductions of expenditure.

    DOG LICENCES.
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to arrange that the issue of dog licences should fall in line with wireless licences, so that permission to keep dogs shall run for 12 months from the date of issue instead of, as now, from 1st January?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The dog licence duty in England and Wales is not an Imperial but a local taxation duty. The conditions affecting dog licences and wire less licences are materially different, and I doubt whether my hon. and gallant Friend's proposal would be practicable or desirable, but in any case I could not consider legislation to give effect to it unless it were supported by the various local authorities concerned.
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of making these licences attach to the animal and not to the person? Is it not the case that in a change of ownership a distinct hardship is very often experienced in a dog already being licensed and a further licence having to be taken out?

    INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES ACT, 1893.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether further consideration has been given to the question of amending the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, so as to prevent a repetition of what happened in connection with the United Women's Homes Association?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave on the 18th July to a question asked by the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Summersby).

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    PAPER KEEPERS AND MESSENGERS.
    Mr. HOWARDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government have now considered the position of 2,500 non-pension able ex-service paper keepers and messengers in the Civil Service, whose weekly wage in London is 52s. 2d. and 51s., and for messengers in the provinces 40s. 3d. (less weekly insurance contributions), after having served for an average of 14 years; and whether he is now prepared to review this salary, and also give full establishment, with pension rights, to the maximum possible number?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The pay of these employés consists of a basic rate fixed by agreement, supplemented in the manner provided under the general Civil Service stabilisation agreement dated 1st July, 1932, of which my hon. Friend will find a copy in Appendix 1 to the Civil Estimates. As regards the latter part of the question, the classes concerned are ordinarily organised in two grades of which the higher is established, the members of the lower grade being eligible for promotion to this grade. It is regretted that it is not possible to modify these arrangements.

    WOMEN (PAY).
    Major HILLSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what would be the cost of giving equal pay to the women now employed in those grades of the Civil Service which men and women enter by common examination?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the approximate estimate of £3,000,000 a year quoted in paragraph 455 of the report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, 1929–1931, as the cost of the grant of "equal pay" in the Civil Service when in full operation. Figures are not available showing what proportion of this total estimate is applicable to those grades which men and women enter by common examination. Nor would it appear to be possible to confine such an arrangement to these grades.

    TITHE RENTCHARGE.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOTasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has

    1111
    been in communication with the National Farmers' Union and the Central Landowners' Association upon the subject of tithe; what representations have been made to him; and if it is the intention of the Government to lay any proposals before the House in relation to this matter?
    Sir FRANCIS ACLANDasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, as the result of representations made to him during the Parliamentary Recess on the subject of the present hardships of tithe payers, he has been able to advise tithe owners to meet the position, and will therefore be bringing fresh proposals be fore Parliament?
    Major GEORGE DAVIES (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. At the request of the National Farmers' Union and the Central Landowners' Association, my right hon. Friend recently received deputations who represented to him the difficulties which agricultural landowners are experiencing at the present time in meeting their liabilities in regard to tithe rentcharge. They put forward requests for the introduction of amending legislation increasing the statutory remission obtainable under the Tithe Act, 1891, and for an inquiry into the whole question of tithe rentcharge. My right hon. Friend has also received a deputation from representatives of tithe owners who placed their views before him, and while, as indicated in the reply given on 13th November to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne), he is keeping the whole matter under consideration, he is not in a position to make any further statement on the subject at present.
    Mr. FOOT: Can representations be made to the right hon. Gentleman, having regard to the disturbance and anxiety that exist throughout the agricultural parts of this country, that some decision or proposal should be made early in the new Session?
    Major DAVIES: I will convey to my right hon. Friend what the hon. Member says.

    LAND DRAINAGE RATES.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAW-BULLERasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware
    1112
    of the severity of the incidence of rates under the Land Drainage Act, 1930; and whether he will take steps to put the rating under this Act on a fairer basis?
    Major DAVIES: It is assumed that the hon. and gallant Member is referring to the fact that annual value for Income Tax (Schedule A) purposes has, under the Land Drainage Act, 1930, been fixed as the basis of assessment to drainage rates. My right hon. Friend is aware that the change to this basis from that of acreage, which was generally but not invariably adopted before the passing of the 1930 Act, has caused some difficulties, but he cannot hold out any hope of amending the Act in this direction.
    Sir M. MANNINGHAM-BULLER: Ts the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there are cases of people with only a few shillings a week who have been summoned to pay rates of 8s. or 9s. at 10 days' notice?
    Sir M. MANNINGHAM-BULLERasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that under the Land Drainage Act, 1930, the tenant is made responsible for the payment of the landlord's rate, and of the difficulties and hardships caused thereby; and if he will consider taking steps to alter this procedure?
    Major DAVIES: Drainage rates under the Land Drainage Act, 1930, may be of two kinds—owners' rates if raised for the purpose of defraying capital expenditure or charges in respect of contributions to a catchment board; or occupiers' rates if raised for any other purpose. All such drainage rates are, however, by Statute assessed upon occupiers, but the occupiers are entitled to recover from the owners any amounts paid by them on account of owners' drainage rates. My right hon. Friend is not aware of any difficulties or hardships arising from this procedure, but he will be happy to look into any specific cases which my hon. Friend may desire to bring to his notice.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman inform the Minister of Agriculture that there are dozens of cases similar to the one quoted in the question in the Don Valley and Doneaster area, and will he look into the possibility of amending the law so that the landlord is rated instead of the tenant?
    Major DAVIES: I wilt certainly convey that to my right hon. Friend.

    ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES.
    Major MILLSasked the Minister of Transport if he will confer with the Electricity Commissioners as to the steps to be taken to press local distributing companies to be ready to take supplies of electricity in bulk from the grid system as soon as it is available, and to pass it on to would-be consumers at a reasonable price?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am informed by the Commissioners that they are not aware of any reluctance on the part of local distributing undertakers to make arrangements with the Board for obtaining supplies of electricity as soon as they are available.

    IMPERIAL INSTITUTE.
    Major MILLSasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, if he can make any statement as to the future of the Imperial Institute?
    Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The financial position of the Imperial Institue is giving cause for anxiety, and the whole question is receiving active con

    Statement showing the total quantity and declared value of Granite Setts and Pavement Curbs imported into the United Kingdom, as registered during the months May to August, 1932 and 1933, respectively.

    Countries whence consigned.

    Quantity.

    Declared Value.

    May to August, 1932.

    May to August, 1933.

    May to August, 1932.

    May to August, 1933.

    Tons.

    Tons.

    £

    £

    Norway

    8,628

    13,064

    22,383

    29,122

    Other foreign countries

    3,854

    4,731

    9,693

    10,588

    Total from foreign countries

    12,482

    17,796

    32,076

    39,710

    British India

    418

    5,184

    1,227

    16,530

    Other British countries

    2,966

    2,643

    5,582

    5,738

    Total from British countries

    3,384

    7,827

    6,809

    22,268

    Total imports

    15,866

    25,622

    38,885

    61,978

    Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Is my hon. Friend aware that if block grants to local authorities were made conditional on their taking only British materials, this increase of imports would not have occurred at all?
    sideration by the Departments concerned, but I am not in a position at present to make any statement as to the future.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    NORWEGIAN GRANITE SETTS AND CURBS (IMPORTS).
    Sir B. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will say to what he attributes the increase in the importation of granite setts and curbs from Norway during the four months, May to August, of 1933 in comparison with 1932; and whether he can give the comparable figures of importations from other sources of supply?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): The cause of the increase in imports of granite setts and curbs to which the question refers must be a matter for conjecture; but I would point out that imports during 1932 were abnormally low. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of imports from Norway and other sources during the periods under review.
    Following is the statement:

    CREAM IMPORTS.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade the imports of cream in quantity from foreign countries and British countries, respectively, during the first 10 months of the

    1115
    present year and for the corresponding period of last year; and, if the information is available, the quantities which were imported in the natural state and tinned, respectively?
    Dr. BURGIN: During the first ten months of 1933 the imports of cream into the United Kingdom consigned from foreign countries and British countries amounted to 56,753 cwts. and 43,604 cwts., respectively. During the corresponding period of 1932 the imports were 58,160 cwts. and 67,902 cwts., respectively. Separate particulars of the imports of cream in the natural state and tinned, respectively, are not available.

    ANGLO-NORWEGIAN AGREEMENT.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that the agreement made in the Anglo-Norwegian trade treaty is operating satisfactorily; and whether any modifications of the agreement are undo-consideration?
    Dr. BURGIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. No modifications are under consideration.

    RUSSIA.
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the President of the Board of Trade the total value of goods imported into this country from Russia during the last three months and the value of goods exported from this country to Russia during the same period?
    Dr. BURGIN: Particulars for October are not yet available. During the preceding three months the total declared value of the imports into the United Kingdom of merchandise consigned from the Soviet Union amounted to £6,003,000, while exports to the Soviet Union amounted to £1,028,000, including re-exports valued at £426,000.
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is my hon. Friend not aware that so long as the balance of trade is so heavily in favour of Russia there is no incentive to that country to come to an agreement, and is it not a fact that this is one of the primary causes of the delay in the negotiations?
    Dr. BURGIN: The answer to the second part of the supplementary question is in the negative.
    Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that the balances of other countries are worse than that of Russia?
    Major MILLSasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will set a time limit within which negotiations with the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics for a trade agreement must be completed; and whether, if such negotiations are not completed within such a time limit, he will consider the imposition of an additional import tax on Russian goods?
    Dr. BURGIN: His Majesty's Government have not overlooked the considerations which my hon. and gallant Friend appears to have in mind, but I do not think that the progress of the negotiations would be improved by the action suggested.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are these negotiations still proceeding, and when will they be completed?
    Dr. BURGIN: That is another question, and perhaps my hon. Friend will put it down.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONERS (TUBERCULOSIS).
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Pensions the number of pensioners suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis, with tubercle bacilli present in the sputum, and, of this number, how many are assessed at 100 per cent, pension and how many at a rate less than 100 per cent.?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): As no separate medical record is kept of the numbers of this particular section of the pensioners suffering from tuberculosis, I regret that I am not able to give the information desired by the hon. Member.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    COKE EXPORTS (FINLAND).
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Secretary for Mines what progress has been made in the discussions between producers of coke in the United Kingdom and the Finnish coke importers?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): A British coke trade delegation visited Finland last month and discussed with the coke importers

    1117
    the measures that are necessary to maintain and increase our share in the Finnish coke market as provided in the Protocol to the Anglo-Finnish Agreement. I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend that those discussions were satisfactory to both sides and that no serious difficulty now stands in the way of securing the desired increase.

    COAL EXPORTS (NORWAY AND BELGIUM).
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Secretary for Mines if he is satisfied that the expected advantages to the British coal trade resulting from the Anglo-Norwegian trade treaty have been realized?
    Mr. E. BROWN: The obligation in the agreement is to take from this country a specified proportion of the coal imports into Norway during each 12-monthly period, and I have no reason to believe that the provisions of the agreement will not be satisfactorily carried out.
    Mr. ROBINSON: Is my hon. Friend aware that during each of the last three months the imports of British coal into Norway were only 35 per cent, of the total instead of 70 per cent., and does he think that that situation will be remedied?
    Mr. BROWN: My hon. Friend will remember that it was anticipated, when the agreement was being negotiated, that owing to the running of existing contracts and other possible causes the Norwegians might experience some difficulty in reaching the agreed percentage during the first few months. I have no reason to believe that over the full period the agreement will not be carried out.
    Mr. T. SMITH: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the extra quantity that will be exported?
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is taking any steps in respect to the recent limitation of licences for coal imports to Belgium from this country?
    Mr. E. BROWN: There has been no further limitation of licences for coal imports into Belgium since I replied to a question on this subject by my hon. Friend on 20th July last.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is anything being done about the exports to Belgium as the trade is disappearing?
    Mr. BROWN: My hon. Friend knows that our complaint was against the basis
    1118
    of the quota. We are losing no opportunity of making representations on the matter.

    DIVORCE LAW.
    Sir W. SUGDENasked the Attorney-General if he will consider amending the law so that any married woman who has been deserted by her husband and has been living apart from him for a period of at last two years may take proceedings for a divorce provided that immediately prior to such desertion the husband was domiciled in some British territory, on similar lines to the Divorce Jurisdiction Act, 1930 (Canada), and also in cases of wives deserted by husbands and unable to petition, the husband being domiciled in some country abroad?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I am not in a position to introduce legislation on the lines suggested.
    Sir W. SUGDEN: Will my hon. and learned Friend ascertain the advantageous results which obtain in the Dominions as a result of the proposed Measures?

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS (GERMAN REFUGEES).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action is being taken by the High Commissioner appointed by the Council of the League of Nations to deal with the refugees of German nationality; who are the members of the governing body; and what contribution is to be made by the British Government?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): I understand that the High Commissioner appointed by the Council of the League to organise international assistance for the refugees from Germany has now arrived at Geneva and that it is his intention to convoke a meeting of the Governing Body at Lausanne on or about the 25th November. The invitations to serve on the Governing Body which were sent to the Governments of the Netherlands, France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Belgium, Switzerland, Denmark, Italy, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Spain, the United States of America, the Argentine, Brazil and Uruguay have all been accepted, but

    1119
    I am not yet in a position to give the names of the representatives appointed by the above-mentioned Governments. As regards the third part of the question, I would remind my hon. Friend that according to the resolution adopted by the Assembly of the League on the 11th October, 1933, the expenses of the international collaboration necessary for the solution of the economic, financial and social problem presented by the presence in several countries of a large number of persons, Jewish and other, coming from Germany, and having taken refuge in those countries, as well as the expenses of the High Commissioner's office, should fee defrayed by funds contributed voluntarily from private or other sources.
    Mr. MANDERCan the hon. Gentleman say who is to represent this country on the governing body of the League?
    Mr. EDEN: I cannot say yet.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is any British representative there to meet the High Commissioner when he arrives?
    Mr. EDEN: Like every other country which has accepted the invitation, we are appointing delegates to represent us.

    BROADCASTING (INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS).
    Captain CUNNINGHAM-REIDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what answer he has given to the representations he has received from Foreign Governments on the broadcasting of contentious explanatory matter on international affairs?
    Mr. EDEN: No representations have been received from any foreign government regarding any matter broadcast from this country since those mentioned in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for North Tottenham (Mr. Doran) on the 16th February last.
    Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: Will my hon. Friend consider the taking of steps to eliminate the broadcasting of contentious explanatory matter on foreign affairs, in view of the fact that a number of foreign countries regard the British Broadcasting Corporation as a semi-official body?
    Mr. EDEN: That is not a matter for the Foreign Office.

    TERRITORIAL WATERS (NORWAY).
    Mr. RICHARD LAWasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can define the limit of territorial waters off the Norwegian coast?
    Mr. EDEN: In their reply to the questionnaire issued by the Preparatory Committee prior to the meeting of the Conference for the Codification of International Law in 1930, the Norwegian Government stated that the breadth of the Norwegian territorial water zone is one geographical league, measured from the coast or from the furthest island, islet or rock which is not constantly submerged. His Majesty's Government are, however, unable to accept this view as they have always maintained that the limit of territorial waters is three miles from low water mark at mean spring tide.
    Mr. LAW: Am I to understand that His Majesty's Government are taking steps to impress their view upon the Norwegian Government?
    Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: Is it not time that this matter was referred to an international commission, so that we might have some definite international standard?
    Mr. EDEN: I understand that the Norwegian Government are being pressed to express their claims more accurately.

    CHINA (BRITISH LOANS).
    Mr. HAMILTON KERRasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the British loans which are secured upon the revenue from Chinese customs; and whether, in view of the fact that the full amount of customs revenue is no longer obtainable by the Chinese Government from Manchuria, he is satisfied that the British shareholders are properly protected?
    Mr. EDEN: My hon. Friend's question raises a number of points on some of which further information has just reached the Foreign Office. There has not yet been time to examine this information, and I should, therefore, be grateful if my hon. Friend would repeat his question next week when I shall be in a position to give him a reply.

  NAVAL PERSONNEL.
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the approximate decreases or increases in the personnel of the naval forces of Great Britain, the United States of America, and Japan, respectively, at the present time as compared with 1914?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): In round figures United States of America 39,700 increase, Japan 40,000 increase (estimated), Great Britain 55,400 decrease.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Seeing that these very large gestures of disarmament have not met with any response on the part of foreign Powers, will the First Lord assure the House that early steps will be taken to make good these heavy reductions in the personnel of the Navy?
  Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Since last March, Vote A has been on the up grade.
  Lieut.-Colonel J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bring these figures to the notice of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps)?
  Brigadier-General NATION: Will the right hon. Gentleman also give us the figures for France and Italy?
  Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: If my hon. and gallant Friend win put down a question I will do so.
  Mr. MANDER: Is it not a fact that any addition to the American naval forces is considered as an addition to the strength of this country?

  POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL,
  "to make permanent certain temporary enactments relating to the relief of the poor in Scotland and to make further provision with regard to such relief," presented by Sir Godfrey Collins, supported by the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, and Mr. Skelton; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 175.]

  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Fourth Report from the Committee on Public Petitions brought up, and read;
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM.
  Special Report from the Joint Committee [Inquiry not completed], with Minutes of Evidence, Appendices, and Records, brought up, and read;
  Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ROAD AND RAIL TRAFFIC BILL.
  Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.
  Motion made and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

  TITLE.
  Lords Amendment: In line 4, leave out the first "the" and insert "certain".
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Oliver Stanley.]
  3.46 p.m.
  Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I think this would be a convenient opportunity to make one mild protest about the way in which we have been treated on this Bill. I am not blaming the Minister or anybody else under the circumstances, which arise from the fact that the Prorogation of Parliament is to take place to-morrow, but this document of 25 pages of Amendments reached us only this morning, and it must be very difficult for hon. Members to appreciate the significance of these Amendments. I have received communications on the subject from one or two people. What I would suggest to the Minister is that on this Motion he might make a brief statement to explain to us the substance of the bulk of the Amendments. If he were to do that I think it would save the time of everybody later.
  3.47 p.m.
  The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I realise that the House has been put into a considerable difficulty by receiving these Amendments only this morning, but hon. Members will realise that if the Bill is to receive the Royal Assent there is no alternative to considering it to—day. I did take what steps I could to make the position easier by making available, through the usual channels, a brief analysis of the more important of the Amendments which have been made in another place, and I think hon. Members opposite have had it. I do not think that on this Amendment it
  1154
  would be possible to deal with all the Amendments on the Paper, but I can tell hon. Members that the vast majority of those Amendments are either of a drafting or of a machinery character. The number of substantial Amendments is small, and nearly all of them either carry out a pledge which I gave at an earlier stage or move in a direction which the House showed that it approved in the earlier stages of the Bill. There are three new Clauses about which it may be necessary to give more detailed explanations. One deals with the Southern Traffic Area, the second deals with the position of weak bridges, and the third is a Clause which was inserted at the instance of a Noble Lord in another place concerning payments to be made to hospitals under certain circumstances in the case of accidents. I think my hon. Friends will find that, with the exception of these three Amendments, all the others are either drafting or machinery Amendments, or are inserted to meet the wishes of the House. Of course, I will, as occasion arises, give further explanations about them.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Could the hon. Gentleman say where the memorandum to which he referred is to be found?
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 1, line 12, agreed to.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Licensing of goods vehicles.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 11, at the end, insert:
  "(3) When a goods vehicle is being used on a road for the carriage of goods, the driver of the vehicle, if it belongs to him or is in his possession under an agreement for hire, hire purchase or loan, and in any other case the person whose agent or servant the driver is, shall, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, be deemed to be the person by whom the vehicle is being used.
  (4) Where at any time goods are carried in a goods vehicle being a vehicle which has been let on hire by the person who at the time of the carriage of the goods is within the meaning of this Part of this Act the user of the vehicle, the goods shall be deemed to be carried by that person for hire or reward."
  Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment is designed to make quite clear upon whom the responsibility

  1155
  will lie for the observance of the conditions under the Bill. It defines the user of the vehicle. It is provided that the driver, if he is the owner of the vehicle, shall be deemed to be the user, otherwise it shall be the person who employs the driver. Hon. Members will realise that it is important that there should be no ambiguity, and that it should be impossible for anyone to escape from the responsibility.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 2, line 33, agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 37, at the end insert:
  ("(f) to the use of a vehicle for the purposes of funerals").
  3.52 p.m.
  Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Hon. Members will recollect that during the passage of the Bill through this House there was considerable controversy as to the position of funeral vehicles. The general sentiment of the House was in favour of their exclusion, but at the time there was considerable difference of opinion in the undertaking profession itself. Since then, a referendum has been taken of the members of the association, and although there is still a substantial minority against exclusion, there is a large majority in favour of it, and in those circumstances I carry out the pledge that I gave at an earlier stage.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 5, line 1, agreed to.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Classes of licences.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 9, at the end, insert:
  "Notwithstanding anything in this Part of this Act, the licensing authority may, in a case of emergency and subject to such conditions as he thinks fit to impose, authorise the holder of a C licence to use an authorised vehicle for the carriage of goods for any person to whom be lets the vehicle if the authority is satisfied that the needs of that person cannot conveniently be met from other sources."
  Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This provision is inserted to meet the convenience of the "C" licence holders in the case of emergency. In the Bill, as it stood before amendment, it would be possible for a "C" licence holder to hire a vehicle from another "C" licence holder, but not a vehicle and driver, as such living out was to be the province of the "A" and "B" licence holders. With this Amendment, it will be possible, with the permission of the licensing authority and in the case of an emergency, for authorisation to be granted to a "C" licence holder to let out a vehicle with the driver.
  3.54 p.m.
  Mr. GEORGE HALL: May I ask whether these vehicles will be licensed under the "C" licence, or under an "A" or "B" licence? That is rather important, because the Fair Wages Clause will not apply to the holders of "C" licences, and if a vehicle is hired by a "C" licence holder from someone else, that really ought not to be treated as a vehicle which will come under the "C" licence. I would like the Minister to explain whether the owner or hirer of such a vehicle will hold a "C" or an "A" licence.
  3.55 p.m.
  Mr. STANLEY: This position only arises from the fact that the person holds a "C" licence, and is operating under a "C" licence. The hon. Member will realise that this is only to meet an emergency, and will be subject to the permission of the licensing authority. We do not wish to do away with the principle that this sort of thing should be done only under the "A" or the "B" licence.
  Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 5, line 35, agreed to.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Duration of licences.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 28, leave out sub-paragraph (c).
  Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The Amendments on page 6 are machinery Amendments, the object of

  1157
  which is to prevent all licences from becoming current on a particular day and, therefore, becoming obsolete on the same day. They will enable a licensing authority at the first application to give short-term licences, and so to spread out the work of licensing. The rights of the applicant will be fully safeguarded.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 9, line 14, agreed to.

  CLAUSE 6.—(Discretion of licensing authority as to grant or refusal of licences.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 38, at the end, insert:
  "(d) in determining the number of vehicles to be authorised, to the need for providing for occasions when vehicles are withdrawn for service for overhaul or repair:
  (e) to the extent to which the vehicles to be authorised will be in substitution for horse-drawn vehicles previously used by the applicant for the purposes of his business as a carrier;"
  Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agreed with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  These two paragraphs add two instructions to those to which the licensing authority must have regard, when an application is submitted to them. The first is to enable them to take into account, when they license a number of vehicles, not only the number of vehicles that a man actually requires for his service, but also the possibility that some vehicles may be out of running when in need of repair. The second is intended to meet in some way a consideration that was urged upon me at various stages of the Bill, in the case of a carrier who has been using horse-drawn vehicles and wishes to change over to motor vehicles. The Amendment will create some sort of bias in his favour, owing to the fact that he has already been engaged in this traffic.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendment to page 10, line 5, agreed to.

  CLAUSE 7.—(Special provisions as to certain applications.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 26, leave out from the word "than" to the word "the" in line 27, and insert:
  1158
  "the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, or such later date as the Minister may appoint."
  Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment, and another to line 39, place definitely in the Bill the provision that application for an "A" or "B" licence has to be made by the 1st April next year in so far as authorisation is claimed in respect of vehicles of an aggregate weight unladen equal to that of the vehicles used by the applicant in the year beginning April 1932. I have taken the precaution of being able to put in a later date.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 15, line 8, agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: After Clause 10 insert:

  NEW CLAUSE B.—(Provisions as to holding and subsidiary companies.)
  "(1) Where a holding company on an application for a licence signifies to the licensing authority its desire that the provisions of this section should have effect as respects a subsidiary company specified in the application, then, in relation to the application and to any licence granted thereon to the holding company and to the use of the authorised vehicles, this Part of this Act shall have effect—

  (a) as if goods vehicles belonging to, or in the possession of, the subsidiary company were vehicles belonging to, or in the possession of, the holding company:

  (b) as if, where a goods vehicle is used in circumstances in which, but for this provision, the subsidiary company would be deemed to be the user thereof, the holding company were the user thereof:

  (c) as if a trade or business carried on by the subsidiary company were a trade or business carried on by the holding company:

  (d) as if a person employed by the subsidiary company as a driver or statutory attendant of an authorised vehicle were a person employed by the holding company:

  (e) as if the subsidiary company were an applicant for the licence.

  (2) The provisions of this section shall cease to have effect as respects any subsidiary company—

  (a) if the holding company gives notice to the licensing authority that it desires that this section should, as from any date, cease to apply to that company, as from that date;

  1159

  (b) as from the date on which that company ceases to be a subsidiary company of the holding company.

  (3) In this section the expression 'holding company' means a company which is the beneficial owner of not less than ninety per cent, of the issued share capital of another company, and the expression 'subsidiary company,' in relation to a holding company, means a company not less than ninety per cent, of the issued share capital of which is in the beneficial ownership of the holding company.
  Where a subsidiary company (as hereinbefore defined) is the beneficial owner of any shares of another company, those shares shall be treated for the purposes of the foregoing definitions as if they were in the beneficial ownership of the holding company."
  Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Hon. Members will remember that we had considerable discussion both in Committee and on Report with regard to the position of subsidiary companies, and it was pointed out that some of the new rationalised amalgamations might be badly prejudiced by the provisions of this Bill. Cases were instanced where a group of companies had pooled the whole of their transport in one company, and it was pointed out that they would be prevented from running under a "C" licence, whereas their competitors who were not rationalised would be able to do it. I promised then I would look into the matter and meet the point if I could do it in a way which would give no loophole for evasion by other people. I think if hon. Members study this Clause they will see that it meets the point. The definition of "subsidiary company" is the definition which was adopted in the Finance Act, 1930, and it provides that the holding company must be the beneficial owner of not less than 90 per cent. of the issued share capital of the subsidiary company. I think hon. Members will agree that that provision is quite enough to prevent this Clause from being used as a means of evading the obligations in the Bill. On the other hand, it will meet certain cases which have been brought to my notice which otherwise would be prejudiced.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 15, line 18, agreed to.

  CLAUSE 11.—(Power to revoke or suspend licences.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 25, at the end, insert:
  "(3) The licensing authority may, in lieu of revoking or suspending a licence, direct that any one or more of the vehicles specified therein shall be removed therefrom or that the maximum number of motor vehicles or of trailers specified in the licence in pursuance of paragraphs (6) and (c) respectively of subsection (6) of section two of this Act shall be reduced, and references in this or any other section of this Act to the revocation or suspension of a licence shall be construed as including a reference to the giving of a direction under this subsection"
  Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The object of this Amendment is to give the licensing authority power to revoke the licence in whole or in part. It was pointed out to me that if it were necessary to revoke the whole of the licence, the penalty might be so severe that in many cases it would put the operator out of business, and that therefore it was better to leave it to the discretion of the licensing authority to revoke the licence in whole or in part.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 16, line 4, agreed to.

  CLAUSE 13.—(Appeals to Appeal Tribunal in connection with licences.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 42, at the end, insert:
  "If any person being a member or deputy member of the Tribunal acquires any financial interest in any undertaking which provides facilities for the transport of goods he shall within four weeks after so doing give notice thereof in writing to the Minister specifying the interest 60 acquired and the Minister after taking the matter into consideration may, if he thinks fit, declare that such person has vacated his office"
  Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment deals with the members of the Appeal Tribunal, and I think explains itself. Hon. Members will agree that if a member of the Tribunal acquires some financial interest in the transport business, he should give notice of the fact to the Minister.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 18, line 38, agreed to.

  CLAUSE 16.—(Further powers of examiners and powers of police constables.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 22, line 11, at the end, insert:
  "(3) An examiner may at any time, on production if so required of his authority, exercise, in the ease of goods vehicles all such powers as are under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, exerciseable by a police constable, with respect to the production of documents and the giving of information by persons driving motor vehicles."
  Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The object of this Amendment is, that the examiners appointed under this Bill shall be in a position to exercise the same power of asking for the production of a driving licence or certificate of insurance, as is given to police constables under the Road Traffic Act, 1930.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 25, line 8, agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: After Clause 24, insert:

  NEW CLAUSE C—(Variation of traffic areas.)
  "(1) Whereas it is expedient that the existing traffic areas under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, in England should be varied—

  (a) by the abolition of the Southern Traffic Area and the transfer of the areas constituting it to other Traffic Areas; and

  (b) by the transfer of part of the East Midland Traffic Area to the Eastern Traffic Area:

  Now therefore, as from the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-four in this section referred to as 'the said date')—

  (i) England shall be divided into the Traffic Areas specified in the first column of the First Schedule to this Act and those Traffic Areas shall consist of the several areas respectively specified in the second column of that Schedule;

  (ii) the said First Schedule to this Act shall be substituted for Part I of the Third Schedule to the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and references to that Schedule in any enactment shall be construed accordingly:

  1162

  (iii) the offices of the Traffic Commissioners for the Southern Traffic Area shall be abolished.

  (2) The Minister may by Order make such consequential and incidental provisions as appear to him to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the variations of traffic areas effected by this section and, in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing words, provision may be made in the Order with respect to—

  (a) the effect, as from the said date, of licences previously issued or backed, and consents previously given, by the Commissioners for any traffic area abolished or otherwise affected;

  (b) the effect of applications for licences or consents made before the said date to the Commissioners for any traffic area abolished or otherwise affected, the Commissioners to whom applications relating to any such area may be made between the date of the Order and the 6aid date, and the Commissioners by whom and the places at which any such applications as aforesaid may be heard, either before or after the said date;

  (c) the continuance of appeals pending at the said date against decisions of the Commissioners for any traffic area abolished or otherwise affected; and

  (d) the recovery of any sums due at the said date to the Commissioners for any traffic area abolished.

  (3) Any Order made by the Minister under section sixty-two of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, for varying the number or limits of traffic areas may contain such consequential and incidental provisions, including provisions with respect to any of the matters mentioned in the last preceding sub-section, as appear to him to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the variations of areas to be effected by the Order.
  (4) For sub-section (3) of the said section sixty-two, there shall be substituted the following sub-section:—
  '(3) An Order made under this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and shall be of no effect unless and until it has been approved by a resolution passed by each House of Parliament.'"
  4.11 p.m.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, England and Scotland are divided into 13 traffic areas. The main object of this Clause is to provide for the abolition of the Southern Area, the headquarters of which are at Reading, and the distribution of this area among the adjacent areas. This course is being adopted for reasons of economy and more

  1163
  convenient administration. The Clause at the same time provides for a readjustment of the boundary between the Eastern Area and the East Midland Area. Section 62 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, provides that the Minister may from time to time by Order vary the provisions of the Schedule, either by altering the limits of any existing traffic area or by increasing or reducing the number of traffic areas. The Section goes on to provide, however, that every Order shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and shall not have effect until it has laid upon the Table of each House for a period of not less than 28 days during which the House has sat.
  Although the decision to do away with the Southern Traffic Area as from 1st January, 1934, was reached in July last, it would not have been possible to conform with the procedure laid down in the Act of 1930, as the other place would not have sat for the necessary 28 days before 1st January, 1934. This last date cannot be altered as it is proposed that on that date the scheme for the licensing of goods vehicles provided for in the present Bill shall come into effect, and it is essential that the redistribution of the areas should take place at the same time. It has, therefore, proved necessary to provide for the abolition of the Southern Area in the present Bill. This course has the advantage of setting out the new areas in a complete Schedule which can readily be referred to.
  Sub-section (4) of the Clause substitutes the procedure of an affirmative Resolution on the part of each House of Parliament for the more cumbersome procedure laid down in the Act of 1930, to which I have already alluded, with regard to any future Orders made by the Minister for varying the number or limits of traffic areas. Sub-section (2) provides that the Minister may by Order make consequential and incidental provisions with regard to such matters, for example, as the effect of licences granted by the existing Commissioners for the Southern Area, and indeed all matters which the Southern Area Commissioners have already begun.
  4.14 p.m.
  Mr. PARKINSON: That this proposal is creating feeling in the Southern Area
  1164
  is shown by the following telegram Bent to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition:
  "Earnestly appeal to you to oppose Lords Amendment to Road and Rail Bill abolishing Southern traffic area. Petitions against sent by all operators and municipal authorities in area ignored by Minister."
  That is sent on behalf of 85 operators. The abolition of the Southern Area is proposed for two reasons—first, economy; and, secondly, more convenient administration. The question of economy has reference to money. To many people, of course, economy means the saving of money, but I think economy means getting more efficient administration for the amount of money spent in any direction. I should like to ask the Minister how this change will affect the operators, and what will be their position in view of the fact that the central meeting place is now to be taken away and three others are to be substituted for it? Will it not be more expensive and inconvenient for the operators in that area? Moreover, in view of the statement that this alteration is in the interests of economy, I should like to ask the Minister how much money he is going to save by the abolition of the Southern Area 1 The abolition of this area will mean that a number of people will be discharged; are they going to be found other jobs, or are they going to be added to the unemployed? That is certainly something which the National Government ought not to do.
  Is it worth while to break up the present areas for the sake of economy before the present arrangement has been given a fair trial under the new conditions? It appears to me that the operators ought to have an opportunity of putting their case before the Minister, but, owing to the hurry, no real opportunity has been given them. The Southern Area covers five whole counties, the Isle of Wight and a part of Buckinghamshire, and I believe it has been found to be very convenient for the operators under the present administration. I am sure, from the information I have received, that this reallocation will cause confusion, inconvenience and expense to the operators, and will also entail much more work, because I understand that in future, when they make application for a licence, they will have to sign three forms instead of

  1165
  one, and probably, unless the Commissioner is prepared to move his court from one district to another in order to help them, the change will also cause dislocation.
  I suggest that it is not reasonable to introduce so great a change by adding this Clause to the Bill at the end of its progress, and also that the absorption of this area by the other areas will place an additional burden of labour on the other Commissioners. I should like to ask the Minister whether he has consulted the local authorities in the area, and whether they have had any voice as to the action which it is now proposed to take. In my view the change is too hurried and drastic, and needs further consideration. I understand that all these matters have been brought to the notice of the Minister on behalf of the operators, who take great exception to this change on the grounds I have already mentioned, and their views, and those of the omnibus proprietors, ought to be taken into consideration. If the Minister has done that, I should like to ask him what has been the result?
  I have already mentioned that the operators will have to make application on three forms instead of one, and I understand also that the offices of the Southern area are already placarded as being to let. I do not know whether they are going to be dispensed with before the specified time, but it rather looks as though no further reconsideration was going to be given to the matter. I understand that over 17,000 licences of various kinds were granted in this area during the year ending on the 31st March last, and that fees amounting to £16,000 have already been paid. This change means reducing one area and increasing the size of another. What means have we of knowing that the new area will not be so overcrowded as to make it impossible for the work to be done as efficiently as it ought to be done, and what equivalent is to be offered to the operators in the area in order to make matters more convenient and less expensive for them than appears likely under this proposed change?
  4.23 p.m.
  Dr. HOWITT: I have received so many protests against the proposed abolition of the Southern area that I feel that I must ask the Minister, even at this eleventh
  1166
  hour, if it is possible for him in any way to reconsider this Amendment. The Southern area has worked extremely well, and its abolition will vastly increase the size of the South Eastern area, and will make the administration more difficult rather than easier. The people in the Southern area will have to go very much greater distances. They have become used to going to Reading, and those who have administered the area have got used to the various problems of the people there. I know that it is the eleventh hour, and that it is a rather hopeless thing to ask the Minister, but I have been urged to do so, and, therefore, I would ask him if he cannot reconsider his decision on this matter.
  4.25 p.m.
  Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: I desire to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Dr. Howitt) has said. It has been urged that this change is to be made in the interests of economy, but, so far as one can make out, the interests of economy lie in favour of maintaining the present arrangement. One would like to hear from the Minister the real reason for the change. Undoubtedly it will cause very considerable additional inconvenience and expense to a large number of authorities, and the associations of transport owners in the area are unanimously against it. I doubt whether the general public have yet realised what the change involves, but it seems to me that we have not had sufficient reasons to justify it, and I would urge the Minister, if he cannot fully justify the change, to give the matter further consideration.
  4.26 p.m.
  Mr. STANLEY: I should like to deal first of all with the point made by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson), that insufficient notice has been given of this change, and that there has been no real opportunity for discussing it. I would point out that the procedure laid down in the Act of 1930 was put into force as far back as the 25th July last, and from that moment all those affected by the proposal have had full notice of what it was intended to do.
  Mr. PARKINSON: The period of 28 days was not given, and the matter has been precipitated without any notice being given to the operators at all.
  Mr. STANLEY: I communicated with the people connected with the area, and let them know how I intended to proceed in this matter, so that they have had full notice. As far as the House of Commons is concerned, by proceeding in this way a fairer chance was given for discussion than was given by the old procedure. By adding this provision to, the Bill it was possible to discuss it through all the stages of the Bill in another place, and the House is now given an opportunity of either negativing or affirming it. With regard to the actual proposal, some change was inevitable after the passage of the London Passenger Transport Bill. Under that Bill, the Metropolitan area was very largely extended at the expense of the South Eastern area, and the South Eastern area is now left of a size that would be quite uneconomic to work. It was, therefore, inevitable that some redistribution should take place, and it has been decided that the most convenient and economical arrangement would be the abolition of the Southern area and the incorporation of parts of it in the three adjoining areas.
  Hon. Members will see that, prima facie, any move of this kind must be in the direction of economy. I understand that the actual saving to the Road Fund from the abolition of the Southern area will be something in the neighbourhood of £5,000 a year. As to the staff, we shall, of course, make arrangements to absorb them elsewhere, and the term of the commissioner was coming to an end in any case. That, however, is not the only consideration. From the point of view of the operators as a whole—not in any one particular area, but over the country as a whole—the fewer areas that there are, provided that they can be economically and efficiently worked, the beter, Hon. Members will realise that every licensing authority has complete jurisdiction within his own district, and it is necessary for any operator who wishes to run through a number of districts not only to get a licence in the one in which he applies, but to get what is called a backing in every area through which he proposes to run; and many complaints have been made that this imposes upon the operators considerable expense and delay. Obviously, the fewer areas there are, the less will be the necessity for this backing, and,
  1168
  therefore, the more expeditious and economical will the arrangement be from the point of view of the operator. I submit that, these two considerations in favour of the change could only be set aside if it could be shown that, as regards the operators in the area concerned, it would lead to difficulties and expense, and I do not believe that in this case that can be shown.
  I do not think the hon. Gentleman quite realises what the effect of this is upon the operators. It is quite true, and here I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Dr. Howitt), that Reading will cease to be the place where the office of 'the commissioner happens to be situated, but my hon. Friend must not think that all the hearings of the commissioners are held in their offices, that it has been necessary hitherto for operators all over the Southern area to go to Reading, and that henceforth it will be necessary for them to go to London, Bristol, or Nottingham. That is not the case. The commissioners are peripatetic, holding their sittings in various parts of these areas as may be most convenient to the applicants, and the abolition of this area will make no difference in that regard; the sittings will still be held wherever in the various areas the amount of work appears to make it desirable.
  I can assure my hon. Friend that, from the point of view of the sittings of the Commissioners, the operators will suffer nothing. In certain cases they may suffer in that they may be farther away from the central office of the Commissioner than before, but in soma cases they will be nearer; and, after all, my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General does provide an excellent telephone and postal service. You can communicate with almost equal facility with London as with Reading. I cannot really believe that the operators in the Southern area find it necessary to make personal journeys every time to the offices of the Commissioners, and they will not, therefore, be inconvenienced. The business that they have to transact with the officials can be and is normally transacted by post or telephone. I have given the utmost consideration to the representations that were made to me, and, as a result of the change, I promise that operators will not

  1169
  be put to extra expense or delay. There is nothing which will outweigh the obvious advantages which are to be gained by a reduction in the number of licensing areas.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: After Clause 24 insert:

  NEW CLAUSE D.—(Extension of s. 63 (7) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930.)
  (1) The power of the Minister under sub-section (7) of section sixty-three of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, to appoint a person to act as deputy to the chairman of the traffic commissioners for any traffic area in the case of the illness, incapacity or absence of the chairman may be exercised also if the Minister considers that, owing to the number of applications under Part IV of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and under this Part of this Act, the duties to be performed by the chairman (or any deputy appointed by reason of the illness, incapacity or absence of the chairman) cannot conveniently or efficiently be performed by one person.
  (2) A person appointed under this section shall be appointed upon such terms and conditions, including conditions as to the time which he is to devote to the duties of his office, as the Minister may determine, and shall act for the chairman in such matters, whether arising under this Act or under the said Act of 1930, as the chairman (or any deputy appointed by reason of the illness, incapacity or absence of the chairman) may from time to time direct, or as the Minister may from time to time by general directions require, and for that purpose shall exercise and perform all the powers and duties of the chairman.
  (3) This section shall have effect with respect to the Metropolitan traffic area with the substitution of a reference to the traffic commissioner for that area for any reference to a chairman of traffic commissioners.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out that this Clause raises a question of privilege. If the Minister should make use of the powers that are given him under this Clause, a charge would be created. The House can, of course, waive the privilege if it thinks fit.
  Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This new Clause is really a matter of machinery. The House has already inserted in the Bill a provision by which I could appoint a deputy to the Chairman of the Traffic Commissioners to act as licensing authority in case of absence or
  1170
  illness of the Chairman. I have since been convinced that it might be necessary in certain circumstances for both the Chairman and the deputy to sit at the same time, especially in the Metropolitan area. There may be an exceedingly large number of applications, and they could be more expeditiously dealt with if I had the power to allow the Chairman and the deputy both to sit at the same time.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment." put, and agreed to.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I will have a record made in the journals of the House.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 27, line 16, agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: After Clause 25, insert:

  NEW CLAUSE E.—(Power to prohibit or restrict use of vehicles on certain bridges.)
  (1) Where the bridge authority of any bridge over which a road passes is satisfied that the bridge is insufficient to carry vehicles of which the weights or axle weights, as hereinafter defined, exceed certain limits, the authority may by a conspicuous notice in the prescribed form placed in a proper position at each end of the bridge prohibit the use of the bridge either—

  (a) by any vehicle of which the weight exceeds a maximum weight specified in the notice; or

  (b) by any vehicle of which—

  (i) the weight exceeds a maximum weight so specified, or

  (ii) any axle weight exceeds a maximum axle weight so specified;

  and any such notice may, as regards both weight of vehicle and axle weight, specify different maximum weights in relation to a vehicle travelling at a speed less than a speed specified in the notice, and in relation to a vehicle travelling at that speed or any greater speed:
  Provided that the weight specified in any such notice as the maximum weight of a vehicle shall not be less than five tons, and the weight so specified as a maximum axle weight shall not be less than three tons.
  (2) The highway authority of any road leading to a bridge shall give to the bridge authority reasonable facilities for placing on the road any such notice as aforesaid and if the highway authority so require, the bridge authority shall erect warning notices in the prescribed form at the principal junctions of roads leading to the bridge.
  (3) Before placing a restriction or prohibition under this section on the use of a bridge, the bridge authority shall give to the Minister twenty-eight days' notice of

  1171
  its intention so to do with particulars of the restriction or prohibition, and the Minister shall cause a list to be kept of all restrictions or prohibitions which have been placed on the use of bridges under this section and the list shall be open to inspection by any person.
  (4) For the purposes of this section—

  (a) "weight" means weight laden;

  (b) the weight transmitted by a vehicle, to any transverse strip of the road surface five feet in breadth shall be taken as being an "axle weight" of that vehicle and for the purposes of this paragraph a vehicle and any trailer drawn thereby shall be deemed to be a Single vehicle; and

  (c) "placed in a proper position" means placed in such a position either on or near the bridge or on or near the road leading to the bridge as to be visible at a reasonable distance from the bridge to the drivers of vehicles approaching it.

  (5) If, without the consent of the bridge authority, a vehicle is driven across a bridge in contravention of a notice so placed as aforesaid, any person who so drives it, or causes or permits it to be so driven, shall, without prejudice to any civil liability incurred by him in the case of damage being caused to the bridge, be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
  If in any proceedings under this subsection the prosecutor satisfies the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the weight of the vehicle exceeded the maximum weight specified in the notice, or that any axle weight of the vehicle exceeded the maximum axle weight so specified, it shall lie on the defendant to prove that the weight of the vehicle or every axle weight of the vehicle, as the case may be, did not exceed such maximum weight or maximum axle weight.
  (6) Any person or body of persons aggrieved by a restriction or prohibition placed on the use of a bridge under this section, and any highway authority in whose area the bridge is situate, may at any time apply to the Minister for an order modifying or removing the restriction or prohibition.
  (7) On receiving any such application as aforesaid, the Minister may cause the bridge to be inspected, and may require the bridge authority to give to his inspector such information as to its structure and condition, and such other facilities for his investigation of the circumstances as the bridge authority may be able to give and, after considering the report of his inspector and any representations made to him by the bridge authority, may, if he thinks proper, make an order modifying or removing the restriction or prohibition, or imposing different restrictions, and the bridge authority shall, within such time as may be specified in the order, cause notices to be erected complying with the order, and if the bridge authority fails to do so, the Minister may cause the notice complained of to be removed or varied or new notices to be erected so as to comply with his order, and may recover summarily
  1172
  as a civil debt from the budge authority the expenses incurred by him in so doing.
  (8) The provisions of this Act as to costs incurred by the Minister in connection with inquiries shall apply in relation to costs incurred by him in connection with inspections and investigations under this section, as if any such inspection or investigation were an inquiry to which the applicants and the bridge authority were parties.
  (9) The Minister may at any time on an application made to him by the bridge authority, or on his own initiative, vary or revoke any order made by him under this section, if he is satisfied that it is proper so to do.
  4.34 p.m.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 43, after the word "breadth," to insert the words:
  "or such other breadth as the Minister may, by order from time to time, prescribe."
  I have had representations from two quarters as to the serious effect that this Clause may have unless it is modified in the way that I desire. On page 13 of the Lords Amendments, in Sub-section 4 (b), there is this definition:
  "The weight transmitted by a vehicle, to any transverse strip of the road surface five feet in breadth shall be taken as being an 'axle weight' of that vehicle."
  In another place Lord Howe explained at some length the difficulties of the situation, and the Secretary of State for Air, who was in charge, found himself unable to accept an Amendment that five feet should be reduced to three feet six. The position is, I understand, that these six-wheeled vehicles are so constructed that the centres of each pair of double wheels are separated by less than five feet, accordingly each pair of double wheels is, for the purposes of this Clause, treated as one wheel. In other words, a six-wheeled vehicle is supposed to have exactly the same effect on a bridge as a four-wheeled vehicle. The effect of a vehicle on any bridge depends on three factors. There is the actual crushing weight on the surface, which depends upon the concentration, of weight at a particular point. Whatever the tyres are made of, they are compressed to some extent, and it is not a line of contact but a small area of contact, and the crushing effect depends on the intensity of the load on the immediate surface with which the wheel is in contact.
  That is one way in which a bridge may fail. There are two other ways. It may

  1173
  fail at either end because the supports are sheared, and the shearing effect is naturally at the maximum at the end of the bridge at which the vehicle is at the moment. Part of the load is borne on the piers on that side and part on the piers on the other. The fact that the load is in fact more distributed in a six-wheeled vehicle than in a four-wheeled vehicle will, to some small extent, minimise the shearing stress. The last effect is through the bridge collapsing in the centre. A distributed load has nothing like the same effect as a concentrated load in causing the bridge to collapse at the centre, and accordingly the distributed load of a six-wheeled vehicle, instead of four, materially modifies the situation from that point of view.
  The technical experts are disagreed on the matter. Those who advise the Ministry take one view and those who, I understand, according to the speech of Earl Howe in another place, were advising others, take a contrary view, and there is this dispute. I do not think either this House or another place is competent to settle such a purely technical dispute as to the right distance to be prescribed as the breadth of the transverse strip, and, in order that the Minister or his successor may have an opportunity in the future of modifying this, if circumstances call for modification, I want to confer on him the power to prescribe by Order another width if the technical information satisfies him or his successor that another width is in fact quite safe. We are running the risk of closing a number of bridges to six-wheeled vehicles by leaving the Clause in its present rigid form. I want to confer on the Minister this power of modifying the passage in such a way that if a mistake has been made he may correct it when he finds it necessary to do so.
  Mr. HASLAM: I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.
  4.40 p.m.
  Mr. STANLEY: The House will now have the advantage of seeing the almost unique spectacle of a Minister modestly refusing a power sought to be conferred on him. The object of the Amendment is to take this precise definition which is included in the Clause and to leave me powers at any subsequent time either to increase or decrease the width. I feel
  1174
  that it would not be fair to the various interests with whom this matter has been discussed and who watched its passage. through another place if at the last moment I were to take this power to myself in this way. The limit of five feet which has been put into the Bill has been subjected to criticism, and it has stood the test of that criticism, arid I feel that, if at any subsequent time I or my successors should wish to change that figure, it would only be fair to come back and allow the new figure to be subjected to the same criticism which this has met. In the circumstances I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Amendment to the Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.42 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The Clause was fully considered in another place, and the Government accepted certain Amendments which were moved by the Noble Lord to whom reference has been made, and my hon. Friend will at once take action to inform motoring organisations as suggested of any preliminary notice that he may receive from bridge authorities. The new Clause is intended to take the place of Section 25 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which deals with restrictive notices which can be placed on a bridge by a bridge authority in cases whore, in the opinion of that authority, the bridge is not strong enough to carry weights in excess of the limits specified in the notice. Traffic over a large number of bridges maintained by railway companies, canal companies, and other authorities has been restricted in the past in this manner under the provisions of the earlier Locomotive Acts, the Motor Car Act, 1903, and Orders made under those Acts. Generally speaking, the provisions of these earlier Acts were done away with by Section 25 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. That Section, however, has proved unworkable, and it has never been possible for the Minister to bring it into operation. Negotiations from time to time have taken place between officers of the Ministry of Transport, representatives of the railway companies' associations and the canal association, and representatives of local authorities with a view to framing suitable notices under the provisions of the

  1175
  Section. These negotiations proved abortive, largely because it was impossible to secure agreement between the interests concerned as to a form of notice which could readily be understood by road users.
  In the meantime the large majority of the notices placed on bridges under preceding enactments have become inoperative, and bridge authorities have been unable to restrict the weight of traffic crossing weak bridges for the maintenance of which they are responsible. Powers to this end have been exercised in the past under these old Acts. Section 25 of the Act of 1930 cannot be worked, and, therefore, it has to be altered. The Minister has proposed to Parliament the provisions contained in the Clause, which appear to him to be equitable as between the interests of bridge authorities on the one hand and road users on the other.
  One of the main difficulties of framing suitable restrictive notices arises from the comparatively recent development of the six-wheeled vehicle, of which the two rear axles lie close together and form a sort of bogey on which the major portion of the load is carried. I cannot pretend to be an expert like my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), and, therefore, I must ask the House to allow me to read out what the difficulty of the situation is with regard to these vehicles. It is obvious that from the point of view of the effect on the structure of a weak bridge it is necessary to regard the weight carried by these two axles as a single "axle-weight." A definition of axle-weight is therefore included in the Clause as being the "weight transmitted by a vehicle to any transverse strip of the road surface five feet in breadth."
  The Clause preserves the right of bridge authorities to erect notices restricting the weight and "axle-weight," as defined in the Clause, of vehicles on weak bridges. One of the provisions of the Motor Car Act, 1903, and the Orders made there-under provide for an appeal by any aggrieved party against a restriction placed on a bridge, on the ground that the bridge was capable of carrying greater weights than those specified in the notice. My hon. Friend the Minister has been impressed by the fact that this provision with regard to an appeal has been a dead
  1176
  letter. Indeed, I do not think that in the records of the Department there is any record of an appeal having been lodged. This, we take it, is largely due to the fact that the onus was upon the appellant to produce reasons for his complaint, and, obviously, not being in a position to secure the necessary information from the owners of a bridge he was not in a position to bring forward an appeal. The Clause remedies this defect by providing that the Minister, on receiving an application by an aggrieved party, may cause the bridge to be inspected, and if he is satisfied, after considering the representations of the bridge authority and any information supplied by them, that the bridge is capable of carrying greater weights than those specified in the notice, he may make an order varying the maximum limits of weights accordingly. It seems to us that the Clause is eminently desirable, and I therefore move that the House should agree with the Lords in the Amendment.
  Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman be good enough to explain how a bridge authority can be a "conspicuous notice" as this Sub-section states. It says, dealing with the bridge authority, in line 5:
  "The authority may be a conspicuous notice."
  Will he explain how that arises?
  Mr. STANLEY: I think that my hon. and learned Friend has been unhappy in his copy of the Bill. My copy says "by."
  Sir S. CRIPPS: I am dealing with the Lords Amendment.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 26.—(Amendment of 20 and 21, Geo. 5, c. 43, s. 19.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 27, line 17, at the beginning, insert:
  "(1) For the purposes of those provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section nineteen of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 (as varied or amended by any order or subsequent enactment) which relate to the number of consecutive hours for rest which a driver is to have in any specified period, time during which the driver is hound by the terms of his employment to obey the directions of his employer, or to remain on or near the vehicle, or during which the vehicle is at a place where no reasonable facilities exist for the driver to rest away from the vehicle, shall be deemed not to be time which the driver has for rest."
  4.50 p.m.
  Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment has been made to meet a point raised by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) and relates to the periods of rest which are already prescribed by law for the drivers of these vehicles. The hon. Member complained that in many cases the rest afforded was of such a kind that a man was really unable to benefit from it, and, particularly, he drew attention to the grave abuse of the bunk system whereby a driver is supposed to take his rest on the vehicle while motoring. The Amendment will now provide that the statutory hours of rest which the driver is to take must not be taken during the time that a driver is bound to obey the directions of his employer, nor can it be taken in any case where there are no reasonable facilities for the driver to rest. This will make it impossible for the practice to continue of allowing drivers to stop seven or eight hours by the side of the road where there are no facilities for proper rest provided.
  4.51 p.m.
  Mr. G. HALL: May I express our thanks to the Minister for meeting us on this point. I think that he has met us in the way we desired, and that there is no doubt now as to how the Amendment is to apply. It will serve a useful purpose and we are indeed indebted to him for it.
  Sir BASIL PETO: I also wish to add a few words of thanks to the Minister on my own behalf and on behalf of other Members of the House who have been interested in this matter. We are glad to see from the form of the words in the Amendment that it will be possible, not only to secure the safety of the public through the drivers of these heavy road vehicles having reasonable opportunity for rest, but that it will also be possible for them to lead the life to which they are entitled as human beings.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 27, line 22, agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: After Clause 27, insert:

  NEW CLAUSE F.—(Amendment of 20 & 21 Geo, 5. c. 43, s. 36.)
  (1) Section thirty-six of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 (which relates to requirements in respect of policies of insurance) small be amended by substituting for subsection (2) thereof the following subsection:
  "(2) Whether any payment is made (whether or not with an admission of liability) by—

  (a) an authorised insurer under or in consequence of a policy issued under this Part of this Act; or

  (b) the owner of a vehicle in relation to the user of which a security under this Part of this Act is in force; or

  (c) the owner of a vehicle who has made a deposit under this Part of this Act;

  in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person arising out of the use of a motor vehicle on a road or in a place to which the public have a right of access, and the person who has so died or been bodily insured has to the knowledge of the authorised injurer or such owner as the case may be received treatment at a hospital whether as an in-patient or as an out-patient in respect of the injury so arising there shall also be paid by the authorised insurer or such owner to such hospital the expenses reasonably incurred by the hospital in affording such treatment after deducting from such expenses any moneys actually received by the hospital in payment of a specific charge for such treatment not being moneys received under any contributory scheme:
  Provided that the amount to be paid by the authorised insurer or such owner shall not exceed fifty pounds for each person so treated as an in-patient or five pounds for each person so treated as an out-patient.
  For the purposes of this subsection the expression 'hospital' means an institution (not being an institution carried on for profit) which provides medical or surgical treatment for in-patients and the expression 'expenses reasonably incurred' means—

  (a) in relation to a person who receives treatment at a hospital as an inpatient, an amount for each day such person is maintained in such hospital representing the average daily cost for each in-patient of the maintenance of the hospital and the staff thereof and the maintenance and treatment of the in-patients therein; and

  (b) in relation to a person who receives treatment at a hospital as an out-patient reasonable expenses actually incurred."

  4.53 p.m.
  Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

  1179
  It is a little unfortunate that the decision of the House has to be asked in these circumstances on a Clause which actually formed part of a Bill which has already been discussed in another place and gone through the normal stages of Parliamentary discussion. But as the position is before the House now I feel that I must ask it to agree with the Lords. The changes which are made in this matter, as compared with the 1930 Act, are as follows: The provisions in that Act did not extend to outpatients. The hospitals will now be able to recover up to the sum of £5 for outpatients. The maximum sum in the 1930 Act in respect of an in-patient was £25, and it is now increased to £50. Under this provision they will be able to recover up to the maximum, but they will have to deduct from it anything which they receive from the patient. In case my hon. and learned Friend has been pursuing his typographical researches, I would point out that in page 16 the words in the first paragraph do not mean the licensed motor driver but the insurance company.
  4.54 p.m.
  Mr. DENMAN: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for assuring us that we are hot creating a new precedent at the invitation of another place. I wish to raise a substantial point by asking when it is proposed that the provisions of the Clause should come into operation. I understand that the Clause adds to the liabilities of insurance companies and drivers, and presumably it is a risk which is not contemplated in the premium charged on existing policies. The Minister has power to bring the Bill into operation at such time as he may wish, and to bring different parts into operation at different times. It seems to be reasonable that a certain time should be given before this provision comes into operation, so that policies which run for a year may not have this new liability thrust upon them without some reasonable time being given to the insurance companies to adjust their rates.
  4.55 p.m.
  Major HILLS: I also want to add a word of thanks to the Minister. I always felt that the Section in the 1930 Act was insufficient. I spoke against it on Committee and on Report, and on
  1180
  the latter occasion I told the hospitals that I thought they would get little out of it, and that they were compromising a claim which the generosity of the House had already recognised. I was told by the representatives of the hospitals to mind my own business and that they knew their own interests best, and would I kindly allow them to arrange their affairs in their own way. Therefore, seeing that I was justified in giving that warning and that the hospitals were not receiving sufficient, I am very glad that the Minister has now increased the amount payable and added certain extra advantages also. I understand that the cost to the insured person will not be more than about 2s. or 2s. 6d. on his premium, which is a small cost for the very great charge on the hospitals due to motor accidents.
  4.56 p.m.
  Mr. PARKINSON: On behalf of Members of the Opposition I desire to offer thanks to the Minister for this concession. We all know of the very great hardships placed upon the hospitals of the country owing to road accidents. It is very unfair for hospitals to have had to bear the heavy burden and to have not been able to get any return from the people who have been injured. I do not think that there is any need to quibble about the cost of the premium of insurance, as I am satisfied that there is no one in this country who runs a motor car who would object for a moment to pay the increased charge upon his insurance policy in order to meet the obligations which might fall upon him arising out of an accident on the road. I am sure that it will be a boon to hospitals throughout the country, and that the motorists will welcome it as much as anyone.
  4.57 p.m.
  Mr. STANLEY: I would say in reply to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) that when he knows that under the original proposals the hospitals would only receive something like £30,000 a year, he will see that the cost of this extended proposal must be considerably less, something in the nature of £15,000 a year. Although I do not know the premiums of insurance companies in respect of motor cars, it must be substantially in excess of that sum.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
  Amendments made:
  Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 29, line 1, agreed to.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Lords Amendments from page 29 down to page 45, inclusive, are, I fancy, drafting Amendments, and if it is the desire of the House, I will put them en bloc.
  Mr. STANLEY: The Amendments are drafting down to page 41.
  Mr. SPEAKER: With the approval of the House, I will put the Amendments en bloc from page 29 to page 41, inclusive.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 41, line 38, agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: After Clause 40, insert

  NEW CLAUSE G.—(Inquiries by Minister.)
  "(1) The Minister of Transport (in this section referred to as 'the Minister') may hold inquiries for the purposes of this Act or of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 (including appeals to him under either of those Acts) as if those purposes were purposes of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, and section twenty of that Act shall apply accordingly.
  (2) Where any such inquiry is held, the Minister may make such order as to the payment of the costs incurred by him in connection with the inquiry (including such reasonable sum not exceeding five guineas a day as he may determine for the services of any officer engaged in the inquiry) by such party to the inquiry as he thinks fit, and the Minister may certify the amount or the costs so incurred, and any amount so certified and directed by the Minister to be paid by any person thall be recoverable from him either as a debt due to the Crown or by the Minister summarily as a civil debt.
  (3) Section one hundred and fourteen of the Traffic Act, 1930, shall cease to have effect."
  5 p.m.
  Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The Amendment is intended to give me the same powers that I have under the Road Traffic Act to hold an inquiry, and if I hold an inquiry through an officer of my Department, such officer may make a charge for his expenses.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendment, in page 45, line 1, agreed to.

  FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Representative members of Transport Advisory Council.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 45, line 14, leave out "2," and insert "3."
  Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment was inserted in another place in order to increase the representation of the railway companies on the advisory council from two to three. It was felt that it would put too great a strain on their representatives if only two were appointed.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to,
  Lords Amendment: In page 45, line 17, leave out "1," and insert "2."
  Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The Amendment will increase the representation of coastwise shipping on the advisory council. It has been pointed out that coastwise shipping is of two different types. There are the regular services from port to port and the tramp services, which are available to go to any destination. On many occasions their interests may be completely in conflict; therefore, both points of view ought to be represented. On that ground the representation is proposed to be increased from one to two.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: Has the hon. Member considered the case of the road tramp representation?
  Mr. STANLEY: I think that would come under the head of "Pedestrians."
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendment, in page 47, line 6, agreed to.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Dr. Morris-Jones.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes after Five o'clock.

  WAGES.
  WAGES.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  WIGAN.
  WIGAN.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR (TEMPORARY CLERKS).
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR (TEMPORARY CLERKS).
  PAPER KEEPERS AND MESSENGERS.
  PAPER KEEPERS AND MESSENGERS.
  CIVIL SERVICE (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT).
  CIVIL SERVICE (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT).
HOUSING.
  SLUM CLEARANCE.
  SLUM CLEARANCE.
  RENT ARREARS.
  RENT ARREARS.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (ADVISORY COMMITTEE).
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (ADVISORY COMMITTEE).
  RURAL WORKERS.
  RURAL WORKERS.
  WATER SUPPLY.
  WATER SUPPLY.
  County and Locality.
  County and Locality.
  KENT (REVIEW OF COUNTY DISTRICTS).
  KENT (REVIEW OF COUNTY DISTRICTS).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (INSURANCE FUNDS).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (INSURANCE FUNDS).
  RATS.
  RATS.
  ALIENS (GERMAN).
  ALIENS (GERMAN).
POLICE.
  REORGANISATION.
  REORGANISATION.
  SPECIAL SCHOOL DUTY.
  SPECIAL SCHOOL DUTY.
  ACCIDENT, WYCHBOLD.
  ACCIDENT, WYCHBOLD.
  TAXI CABS (FITNESS).
  TAXI CABS (FITNESS).
PRISONS.
  BRISTOL (OFFICERS, REPORTS).
  BRISTOL (OFFICERS, REPORTS).
  DARTMOOR.
  DARTMOOR.
  OFFICERS.
  OFFICERS.
  EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS.
  EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS.
  GREYHOUND RACING TRACKS (LOUD SPEAKERS).
  GREYHOUND RACING TRACKS (LOUD SPEAKERS).
  COUNTY COURTS (COST).
  COUNTY COURTS (COST).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  CHINA AND MANCHURIA.
  CHINA AND MANCHURIA.
  COTTON GOODS (EXPORT).
  COTTON GOODS (EXPORT).
  MOST-FAVOURED-NATION CLAUSE.
  MOST-FAVOURED-NATION CLAUSE.
  BLOW LAMPS AND WICKLESS STOVES (IMPORTS).
  BLOW LAMPS AND WICKLESS STOVES (IMPORTS).
  CANADA AND RUSSIA (UNITED KINGDOM EXPORTS).
  CANADA AND RUSSIA (UNITED KINGDOM EXPORTS).
  PHOTOGRAPHIC MATERIAL (IMPORT DUTY).
  PHOTOGRAPHIC MATERIAL (IMPORT DUTY).
  ARMS (EXPORT).
  ARMS (EXPORT).
  TEXTILES (TEADE AGREEMENTS).
  TEXTILES (TEADE AGREEMENTS).
  COCOA (INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE).
  COCOA (INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE).
  EXPORT CREDITS INSURANCE SCHEME.
  EXPORT CREDITS INSURANCE SCHEME.
  FOREIGN FILMS (IMPORT DUTY).
  FOREIGN FILMS (IMPORT DUTY).
  HUNGARY (BRITISH CAPITAL).
  HUNGARY (BRITISH CAPITAL).
  GERMANY (BRITISH BONDHOLDERS).
  GERMANY (BRITISH BONDHOLDERS).
TRANSPORT.
  MOTOR ACCIDENTS.
  MOTOR ACCIDENTS.
  TRAFFIC DANGERS (CHILDREN).
  TRAFFIC DANGERS (CHILDREN).
  COAL INDUSTRY (TIPPING FACILITIES, SWANSEA).
  COAL INDUSTRY (TIPPING FACILITIES, SWANSEA).
LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
  SUBSCRIPTONS (ARREARS).
  SUBSCRIPTONS (ARREARS).
  COVENANT.
  COVENANT.
  MR. CLIFTON R. BASSETT (DEPOSIT, BUENOS AIRES).
  MR. CLIFTON R. BASSETT (DEPOSIT, BUENOS AIRES).
  DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE (COST).
  DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE (COST).
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (VENTILATING FAN).
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (VENTILATING FAN).
EDUCATION.
  TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  SWIMMING (INSTRUCTION).
  SWIMMING (INSTRUCTION).
AGRICULTURE.
  MILK MARKETING SCHEME.
  MILK MARKETING SCHEME.
  CATTLE, SHEEP AND PIGS (GRADING).
  CATTLE, SHEEP AND PIGS (GRADING).
ROYAL NAVY.
  DOCKYARDMEN (SICK LEAVE).
  DOCKYARDMEN (SICK LEAVE).
  CONSTRUCTION WORK.
  CONSTRUCTION WORK.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

SEA-FISHING INDUSTRY ACT, 1933 (SEA-FISHING INDUSTRY (REGU-LATION OF LANDING) ORDER, 1933).
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Order made by the Board of Trade under the Sea-Fishing Industry Act, 1933, be now approved. This Order has been made by the Board of Trade under Section 1 of the Sea-Fishing Industry Act. As provided by that Act, it is subject to the approval of each House of Parliament. It was presented to the other House last night and to-day I have the honour to submit it to your Lordships. The Order provides the necessary machinery to enable effect to be given to the policy of the Government, which was explained to the House during the debates on the Sea-Fishing Industry Bill which became law on July 28 last, just before Parliament rose for the Summer Recess. This Bill was to restrict foreign supplies of sea-fish to an annual amount equal to 90 per cent. of the average annual imports from each country during the last three years.
It will be recalled that the object of the Act was to save from collapse an industry so seriously depressed that a large proportion of it had for some time been working definitely at a loss. Wholesale prices of fish at the ports had been so low as to be unremunerative to producers, and supplies of fish were evidently greater than markets could absorb at prices which would yield a fair return to the industry. The Act aimed at improving prices by regulating supplies, both British and foreign. It provided that no Order should be made by the Board of Trade to regulate foreign landings until Orders had been made by the Ministers concerned with fisheries under the powers conferred by Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Act to restrict the landing of sea-fish caught in far northern waters, to regulate the size of mesh of fishing nets used in British fishing boats, and to prohibit the sale
412
of specified classes of undersized sea-fish. These restrictions, which apply only to the classes of fish which it is least desirable to market, were calculated both to improve prices at the ports in this country and to improve fishing by reducing the destruction of immature fish.
An essential part of the policy underlying the Act was to impose a restriction on foreign landings so that the efforts of the home industry should not be nullified by increased importations from foreign countries. The scheme represented a large measure of general agreement. The home industry accepted restrictions on their operations on condition that they were protected from increased foreign landings; and the foreign countries principally concerned, representing, it is remarkable to note, over 90 per cent., of our foreign imports of the kinds of fish affected by the Order, accepted the import restriction by voluntary agreement in view of the benefits conferred by the other restrictive measures proposed. Orders under Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Act were made by the appropriate Ministers on July 29 last and became operative on August 1. It had been hoped that the Order regulating foreign landings under Section 1 of the Act could be made in time to come into effect immediately after the other Orders, but it was not found practicable to make the Order until August 15. It came into operation on the 21st of the same month.
The Preamble to the Order states the intention to regulate landings of foreign-caught fish by restricting them to the quantities specified in the Schedule in the case of the principal supplying countries, and in all other cases to 90 per cent. of the average amounts landed during the three years 1930 to 1932. The quantities specified in the Schedule also represent, in round figures, 90 per cent. of the three-year average for the respective countries named. As it was desired that the quota year should correspond with the calendar year, Part I of the Schedule sets out separate figures, with appropriate reductions, for the period from August 21 to December 31, 1933. The operative sections of the Order provide the necessary machinery for restricting imports to the amounts specified. Before making an Order under Section 1 of the Act the Board of Trade are re-

413
quired by Statute to have regard to the interests of the consumers of the sea-fish to which the Order relates—including persons, such as curers, who purchase sea-fish for processing—and to the effect of the Order on the commercial relations of this country; and to satisfy themselves that the Order is not at variance with any commercial treaty, convention or agreement between this country and any other country. Your Lordships can rest assured that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade and his officials have paid due regard to these considerations.
As has already been stated the object of the Act was to bring about such an increase in the wholesale price of fish at the ports as would enable a reasonable profit to be made by the owners of British fishing boats. A comparatively small increase of the order of ½d. per lb. is all that was desired. There is every reason to anticipate that such an increase could be effected without causing any appreciable increase in retail prices. The cost of packing, transport and marketing of so perishable a commodity as fish is necessarily high, with the result that the prime cost of the fish constitutes only the minor part of the price charged to the consumer. Moreover, the alternative to the measures taken by this Government would certainly not have benefited the consumer in the long run. A continuance of the port prices ruling during the past year would have made it impossible for many trawler owners to continue their operations and the resulting collapse could not have failed to have been detrimental to the consumer. As regards the commercial relations and agreements of this country, it has already been mentioned that voluntary agreements were reached with countries representing over 90 per cent. of our total foreign imports of the kinds of fish affected and the Order is in conformity with those agreements.
It is too early yet to judge the working and effects of the Order, but it may be said that it has worked smoothly hitherto and there is every reason to anticipate that it will continue to do so. As regards its effects, the position up to date gives no ground for disappointment. In July last, before the new measures came into operation, the average price of white fish of British catching in England and
414
Wales was only 15s. 11d. per cwt., the lowest July figure for many years. In August the average price rose to 19s. 7d. per cwt. as compared with 17s. 5d. in August last year. It fell slightly to 19s. 6d. in September (as compared with 22s. in September last year) but in October it rose to 25s. 5d. as compared with 19s. 10d. in October last year. A spell of exceptionally hot weather was experienced in August and September this year favouring good supplies of fish and tending to restrict demand. In October fishings were hampered by stormy weather and landings were lighter.
Retail prices, it is satisfactory to observe, appear to have remained about normal. In July last the average retail price of fish as recorded by the Ministry of Labour was 93 per cent. above the figure for 1914. The percentage rose to. 94 per cent. in August and to 96 per cent. in September and October. During the same period the index figure for all articles of food showed an increase from l8 per cent. in July to 23 per cent. in October, above the figure for July, 1914—a. greater increase than in the case of fish. In 1932 the index price of fish rose from 94 per cent. above pre-War in July to 100 per cent. in October—a greater increase than in the present year. The slight upward movement of fish prices in the last few months cannot therefore be attributed to the effect of the Orders.
I have been supplied with a very full brief by the Department which I represent, and if any noble Lord has any question to ask I or my noble friend Lord De La Warr, who is here, will do our best to answer it. In consequence of this Act there was a very definite improvement in all the ports as regards this industry. Our markets are becoming more attractive, orders are being placed for the building of new trawlers and men are being taken on instead of being discharged. The whole position is considerably better than it was before the Act was passed, and I confidently recommend this Order for the approval of your Lordships.
Moved, That the Order made by the Board of Trade under the Sea-Fishing Industry Act, 1933, which was presented to this House on the 7th instant be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT, 1933 (BACON (IMPORT REGULATION) ORDER, 1933).
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, That the Order made by the Board of Trade under the Act, which was presented to this House on the 8th instant, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Order is one which has been made by the Board of Trade under Section I of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933, which your Lordships will remember received the Royal Assent last July, a week or so, I think, before the Act to which I referred just now. The House will recall that the imports of bacon and hams from foreign countries have been controlled since November last year. In that month, owing to the collapse of the meat market, emergency arrangements of a voluntary kind were made for controlling the importation of all kinds of meat and, at the same time, it was arranged to reduce the importation of bacon and hams by 15 per cent. The Government announced on December 19 last that they accepted in principle the recommendations of the Reorganisation Commission for Pigs and Pig Products, generally known as the Lane-Fox Commission. The basis of those recommendations was that in order to establish the home bacon industry on a firm basis of annual contracts the total supply of bacon and hams should be limited in the first instance to a quantity of rather over 10,500,000 cwts. per annum, which was estimated to be the average supply available in the years 1925 to 1930. It was decided to continue the reduction of foreign imports gradually so as to reach the Lane-Fox level in the autumn, when the first home contracts would be made and the Ministry of Agriculture were able to obtain the assent of the bacon-exporting countries to the successive reductions.
The reductions were calculated on the general assumption that the home supplies would, when the contracts were made, be found to be about 2.000,000 cwts. per annum, but it is a fact, as we now well know, that when the contracts were actually made the home supply was found to be no less than 3,000,000 cwts. per annum. Clearly in these circumstances the Government had no option but to effect a corresponding reduction in the imports from foreign countries,
416
and this they accordingly endeavoured to do. Unfortunately certain countries, and in particular the country chiefly affected—namely, Denmark (who has a Treaty right to 62 per cent. of the total importation from foreign countries)—could not see their way to accept so sudden and drastic a reduction by way of voluntary agreement. It should be made clear that we have no sort of complaint against the attitude of the Danish Government who, throughout the period of restriction, have helped His Majesty's Government in every possible way. They did not, however, if one may interpret their attitude, feel that they could impose upon their farmers a reduction of this magnitude without the sanction of a compulsory Order on our side. One or two other countries also demurred and it, therefore, became necessary for the Board of Trade to exercise their powers to regulate imports under Section 1 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of the present Session, which became law on, I think, July 21 last.
The Order which is before your Lordships was accordingly made on the 7th November. It is of the simplest character, consisting of a Preamble, eleven clauses and a Schedule, and provides merely that as from the 1st December bacon as there defined can only be imported under licence. By Article 7 of the Order bacon is to be deemed to be imported under licence if there is produced at the time of importation a licence issued by the Board of Trade, or a certificate issued on behalf of the foreign Government to the effect that the consignment is produced in that country and forms part of the total quantity arranged to be imported from that country. The countries to which the Order applies are the eleven countries named in the Schedule, and, by Article 3, any other foreign country imports from which exceed a rate of 400 cwt. per week. The actual quantities will be fixed from time to time as required. Under the existing arrangements the total importations from foreign countries in the period from the 10th November to the 28th February will be a little over 1,900,000 cwt. This quantity is at present divided among the several countries on an agreed basis, but the allocation is provisional only and subject to further

417
discussion with the countries concerned. I therefore ask your Lordships to approve the Order which has become necessary in order to carry out the policy already approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Board of Trade under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933, which was presented to this House on the 8th instant, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I should like to make a few observations and put one or two questions with regard to this Motion. I do so particularly because, unfortunately, owing to my being in the dentist's chair, I was not able to take part in the discussion in July, when your Lordships passed the original Order which this one is intended to amend. We have just dealt with two commodities, fish and bacon. There is an essential difference in our handling of those two commodities. As regards the fishing industry, we have given protection, without insisting on putting the industry in a strait-jacket and fixing domestic prices or limiting domestic productions. So it differs essentially from this Order under the Agricultural Marketing Act.
As your Lordships may possibly he aware, I have had misgivings about the ultimate effect of some of these Orders under the Marketing Act, and I think that what has happened already in connection with the bacon scheme, and what appears to be happening in connection with the milk scheme, justifies to some extent some of the misgivings I ventured to put before your Lordships. Take, for instance, one paint brought out yesterday in another place—namely, the amount of money which under the quota scheme leaves this country and goes into the pockets of foreign producers or the pockets of shippers. Under the quota the increase in the price leaves this country, whereas if you had a straightforward tariff any increase in price which results from it would go to the Treasury and thereby benefit the consumer in this country. I notice that, speaking yesterday in another place, Mr. H. G. Williams, who is an ardent Conservative and a staunch supporter of the Government and of the Conservative Party, estimated that under the bacon scheme more than £3,000,000 sterling a year would be given
418
to foreign farmers which, under a straightforward tariff, would have come to the Treasury. I have always said that as between the two forms of Protection—Protection through a tariff and Protection through a quota—it seemed to me that Protection through a tariff, in normal conditions, when you are not dealing with depreciated currencies, was far preferable.
I think the Government have made the mistake of not beginning with established industries like livestock, but have been attempting to create almost a new industry. After all, it is almost a new industry in connection with the pig which is being created, because we are to have a very large expansion; and the result is that live-stock producers are in a worse position than ever. It would be better if you had decided to protect live-stock farming as a going concern instead of trying to create a new industry. One of the fallacies, it seems to me, is that a great deal of the scheme is based on guesswork. Consumption cannot be accurately forecasted. There are two factors to be taken into consideration—one is quality and the other is price. If quality deteriorates then it is very probable demand will also diminish, and I am not sure myself—I should like very much to know what the noble Earl representing the Ministry of Agriculture or the noble Lord representing the Board of Trade and the consumers, feel about it—I am not sure that quality will be maintained if there is this very rapid expansion in the home-made bacon industry.
There is another point and that is the effect on consumption of price. Recently, as your Lordships know, there has been a very large importation of bacon. That has been due to the fact that bacon was cheap and people were poor. They were unemployed, trade was bad, and because people were poor those with reduced income bought bacon. If you put up the price of bacon—and the object of this scheme is to put it up—too high, it does not follow that people will consume the same amount. They will change their dietary, they will turn from bacon if it is made expensive to cheaper forms of food. There are many alternatives equally nourishing that would be cheaper. So it does not at all follow that the consumption estimated under these control

419
schemes will be constant if the quality diminishes or the price increases.
This question of the cost of food, particularly essentials, is vital to an industrial country like ours, which is dependent on its export trade. Under the Danish Agreement a great deal was made of the fact that the Danes, because they were given 62 per cent, of our imports, undertook to buy large quantities of English coal. If you are going to reduce substantially the amount of bacon we get from the Danes, it seems to me obvious that they will not buy so much coal, one of our basic industries, one of our hard-hit industries in this country. I have always felt that one of the results of this bacon scheme would be to disappoint either the British farmers on the one side or the Danes on the other side. The English farmers expect a very large expansion of pig production, with a consequent reduction of our imports of Danish bacon. The Danes, on the other hand, when they gave us large orders for coal, or whatever else, contemplated that 62 per cent. of our imports would represent a large figure. It is obvious, if you are going to restrict, to take the most extreme case, 62 per cent. of nothing is worth nothing; and if you reduce the total volume of your imports very substantially, it is quite obvious that the Danes will not be able to spend so much in helping British industry, coal or whatever else it may be.
There is another point I should like to put to the noble Earl or to the noble Lord, and it is connected with the formula in the Lane-Fox scheme. As I understand it, the formula was based on the assumption that there would be sixteen pigs per sow per annum. I think the noble Earl will remember that was the figure given. I should like very much to know whether the Ministry of Agriculture agree with that figure. I hold in my hand a report issued by the University of Cambridge Department of Agriculture. I shall read only one small quotation:
"The records collected in the Cambridge pig recording scheme show that in well-managed herds a reasonable average in pig production is seven and a-half pigs marketed per litter, or fifteen pigs per sow, assuming two litters per annum; but in practice two litters per sow within twelve months is achieved by only 40 per cent. of the sows."
420
When the ordinary number of pigs per sow is not sixteen, as the Lane-Fox Commission suggested, but something very much below that—it may be twelve, it may be ten, probably it is some figure between ten and twelve, as far as I am able to ascertain—I would like very much to know what the opinion of the noble Lord is, because obviously, if the premises are not correct, the conclusions drawn from them must be faulty.
It seems to me there are two things brought nearer as the result of this and other schemes. One is the very rapid approach of monopoly import boards, which I have always felt was the logical and inevitable sequel to quotas. I would say honestly I would prefer the two—though I think tariffs are infinitely better—but under the import board scheme consumers would be able to get a commodity imported at a cheaper price, whereas the quota commits you to buying possibly in the dearest market. I do not think it is in the interest of the consumers, and if it is not in the interest of the consumers, sooner or later you are bound to have a reaction against your agricultural policy, because the majority of voters are consumers and townsmen. The next step towards which we must be inevitably driven is control of production. In an industry such as agriculture, depending as it does upon climate and so many other factors, I think that is a very dangerous sequel. I notice that only recently one of the leading supporters of the hop scheme stated publicly that the existing hop growers now wanted power to prevent any new person starting growing hops—that is to say, they wanted to obtain for themselves a monopoly in hop production. That seems to me an inevitable sequel, and I think you will find the same thing will probably arise in connection with dairying, pigs, and other things. I am not enough of a Socialist to see that sort of result with any equanimity.
There is only one last point I would like to put to the noble Earl. As I understand it, the Government have, what I briefly call, guaranteed an overdraft of something like £500,000 in connection with bacon. The figure does not really matter, but a substantial overdraft has been guaranteed. I would like the noble Earl to tell us how it is proposed to liquidate that. As far as I can make out, that amount can only be liqui-

421
dated either by making a gift or a sort of subsidy to the industry through the Board, or by raising the retail price to the consumer, or, possibly, by lowering the contract price. I may be wrong, and I should be grateful if the noble Earl would tell us how the Government propose to deal with that. I have always attempted, when examining these schemes under the Marketing Act, to deal with them constructively and not in any carping spirit or by way of obstruction. The whole policy is so tremendously experimental that I think it is vital we should scrutinise the scheme as carefully as possible. Therefore, I apologise to your Lordships for having taken up so much time.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF, THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, a number of points have been brought forward by the noble Viscount, with which the noble Lord, Lord Temple-more, has asked me to try and deal. I would take the noble Viscount's last point first and answer it very briefly. With regard to this loan which has been guaranteed by the Government, it will be liquidated by menus of a levy on pigs by the Pig Board in the future—that is, providing the loan actually has to be met. But so far, while not wishing in any way to be committed to what I am saying, I think it looks at the moment as if it were quite likely that by no means all of that sum is going to be required.
Then the noble Viscount raised the question of the accuracy of our figures, and he commented on the fact that inevitably, in initiating these schemes, we must work a great deal upon guesswork. We are quite ready to admit that; in fact one reason why it is so necessary to have these schemes is that it is quite impossible at present, with our existing machinery, to attempt the planning of this industry. It is essential, if we are to attempt the planning of agriculture, that we should have these new schemes in existence before we can have any really definite information to work upon, and, therefore, I make no apology to your Lordships for the fact that whereas we budgeted for something over two million pigs we found that about three million pigs have been contracted for.
The noble Viscount also raised the vexed question, which, I think, we have
422
very often discussed before between ourselves, of the tariff versus the quota. I am quite sure the noble Viscount would not wish me to enter into all the details of that controversy once again; but there is just one aspect of that question which I would like to be allowed to deal with for a moment. Later on in his speech the noble Viscount complained that if we were going to reduce pig and bacon imports from Denmark we would inevitably lose our foreign trade with Denmark. In another portion of his speech he complained that by our system of regulating imports we found ourselves in the position of having to pay to Denmark very nearly as much money as we were paying in the past for a very much larger number of pigs. Those two facts go together. It is because of this quantitative system of the regulation of imports from Denmark and from other countries that the foreign country as well as our own country does gain from a rise in price, and Denmark, and even other foreign countries, are enabled thereby to continue to buy from this country; whereas if we had adopted the method of a tariff and made it impossible for Denmark to get any benefit from any rise in price we would have found ourselves in the position inevitably of breaking the purchasing power of Denmark and making it quite impossible for Denmark to make any purchases in this country.
The noble Viscount went on to deal with the question of prices, and said that if we raised prices unreasonably in this country we were going to make it impossible for consumers in the towns to buy the product. That is perfectly true. Any man in his senses must be prepared to recognise that fact. But what are the actual facts of the situation? Are we in fact proceeding to raise prices unreasonably What are the prices of bacon at the present moment as compared with 1930, a year in which, I think the noble Viscount would admit, bacon consumption was at a very high level, though at not quite such a high level as in 1931? But in 1931 there was not a single bacon-producing country in the world that was selling bacon at the cost of production. The reason why bacon consumption was so very high then was that bacon was being sold at knock-out prices, below replace-merit value, and if that situation had been allowed to continue it would

423
not have benefited the consumer because producers would have been driven out of production. As a matter of fact at the time when we originated this system of quota regulation Denmark had already had to reduce its pig population by no less than 20 per cent. because of the ruinous prices. The effect of that must have been a shortage that inevitably would result in a rise in prices that would have hit the consumer. The average price for 1930 was 1s. 4 ·10d. To-day, even with this rise of which the noble Lord has complained, the price of bacon is 1s. 1 ¼d. per lb., so that really even at the present moment, although we have had a very considerable rise as the result of the action of the Government, the price of bacon is still 3d. a lb. lower than it was in 1930 when consumption was high.
The noble Viscount asks, how are we going to guarantee quality? I think the noble Viscount is familiar with the scheme and has seen the provisions in the scheme for encouraging the production of high-quality bacon. The Minister of Agriculture has frequently given assurances and has frequently warned the farmers that if our producers are not able to satisfy the market as to quality or as to quantity—and the Minister made this very clear as late as last night in another place—then inevitably the Government will find itself in the position of having to lift the sluices and let in a greater quantity of imports. We have realised all along that the only justification for keeping bacon or, indeed, any foodstuff out of the country, is that we can produce it satisfactorily in this country and satisfy the market both as to quality and quantity. I think I have dealt with the questions raised by the noble Viscount and I hope these answers will satisfy him and your Lordships.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, may I be allowed to point out that the noble Earl has not answered my query about the formula, the number of pigs per sow? There is one other point. I would not have intervened again if he had not suggested that the price of bacon was going down. Of course, it may be going down compared with any given year, but if he will read the speech made by the head of his Department made in another place yesterday he will
424
find this is what was said by Major Elliot: "I do not suggest that rises are not taking place."
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Viscount is perfectly right. I think that is clear from what I said—that, even with the existing rise, the price is still 3d. a lb. lower. I think that in saying that I made it clear that there had been, in fact, a rise during the last few weeks. On the question of the formula it is perfectly true that the figures given by the Lane-Fox Commission do not agree with the figures given by Cambridge University. Neither of those figures have anything to do with the Ministry of Agriculture, and in so far as they affect the price, then they are purely a matter for negotiation between the two Boards, the Pigs Marketing Board and the Bacon Marketing Board. Of course they do affect the cost of production; they do therefore affect the price, and so they have to be dealt with in negotiation between the two Boards.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WORTHING) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Message of yesterday considered (according to Order).
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Viscount Gage, I beg to move the Order which stands in his name. This Provisional Order deals with the construction of sea defence works at Goring-on-Sea in the Borough of Worthing. The Bill has been before your Lordships' House and has been agreed to, and it is now before another place. The object of the Order I am moving is that the Bill should be carried over to the next Session of Parliament so that time shall not be lost by its having to come before your Lordships' House again. Your Lordships will understand that, with the sea actually coming in and doing considerable damage, it is very necessary to get these works put in hand at the earliest possible date, I understand from my noble friend the Chairman of Committees that he has no objection to the procedure proposed. I venture to hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree that this Order be approved.

425
Moved, That leave be given to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill which was introduced into this House in the present Session of Parliament, and which has passed this House and been sent to the House of Commons, in order to proceed with the Bill in the next Session of Parliament, provided that all fees due thereon up to this day be paid;
That a copy of such Bill shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the next meeting of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, certified under the seal of the Minister of Health and stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill shall be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(Earl Stanhope.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, this Order is in common form, although it is not very usual for Provisional Order Bills to be carried over to another Session. In regard to Private Bills it is a common thing. We do it practically every Session and, indeed, I think every Session. The last time a Provisional Order Bill was carried over in this way was in 1928. In the case of a Private Bill it is the Chairman of Committees in your Lordships' House who moves the necessary Resolution, but in the case of a Provisional Order Bill, as the measure is introduced by the Department concerned, it is the representative of the Department who moves. I think your Lordships will be quite safe in agreeing to the course proposed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WELLINGTON, SALOP) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments to this Bill be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, in another place two Amendments were made in this Bill and I think your Lordships will agree to both of them. One is a very small one to put right a misprint, and the other is to postpone the date when the Order shall come into effect. The reason for that is that it was hoped that the Bill would pass through another place before the Recess. That was found impossible and so instead of coming into operation on October 1 last, as was intended, it will now come into operation on April 1 next year. I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now consider the Commons Amendments to this Bill.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 25, page 13, line 18, after ("whole") insert ("number of members of the").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not think that I need detain your Lordships for a very long time—I hope not more than ten minutes or a quarter of an hour—although there are a number of Amendments to be considered. Your Lordships will recollect that this was a Consolidation Bill which effected one of the greatest consolidations ever attempted

427
in this country. It repealed the whole of 47 Acts relating to local government and repealed 170 in part. It was referred to a Joint Select Committee and was passed in this House before the Recess. A number of Amendments have been made in another place. I think 90 per cent. of them are drafting. With regard to the others, five or six are necessitated by reason of the fact that since the Bill was before your Lordships' House ten new boroughs have been created in the United Kingdom, which necessitates some small Amendments in various clauses. It will also be found necessary to alter the date on which the Act will come into operation—namely, January 1. There will not be time left before that date to make the multitudinous regulations necessary and therefore the date proposed is June 1. I think there are only three other Amendments of any substance and they simply bring into operation certain clauses which the Joint Select Committee thought might well be left out of a Consolidation Bill but which, on second thoughts, it has been found more advisable to restore. They are really reenactments of the law as it stood. I will now deal with the Amendments seriatim. The first is a drafting Amendment to assimilate this Bill to other corresponding Bills, and I beg to move that we agree with it.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 33, page 17, line 25, leave out ("the county, or for either county") and insert ("a county").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is purely a drafting Amendment and I beg to move that it be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 50, page 28, line 21, leave out ("thirty-four") and insert ("thirty-seven").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords this looks rather a curious Amendment. It is necessitated by the postponement of the date of the Bill coming into operation. Your Lordships may ask why that
428
means a difference between 1934 and 1937. The reason is that parochial elections take place—I think about April—in 1934. The Bill does not come into force until June 1, 1934, and so it is necessary to provide for the three years to 1937 when the next elections will be held. I move that this Amendment be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree With the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 51, page 31, line 11, leave out ("it") and insert ("them")
Clause 51, page 31, line 14, leave out the second ("it") and insert ("them").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these Amendments are drafting.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendinents.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 61, page 3.5, line 35, after ("shall") insert ("in the case of the chairman, at the meeting at which he is elected and, in the case of a councillor").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. It is intended to make it clear that the chairman of a parish council, as in the case of the chairman of other authorities, can make the necessary declaration of acceptance of office at the meeting at which he is elected chairman. This was the intention of the clause, but it has been pointed out that as the clause is drafted, it is open to doubt whether the chairman can make the declaration at that meeting. I beg to move that this Amendment be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 61, page 35, line 36, after ("or") insert ("in either case").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is consequential on the last Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 64, page 37, line 25, after ("member") insert ("of the authority")
Clause 66, page 39, line 11, leave out a
Clause 66, page 39, line 12, leave out the second ("a")
Clause 66, page 39, line 12, leave out the third ("a").
TEE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these are purely drafting Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 72, page 43, line 14, leave out ("on motion, grant a mandamus for the") and insert ("order an").
THE LOR.D CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to substitute for the words "The High Court may, on motion, grant a mandamus for the election", the words "The High Court may order an election". The Amendment is made because questions of the procedure in the Courts should be left to Rules of Court and not dealt with in a Statute.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The. Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 72, page 43, line 34. at end insert:
("(5) The High Court may order that tae costs of any person of proceedings under paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of this section shall be paid by the council of the county or borough concerned").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Clause 72 (2) provides that in the event of a failure to elect the chairman or a member of a county or borough council, the High Court may order an election to be held. This is the existing law, and when proceedings are taken (though this is a comparatively rare event) their object is usually to clear up some genuine doubt in the interpretation of the law. In such cases, it is reasonable that the expenses both of the person who initiates the proceedings find of the respondent should be treated as forming part of the election expenses. The Amendment enables this to be done if the Court so directs. The
430
only question is to give the High Court certain power as to costs. It is doubtful, under the existing law, whether such a direction can be given unless the council themselves consent. The Amendment clears up this doubt.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 75, page 44, line 18, at end insert:
("Provided that a county councillor elected for an electoral division consisting wholly of a county district or of some part of a county district shall not vote on any matter involving only expenditure on count of which the county district is not, for the time being, liable to be charged.")
LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, this proviso is based on Section 35 (6) of the Local Government Act, 1888, which prohibits a. county council for an electoral division which is wholly comprised within a Quarter Sessions borough, and which had a population of 10,000 or over in 1881, from voting in respect of any question involving expenditure on account of which the parishes are not for the time being liable to be assessed equally with the rest of the county, to county contributions. Owing to some remarks made in another place when the Bill was before the Joint Select Committee, the Department were asked to prepare a memorandum on the matter for the consideration of the Committee. At that time, the Department felt some doubt whether the proviso would, in fact, work satisfactorily, and suggested to the Committee that the simplest course might be to omit the proviso altogether. The matter has been gone into very carefully again, and the County Councils' Association have taken the matter tip, and they are satisfied that the administrative difficulties are not so serious as the Department thought. Therefore, in another place it was thought fit to put in these words.
Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The. Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 76, page 46, line 13, after ("which") insert ("it appears to")
Clause 76, page 46, line 14, leave out ("are satisfied")
Clause 84, page 49, line 32, leave out ("every") and insert ("each")
Page 50, line 10, leave out ("are") and insert ("is")
Clause 97, page 57, line 29, after ("borough") insert ("council")
Clause 103, page 60, line 19, leave out ("and") and insert ("")
Clause 120, page 71, line 15, after ("this") insert ("Act").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these are purely drafting Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
After Clause 122, page 72, line 39, at end insert the following new clause.
Disclosure by officers of interest in contracts.
(".—(1) If it comes to the knowledge of an officer employed, whether under this Act or any other enactment, by a local authority, that a contract in which he has any pecuniary interest, whether direct or indirect (not being a contract to which he is himself a party) has been, or is proposed to be, entered into by the authority or any committee thereof, lie shall, as soon as practicable, give notice in writing to the authority of the fact that he is interested therein.
For the purposes of this section an officer shall be treated as having indirectly a pecuniary interest in a contract or proposed contract if he would have been so treated by virtue of subsection (2) or subsection (3) of Section seventy-six of this Act had he been a member of the authority.
(2) An officer of a local authority shall not, under colour of his office or employment, exact or accept any fee or reward whatsoever other than his proper remuneration.
(3) If any person fails to comply with the provisions of subsection (1) or contravenes any of the provisions of subsection (2) of this section he shall for each offence be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
(4) References in this section to a local authority shall include a reference to a joint committee appointed under Part III of this Act").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I now come to a clause which is not exactly a new clause. It applies to officers the same principle as Clause 76 applies to members of a local authority—namely, that interests in contracts with the authority, however indirect, must be
432
disclosed. It re-enacts and makes applicable to local government officers in general the provisions of Section 193 of the Public Health Act, 1875, which makes it an offence for an officer to exact or accept, under colour of his office or employment, any fee or reward other than his proper salary, wages and allowances.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 131, page 77, line 35, leave out ("and liabilities")and insert ("income debts, liabilities, and expenses")
Clause 140, page 82, line 21, leave out ("considers") and insert ("consider")
Page 83, line 10, leave out ("is") and insert ("are")
Page 83, line 12, leave out ("it") and insert ("they")
Page 83, line 42, leave out ("by which").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these are all drafting Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 145, page 88, line 37, at end insert
("(7) An order made under this section, other than an order which is provisional only, shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made.")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is a little different. A similar subsection, reproducing the existing law, was in the draft Bill prepared by the Chelmsford Committee, but was deleted by the Joint Select Committee. The matter was raised on Report stage in this House by Lord Ampthill, and on behalf of the Government I promised that the matter should receive further consideration. The County Councils' Association have since pressed for the reinsertion of the subsection. The Government have no objection, and indeed they think it the proper thing to do.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 147, page 90, line 27, after ("powers") insert ("or duties")
Clause 148, page 91, line 39, after ("procedure") insert ("and subject to compliance with the like conditions")
Clause 178, page 110, line 31, leave out from the beginning to the second ("or,") in line 39, and insert ("effect any transaction which might he effected under those provisions otherwise than under those provisions and in accordance therewith.")
Clause 189, page 115, line 29, after ("this") insert ("Act")
Clause 213, page 128, line 36, leave out ("probable")
Page 129, line 11, leave out ("probable")
Page 129, line 21, leave out ("probable")
Clause 217, page 132, line 10, leave out ("1928") and insert ("1933, or of any other enactment or statutory order relating to the supply of electricity")
Clause 217, page 132, line 12, leave out from ("of") to end of line 13, and insert ("tramways or light railways, or for the purposes").
LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these are all drafting Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 249, page 151, line 40, at end insert:
Provided that where, under or by virtue of any enactment, the power of an authority or person specified as aforesaid to confirm by-laws bas been transferred, the authority or person to whom that power has been transferred shall be deemed to be the authority or person specified as aforesaid.")
LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, This Amendment is drafting, and it is to deal with such a case as that of the Minister of Transport exercising powers transferred to him from the Board of Trade.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.——(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 253, page 153, line 3, leave out ("an aboslute") arid insert ("a")
Clause 253, page 153, line 27, leave out ("an absolute") and insert ("a").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these Amendments are drafting. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 268, page 159, line 3, after ("vestry") insert ("or of any meeting of inhabitants in the nature of a vestry")
Clause 268, page 159, line 4, after ("parish") insert ("or place").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a little different. Clause 268 transfers, inter alia, the civil functions of the vestry in a borough or urban district to the council of the borough or district. This would include the powers of the vestry under the Burial Acts. Since the Bill was published it has been pointed out that where a burial ground is provided for a part of a parish the powers of the vestry are exercisable by a meeting of the inhabitants of that part of the parish. As the clause is drawn, those functions would remain vested in the meeting of inhabitants. It would be absurd to leave these powers vested in the inhabitants when the powers of the vestry for the whole parish are transferred to the borough or urban district council, and the object of this Amendment is to remedy this defect in the Bill. I beg; to move.
Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 304, page 180, line 29, after ("purposes") insert ("and, for the purposes of Part VI of this Act, includes a body which is a compensation authority for the purposes of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, and an insurance committee constituted under the National Health Insurance Act, 1924.")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, under Section 62 of the Local Government Act, 1888, any "authorities" affected by an order for the alteration of the areas may enter into agreements for the adjustment of their property, income, debts and liabilities. Clause 150 of the Bill, which reproduces Section 62 of the Act of 1883, has substituted references to "public bodies" for the references to "authorities," and it has been pointed out that the effect of this alteration will be to prevent adjustments being made in the future in the case of compensation authorities under

435
the Licensing Acts and in the case of insurance committees. The object of this Amendment is to secure that these adjustments may be made in the future as in the past. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
After Clause 304, page 181, line 21, at end insert the following new clause:
Interpretation as respects Crown rights.
(".The mention in this Act in relation to any particular matter of His Majesty's Royal Prerogative shall not be held to prejudice or affect, in relation to that or to any other matter, the general application of any rule of law with respect to any estate, right, power, privilege, or exemption of the Crown.")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is a little different. The object is to safeguard the Royal Prerogative in Crown cases. The Amendment has been very carefully drawn because the choice of a form of words has been a matter of difficulty, but it is thought that we have it right now. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 306, page 183, line 17, leave out ("January" and insert ("June").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, we cannot get regulations ready by the 1st January, so we had to get the Commons to insert "June" instead of "January". The Amendment postpones the date of the commencement of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
First Schedule, page 187, line 10, column 4, after ("Rawtenstall,") insert ("Stretford.")
First Schedule, page 187, line 19, column 2, after ("Chatham,") insert ("Dartford.")
First Schedule, page 187, line 23, column 4, after ("Ealing,") insert ("Finchley.")
First Schedule, page 187, line 27, column 4, after ("Hornsey,") insert ("Southgate.")
First Schedule, page 187, line 28, column 4, after ("Twickenham,") insert ("Willesden, Wood Green.")
First Schedule, page 187, line 46, column 2, after ("Eccles,") insert ("Fleetwood.")
First Schedule, page 187, page 188, line 28, column 2, at beginning insert ("ilston.")
First Schedule, page 187, line 30, column 2. after ("Newcastle-under-Lyme") insert ("Rowley Regis")
First Schedule, page 187, line 45, column 4, after ("Brighouse,") insert ("Goole.")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, we now come to a group of Amendments which I will take very rapidly. These are Amendments which were necessitated by the creation of new boroughs since the Bill left your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Second Schedule, page 190, line 45, leave out ("fill op") and insert ("prepare for signature").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, paragraph (6) of Part II of Schedules of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, has the words "shall, at the request of any burgess, fill up a nomination paper." By the Representation of the People Act, 1918, the term "local government elector" was substituted for "burgess." The provision in the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, was applied to county council elections by the Local Government Act, 1888. The provision means that the proper officer, the returning officer or town clerk, shall upon request fill up a nomination paper, apart, of course, from the signatures of the persons subscribing the nomination paper. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 191, line 9, after ("writing") insert ("on, or").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is for the purpose of making it clear that the consent to nomination may be signed by the candidate on the day for delivery of nomination papers. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 191, line 12, at end insert:
("Provided that n the case of an election to fill a casual vacancy if the returning officer, in the case of an election of a county councillor, or the mayor, in the case of an election of a councillor of a borough, is satisfied that owing to the absence of a person from the United Kingdom it has not been reasonably practicable for his consent in writing to be given as aforesaid a telegram consenting to his nomination and purporting to have been sent by him, shall be deemed, for the purpose of this paragraph, to be consent in writing given by him on the day on which it purports to have been sent and attestation of his consent shall not be required.")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a provision which explains itself. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 192, line 14, leave out the second ("of").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this corrects a printer's error. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 129, line 25, leave out paragraph 8, and insert:
("8. A candidate who is validly nominated for more than one electoral division of a county or for more than one ward of a borough shall, by notice signed, attested, and delivered as aforesaid, withdraw from his candidature in all these electoral divisions or wards, as the case may be, except one, and if be does not so withdraw he shall he deemed to have withdrawn from his candidature in all those electoral divisions or wards, as the case may be")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is concerned with the procedure for preventing frivolous candidatures. It will eliminate the exercise of a difficult and unpleasant duty by the county returning officer or the mayor, who ought not to be required to decide for
438
what area a candidate should stand. The candidate, if he does not withdraw from all electoral areas except one will, under the Amendment, be automatically disqualified from going to election anywhere. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Seventh Schedule, page 228, line 28, leave out ("1928") and insert ("1933")
Seventh Schedule, page 228, line 38, leave out ("1931") and insert ("1933").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Eleventh Schedule, page 243, line 10, after ("of") insert ("section")
Eleventh Schedule, page 250, line 7, column 2, leave out ("Improvement") and insert ("Protection")
Eleventh Schedule, page 256, line 36, column 3, after ("relates") insert ("to parish councils and")
Eleventh Schedule, page 265, line 26, column 3, leave out ("subsections (5) and") and insert ("subsection")
Eleventh Schedule, page 270, line 44, column 3, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsections")
Eleventh Schedule, page 272, line 38, column 3, leave out ("Sections") and insert ("Section").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these Amendments correct slips in the Repeal Schedule. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROTECTION OF BIRDS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I beg to move that these Amendments be now considered, and, perhaps, as this is the last occasion I can say anything about

439
this Bill, your Lordships will permit me to say just one or two words. In the first place, I want to express my deep sense of gratitude to the Special Committee of this House for the care they spent in examining this measure in the Committee rooms. It was due to their labour that it was possible to place this Bill on a wholly unassailable foundation. In the next place, I want most sincerely to thank the Government who have found time, notwithstanding all their anxious and arduous duties, to do what perhaps may not inappropriately be described as taking this Bill under their wing. This Bill was sent out from this House on its perilous journey to another place, and it has returned to the Ark from which it was despatched with only two small Amendments in its beak, which I shall ask your Lordships to consider in a few moments if you agree to give consideration to them.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments he now considered.—(Viscount Buckmaster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bile No. 60.]
Clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert ("other than close-ringed specimens bred in captivity ").
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTERMy Lords, the first Amendment is a small one, to which I do not think any close attention is needed. It is to provide that there should be excepted from the Bill what are called "close-ringed specimens bred in captivity." I very much doubt whether it was necessary to put this in. Apparently there are special birds, specially bred with rings which describe their ancestry. They have a variety of other qualities and people are anxious to safeguard them, and anxious that the Bill shall not affect these birds. It was never intended that it should.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Buckmaster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 1, page 1, line 21, at end insert ("being birds of a British species, and for the purposes of this Act a species shall be deemed to he British if, and only if, it is a species resident in or visiting Great Britain in a wild state").
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, the next Amendment is a definition of birds of British species, and it states that "for the purposes of this Act a species shall be deemed to be British if, and only if, it is a species resident in or visiting Great Britain in a wild state." I should have thought that was obvious, but that is no reason why we should disagree with this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Buckmaster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Schedule, page 3, line 2, column 2, leave out ("all British species")
Schedule, page 3, line 7, column 1, leave out ("all British species")
Schedule, page 3, line 19, column 2, leave out ("all British species")
Schedule, page 3, line 20, column 2, leave out ("all British species")
Schedule, page 3, line 24, column 2, leave out ("all British species")
Schedule, page 3, line 25, column 2, leave out ("all British species")
Schedule, page 3, line 26, column 1, leave out ("all British species")
Schedule, page 3, line 31, column 2, leave out ("all British species")
Schedule, page 3, line 35, column 1, leave out ("all British species")
Leave out lines 37 to 39.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, the whole of the Schedule Amendments are identical, and with your Lordships' permission I will move them together.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Buckmaster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE IN SOMERSET.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE rose to call attention to the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Somerset, and to ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to stop the importation of anything likely to cause an outbreak of this disease; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I desire to draw the attention of the House to the recent very serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the County of Somerset. The outbreak took place in one part, and

441
afterwards spread to seven other places. Your Lordships will realise how serious the outbreak was when I tell you that the number of cattle actually slaughtered was 286, and the compensation paid was £6,075. No doubt, that compensation was arrived at perfectly fairly, but, owing to the very low price of stock, undoubtedly the compensation will not repay the unfortunate farmers who suffered the loss. In one particular ease the loss was very serious. There was a man who had spent the whole of his lifetime in building up a very fine herd of shorthorn cattle. The present tenant farmer is a daughter of this man, and the loss in that particular case was enormous. Then, of course, it is well known, especially in a dairying country, that when you have built up a herd of good milking cows it is very difficult to replace them, and monetary compensation is of very little value. With regard to sheep there were 248 slaughtered, and the amount of compensation paid was £496. In the ease of pigs seventy-four were slaughtered, and £159 was paid in compensation. The total number of animals slaughtered was 608, and the total amount of compensation was £6,730. That is not a small item, but it does not at all represent the loss sustained by the persons who owned these animals.
The origin of the outbreak is, I am informed, entirely unknown at the present moment. That is one of the reasons why I am drawing your Lordships' attention to the present state of things. We are always informed by the Ministry that it is not known how the infection is brought into this country. Of course, the Port of Bristol being very near, the disease may possibly have come over from Ireland, but I have been told that there is no foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland to-day. I should like to have an assurance from the noble Earl officially that that is so. I am given to understand that cattle are brought from Ireland and placed in quarantine for a certain time. I should like to know the length of time, and what precautions are taken to see that no persons who have to feed these cattle or deal with them in any way are allowed to move about on other farms. It is undoubtedly the case that human beings can carry the infection from one district to another. I know one case in which foot-and-mouth dis-
442
ease was spread in this way. Foot-and-mouth disease at that time was rampant. in Ireland, and a man went to Bristol market, came home, and went about his farm, and a few days afterwards there was an outbreak of the disease, clearly showing that it can be spread by human beings.
Then there is a report—and I should like to know if the noble Earl has heard anything of this report—that the outbreak was not reported for a whole seven days after it had occurred—that is to say, apparently the person who saw it either did not understand what it was, or did not take the trouble to report the matter. It is, of course, of the utmost importance that when an outbreak occurs it should be reported immediately. In this ease it is said it was a veterinary surgeon who did not report the case. This may be only a rumour, but there is a strong feeling in my part of the country regarding the matter, and it would be very satisfactory if the noble Earl could say there is no truth in that report. I think it has never been denied that hay and straw for packing purposes have been the cause of bringing foot-and-mouth disease into this country. The noble Earl will perhaps remember the case in the island of Sark, in which the disease was spread through the packing in which a piano was brought to the island; and we know the precautions which are taken in the Channel Islands to keep out infection.
There is also the question— to my mind the very serious question—of bagged meat from the Argentine. What is done with these bags afterwards? As far as I know, they are not destroyed, and there is always the danger of feeding stuffs being put into them, or any other kind of produce. It is well to remember that from a country like the Argentine, which is simply teeming with foot-and-mouth disease, infection may be brought over in these bags in which the meat is carried. It is very interesting to note that in America no kind of meat is allowed to be brought into the country, and America at the present moment is entirely free of foot-and-mouth disease since they spent £1,000,000 on stamping it out. And there is Canada. We all know that it is perfectly free from foot-and-mouth disease, so much so that even now breeding cattle, under the Ottawa

443
Agreement, are brought into this country, though not with the approval, as the noble Earl knows, of the breeders in this country, nor of the great societies which deal with shorthorns, red polls and various other breeds. I venture to say to the noble Earl that if Canada and America are by certain regulations enabled to keep out foot-and-mouth disease entirely, is it not incumbent upon our Government to enquire into this matter and see whether we should not be able to have such regulations as would prevent any chance of the disease being brought into this country?
In the old days we used to be told that it could not be done owing to birds bringing the disease into this country. The remarkable thing is that that explanation has now been dropped because, during the War, there were no outbreaks in this country, although, as every one knows, birds continued to come to this country during the War just as much as they do in times of peace. It is remarkable, too, that during the War, when there was hardly any importation from such countries as France, Germany and Holland, where foot-and-mouth disease is always rampant, there was no foot-and-mouth disease in this country.
I should like now to draw the attention of the House to a resolution which was passed only to-day at the Council of the Central Landowners' Association, of which so many of your Lordships are members. That is a body which represents over ten thousand farmers and landowners in this country. It is a very important body from the point of view that there are so many owner-occupiers who are members of it, small men who might be ruined if they had a serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease on their farms. If they are renting under a large landowner it would be difficult for the latter to do what used to be done in the old days, assist his tenant considerably in such cases. In the case of some owner-occupiers there is no one to give help, and an outbreak of disease very often may mean complete ruin. I was, therefore, not at all surprised, that the Council of the Central Landowners' Association should pass this resolution:
"That immediate steps should be taken by the Ministry of Agriculture to pie-vent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease by stopping the importation of anything which might introduce foot-and-mouth disease into Great Britain."
444
I think that resolution is worthy of some consideration. As I have already said, it comes from a great body of landowners, large and small. Of course, the noble Earl cannot give any details, but I hope he will go into this matter and that the Ministry will consider whether it is not possible to keep foot-and-mouth disease out of this country in the same way as it is kept out of great countries like Canada and America. I beg to move.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I think we must all feel grateful to the noble Lord for bringing up this most important subject. I only wish that it had been possible for me to have had a little more time to consider the answer to be given to so important a question. Before dealing with the general subject, I will try to answer one or two of the questions which the noble Lord has addressed to me. One is, with regard to the delay in reporting a certain case. I think the noble Lord said that it had not been reported for seven days. I find that the facts are these. The owner of a sow noticed lameness on October 19 and on October 21 he called in a veterinary surgeon, but the veterinary surgeon was not convinced that it was foot-and-mouth disease until October 23. Therefore, there were two days delay and not seven in the veterinary surgeon coming to a decision. Although the noble Lord did not actually say so, I think the tenor of his remarks at the beginning of his speech was that the compensation was not really sufficient to compensate the stock owners.
LORD STRACHIE: I was not complaining as regards that. I said that no doubt they gave the largest amount possible, but in the circumstances of the low prices they could not give what would really be the value. What I laid most emphasis on was that it would ruin a man's business and that it was difficult to replace these cattle.
EARL DE LA WARR: I appreciate the noble Lord's point. I did not think he was complaining. It struck me that if others read his remarks they might take it, if I said nothing, that the compensation was not sufficient. As a matter of fact, the sufferers are compensated according to the full market value, even if the stock are pedigree stock. That means that if prices are low to-day, the compensation is low, and equally the re-

445
placement value is low. The only pedigree breeder to whom I have spoken of this matter in the last month or so, who has just had his stock slaughtered, told me he was more than satisfied with the compensation he had received. I fully admit the point of the noble Lord, that a man who has taken possibly a lifetime in building up a herd, can never in fact feel himself truly compensated for that tremendous effort.
The recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Somerset involved eight infected premises on which disease was declared to exist between October 23 and October 27, and the secondary outbreaks were due to the spread of infection from the initial case, before the imposition of restrictions on October 23, when that case was first discovered. Twenty days have now elapsed since the last case in that County and it may therefore be assumed that the disease has been successfully eradicated by our established policy of immediate slaughter, accompanied by restrictions on the movement and marketing of stock in the infected area, and if—this may interest the noble Lord—no further outbreak occurs, the intention is to withdraw the restrictions entirely on the 25th of this month. That in nowise commits us to any action at the moment because anything might happen. The usual exhaustive inquiries were conducted as to the source of infection, but without any definite evidence being obtained identifying the origin.
Some facts were, however, revealed. Firstly, bones were found in the field in which the infected animals were grazed. They were probably carried there by a dog from adjoining cottages, the occupiers of which obtained meat and bones from local butchers, but the evidence tends to show that these bones were from home-killed carcases. As regards feeding stuff the only item requiring investigation was some pig-meal supplied by a large manufacturing firm, but there was no reason to suggest that the goods supplied by this firm were in any way implicated. As regards the question of sacks, several sacks were found on the premises labelled "Produce of France.' They were obtained from a local cider factory, prior, however, to the first importations of cider apples this year. They must, therefore, have been
446
imported from France some considerable time ago. Further, the sacks were kept where neither cattle nor pigs had access to them. The onset of the disease in the first animal only four days after the arrivals of the sacks, would suggest that as a means of indirect infection, the sacks were unlikely to be responsible for the introduction of the virus.
In September, 1932, the Somerset County Council suggested that foot-and-mouth disease might be introduced by bags containing apples, large quantities of which were imported for cider making from the Continent. The Ministry carefully examined the circumstances connected with the initial outbreaks of this disease over a number of years but could find no evidence incriminating sacks used in this trade. It is the invariable practice of the Ministry on the occurrence of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, to conduct exhaustive inquiries with a view to ascertaining the origin of each initial outbreak, that is every outbreak for which there is no discoverable connection with any other case in this country. The inquiries embrace investigations into the movements of animals, rodents, persons, vehicles, etc., and also into the source of supply of animal feeding stuffs, household purchases of meat, vegetables and other produce, sacks, meat wrappers, packing materials, etc., brought on to the infected premises or into the locality, and the presence of refuse dumps in the vicinity.
As regards the other four recent centres of disease during the past month in the outbreak at Barkway, Hertfordshire, the owner was cutting up and distributing imported meat on his premises, and in the Wirksworth (Derbyshire) case, imported meat scraps were involved. Suspicion in these two cases would therefore be attached to imported meat, although this could not definitely be proved. On the other hand the cases in the Isle of Ely and Lincolnshire approximately at the same time revealed no clue whatever to the source of infection, no imported meat or other imports from abroad being involved, nor could any connection be traced between these cases and the Hertfordshire series of outbreaks.
The most potent means of the introduction and spread of foot-and-mouth disease is through the agency of live animals and the importation of live ani-

447
mals from all countries infected with foot-and-mouth disease is definitely prohibited. The other possible channels through which the virus may be introduced are:—Carcases or other animal products, feeding stuffs, hay and straw and packing materials, vegetables and fruit, migrating birds, and movements of human beings. In 1926 disease was definitely discovered in fresh pig carcases imported from Belgium and Holland in connection with outbreaks in Lanarkshire that year. As a consequence, the importation of fresh carcases from the Continent of Europe was prohibited by the Importation of Carcases (Prohibition) Order of that year. The effect of this Order has been appreciably to reduce the number of initial or primary invasions of the disease. Following that Order investigations were conducted by the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Research Committee which proved that the virus could remain infective in the bone marrow of chilled beef for forty-two days and in the bone marrow of frozen beef rather longer, and in pork, after dry or wet salting, for forty-two days. These results were discovered by laboratory experiment but the virus of the disease has never been definitely found in any imported carcase other than the fresh carcases imported from Europe in 1926, on which discovery the Ministry at once took action. Nevertheless, in view of the risks proved to exist by the experiments of the Research Committee, negotiations were entered into with the South American Governments of Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil and Chili, all of whom in consequence made regulations prohibiting the exportation to Great Britain of carcases or parts of carcases of animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease or of animals forming part of the same troop as the diseased animals. Special arrangements were made by those Governments for the inspection of the animals before slaughter and a recent inquiry has indicated that those regulations are being complied with.
As regards feeding stuffs, in addition to the inquiries made in each initial case, a special inquiry was conducted in the series of outbreaks some years ago, when outbreaks were more numerous, into the character and origin of the feeding stuffs used in those cases and the conclusion was reached that the possibility of feeding stuffs being the origin of in-
448
fection in any general sense was extremely remote. Further, the process, of manufacture of linseed and cottonseed cakes in this country includes the subjection of the seeds to a temperature sufficient to kill the virus of foot-and-mouth disease. Further, although Scotland is a big consumer of artificial feeding stuffs unexplained outbreaks of the disease occur very rarely in that country. The importation of hay and straw for use as fodder or litter for animals from infected countries is prohibited by the Foreign Hay and Straw Order of 1912. These materials may be used, however, as packing for imported goods and, although this packing is not entirely free from risk, the danger is probably exaggerated and adequate protection against it has been provided by the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Packing Materials) Orders of 1925 and 1926, which prohibit all such packing material, whether of home or foreign origin, from being brought into contact with animals and require its destruction when its use as packing is finished.
As regards foreign vegetables inquiries show that in only five cases over a period of ten years could imported vegetables possibly have been involved in initial outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease and in four of these hotel refuse and swill containing scraps of foreign meat were also used, and it is equally possible that the latter might have been the origin of the disease. In the remaining case some of the vegetables were imported in sacks which might have been contaminated, but in that case also other circumstances existed pointing to possible alternative methods of infection. It was impossible really to bring infection home to any one cause. The noble Lord suggested that birds are not an important source of infection, but we have to admit that they are one possible cause. Birds are capable of carrying infection over comparatively short distances and it is highly probable that in this country infection is sometimes spread in this manner. It is doubtful, however, whether migratory birds are the usual, or have been a common vehicle of infection from abroad. The initial outbreaks in this country do not correspond regularly with the migratory seasons. The relative freedom of Scotland and Ireland from initial outbreaks of obscure origin supports this view. As I have mentioned Ireland perhaps I might at this point inform the

449
noble Lord that I have made inquiries on the point of his question with regard to Ireland. We are satisfied that Ireland is free at the present moment. There is no quarantine, hut in our attempts to trace these outbreaks we have been quite satisfied—I can say this officially and definitely—that there has been no importation of the disease in recent periods from Ireland. The introduction of infection from the Continent by human beings who may be in direct contact with the virus shortly before leaving for this country is a possible method. No outbreak has been traced to this source.
I am afraid I have made a very long speech on this subject but it seems to me to be a most important subject which should be dealt with as fully as possible. Your Lordships will realise that it is extremely difficult—in fact, usually impossible—to obtain very conclusive evidence as to the manner in which this disease is introduced. Often a week elapses between the introduction of the virus and the reporting of the case. Consequently there is ample time for material Evidence to be lost because the disease does not show itself immediately. I can, however, assure your Lordships that every possible step is taken to discover the origin from the evidence available in each case. Some of your Lordships may think that we frequently read in the newspapers of such outbreaks, but the reason we read of them is really that they are such rare occurrences in this country.
If we attempt to start comparing the number of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in this country with those in other countries where no real steps are taken to deal with this matter, I am sure your Lordships will realise what a tremendous difference there is in this country. The Ministry is determined to continue taking every step to deal with this scourge, and I can only say that we are fortunate in having a most devoted band of officials, who devote themselves to this task. One of the few satisfactory events of the last month or two in connection with the last few outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease was the receipt of a number of letters from farmers and breeders who had suffered from the scourge and had their herds slaughtered. Every one of them paid a very high tribute to the thoroughness and determination, and also to the courtesy, of our officials, and I can assure your Lordships that they were letters
450
which made one feel very proud of working with the Department.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for the very useful information that he has given to the House on the matter, and the great care with which he has gone into the whole question. I can at once say that I entirely agree with him as regards the way his officials act. In the old days I had something to do with them, and I know how they labour night and day; but however determined and efficient his staff may be, it does not prevent outbreaks occurring in this country, and the only thing that I regret with regard to the statement he has made is that no answer has been made to my inquiry whether the Minister of Agriculture would not carefully go into the question of how Canada and America are now able completely to keep out this disease. It is no good saying that we can stamp it out with a great deal of expense and trouble. I am sure he would have given satisfaction to agriculturists if he were able to give an indication that the Ministry was prepared to go into the matter in order to see whether anything has been left undone which might have been clone to stop this dreadful infliction of foot-and-mouth disease. I would therefore ask him whether he will urge the Minister to make inquiries how it is that for many years the disease has been kept out of Canada and America, although at one time it was breaking out continuously, just as in this country. I would ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM.
Report, being a Report that the Committee have been unable to complete their inquiry, from the Joint Committee (with the Proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed.
ROAD AND RAIL TRAFFIC BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAHSHAM): My Lords, it would be convenient that I should men-

451
tion that it is proposed that we should meet to-morrow at eleven o'clock. I do not think there will be any business except formal business. There will be a Royal Commission at 11.15 for giving the
452
Royal Assent to Bills which have passed both Houses, followed, I understand, by the prorogation of Parliament.
House adjourned at five minutes before six o'clock.