Sitting of 12 April 1934

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  COTTON INDUSTRY (WAGE AGREEMENTS).
  Major PROCTERasked the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to outline the scope of the proposed legislation to make effective the wage agreements in the cotton industry?
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): No, Sir. I am not yet in a position to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) on 29th March.
  Major PROCTER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position to give this information?
  Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir.
  Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Will it be before the Whitsuntide Recess?
  Sir H. BETTERTON: I hope so.

  CHEAP MODERN SHOE COMPANY, WALSALL.
  Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Labour if he has received any report from his inspector in connection with the prosecution of the Cheap Modern Shoe Repairs Company of Walsall; whether he has made any report about the manager of the firm, who produced a false record of the hours and wages to the inspector; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter?
  Sir H. BETTERTON: I have already taken legal proceedings in the case to
  460
  which the hon. Member refers. Fines were imposed in respect of the underpayment of wages and the production of false records and an order was made for the payment of the arrears of wages due to workers.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. GORDON MACDONALDasked the Minister of Labour if he will state the total number of persons on the means test in Lancashire at the latest date on which figures are available; the number in receipt of full payments; the number in receipt of part payments; and the number disallowed payment?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: At 19th March, 1934, there were 164,338 applicants for transitional payments on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Lancashire. The available statistics do not enable me to analyse this total according to the rate of payment, but I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving such an analysis in respect of the cases dealt with by the public assistance committees in the three months ended 3rd March, 1934.
    Mr. MACDONALDasked the Minister of Labour if he will state the total amount saved by the administration of the means test in Lancashire up to the latest date for which figures are available?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I very much doubt whether it is possible to make such an estimate for any county separately but I am looking into the matter and will communicate with the hon. Member.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELLasked the Minister of Labour whether he will state, separately, the number of young persons, women, and men who were continuously unemployed for the 12 months ended 31st March last and for the previous 12 months?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a number of figures I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Does the statement indicate any serious continuance of long unemployment among juveniles?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir.
    Following is the statement:
    The numbers of persons applying for insurance benefit and transitional payments at 19th March, 1934, and 20th March, 1933, respectively, who had been on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain for a year or more were as follow:

    —

    19th March, 1934.

    20th March, 1933.

    Men aged 18–64

    416,115

    454,036

    Boys aged 16 and 17

    8

    41

    Women aged 18–64

    18,691

    23,810

    Girls aged 16 and 17

    2

    10

    434,816

    477,897

    These totals include eases where the persons concerned had one or more short spells of employment, lasting not more than three days each.

    PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (WAR PENSIONS).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour if he will consider the advisability of circularising public assistance committees calling their attention to the amendments adopted in the Unemployment Bill with regard to allowances for War pensions and other matters, suggesting that they should give consideration to the question of putting these into operation forthwith?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir. In so far as the Unemployment Bill changes the law it would be illegal for the authorities to bring its provisions into force before it becomes an Act, and it would be most improper for me to invite them to do so.
    Mr. MANDER: Will it be within the discretion of the public assistance committees to adjust what they have been doing to the changes that are now taking place?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: That is a matter for the public assistance committees. To my mind it would be wholly wrong for me to attempt to give directions before the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.
    Mr. MANDER: The public assistance committees can exercise their free discretion in the matter?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Their discretion is not affected.

    FOREIGN ARTISTES (ENTRY PERMITS).
    Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Minister of Labour whether he will state the total number of foreign artistes who received permits to take part in theatres, music halls, and film studios during the last 12 months, with the average duration of stay in this country?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Figures for the past 12 months are not immediately available. The number of permits issued in respect of theatrical, variety hall and film artistes during 1933 was 1,634. I am unable to state the average duration of stay of these artistes; the period would be from one week upwards according to the nature of the engagement.
    Mr. GRENFELL: Has a maximum duration of stay been laid down?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I am not quite sure about that. I will let the hon. Gentleman know.
    Mr. GRENFELLasked the Minister of Labour the number of permits that have been granted to foreign artistes who are to take part in the Covent Garden opera in the coming season; and whether the number is greater or less than those granted a year ago?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The number of permits issued in respect of foreign artistes for the Covent Garden opera last year was 37. The number so far issued for the forthcoming season is 32.

    DISTRESSED AREAS.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Prime Minister whether he has given consideration to the distress existing in the county of Durham; and what steps the Government propose to provide employment in that district?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The conditions created by the heavy unemployment in the depressed areas of county Durham and elsewhere are the constant concern of the Government. The policy which we have followed has aimed at restoring confidence and creating employment in the country as a whole, and I have every hope that the trade improvement which the Government has done so much to secure will continue and extend to many

    463
    of the places now counted as depressed. The initiative for providing employment in particular areas cannot, however, rest with the Government, though any practical measures to this end which are proposed to it will receive most sympathetic consideration and, wherever possible, active support.
    Mr. BATEY: Will the Prime Minister tell us whether the Government are taking steps to find employment in the county of Durham? Did he read the three articles in the "Times" some weeks ago? If so, did they make any impression upon him? Will he say whether the Government will or will not take steps?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. Member will remember Durham as it was when we came into office and examine its prospects then and now, he will find that the Government have contributed substantially towards helping Durham.
    Mr. BATEY: Will the Prime Minister tell me what the Government have done to contribute substantially to the finding of work in Durham? Is he aware that Durham is worse to-day than when the Government came into office?
    Mr. DICKIE: Can the Prime Minister say whether these derelict communities are to be regarded as a national responsibility or a local responsibility?
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that whatever improvement there may be in employment in the country generally it has not touched such areas as Durham, and that things are getting worse, comparing them over a number of years? Is he aware that all the proposals that are put to the Government are simply put into cold storage and no notice taken of them? Will he not give some attention to these depressed areas?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The remark of the hon. Member about cold storage is, if he will believe me, quite untrue. The problem of Durham is a very grave problem indeed. It concerns historical changes in the industry of the country, the use of coal and so on, and nobody knows better than the hon. Member that, had the Government not made arrangements with certain foreign countries for
    464
    the use of coal, Durham would be in a worse condition than it now is.
    Mr. D. GRENFELL roses—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have a Debate on this matter.
    Mr. DICKIE: May I have an answer to my question? Can the Prime Minister say where the responsibility lies for the treatment of the people in these derelict communities? The Government have done well in the county of Durham.
    Sir LUKE THOMPSON (for Mr. STOREY)asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the resignation en bloc of the Tyneside Development Board and the delay which must occur before the Unemployment Assistance Board functions, he will consider the immediate appointment of an officer charged with preparing plans for the development of the North-East coast, and particularly for dealing with the derelict areas therein?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The subject of the so-called derelict areas is constantly receiving the close attention of my Department, and at the present time I am considering whether any steps can usefully be taken to obtain further information than is now in my possession as to the position in these areas. I should add that any such action is only likely to be valuable if it can count on the co-operation and assistance of local effort.
    Mr. D. GRENFELL: Is it not the case that a solid core of unemployment is concentrated in these areas, and could not the Minister consider the possibility of adopting drastic and comprehensive schemes of resettlement?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I do not accept the premises upon which the hon. Member bases his question.
    Mr. LAWSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any power to prepare plans for industrial development?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: That is not a question which should be addressed to me, but to the President of the Board of Trade, or some other Department. The powers of the Minister of Labour are very limited in this matter.

    UNEMPLOYMENT FUND.
    Mr. HOLDSWORTH (for Mr. GRAHAM WHITE)asked the Minister of Labour the present amount of the debt of the Unemployment Insurance Fund?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The present amount of debt of the Unemployment Fund is £106,580,000.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the case of Gaskell and St. Helens Colliery Company, where the court of appeal have given a decision that a person injured at the pit-head baths is not entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act; and will he consider amending the law so as to bring within the Workmen's Compensation Act those who use pit-head baths?
    The Secretary of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I have seen no details of this case, but I will consider the position in the light of the full report, when available.
    Mr. TINKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman get into communication with the coalowners and see if they will agree to pit-head baths being included? Unless workmen can be assured that they are protected against injury, it is likely to have a deterring effect on the use of the baths.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I hope to have a very full report, and I will consider it.

    EXPORTS (FRANCE).
    Mr. G. HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a large number of miners employed at the Llewellyn collieries, Mountain Ash and Penrhiwceiber, and the Bwllfa collieries, Aberdare, have received 14 days' notice to terminate their employment, the reason being the falling off of the export of dry steam coal to France; can he make any statement as to the progress made in the negotiation of a trade agreement with France; and whether consideration is given to the position of the coal export trade to that country?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I am aware that notices have been given to about 850 men working at this group of pits. As regards the second and third parts of the question, the discussions with the French Government, which began in London on 14th March, were concerned with the question of quotas, including that applied to coal, and with the preparation of drafts intended to replace the Conventions of 1826 and 1882 which were recently denounced. The discussions are suspended for the present, the French delegation having been obliged to return to Paris owing to other negotiations on which they were engaged.
    Mr. HALL: Are the negotiations likely to be resumed in the future?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope so.

    COAL MINES BILL.
    Miss WARDasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has yet had any negotiations with the Central Council of the Mining Association of such a nature as to warrant the withdrawal of the Coal Mines Bill designed to amend Part I of the Act of 1930?
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Secretary for Mines whether it is intended to proceed further with the Coal Mines Bill?
    Mr. BATEYasked the Secretary for Mines whether the Government intends to proceed with the amendments to Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930; and, if not, can he state what opportunities the House will have to discuss necessary amendments to the 1930 Act?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I understand that agreement has been reached by the Central Council of Coalowners, but until I have received assurances from that Council, and from all the districts, that the respective schemes will be amended in a manner considered satisfactory by the Government, there can be no question of delaying or withdrawing the Coal Mines Bill.
    Miss WARD: May I ask when the hon. Member is likely to be able to make a statement?
    Mr. BROWN: I think that the districts will complete their discussions in about a week's time.
    Mr. SMITH: Are we to take it that the hon. Member will make a statement with regard to this matter?
    Mr. BROWN: If a question is put down.

    STOCKS, SOUTH WALES.
    Mr. GEORGE HALLasked the Secretary for Mines the amount of coal in stock at the pithead, on sidings, and the dock-side in South Wales on the last available date?
    Mr. E. BROWN: At the end of January, 1934, the quantity of coal in stock at the pithead in South Wales and Monmouthshire was 1,900,000 tons. I regret that particulars of stocks on sidings and the dock-side are not available.

    FIREDAMP DETECTORS.
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Secretary for Mines the position with regard to the suggested regulation for the compulsory provision of firedamp detectors underground?
    Mr. E. BROWN: A preliminary draft of regulations to deal comprehensively with the provision of means for the detection of firedamp by underground workmen has been communicated to the representative Associations of the industry for consideration, with an intimation that I shall be glad to discuss the draft with them. I am awaiting their replies.

  DANGEROUS DRUGS.
  Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the Home Secretary whether he has any information as to the time that will elapse before action is taken to place on the appropriate poisons schedule dinitro-phenols and dinitro-cresols, drugs the use of which for slimming purposes has proved fatal in several instances recently?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The steps necessary to add these drugs to Part I of the existing Poisons Schedule have already been taken and notice to that effect will appear in to-morrow's London Gazette. The Statute requires that one month shall elapse from the date of the notice before the provision comes into effect.
  Sir REGINALD BANKS: Is it not a fact that up to the present only one case, that to which previous reference has been made, shows a death attributable to one of these drugs. If that be so, the hon.
  468
  Member's allusion to several instances would be inaccurate?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not know.

  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AND BIRDS (PUNISHMENT).
  Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence given at Knaresborough Petty Sessions in a recent case when three youths, Young, aged 18 years, Howland, 19 years, and Buck, 18 years, were charged with torturing a sparrow by plucking it when alive; and whether, in view of the fact that the court had no power to inflict flogging as a part of the punishment and that similar cases have occurred before, he will say what action, if any, he proposes to take in regard to the existing scales of punishment for cases of brutality?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: This case had not previously been brought to my notice. As I have already indicated, I do not propose to initiate legislation to increase the penalties which may be imposed for this class of offence.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is another instance in which magistrates have expressed regret that they cannot inflict bodily punishment? Also, does he think that a fine of £5, which only touches the pocket of these youths, is an equal deterrent to the rod, which touches their bodies?
  Viscountess ASTOR: Has it not been found by all those who have been looking to child psychology that to beat a child often makes him more brutal?
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: This child was 19.

  FILM OPERATOR'S DEATH, EAST HAM.
  Mr. THORNEasked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report from his inspector in connection with the death of a film operator and injury to his assistant who received severe burns to his hands at the Picture Coliseum, High Street North, East Ham; whether the Home Office regulations were complied with; and if the box which contained the films was satisfactory?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: There is no Government inspector appointed under the Cinematograph Act, 1909, but the local licensing authority and the coroner who held the inquest have furnished me with reports on this regrettable accident. I am informed that the Home Office regulations were complied with, but I am making further inquiry with a view to considering whether the question of the film container should be dealt with by regulation.

  Mr. HOWGRAVE GRAHAM.
  Mr. ANEURIN BEVANasked the Home Secretary whether he intends to call upon Mr. Howgrave Graham to resign his office?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir.
  Mr. BEVAN: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread public dissatisfaction with the way in which this high official has been protected? What would be the punishment meted out to a superintendent who did this thing?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: This was debated in the House, and I answered the question very fully. The whole matter has been considered, and I have nothing to add.
  Mr. BEVAN: If a high official breaks the law, is it sufficient for him to express regret?
  Mr. MAXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that a Government once had to resign over a similar incident?

  TRANSPORT.

    MOTORING OFFENCES (POLICE WARNING).
    Mr. LECKIEasked the Home Secretary whether he is satisfied with the result of the discretion given to chief constables to warn motorists reported by the police for minor infringements of the law instead of issuing summonses against them; whether he can give any statistics showing the extent to which this discretion has been utilised; and whether it has resulted in any noticeable reduction in police court motoring cases?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: During the years 1929 to 1932 out of a total of 1,294,062 offences relating to motor vehicles, 940,628
    470
    cases were dealt with by prosecution while 353,434 were dealt with by police caution. It may be assumed that in at any rate a large percentage of the cases dealt with by police caution, a prosecution would otherwise have been necessary. I have no reason to be dissatisfied with the present procedure in this respect.

    ROAD ACCIDENTS, HAMMERSMITH.
    Mr. DOBBIEasked the Home Secretary whether he can furnish the number of fatal and non-fatal road accidents in the borough of Hammersmith in the year 1933, showing separately the figures for Uxbridge Road?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The number of street accidents known to the police to have occurred in the Metropolitan Borough of Hammersmith in the year 1933 was 2,438. Of these, 28 were fatal, 984 resulted in personal injury and 1,426 involved damage to property. I regret that, without considerable expenditure of time and labour, the number of accidents which occurred in the Uxbridge Road cannot be given.

    TRAFFIC CONTROL (SIDE STREETS).
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the advisability of introducing compulsory lighting of side streets with coloured lamps to indicate to motorists a speed limit at which they should travel in those streets; and what is the attitude of his Department on this subject?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): There will no doubt be an opportunity for discussion of my hon. and gallant Friend's proposal in the course of the proceedings on the Bill which is now before the House.

  FIRE INSURANCE (PROSECUTIONS).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, in connection with the recent prosecution of Leopold Harris, the representatives of insurance interests, on approaching the Public Prosecutor with a view to his taking action, were told that no action would be taken unless they guaranteed the cost; and whether the Director of Public Prosecutions in carrying out his

  471
  work is influenced partially by financial considerations and not solely in securing justice?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: There is no foundation whatever for the statement that the Director of Public Prosecutions told the representatives of the fire companies and Lloyd's underwriters concerned that no action would be taken unless they guaranteed the cost. It is unusual for the Director of Public Prosecutions to undertake prosecutions when great corporations are concerned who may properly be asked to take proceedings. In these circumstances it was agreed that the whole of the costs subject to the usual contribution by the county, should be paid by the interests concerned. My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General was then asked to give his consent to the proposal made by the companies and Lloyd's underwriters concerned that the conduct of the prosecution should be in the hands of their own solicitors as agents for the Director of Public Prosecutions. In the special circumstances of the case the Attorney-General gave his consent to this course, and no question as to the payment of costs by the Director of Public Prosecutions could have arisen. The interest of justice is the consideration which alone influences the Director of Public Prosecutions in carrying out his difficult and responsible duties.
  Mr. MANDER: Are we to understand from that that this prosecution would have taken place in any event, even if the whole cost had fallen on the Treasury?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Undoubtedly.

  BURGLARIES, FOREST GATE.
  Mr. HICKSasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the recent abnormal number of burglaries in the Forest Gate district; and if he will state the numerical strength of the police force in the district as at the 31st March, 1930, and at the 3lst March, 1934?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The Commissioner of Police informs me that he has had the question of the number of breakings-in in the Forest Gate district under his close consideration, and is taking appro-
  472
  priate steps to deal with it. There has been an alteration of police boundaries in the neighbourhood. The number of foot police doing duty in the district commonly referred to as Forest Gate has remained practically stationary, but the area is more intensively patrolled than it was four years ago owing to the increased employment of police in motor vehicles.
  Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in consequence of what is known as regular beats, that is, of police passing given points at a given time, the burglars usually operate in the times between, and cannot some method of changing the system be adopted?

  FIREARMS.
  Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Home Secretary when he expects to receive a report from the Bodkin Committee on the classification and definition of firearms?
  Mr. OSWALD LEWISasked the Home Secretary how many sittings have been held by the Departmental Committee which is considering the classification and definition of firearms; and how soon he anticipates that this Committee will be in a position to present a report?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The chairman informs me that he is not at present in a position to state when the Committee will be able to present a report. It is sitting to-day for the sixth time and is still hearing evidence.

  EDUCATION.

    DEFECTIVE CHILDREN.
    Sir WILLIAM JENKINSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (1) what was the number of blind children of school age in England and Wales, separately, in 1920, 1930, 1931, 1932, and 1933, giving the number having elementary training and the number having secondary school training;
    (2) if he will state what number of deaf and dumb children of school age there are in England and what number in Wales, separately; what number of schools and where situated; what number under local education authorities and

    473
    what number under voluntary associations; and what is the grant paid and the average attendance for 1920, 1930, 1931, 1932, and 1933?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): As the replies to these questions involve a large amount of detail, I am sending the hon. Member the information for which he asks.
    Sir W. JENKINS: Will the replies be included in the answers in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: They are at very great length and too voluminous. I will send them to the hon. Member.
    The preparation of a complete statement containing the information required would involve the expenditure of a disproportionate amount of time and labour. The following table gives a summary, by types of local education authority, of the periods during which school meals are provided in the different areas.

    Days per week on which meals are provided.

    Number of Local Education Authorities.

    Counties.

    Non-County Boroughs.

    Urban Districts.

    County Boroughs.

    7 days and holidays

    …

    …

    —

    2

    —

    4

    7 days. Not holidays

    …

    …

    —

    —

    —

    1

    6 days and holidays

    …

    …

    1

    9

    7

    18

    6 days. Not holidays

    …

    …

    —

    —

    1

    —

    5 days and holidays

    …

    …

    4

    13

    8

    21

    5 days. Not holidays

    …

    …

    8

    23

    8

    16

    5 days a week*

    …

    …

    3

    8

    2

    8

    Miscellaneous cases†

    …

    …

    —

    3

    1

    5

    * In these areas it appears that feeding is not continued during the holidays, but the Board have no definite information.

    † These include one County Borough where breakfasts are provided on five a week and holidays, and dinners on six days a week days holidays, In the remaining eight areas milk is given on five days a week and not in holiday periods, but other meals are provided in those areas as follows:

    TRAFFIC DANGERS (INSTRUCTION).
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what steps are being taken to teach children road-sense and the rudiments of the highway code?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Memoranda have been issued by the Board to local education authorities from time to time on the subject of traffic dangers, and much

    PROVISION OF MEALS.
    Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. T. WILLIAMS)asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if he will furnish a list showing those authorities which, under Sections 82 to 84 of the Education Act, 1921, provide meals, respectively, only on days when the school meets, on days when the school meets and Saturdays and Sundays, and on school days, Saturdays and Sundays, and during holidays?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: As the answer involves a considerable amount of detail, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    useful work in training children how to avoid these dangers is being carried on in the schools by local authorities and teachers in co-operation with the National Safety First Association.
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: In view of the importance of this instruction, will my hon. Friend consider having it included in the regular weekly curriculum of the schools?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I am afraid that I cannot do that, but I can assure the hon. Member that a great deal of attention is given to training in this subject in the schools.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the teaching of temperance in the schools would do great deal towards helping to reduce road accidents?

  HOUSING.

    SLUM CLEABANCE, MANCHESTER.
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the Minister of Health when the inquiry into the slum-clearance area in Collyhurst, Manchester, will take place; and what steps are being taken to ensure the maximum of rehousing on site?
    The Minister of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): The inquiry will be held on the 30th May. The Order submitted by the local authority provides that the greater part of the site is to be used for re-housing.

    BUILDING MATEKIALS (SUPPLY).
    Mr. HOLDSWORTH (for Mr. WHITE)asked the Minister of Health if he has any evidence at present that men in the building industry are unemployed owing to shortage of bricks or that building operatives are anywhere delayed by shortage of materials?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I have received no such evidence.

  BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, WIMBLEDON.
  Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the report from the clerk to the Wimbledon Borough Council about the proceedings that were taken against one of its former members in connection with the two bankruptcy notices that had been served upon him; if he is aware that the chairman of the Law and Parliamentary Committee refuses to disclose what the bankruptcy proceedings were or how much was due to the council; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
  Sir H. YOUNG: I have not received any such report as is mentioned in the
  476
  question, and upon the information given by the hon. Member the matter does not seem to be one calling for any action on my part.

  RATING AND VALUATION (AMENDED ASSESSMENTS).
  Mr. HICKSasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that certain local authorities are contending that under Section 4 (2) of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1928, it is not necessary for the rating authority to give notice of a proposal to amend the valuation list, and that the rateable value of property is being increased without owners being aware of the proposal to amend the valuation list or their right of appeal under the Act; and whether, in such circumstances, the Government is prepared to bring in an amending Bill to require local authorities to give proper notice of intention to amend the valuation list and of any amendment thereto, and advising owners of their right of appeal under the Act?
  Sir H. YOUNG: The statutory provision to which the hon. Member refers relates to procedure for reduction and not for increase of assessments, and I do not consider that it calls for amendment.
  Mr. HICKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the particular case which I have in mind there was an increase in the valuation, and that the owner of the property was not informed that there was any likelihood of it being increased, and, if that is the fact, is it not necessary for the rating authorities to give notice in order that an owner may have an opportunity of making an appeal?
  Sir H. YOUNG: I cannot but think that the hon. Member is under some misapprehension as to the effect of the Section to which he refers in the question. Perhaps he will be good enough to confer with me on the matter, and I may be able to assist him.
  Mr. HICKS: I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much, and will avail myself of the opportunity.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    GOLD STANDARD.
    Mr. CRAVEN-ELLISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that in 1847, 1857, 1866, 1914, and 1931 the Government had to come to the rescue of banks and relieve them of their obligations under their contracts with the public; and, in view of this, will he assure the House that this country will not return to the gold standard system?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. At the outbreak of the World War in 1914 the banks, along with the rest of the community, were accorded the benefit of a temporary moratorium, but on no other occasion has even temporary relief been granted to the banks from their obligations under their contracts with the public.
    With regard to the prospects of a return to the gold standard, I have nothing to add to the statements on the subject already made on behalf of the Government.

    POST OFFICE DEPOSITS.
    Mr. CRAVEN-ELLISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the liability of the Post Office to the public in respect of deposits amounting to £331,000,000, he will say if there are sufficient paper notes in existence to enable them to repay without interfering with the requirements of industry; and, if not, what arrangements the Government has made for enabling the printing of sufficient notes for this purpose?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend may be assured that the Post Office Savings Bank is fully able to meet all its commitments without interference with the requirements of industry.
    Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: From what source could this be done?
    Mr. D. GRENFELL: Has there been any time in the history of this country when the Post Office could not meet its commitments?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: There is certainly no risk, at any rate, as long as the present Government remain in office.

    ESTATE DUTIES (SCOTLAND).
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that it is the practice of the Inland Revenue authorities in Scotland to charge executors of deceased persons in residuary accounts interest on the balance of estate from the date of the death of the deceased persons, while in England on similar accounts interest is charged only from one year after the death of the deceased; and whether, as there are no grounds for such discrimination against Scottish interests, he will take the necessary steps to assimilate the practice in Scotland to the practice in England?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am not aware that there is any divergence of practice, as between Scotland and England, in regard to the charging of interest on legacy duty, to which I understand the hon. Member refers. If, however, he cares to furnish me with particulars of any case he has in mind, I will cause inquiry to be made into the matter.

    THREE PER CENT. LOAN.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any part of the new Three per Cent. Loan will be used to pay off loans on which a lower rate of interest is now being paid?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The cost of the new loan is about £3 1s. 3d. per cent. The debt replaced consists of £105 millions of 4 per cent. Treasury bonds and £11 millions of 3 per cent. Treasury bonds, both due for repayment this month. The balance of the new money is available to reduce floating debt. It is not of course practicable to estimate what would have been the average cost of such floating debt over the period of 25 years to 35 years over which the life of the new loan extends.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: May I take it that the statements in certain newspapers that this loan is going to cost the country nearly £3,000,000 more in interest is not true?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir. My hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that the Government have acted with prudence, discretion, and wisdom.
    Mr. MABANE: Can the hon. Gentleman say the amount of the balance available from the new money to reduce the Floating Debt?

    INCOME TAX RETURNS.
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the introduction of a simplified form of Income Tax return in order that the taxpayer may be enabled to submit his return direct and not, as in many cases occurs, have to consult professional advice before doing so?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The present form of return is based upon the recommendations of the committee, presided over by Mr. Justice Rowlatt, which was set up for the purpose of considering the simplification of Income Tax forms. I do not know that it can be materially improved, but if my hon. and gallant Friend has any suggestions to make I shall be very glad to consider them.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is customary to ask for the assessment before this House has sanctioned the tax for the current year, as has been done this year?

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    CLERICAL OFFICERS (WORK RETURNS).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the extent to which daily individual work returns for clerical officers are used in the Civil Service; the annual cost of such returns; and the purpose for which they are designed?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No general instructions have been issued on this matter and I have therefore no detailed knowledge of the extent to which individual work returns are used for clerical officers. The question is essentially a departmental one and I regret that, owing to the disproportionate amount of time and labour that would be involved, comprehensive information of the kind asked for cannot be made available.
    Mr. DAVIES: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that this is a very irritating practice, and that it is possible that irritation caused to the staff in this way does not produce the best results?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am not aware what irritation it is to which the hon. Gentleman refers?
    Mr. DAVIES: I will tell the hon. Gentleman.

    EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, GRIMSBY (DUST).
    Mr. THORNE (for Mr. BANFIELD)asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the desire of members of the staff employed at the Grimsby Employment Exchange to have the floor of the Exchange treated periodically with some dust-allaying compound; whether it is within his knowledge that the dust which at present rises is proving detrimental to the health and well-being of the staff; and for what reason the Department has declined to accede to this request?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I have made inquiries and find that one of the clerks at this Exchange is suffering from chest trouble which is alleged to be aggravated by dust from the floor. There is no evidence that this office is unusually dusty, but in the circumstances I am arranging for the floor to be treated with a dust-allaying compound.
    Mr. J. WALLACE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is a well-known floor covering which may prevent further complaints?

  EMPIRE ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION.
  Lieut.-Colonel GAULTasked the Prime Minister whether, in order to strengthen the Empire and implement the Ottawa Agreements, he will consider the advisability of establishing a permanent Imperial secretariat for the purpose of studying all matters pertaining to the welfare of the Empire as a whole and reporting to the Governments concerned; and whether he will take an early opportunity of discussing this question with His Majesty's Governments overseas?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The whole subject of the means of facilitating economic consultation and co-operation between the several Governments of the Commonwealth was considered last year by a committee upon which they were all represented, but that committee's recommendations did not include the establishment of any standing body such as I gather that my hon. and gallant Friend has in contemplation. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom cannot by itself establish such machinery, and in these circumstances I doubt whether it would serve any useful purpose to raise the question at this stage.

  INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir ARNOLD WILSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whether he will instruct the industrial assurance commissioner to include in his next annual report a full review and summary of the working of the Industrial Assurance Act for the past 10 years?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: A summary of the working of the Act is given year by year in the reports of the Industrial Assurance Commissioner which are presented to Parliament while a review of the business of industrial assurance in recent years is given in the report of the committee issued last year. In these circumstances I do not think any useful purpose would be served by adopting my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.
  Sir A. WILSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will arrange that reports of inspections made under the orders of the industrial insurance commissioner which he considers it desirable to publish under Section 17 of the Industrial Assurance Act of 1923, in anticipation of his annual report, should, in future, be published by the Stationery Office after being laid upon the Table of this House?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is proposed to accept the recommendation of the Committee on Industrial Assurance on this subject, which is substantially on the lines of my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    SHIPPING INDUSTRY.
    Mr. CRAVEN-ELLISasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is yet in possession of the information required by him from the shipping industry to enable the Government to decide upon a policy which will protect shipping from the competition of foreign shipping subsidies?
    Mr. TEMPLE MORRISasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now make any statement as to Government assistance to the British Mercantile Marine?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have received a great deal of information from the
    482
    shipping industry, but I cannot at present add to the answer which I gave on this subject on the 6th March.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman contemplating the use of the tariff weapon on goods coming from countries which indulge in shipping subsidies?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Every aspect of the shipping problem is under consideration.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: When the right hon. Gentleman is considering a subsidy to the shipping industry, will he bear in mind the Lancashire cotton textile industry?
    Sir BASIL PETO: Are we likely to have any legislation in regard to this urgent question before Parliament adjourns for the Summer Recess?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say at this stage whether it will be necessary to have any legislation. There are other ways of dealing with these problems. The problems have so many aspects that I am afraid I cannot give any indication in regard to legislation at this moment.
    Mr. MAXTON: If the Government are not prepared to introduce legislation, when do they propose to do some of the other things that the President of the Board of Trade knows about?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: They are doing something now.
    Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what they are doing?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Member cares to put down a question, I shall be delighted to answer it.
    Mr. MAXTON: Why waste time? Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman tell us now?

    SCOTLAND (EXPORTS TO AMERICA).
    Mr. JOHN WALLACEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the United States Customs authorities intend to impose a condition that goods exported from Scotland to America shall, after 9th June next, be described as made in Great Britain instead of made in Scotland as hitherto; and whether, as this alteration would prejudice Scottish manufac-

    483
    turing interests, he will make representations on the subject to the appropriate Department of the United States Government?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am informed that the United States authorities will be prepared to recognise the following markings for merchandise imported on and after 9th May, 1934, as acceptable: "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland," or "United Kingdom," "Great Britain," "Northern Ireland," "Ireland," "England," "Scotland," "Wales."
    Mr. WALLACE: Am I to understand that the change I suggest in the question is not contemplated and that the mark known hitherto as "Made in Scotland" will not be abolished?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope my hon. Friend will find that he will be well satisfied when he considers the answer.
    Sir R. BANKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say on what particular commodities the distinction between Great Britain and Scotland is most important?

    JAPANESE COMPETITION.
    Major PROCTERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the great increase of Japanese cotton imports into British India, Africa, and Australia during January of this year; and if he is now in a position to state what steps he proposes to take in order to regain these markets for Lancashire?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Japanese official trade statistics do not record any increase in exports of cotton piece goods to Australia or South Africa in January last compared either with January or December, 1933. No official figures are yet available for the African Colonies. As regards India, I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that an agreement has been arrived at between India and Japan for the limitation of Japanese imports into India.
    Major PROCTER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the time has come when the Government should take bold, constructive measures?

  AGRICULTURE.

    BACON MARKETING SCHEME, SCOTLAND.
    Mr. J. WALLACEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the shortage of import supplies of hams and cooked hams into Scotland for processing purposes which has arisen under the bacon marketing scheme and the inadequacy of the present quota to meet the demands of consumers in Scotland, he will state what action he proposes to take in view of the fact that unless the import quota is increased unemployment may arise in the ham-curing and processing industry?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Market Supply Committee have been asked to examine the circumstances affecting the supply of hams, particularly in Scotland, with a view to advising His Majesty's Government in the matter.
    Mr. WALLACE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a very important matter for Scotland, that at the present time the quota of hams is absolutely inadequate, that as far as home supplies are concerned they are not forthcoming, and that this is having a serious effect in Scotland from the industrial point of view?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the position is urgent in Scotland, and can he say whether he contemplates any immediate action?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot add to the answer I have given.
    Mr. WALLACE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider this matter as urgent?

    PIG INDUSTRY.
    Mr. HOLDSWORTH (for Mr. WHITE)asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he proposes to take to secure the appointment of the Pig Industry Development Board?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I have been asked to reply. A bacon development scheme has recently been submitted by the Pigs Marketing Board and the Bacon Marketing Board, and notice of submission was published in the London and Edinburgh Gazettes on Tuesday of this week. Copies of the Scheme, price 2d.

    485
    post free, can be obtained from the Pigs Marketing Board or the Bacon Marketing Board, at Thames House, Millbank, S.W.1, or from the Scottish offices of the Boards, at 124, St. Vincent Street, Glasgow, C2., and 105, St. Vincent Street, Glasgow, C.2, respectively.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Why does it all start from Glasgow when there are far more pigs in England than there are in Scotland?

    MILK PRICES (ARBITRATOR'S AWARD).
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLST (for Mr. HALL-CAINE)asked the Minister of Agriculture what complaints he has received with regard to the decision of the arbitrators as to milk prices for the current season which would justify him in referring the matter to a committee of investigation under sub-section 3b of Section 9 of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931; and from what body such complaints have been received?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: A number of expressions of dissatisfaction with the award of the appointed persons have been received both from organisations and from individuals, but they are not being referred to the committee of investigation because even upon the receipt of a report from that committee my right hon. Friend would have no power to vary the award.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Minister in a reply to me stated that persons aggrieved by the award should apply to have their cases placed before the committee of investigation and that he could take no action until this had been done?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am informed that my hon. and gallant Friend is quite wrong. Presuming that a scheme exists, the arbitration having taken place and the award having been given, neither the Minister nor the committee can interfere in any way with the award.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is it intended by the Government to vary the method of fixing the contract price in the next contract for 1st October?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Obviously, I must have notice of that question.

  LAW REVISION COMMITTEE (REPORT).
  Mr. T. SMITHasked the Attorney-General whether the interim report of the Law Revision Committee has been considered by the Government; and whether it is proposed to introduce legislation at an early date to cover the various points outlined in the report?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): The report to which the hon. Member refers is receiving very careful consideration, and it is hoped to make a statement at an early date.

  SCOTLAND.

    GREYHOUND TRACKS (EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can give an estimate of the number of persons employed full time and part time, respectively, on greyhound tracks or in connection therewith in Scotland at the present time?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I regret that the information desired is not available.
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: As this information will be of importance when the Betting Bill is before the House will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to obtain it?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I have made inquiries this morning, and I find that it will put a very laborious task upon a large number of authorities, but I will consider the matter further.

    GREENOCK (PUBLIC AUDITORS).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the present public auditors were appointed and approved by him in the case of Greenock Town Council; and what is the amount paid each year to the auditors?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The appointment of an auditor to audit the accounts of the town council of Greenock is an annual appointment. The present auditor was first appointed on 21st May, 1931, and he was re-appointed on 12th May, 1932, and on l2th May, 1933. The fee for auditing the accounts for the year 1932–33 as approved by me is £750 4s.

    PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, GREENOCK.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total sum involved in the alleged overpayment by Greenock Public Assistance Committee to people on relief and reported to him by public auditors; and if any exception has been taken to the amount paid to a child and, if so, what is the amount so taken exception to?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The interim report lodged by the auditor relates to payments of relief to the able-bodied poor for the two weeks commencing the 3rd and 10th January, 1934. The amount of expenditure during these two weeks which the auditor has reported as being in his opinion contrary to law is £78 15s. 2d. As regards the second part of the question, the auditor's report does not state the family circumstances of each case and I am unable to give the information asked for. The question raised by the interim report will be fully inquired into.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman himself give a decision in this matter, and, if so, can he give any indication when it will be made?
    Sir G. COLLINS: Until I have received representations from the parties concerned I am not in a position to give any decision on the matter.
    Mr. MAXTON: As the hon. Member for the division concerned will the right hon. Gentleman see that they are treated fairly?

    HOUSING.
    Mr. TINKER (for Mr. KIRK-WOOD)asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of local authority houses for which tenders have been approved each month since January, 1933, up to date; and the number of houses for which tenders have been approved each month for the same period under the guarantee Section 3 of the 1933 Act?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): As the answer to the first part of the question involves a tabular statement, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It will be observed that the number of tenders approved for March of this year is for 1,429 houses, the highest since March, 1933. Of these 1,183, the highest number
    488
    on record, are for slum clearance houses. As regards the second part, tenders for the erection of houses under Section 3 of the Act of 1933 do not require the approval of the Department of Health. One scheme for the giving of guarantees to enable the erection of houses under the section has been submitted and is now under consideration.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress that is being made in this matter; and does he not consider that there is a call for some other action in view of the failure of this Act to work?
    Mr. SKELTON: In the first place, I should not describe the progress made under the Act of last year as a failure. The Government are considering with great care a campaign against overcrowding, and, in view of the special prevalence of overcrowding in Scotland, particularly anxious care has been taken to see that the proper remedies are found there.
    Following is the statement:
    NUMBER of local authority houses in tenders approved each month from January, 1933, to 31st March, 1934 (inclusive).
    Month and Number of houses included in tenders approved.

    1933.

    January

    1,694

    February

    1,278

    March

    1,791

    April

    542

    May

    1,032

    June

    1,337

    July

    1,057

    August

    1,054

    September

    494

    October

    448

    November

    979

    December

    905

    1934.

    January

    870

    February

    1,254

    March

    1,429

    Total

    16,164

    Mr. TINKER (for Mr. KIRK-WOOD)asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities in Scotland have refused to build houses under the 1933 Act because of the reduction in the subsidy from £9 to £3 per

    489
    annum; how many municipal houses are now being built by local authorities under the 1933 Act; and what action does the Government intend to take to enable local authorities to build houses to relieve overcrowding and to provide for the normal growth of the population?
    Mr. SKELTON: Intimation has been received that 17 local authorities in Scotland are not prepared to build houses under Section 1 of the Act of 1933 because of the reduction in the amount of the subsidy. Up to date tenders have been approved for the erection by 20 local authorities of 812 houses under the Section and of these 350 were under construction at the 3lst March, 1934, the latest date for which information is available. As regards the last part of the question, local authorities already have powers to build houses for the purposes referred to. As the hon. Member is aware, measures for dealing effectively and expeditiously with the problem of overcrowding in Scotland are at present being considered by the Government in consultation with representatives of local authorities.

  PALESTINE (WOMEN SUFFRAGE).
  Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that an Ordinance has recently been issued depriving all the women in Palestine, except those resident in Tel Aviv, from the suffrage in municipal elections; whether he has given his consent to this Ordinance; and will he reconsider the position with a view to cancelling the Ordinance?
  The Secretary of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): It is not the case that women generally have enjoyed the right to vote at municipal elections in Palestine. The new Municipal Corporations Ordinance, which became law on the 12th of January, provides, except in the case of Tel Aviv, for male electorates, but it also provides machinery by which an alteration in the qualifications of voters, including the grant of the vote to women, may be made in cases where a resolution in favour of such a step is passed by a two-thirds majority of a municipal council.
  Mr. DAVIES: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that a two-thirds majority is impossible in some of these
  490
  municipalities, and does he not see the anomaly of the position where women can vote in one town in the country but are deprived of the vote throughout the whole of the rest of the country outside that town?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not know what the hon. Member means by "anomaly," but surely it would be highly ridiculous to force a woman electorate upon a Moslem district although it would be perfectly right to allow it in a place like Tel Aviv, which is Jewish.

  BRAZILIAN FLEET (GERMAN TENDER).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the action of the German Government in tendering for the building of warships for the Brazilian fleet; and what action it is proposed to take in view of the fact that this was an infraction of the Treaty of Versailles, which prohibited Germany from manufacturing for and exporting to foreign countries arms, munitions, and war material of every kind, under Articles 170 and 192?
  Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have seen a statement in the Press that the Brazilian Government have set aside the tenders submitted by certain German firms for the construction of warships for the Brazilian fleet. The second part of the question would not therefore appear to arise.
  Mr. MANDER: Can the hon. and gallant Member say whether there is any limit to the number of treaty infractions which Germany may commit without action being taken?

  SILVER AGREEMENT.
  Mr. JOELasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what countries have ratified the world silver agreement; what countries have, refused to ratify it; and what countries have taken no action?
  Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The silver agreement, which was signed at London on the 22nd July last, has been ratified by the Governments of the United States, Mexico, China and India, and by His

  491
  Majesty's Governments in Canada and the Commonwealth of Australia. The final decision of the Governments of Peru and Spain in this matter has not yet been obtained.

  STREET COLLECTIONS.
  Mr. LEWISasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the recommendation contained in the report of the advisory committee on street collections for 1933, to the effect that the number of charity street collections in the Metropolitan Police District are excessive and should be limited in future; and whether he proposes to take steps to carry this recommendation into effect?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: This matter has been engaging the attention of the Commissioner of Police and myself for some time. It was discussed with representatives of the various local authorities in the Metropolitan Police District at a recent conference, and the possibility of reducing the number of street collections held in the Metropolitan Police District is being considered in the light of that discussion.
  Mr. LEWIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has power to enforce a reduction in the number of such collections, or whether legislation would be required to give him the power?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I think it can be done under present regulations.

  POLICE (DISCIPLINARY ACTION).
  Mr. TINKER (for Mr. KIRK-WOOD)asked the Home Secretary what number of police officers of all grades have been retired, dismissed, or discharged for offences of various kinds in the past 18 months and the general nature or character of these offences?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: During the year ending 29th September, 1933, to which the available figures relate, 61 members of police forces in England and Wales were dismissed on disciplinary charges and 77 were required to resign as an alternative to dismissal. For the previous year the corresponding figures were 39 and 83. In all cases the offences would be serious offences against dis-
  492
  cipline as laid down in the Discipline Code appended to the Police Regulations.

  EASTER (FIXED DATE).
  Mr. SUMMERSBYasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the great advantage which would accrue to all classes of people, he will take immediate steps to secure the adoption of a fixed date for the Easter holiday?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: His Majesty's Government is waiting the result of the communication by the League of Nations to the various religious authorities on the subject, but I understand that these replies are not yet complete.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Will the Government remember that the Latin countries have quite a different view about Easter from the Northern countries; and will he take the side of the Northern countries and not of the Latin countries upon this question?
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is there any reason why we should not start it here ourselves?

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES (WAGE PAYMENTS).
  Mr. THORNE (for Mr. BANFIELD)asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that certain county councils make a practice of paying the wages of their manual workers fortnightly instead of weekly, and by means of cheques; and whether, in view of the inconvenience this causes to workpeople of slender means, he will circularise county councils as to the desirability of paying wages weekly and in cash?
  Sir H. YOUNG: I have no authority to give directions in this matter and I do not think it is desirable for me to issue a circular. The publicity given to the hon. Member's question will no doubt bring the matter to the notice of local authorities, and I have no doubt that they will be prepared to consider any representations made to them.
  Mr. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to send a letter to the councils and ask them whether they are prepared to carry out the suggestion in the question?
  Sir H. YOUNG: I do not think that that course will be necessary.

  LUNACY ACT (MRS. MARY MEDLEY).
  Mr. PIKEasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the circumstances attending the death of Mary Medley, aged 60 years, a married woman, of New Street, Sheffield; and if it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to institute inquiries into the operation of the Lunacy Acts with a view to ensuring that certificates declaring persons to be of unsound mind shall not be issued until indisputable medical evidence has been established?
  Sir H. YOUNG: There is, I think, some misapprehension about the facts of this case. It appears from the Press report of it that, on the strength of a medical certificate from the district medical officer describing Mrs. Medley's condition as "bronchitis and unsound mind," she was removed by the general relieving officer to the hospital under the provisions of Section 20 of the Lunacy Act with a view to her being kept under observation in the mental ward. The patient died there before any question of further formal proceedings for certification under the Lunacy Act arose and she was never certified. In these circumstances, there is no case for inquiry into the operation of the Lunacy Act.
  Mr. PIKE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that in view of the present circumstances, which permit an officer of a public assistance committee to issue an order for detention in a mental ward, no person should be admitted as a mental case until there has been a thorough medical inquiry and the mental condition of the person has been established?
  Sir H. YOUNG: I do not think I can accept the suggestion which is contained in the hon. Member's Supplementary Question. He will see that in this particular case there was as a matter of fact no question of certification.

  INDIA (DEFENCE FORCES, MEDICAL SERVICES).
  Captain ELLISTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can report the result of consultations with the Government of India
  494
  regarding the recommendations of the Warren Fisher Committee in reference to the Royal Army Medical Corps and other medical services of the defence forces?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Agreement has now been reached, and the Government decisions on the recommendations of the committee will be announced by the end of this month.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ATTLEE (by Private Notice)Mr. ATTLEE (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister what business it is proposed to take next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: Monday: Second Reading of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill and of the Shops Bill [Lords]; consideration of Motions to approve Additional Import Duties Orders Nos. 7, 9, and 10.
Tuesday: The Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget.
Wednesday and Thursday: General discussion of the Budget Resolutions.
Friday: Private Members' Bills.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.
Mr. ATTLEE: Does the Prime Minister really intend to get the Second Reading of so important a Bill on Monday, and is he aware that the Incitement to Disaffection Bill deals with grave constitutional matters which have always been subject to the very greatest controversy when raised, and that the Bill will certainly be opposed on this side with the utmost vigour?
The PRIME MINISTER: We will just see how we get on, but it is certainly not the intention of the Government to move the Second Reading of the second Order at an inordinately late hour.
Mr. LAMBERT: Can my right hon. Friend say when he proposes to take the subsidy for the milk schemes, which had been set down for to-day? Will it come on next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: It cannot come on next week, because I have just announced the business, which cannot be varied or postponed. If my right hon. Friend will give me notice, I will tell him the intentions of the Government as soon as we have arranged the programme for the week after, but that is not a pledge.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Friday, 4th May, and to be printed. [Bill 101.]

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Sir Ian Macpherson to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Bill).
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the boundaries of the borough of Newport; and for purposes incidental thereto." [Newport Extention Bill [Lords.]
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  NEWPORT EXTENSION BILL [Lords].
  Read the First time: and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP B).
Sir Henry Jackson reported from the Committee on Group B of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at Eleven of the Clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP C).
Marquess of Hartington reported from the Committee on Group C of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at Eleven of the Clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they
  496
  had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Employers' Liability Bill): Sir John Withers: and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Hannon.

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Mr. Dickie and Mr. Janner; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. McKeag and Mr. Aled Roberts.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Twenty Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Road Traffic Bill): Mr. Anstruther-Gray, Captain Sir William Brass, Mr. Buchan-Hepburn, Sir Henry Cautley, Sir Gifford Fox, Sir John Gilmour, Mr. Thomas Griffiths, Mr. Guy, Lieut.-Colonel Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel Heneage, Mr. Holdsworth, Sir Henry Jackson, Mr. Jamieson, Mr. Llewellyn-Jones, Captain Lumley, Mr. Parkinson, Sir Isidore Salmon, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Oliver Stanley, and Mrs. Tate.

  STANDING COMMITTEE D.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee D: Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Duchess of Atholl, Viscount Borodale, Mr. Charles Brown, Brigadier-General Clifton Brown, Sir Charles Cayzer, Major Sir Herbert Cayzer, Mrs. Copeland, Mr. Smedley Crooke, Colonel Cruddas, Mr. Curry, Mr. Duckworth, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Eady, Captain Elliston, Mr. Emmott, Mr. Ernest Evans, Mr. Everard, Lord Fermoy, Sir Francis Fremantle, Sir Park Goff, Mr. Grundy, Sir George Hamilton, Major Harvey, Mr. Michael Hunter, Sir William Jenkins, Mr. Wellwood Johnston, Admiral of the Fleet Sir Roger Keyes, Mr. McKie, Mr. Mander, Mr. Peto, Mr. Pickering, Colonel Ruggles-Brise, Mr. Hamer Russell, Lord Scone, Mr. Selley, Mr. R. W. Smith, Commander Tufnell, Mr. Jardine Whyte, and Mr. Wills.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WATER SUPPLIES (EXCEPTIONAL SHORTAGE ORDERS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.43 p.m.
  The Minister of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The Bill carries its very exceptional nature in the wording of its Title. The circumstances under which it is proposed are, of course, of the most exceptional nature. We are all acquainted with the fact that we have been passing for the last year through a strange phase in the ever changing history of our national weather. The drought which began now more than 12 months ago has continued, not unvaried, but with a steadiness almost unexampled, at any rate in the recent history of our weather conditions. In order to find any comparable period of drought one has to go back as far as the year 1887 or 1888. In the course of the 12 months up to the end of March our shortage of rainfall was no less than 27 per cent. of the normal average. Even in the year 1887–8, a comparable year, the shortage was only 23 per cent., and I should not know how far to go back in order to find an equal shortage.
  It is not only in the absolute shortage of rainfall that the period has been so exceptional and so unfortunate, but also in the seasonal distribution of the rainfall. There was a good fall in the late winter and the spring of a year ago, and but for that rather exceptionally good fall, now more than 12 months ago, we should have been in much greater difficulties much sooner than we have, but since then such rainfall as there has been has been badly distributed from the point of view of the conservation of our national water supplies, the most adverse circumstance being the exceptionally poor fall in the middle and later months of winter. During the winter months we have been no less than nearly six inches short of rain, and as the House apprehends that is, as I say, more unfortunate than a deficiency at another time of year, because rainfall, in winter is of more value in the replenishing of our reservoirs than rainfall in summer, as more of it goes into the reservoirs in winter.
  500
  We have observed, of course, a break in the drought at the beginning of March, when there were respectable rains, unfortunately not maintained since then, but those March rains were certainly not more than the average; indeed, they were rather below the average in their continuity. They had, I was given to understand, a good effect as far as the agricultural position was concerned. They had a good effect as far as the position of rural areas, dependent on surface supplies, was concerned, but unfortunately they were not sufficient and not sufficiently maintained in time to have any decisive effect as regards the replenishing of reserves in the great towns. The measure of the seriousness of the water situation is to be found in the state of the reserves of the great towns, and owing to this prolonged drought, we are confronted with the fact that they are at the present time so much lower than the essential minimum of such reserves for the time of year that it is absolutely essential that we should confront the situation and take such measures as may be taken in order to conserve our supplies.
  I am not going to give figures for particular towns and particular areas, because I think that that would only tend to produce perhaps unnecessary alarm and anxiety, but it is not unusual at the present time to find great urban areas with their reserves less than half of what they ought to be at this time of year, and that is a writing on the wall so clear that, as I say, it requires the emergency action which to-day I am asking the House to take. One more fact in order to persuade the House of the essential nature of taking such action as can be taken, and that is that at the present time the reserves in the reservoirs, which ought to be rising all over the country in order to put us in a position to go through the drier months of the summer, are not rising, but, in spite of the March rains, they are actually falling.
  As to the causes of this situation, there is, of course, in the first place, the deficiency of rainfall, but the House may be disposed to ask why, in the course of previous great droughts of 1887, 1921, and so on, it has never been necessary to take such drastic measures as those which I am proposing to take. I can only make suggestions as to the various causes which tend to accentuate the effects of the drought under modern conditions. I be-

  501
  lieve it is true to say that improvements in drainage, resulting in a more thorough draining off in certain quarters tend to make the results of droughtsmore serious. In the second place, undoubtedly, with advancing standards of life and possibilities of civilisation, including the bath, the domestic use of water is very much greater. We see enormous blocks of buildings being built with bathroom accommodation, far greater than ever before, and we recognise that this casts a very new and heavy burden on the water undertakers; and undoubtedly also the heavy expansion of industrial requirements leads to an increase in the use of water.
  That brings me to an important aspect of this matter. In our calmer moments we all join in recognising that we are in the process of what we hope is the beginning of an industrial revival. It is essential that that revival should not be checked by any lack of an essential raw material in industry, namely, water: and in view of the increased demand on the water supply which the revival is likely to bring about, we are prepared to take any measure we can for its conservation. Those measures are contained in the present Bill. In the past and up to the present time, in the programme of action against the drought which the Government have been pursuing, we have circularised the water undertakers and those who are responsible for providing water urging economy and conservation, and in consequence of that circular much useful work has been done by the water undertakers in producing economy in the use of water and the increase of its supply. Many voluntary arrangements have been made for the better use of water. Much voluntary self-denial has been undertaken by communities where water was shortest in order to increase their supplies, but the House will readily apprehend that the situation grows more serious and it is not possible any longer to depend upon those voluntary arrangements only. They have done what can be done up to the present time, but from the present time forward we must arm ourselves with further powers.
  Let me pause for a moment to explain the relation between the present Bill and the Water Bill which the House passed in the course of the last few months. That Measure dealt with a specific pur-
  502
  pose, which was the assistance of rural areas which were short of water, and for which help was useful and could be given in order to increase their supplies as a permanent measure. It was a Measure for bringing such aid to the assistance of the work of permanently improving; the water supplies of rural areas. It has a totally different purpose and nature from the present legislation. The legislation which we now propose is, in the first place, concerned wholly in the present emergency with doing what can be done to mitigate the effects of the drought. The first Bill was permanent, the present Bill is temporary. This Bill is concerned principally with the needs of the great urban areas. I do not mean to say that many of its provisions may not usefully be applied to assist the rural areas, too, but its central purpose and the chief need for it comes from the situation in the urban areas. The first Bill dealt with rural areas and this Bill deals with urban areas in particular. It would not have been possible under the forms of the House to include the two Measures under one Bill, and in any case, it was not possible to do so because the necessity for this second Bill had not yet become definite at the time the first Bill was passed.
  That brings me to a word of explanation as to the time of introduction of this Bill. When I come to deal with the provisions of the Bill, I think the House will agree with me that they are of a drastic nature, as they must be if we are to do what has to be done in time and promptly enough to deal with the emergency of the drought. Being of that drastic nature, the provisions will undoubtedly cause inconvenience and expense in certain directions. You cannot interfere in the exceptional circumstances of the drought with the available water sources without causing a lot of trouble and a certain amount of inconvenience and expense in certain directions. I call the attention of the House to that in relation to this Bill because it would have been wrong to introduce it before it was absolutely necessary. I could not recommend so drastic a Measure before I was in a position to say that it was absolutely essential in view of the situation of the country in this period of the drought. So much as regards the reasons why the Bill was not introduced before.

  503
  I will turn to the reasons why it was not introduced later. Why is it introduced at this particular point of time? I think I can best explain the situation to the House, as it is conveyed to me in the advice of which I have had the advantage, in the following way. During a drought of the nature through which we have been passing of late you can, for a certain time during its duration, still say to yourself, "A normal rainfall will set matters right if it begins now; it will not, of course, avoid a certain amount of hardship and loss, but if a normal rainfall were now to begin it would set matters so far right as not to necessitate such drastic measures as are contained in this Bill." But after the lapse of a certain time, if the drought goes on for a certain time, you come to the point when you have to say to yourself, "Even if a normal rainfall begins now and continues steadily for the next 12 months, it will not save us from the necessity of special measures in order to conserve and distribute our supplies." At that point, what you are saying to yourself is this, "The amount of normal rainfall which it is reasonable to expect will not set matters right; nothing but an abnormal, torrential rainfall will set matters right."
  That is the moment at which you have to take measures of the sort that are contained in this Bill, and that is why this is the moment of time when the Bill is introduced. We have reached a critical point at which even if normal rainfall is resumed and goes on steadily in the immediate future, it will not set matters so far right as to obviate the need for the Bill. Nothing but an abnormal rainfall will do so. It is not wise to expect-that, so that the only wisdom and prudence now is to ask the House to take exceptional measures. The House will remember that when I was introducing the Rural Water Bill on the 22nd February, I said:
  "We have the programme of measures ready, and we shall steadily and progressively put them into force, in order to mitigate the evils of the drought, if the continuance of the drought makes it necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1934; col. 524, Vol. 286.]
  In this Bill we find the next step in the order of development and the measures for dealing with the drought to which I referred on that occasion. I observe that
  504
  a Motion has been put down by the Opposition in respect to this Bill. I understand that it must be looked upon as a censure on the Government for leaving undone the things they ought according to the Motion to have done, and for doing the things which according to the Motion they ought not to have done. As is a common form with Motions of the Opposition, it is divided into three parts. The first part says:
  "This House is of opinion that the increasing gravity of the situation with respect to water supplies is due to the lack of timely and effective action on the part of His Majesty's Government."
  Of course, I understand that His Majesty's Government must always accept responsibility for all the evils of humanity. The only complaint I feel justified in making against the wording of this part of the Motion is that there is no reference at all to the forces of nature. If I may say so, I think it would be more kindly and more just if some partnership in the national misfortune in respect of the drought had been shared between the Government and the forces of nature. However, I am not going to complain, because I recall a circumstance very vividly in my memory. It was once my interesting experience to be allowed to accompany a police officer in Central Africa in order to rescue a tribal medicine man who was being beaten by the savage tribe, of which he was a member, for failing to make rain. We discovered him bound to a tree, and delivered him from his persecutors. I remember the admirable patience with which he had borne his beating. Finding myself, surprisingly, somewhat in the same position to-day, I will try to emulate him, but I confess that I thought these ideas about rain-making were confined to the Dark Continent, and it is with some surprise that I find it affecting the enlightened minds of hon. Members opposite. But perhaps I should not be so surprised, as it is not the only respect in which their political ideas are somewhat in advance of our civilisation.
  As to the second part of the Motion, that our present policy is wholly inadequate—well, those are hard words. Having given much thought to the measures which it is possible to propose to mitigate the effects of the drought, and having gathered them together in this Bill, it is with great interest that I

  505
  shall hear the suggestions which will be made from the Opposition Benches as to what further measures we can take to mitigate the evils of the drought. But I hope that they will be concrete and practical. I hope that they will not consist merely in destructive criticism, and I hope, above all things, that they will be measures which will actually help in the present drought, because it is with that that this Bill is concerned. I am concerned in this Bill simply to propose to the House measures to assist in the drought.
  The third part of the Amendment says:
  "and regrets their failure to recognise the urgent necessity for State aid in the promotion of a complete scheme of regional planning in the utilisation of the national resources."
  With this part of the Motion I have very little quarrel, because I think it is an admirable justification of the Bill passed the other day in which we devoted £1,000,000, with the hearty assent of the House, to help in the improvement of rural water supplies. Shall I be unduly harsh towards the efforts of the Opposition in their difficulty in finding some method of dissent if I say that in their Amendment they have not succeeded in doing what should have been their first purpose, and that is concealing a too obvious desire to take advantage of the national difficulties?
  Let me pass to an explanation, in very few words, of the actual provisions of the Bill. I will not unduly explain them in detail. I have already expressed to the House that Promptitude, Promptitude, Promptitude is the first necessity, and for that purpose it is proposed that the procedure shall be by Orders to last for six months, and renewable, if there is any need, after six months, during, of course, the life of the Bill. The Orders will not, of course, be made without due advertisement to parties interested as to what Orders are to be made and public inquiry as to any interests which are concerned. That is the procedure. Now as to the actual measures which can be taken. The House will appreciate that it would be humbug to say that you can prevent all the evil effects of drought. What you can do is to take exceptional measures to make the best of the water that can be had, and that is what we propose, in the first place by increasing supply. We take exceptional measures to increase supply, first of all, by powers
  506
  to tap new sources or by sinking new wells, or by impounding water from some stream which at present there is no power to impound; in the second place, to increase supplies by abolishing all legal restrictions upon the amount of water which can be taken from various sources, which is a further exceptional measure for the conservation of our supplies in an emergency.
  The next step, and perhaps the most important as a practical measure, is to take powers to reduce the amount of compensation water. At the present time water undertakers are compelled by their Acts to allow a large amount of the water available to escape by way of compensation to other interests by running over the weirs, down rivers and so on. We propose in view of the national emergency to take power to impound their compensation water within reasonable limits. Supplementary to this, of course, there must be measures for restricting the use of water. The measures will be of two sorts—first of all power to water undertakers to restrict user by particular customers. The House will be familiar with the kind of case in point. Some large user has statutory or other powers to obtain a supply of a particular amount of water. It is not fair that he should get everything while others are going without, and so power is taken to reduce the amount. Secondly, of course what we need is further powers to enable water suppliers to restrict the general user of water. Let me pay my tribute to the great success which has already been achieved, in view of the drought, by water undertakers in effecting voluntary economy and in inducing consumers to promote that economy. But under the conditions to which we may have to look forward in the coming summer, we must be prepared not to rely entirely on voluntary effort, but to confirm by statutory powers those efforts in order that the interests of all may be treated in a similar manner.
  Lastly, there are the general powers which we are seeking under this Bill for the better distribution of the available water supply. The case in point is where one water authority may have more water than it wants, whereas some neighbour has less. Here, again, let me hasten to say that in 99 cases out of 100 voluntary agreement would put matters right, but when we are faced with a real emergency

  507
  we must be prepared with the possibility of having to back up voluntary agreement with the power to make these arrangements. It is necessary to do so in the interests of fair play, and for the best possible use of the water we have available.
  An interesting point, which the House will notice requires some special consideration, is that of compensation. We are dealing here, of course, with a series of private rights, and we are imposing temporarily upon them an overriding provision in the public interest. We must not do so without due compensation for those private interests when they are called upon to make some contribution. I am only putting it very generally to the House as it may be a matter for rather closer attention in Committee, but the principle which has been followed with regard to the basis of compensation is that there must be compensation for private enterprise, but that you must also consider the state of general national emergency, and you must recognise that the private interest concerned should not be the only one to suffer no loss at all in the general emergency. Therefore, the basis of compensation must be such as fairly to distribute the unfortunate effects, losses and inconveniences of the general state of the national emergency between all interests concerned—private interests as well as consumers. Compensation will be decided by arbitration, and the amount when decided will be paid by the water undertaker. Water is a commodity which is taken and sold by the undertakers, and the party which sells it is the party which ought to pay for it.
  I said that there are many points in the Bill which will require more detailed information as we go on. I have contented myself to-day with dealing with general principles and with the classes of remedies which can be appropriately undertaken. But there is one point of sufficient importance even on Second Reading that I ought to mention. It is that when we are going to increase the supplies of water in an emergency by tapping new sources, it may be that it can be done most economically by works of a permanent nature. If the works are of a permanent nature, obviously it would be a gross waste that they should lapse when the emergency is over, and so when works
  508
  of a permanent nature are undertaken to increase supplies, they will remain permanent even when the Bill comes to an end. But as regards those works, all the provisions of the ordinary law with regard to compensation, and so on, will be applied.
  Such is the Measure which I propose to the House to-day for dealing with the emergency. There is one word I would say in the hope that it may be heard outside these walls, and in the hope, also, that hon. Members will assist in bringing this point of view to the attention of the public as a whole. This Bill gives legal powers for doing many things which can very well be done, and will be done, by voluntary action on the part of the water undertakers, and I hope and believe also by voluntary action on the part of the public. It will be very much better in the interests of the domestic consumer if we can reduce the ambit within which it will be necessary to use these powers, and that can best be done by all of us being good citizens together and economising water in the difficult months to come. I am quite confident that the appeal which the Government make to the nation to exercise the qualities of good citizenship by economising in the use of water will be listened to and answered with that public spirit which is always shown by the vast majority of the nation. This can be done by the prevention of leakage and reasonable economy in the domestic use of water. It is impossible to exaggerate how much can be done in that way. I have known cases in the course of the past month where, working upon this basis, by the mere voluntary prevention of wastage and the economical use of water, undertakers have succeeded in cutting down the use of water by 20 or 30 per cent. without any hardship to anybody. If that be done all over the country, we shall be able to reduce to a minimum the legal and more cumbrous, more expensive, more unpleasant procedure under this Bill.
  Finally, let me emphasise that this is a purely temporary Measure. It comes to an end on 31st December, 1935. The House may ask, "Why so long a run?" I will give the answer, which is a technical one. What we are most concerned with is the shrinkage of the sources of water available at deep levels underground, and technical experience teaches

  509
  us that the restoration of those sources may require a period as long as that for which the Bill will last. When things have become so fundamentally affected as they have by the recent drought, it is thought by my technical advisers that the period of the Bill is not more than enough to provide for working off the bad effects of the drought.
  This Bill will be applicable to Scotland in the same way as to England. I should specify one other matter as an illustration of the working of the Bill. Where Orders have to be made they may very closely and intimately concern the interests of drainage control boards, river commissioners and such bodies, because the waters with which they are concerned may be taken for the use of water undertakers. That is recognised, and in order to provide every opportunity for safeguarding those interests no Order will be made by the Ministry of Health without close and full consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, who will put forward the interests of the river and drainage authorities. Lastly, I would make an appeal to the House regarding the time to be occupied on this Measure. It is not proposed to abbreviate in any way the ordinary stages of procedure in the House and full opportunities will be given for discussion, but I hope the House will have recognised from what I have said that this is, in its nature, an emergency Measure, that it was right not to introduce it before it was necessary, and therefore it follows that when it is introduced, it is a matter of public interest that it should be passed with as little delay as possible. Critics of our great Assembly are in the habit of saying that its machinery is not capable of dealing with all urgencies of modern business. On this occasion we have an opportunity of showing that the procedure of our legislature is more than capable of dealing even with so grave an emergency as that of the great drought.
  4.18 p.m.
  Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House is of opinion that the increasing gravity of the situation with respect to water supplies is due to the lack of timely and effective action on the part of His Majesty's Government, regards their present policy as wholly inadequate, and regrets their failure to recognise the urgent neces-
  510
  sity for State aid in the promotion of a complete scheme of regional planning in the utilisation of the national resources."
  We have become accustomed to the Government picturing themselves as a body of strong men grappling with adversity, a body of men trying to deal with the ills created by other men and other nations. Now, for the first time, we have the Government blaming their difficulties on to Providence. The case of the right hon. Gentleman to-day is that God has not been kind, and that in order to remedy the deficiencies of Providence he has to act with great promptitude. We need only look at the history of this question. When the late Labour Government left office, towards the end of August, 1931, there were substantial grants available to local authorities in aid of the provision of water—50 per cent. of the interest on a loan for 15 years or the whole period of the loan, whichever was the shorter period, and an additional grant in respect of rural water schemes providing 50 per cent. of the interest for the first seven years of the loan period. As I showed when the earlier Bill was before the House, the effect of that had been to stimulate the development of new schemes for the provision of water in various areas. After the end of August, 1931, that generous grant was very substantially reduced by the National Government, on the ground of financial stringency. They reduced the grant to 25 per cent. of the interest for the period of the loan, not exceeding 15 years, with an additional grant for rural water supplies of only 25 per cent. for the first five years, and even that grant was limited to schemes which could be actively begun before the end of January, 1932. In other words, as an act of deliberate policy this Government, in those early days, took the line of discouraging local authorities from making further provision to deal with the water situation.
  In the first year of the Labour Government the loans sanctioned for water supplies—quite apart from the loans sanctioned by Parliament under local Acts, which amount each year to a substantial sum—amounted to £2,318,000. In 1930–31, because of the grant which was made available, the loans to local authorities amounted to well over £3,000,000. In the year 1931–32, when the administration had changed, the

  511
  tempo had changed and policy had changed, the sum fell to practically the amount which was sanctioned in the first year when the late Labour Government took office. The last available figures, those for the year 1932–3, show that the loans sanctioned amounted only to £1,375,000, which I think I am right in saying, offhand, is the smallest sum ever sanctioned in any year since the end of the Great War. In the report of the Ministry of Health for that year, for which the Minister was responsible, attention is drawn to the falling off in the amount of loans sanctioned as compared with the previous year. I will read the quotation, because if the right hon. Gentleman did not write it he took personal responsibility for it:
  "The falling off in the amount of loans sanctioned as compared with last year, which has been most marked in rural areas, was to be expected"—
  Nothing about Providence there!—
  "in view of the general financial position, the withdrawal of the grants, and the large amount of work undertaking in previous years, much of it in advance of requirements, with the aid of grants."
  The right hon. Gentleman cut off the possibility of local authorities continuing to make provision to meet their needs in the matter of water supplies. He told us in his speech that last winter the gods were good. The gods wept, no doubt, because of the National Government, and they gave us a wet winter, and the right hon. Gentleman said to himself, "Well, that is all right, the gods have been kind, we have had a wet winter, everything is all right." And yet in May of last year he issued the first of his circulars to local authorities dealing with the problem of water supplies—in spite of the temporary goodness of Providence. In that circular he said, or Dr. Gibbon said on his behalf:
  "I am directed by the Minister of Health to say that he is anxious"—
  in spite of a wet winter—
  "that every effort should be made towards the improvement of rural water supplies."
  I am not sure that the local authorities received that circular with enthusiasm after he had deprived them of financial assistance to carry out what he wanted done. He went on in that hortatory manner of which he is a master to say:
  "Timely measures of prevention may be carried out at small cost."
  512
  Timely measures of prevention. I will come to that point again later. Notwithstanding the wet winter, notwithstanding his circular of May last year, which apparently had been issued to no effect, something new had to be done, and to the astonishment of the House of Commons, during the Debate on the King's Speech, the Minister of Health appeared in the House of Commons—that was not astonishing—on the 27th November to deal not only with housing but to inform the House that the water situation was serious; and then he made that classic statement, "I shall shortly introduce a Bill to deal with this problem." That was on the 27th November, after six months of drought, which became graver week by week and day by day. A wet winter? No good gambling on wet winters. This Government have been gambling on a wet March. After 10 weeks' delay, during which time the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten that there was a water problem, we were presented with a Money Resolution early in February, and were told that it was a matter that brooked no delay. It took another fortnight before we got a Second Reading of that Bill. Over a month ago, towards the end of March, the Bill received the Royal Assent. As a Government of inaction I think this Government is unparalleled.
  Hardly had the ink become dry on the Statute Book before the Minister comes to this House and declares, like a bolt from the blue, that there is to be another Bill, which he now hopes will be put on the Statute Book with the greatest possible speed. It may possibly reach the Statute Book and begin to operate, though not effectively, about a year from the time when he issued his first Circular in May of last year. In February the most that the Government could do was to pray for rain, to hope for rain in March. Everybody knew that the situation was growing more serious month by month. The right hon. Gentleman knew that during practically nine months of last year and every month of this year the rainfall was only about two-thirds of the average fall. He knew perfectly well, though he did not admit it when we debated the earlier Bill, that the rainfall in March would not appease the situation. I said on the Second Reading that if rain fell in March it would be months before the consumers derived any advan-

  513
  tage from it. People are using water to-day which fell as rain years ago, not weeks ago. The Government gambled on rain in March. There had been reports in the newspapers, when the Debate took place in February upon the Second Reading of the other Bill, and the Parliamentary Secretary, who looked out on the world with the gay irresponsibility which we always associate with him, stigmatised those newspaper reports as "rubbish." We were told that the situation was not really so serious as the newspapers made out; yet, in a few weeks, what was not serious has become a grave emergency. Even if we had had that torrential rain for 40 days and 40 nights, like the old deluge, there would still have been a water emergency this summer.
  It was astonishing to learn on Monday, in the words of the Prime Minister, that
  "in view of the seriousness of the position, the Government propose to bring legislation before the House immediately."
  When he was asked whether the last Act was not sufficient to deal with the situation, the Prime Minister said:
  "It was quite sufficient for its purpose, but the situation has worsened."—[OFFIOIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1934; col. 16, Vol. 288.]
  He was studiously vague about the purpose of the previous Act. His right hon. Friend has been trying this afternoon to explain the difference between the two by saying that one was a permanent Measure to provide £1,000,000 in three years, and that the other is a temporary Measure. One dealt with the rural situation and the other with the urban situation. I pointed out on the Second Reading of the previous Bill that the problem was not a rural one. At that time, the great City of Liverpool had had to beg water from the City of Manchester. This drought is neither an urban nor a rural drought; it is a national drought, and the Government ought to have known it when they introduced their original Bill. It is clear from the records of rainfall that the right hon. Gentleman should have taken action last summer, or at the very latest he should have taken action instead of coming down to speak in a King's Speech Debate in November of last year. Six months of abnormally low rainfall, following upon a dry summer, will have elapsed before the right hon. Gentleman gets to work to deal with this matter. Yet he has sound views. When
  514
  he sent his circular to the local authorities in February of this year, he said:
  "New supplies cannot usually be improvised at short notice. Any adequate supplementary supply can generally be secured only by timely foresight and initiative before needs become acute."
  Those are words of wisdom. It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman did not apply them. He said in his last annual report that in matters of water supply "it is imperative to look well ahead." When he brought his Bill into the House in February, after it had been developing in his mind for 10 weeks, he tried to get away with it as something to deal with a situation which was not really serious. He did not exercise timely foresight and initiative. He has come in a scurry and in a fit of panic to the House now, to do a thing that he ought to have done in the summer of last year. By their delay, and by shilly-shallying which would not have been accepted for one moment by hon. Gentlemen when I stood there and they were over here, the Government have betrayed the truest national interests. They care no more about the masses of the people who are going short of water than they have cared about any other problem that they have professed to tackle. The Government have taken two bites at the cherry and have not even yet eaten the whole cherry as I will show in a moment. They came forward with one Bill to provide a small sum of £1,000,000 to fill a gap created by their own deliberate suspension of Government grants. They now take a second bite at the cherry to provide new and wider powers to deal with the water situation, but this Bill will not complete the job which confronts the Minister and the water undertakings of this country.
  I am not going to argue against the details of the Bill. There is no Clause in the Bill of which I do not; approve.
  Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: Hear, hear!
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I make a present of that to the hon. Gentleman. So far as it goes, the Bill is all right. I do not mind the Minister and the local authorities being armed with greater powers than they already possess. I do not mind the right hon. Gentleman short-circuiting the lengthy, cumbrous procedure which has hampered local authorities and his Department in the past. My criticism of

  515
  the Bill is twofold. I do not see why the Minister should apologise and say that the Bill is temporary. I would not mind if he and the water undertakings were armed with these powers permanently. It is a mistake to apologise, now that he is in a crisis and has brought legislation to the point when new and stronger powers can be exercised. It is a pity that this is not a permanent Measure. My criticism is not that its specific proposals are bad in themselves; they are good so far as they go, but they are not adequate to deal with the situation. If we are to deal effectively with the problem of urban and rural water supply, we shall have to reorganise our machinery of water collection and water distribution.
  On the Second Reading of the previous Bill I said that I have no special love for ad hoc authorities, but in this particular case the difficulties arise very largely because large numbers of local authorities have such restricted resources, or are so unprogressive in their outlook, that they are unable, or unwilling, to provide the water supply which the inhabitants need. The right hon. Gentleman admits that the Bill is primarily for urban authorities and not for rural authorities, and he appears to think that he has got rid of the rural authorities' problem by throwing £1,000,000 to them. That will not affect the root problem. A good deal of nonsense is talked about a national water grid. I have never believed in it, because I think that the idea is fantastic. Yet it is perfectly clear that water supply is one of those services which demand an authority over a wider area than any existing local authority.
  Water is not a manufactured article. Water is where it is because of the forces of Nature on the one hand and geographical configuration and the kind of rocks under the soil, on the other. One must have regard to where the water collects as a result of natural forces. It may collect underground. This week, I understand, while the great soul of the Minister of Health has been battling with drought, the Minister of Mines has been battling with flooding in pits. The question is one of the organisation of resources over an area large enough to give the water that is necessary for the region and large enough to enable the water supply to be administered to all the people who live in the area. I am satis-
  516
  fied and all experience shows what all the big water administrators of this country know—there is not a water engineer who would deny what I say—that there is not one water authority which covers a large enough area, not even the Metropolitan Water Board.
  I would be glad to see the frontiers of the Metropolitan Water Board extended in the interests of the people of London. I have tried getting regional advisory committees, but that is not any good. Individual local authorities will never give up any of their powers if they can help it. We have arrived at a stage where we must have a pooling of water resources over a larger area for the people of that area. I put that case before the House on the Second Reading of the earlier Bill, but no reply was made to it by anybody opposite, and it still remains as the one way in which to deal with this problem. If we are to conserve our resources and become more or less independent, as we can be, of fluctuations in annual rainfall, we can do it only on a basis of executive regional water authorities, suitably assisted for the development of their proposals out of public funds. The right hon. Gentleman has made an attempt to criticise the Amendment which I have risen to move. He knows as well as I do that the present size of the vast majority of water authorities in this country is much too small. He knows, or he would not have provided £1,000,000 a month ago, that a large number of these authorities have not the financial resources to enable them to deal with that problem alone, and, therefore, if one of the primary necessities of life is to be made available for the people, we are driven to a larger authority, and an authority which is obtaining some assistance from the State.
  The right hon. Gentleman has really given us our case. He has produced his £1,000,000, which shows that the water supply will not be provided unless the State comes to the assistance of local authorities. By giving new powers over wider areas to existing authorities, he proves my case for a larger authority. Whatever hon. Members may do as regards our Amendment, there is no Member in this House who does not know that that is the solution. It is no use dealing with this problem as though it were an emergency. An emergency that

  517
  has lasted nine months ceases to be an emergency. It will still be the same kind of emergency—and I hope hon. Members will mark my words—six months from now, whatever happens to the rainfall during the coming summer. This is a problem with which we have to deal on big, broad lines, and it ought to be a matter for regret to hon. Members that the right hon. Gentleman has twice had to take up the time of the House when he might at one blow have introduced a large and comprehensive Measure which would have put the provision of water supplies on a broad, general and workable foundation.
  4.48 p.m.
  Mr. R. T. EVANS: Listening to the denunciations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), and agreeing with all that he said about the need for a national water plan, I was not altogether convinced that his remarks had much relevance to the problem that we are discussing to-day—how to combat the drought emergency. I feel, with the right hon. Gentleman, that it is a great pity that this Measure is introduced so belatedly. Some seven weeks ago, when the Rural Water Supplies Bill was before the House for Second Reading, the Ministry was warned from these benches of the seriousness of the situation. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland), who knows a good deal about this problem in a practical way, declared that, whatever the rainfall might be during March, April and May, a drought emergency would exist. I make no apology for reading to the House some of his words, because they have a strict relevance. There is no doubt that there is a rising tide of feeling in the country, and the Government, to my knowledge, have lost a tremendous amount of popularity in rural areas because of the feeling that they are not grappling with the problem with the necessary sense of reality. My right hon. Friend said on that occasion:
  "There is bound to be a very great water emergency this summer in many parts of the country, quite independent of what amount of rain may fall between now and then, simply because the main water supply comes from deep springs, and whatever falls on the surface does not get through to the depths of the springs for months after it falls on the surface. The authorities ought to be now definitely restricting the use of water. If they do not do that, they will
  518
  be in a worse emergency in the summer."—[OFFIOIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1934; col. 642, Vol. 286.]
  I do not wish this afternoon to be censorious, but without a shadow of doubt the Government have received warnings during the last few months about the immediacy of the crisis, and I would warn them, too, that whatever they now do can hardly touch the problem. I am somewhat alarmed at the situation in many industrial areas. Take an area like Swansea, which has clustered around it a very large number of diversified metallurgical undertakings. Unless copious rain falls, it is more than likely that the whole of that district will become completely paralysed during the summer months. Already there is difficulty. Last summer they secured as much water as they could from a neighbouring undertaker and again there is considerable alarm; what will happen unless some miraculous fall of rain takes place I do not know. I seriously warn the Government that the vials of the wrath of these people will be poured on their heads because of the belatedness of the introduction of this Measure.
  I would urge that the Ministry should now immediately take up the task of formulating of a national water plan. For a long time, forward-looking people have been advocating that this is not a problem for impecunious local authorities. The geological, climatic and administrative aspects of the problem make attempts to deal with it by a local authority utterly inadequate. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows very well, local authorities time and again have prepared schemes. Time and again they have taken those schemes to the Ministry, and time and again they have been turned down because of the very heavy burden of expenditure they would place upon the rates. It is obvious that this is a national matter. You have a situation like this—and it is relevant to the present Bill. Take the situation in Wales. Liverpool draws its water supplies from North Wales, and Birmingham from Mid-Wales. You have pipe-lines running through the territory, and many of the villages have a statutory right to tap those lines. They bring their schemes to the Ministry. It all involves expenditure. There is the making of the reservoir, the laying of pipes, and so forth. Not once or twice have these authorities—small rural authorities, many

  519
  of them—brought their schemes to the Ministry; but, although they have a statutory right, yet almost without exception they have been turned down, because of the onerous burden to the rates that would be involved.
  There is another aspect which is relevant. The Minister suggested that he was out to safeguard the water supply of Liverpool, but may I ask what is to happen to those authorities which are situated along the pipe-line? Suppose that the wells which now supply them with water run dry, and suppose that there is no other source available, and it becomes imperative that those authorities should tap these lines, is the Ministry prepared to assist them? At the moment they have not embarked upon this enterprise, merely because they Cannot afford it, and the Ministry has placed deterrents upon them. Are they now to be given financial assistance, or is the Ministry only going to think of Liverpool, Birmingham, Cardiff and other great authorities which have had the foresight to build up waterworks in distant regions? Is it simply their interests that are going to be looked after, or are those authorites between the reservoirs and Liverpool, Birmingham and other great cities going to be assisted and given a square deal in this matter? There is another point. I agree that the powers which this Bill confers upon local authorities are necessary, but I also agree with the former Minister of Health that many of those powers might with great advantage be made permanent. But is the maximum of help being given here merely by endowing those authorities with these powers?
  Some time ago I made an interesting discovery. In 1924, a letter was sent by the then Minister of Health to the Welsh Housing and Town Planning Association declaring that an advisory committee had been set up and a survey had been completed which was in the possession of the Ministry, and that a national water plan was being evolved. I would like to know to what extent that survey is now available. I presume that expert opinion was taken; I imagine that maps of some sort were drawn. Is that survey available to assist local authorities now in their quest for new water? I imagine that the survey consisted not merely of descriptive accounts of known water supplies, but that some sort of investigation
  520
  of a scientific character was undertaken. Is that information now available? It might be a matter of extraordinary importance, and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary, when he comes to reply, to let me know, and to let the local authorities know, to what extent they can have the technical assistance which that survey would afford.
  There is no reference in the Bill to people who have established industries in rural areas and have certain rights to water. In my constituency, and, I imagine, in a large number of rural areas, there are mills of various kinds—little factories dependent upon a supply of water. I find that they are restricted to some extent by the insistence of the fishery board. In my constituency we have a rather tyrannous fishery board, which is constantly harassing people. The great obsession is the protection of the rights of those who have the financial interest in fishing. Not once or twice have I had to bring to the notice of the Minister of Agriculture cases of what I regard as gross tyranny. To mention one that I have in mind—I do not want to particularise overmuch; I imagine that it could be duplicated and triplicated—I know that last summer a certain important industrial area with a large number of diversified industries found its water supply in great jeopardy, and under the terms of the agreement, unless it allowed a certain volume of compensation water to flow into the Towey, the authority would be fined a large figure; and the chairman of the fishery board not unnaturally perhaps looked forward to a new source of income for his funds. It is more than likely, it is certain, that that local authority will require easement this summer and I am very glad that under the provisions of this Measure it will secure it.
  What is to be the position of these small producers—millers, weavers, and people of that character—who are dependent upon water power for the carrying on of their productive processes? As far as I can see, there is nothing in the Bill to give them any measure of protection. A large urban authority—yes; water undertakers of various categories—yes; but what of the many—hundreds, I imagine, in the rural areas—who are dependent upon a supply of water? Are they to have easement, in respect of the opening of sluices, in the matter of com-

  521
  pensation water, and so forth, when there is an insistent fishery board such as there is in my constituency?
  Then there is, of course, the other problem of costs. You are not going to discover new water supplies, you are not going to husband what you have this summer, without imposing upon local authorities a certain amount of cost. As the Minister indicated, in some cases works of a semi-permanent character will have to be embarked upon. To what extent are they to have assistance for this purpose? A local authority may perhaps bore, perhaps have an electrical pump other mechanical agency to tap unused water supplies. But it is going to cost money, and at the end of the six months the drought may have ended. What is to happen to the capital expenditure? Is the value to go only to the landowner, or are local authorities to have some sort of right to this capital investment? I imagine that there will be a very large proportion of operations of that character, involving considerable expenditure and inevitably of value for the future. To what extent are the interests of those who embark on these schemes safeguarded? An Order lapses at the end of six months. What rights have the local authorities at the end of the six months?
  There is much I would like to say about the need for national planning, but to-day is hardly the time. We have a drought emergency, and these measures, I think, are necessary. I repeat that I would like parts of this Bill to be made permanent. The Minister of Agriculture has assured us that we are to be led out of this wilderness into a Canaan. If that Canaan is not going to be allowed to overflow with milk, at least let us be assured of an adequate supply of water.
  5.3 p.m.
  Mr. J. W. JOHNSTON: I do not think the hon. Member who has just spoken can have read Clause 3 of the Bill, which provides that where an Order relates to work of a permanent nature that has to be undertaken, it shall not expire at the expiration of the Act. It must be gratifying to the Government to find that, as so often happens, hon. Members opposite can find so little wrong with their Measures that the only ground on which
  522
  they can oppose them is either that they do not go far enough or that they were not undertaken soon enough. It may not be unwelcome to the Government to find someone who, on the contrary, is apprehensive of the extent of the powers which the Minister of Health is asking the House to confer upon him. I do not dispute that a situation of such seriousness exists as calls for some action on these lines, but I do feel considerable misgiving at the extent of the powers which the Minister wishes to have. The ways of nature are mysterious and sometimes perverse. Already the introduction of this Measure seems to have had the effect of bringing rain to some parts of the country. I am not sure whether a simple way of doing everything necessary would not have been a short Bill forbidding the use of umbrellas and mackintoshes. The heavens could hardly witness that and remain unmoved. Perhaps very soon the Minister of Health may find himself in the position of the Scots minister of religion, who, when his earnest prayer for rain was answered by a terrific blatter on the windows, hastened to qualify his address to the Almighty by adding "In moderation, Lord, in moderation." It is certain at all events that the weather will not be able to please everyone in the coming summer. If Lord Desborough's wishes are fulfilled Larwood will be stultified and perhaps the Test Matches will be ruined.
  The reason why I have some apprehensions about the Bill is that it is going to make it too easy for water undertakings, perhaps as a result of their own improvidence and lack of foresight, to rob what I may describe as river interests, of their flow of water, without the safeguards, by way of inquiry and so on, which at present exist. A river is a valuable gift of nature to the land through which it flows and to the people who dwell within its valley. It is a thing that is of value to many people and to many human interests in countless ways, some great, some small, some obvious, some remote. It may be of value in connection with fishing interests, commercial or otherwise. It may be of value to industries that are carried on on its banks and which use its water in their processes or obtain their power by means of the water. It may be of value in connection with sewerage and drainage. It maybe of value for irrigation pur-

  523
  poses. It has a certain value sometimes merely as an object of natural beauty.
  These examples of its value to the people who live upon a river's banks are not exhaustive. Moreover, a river has a future and potential value which no man can estimate, as well as a present value. No one can tell how important in future the flow of water down a river may be to the people who live in that district. Thirty years ago no one imagined how valuable water power might become in connection with hydro-electric machinery. One can imagine the case of a growing town upon a river, which in course of time may wish to get a water supply from the head waters of the river and may find that some dirty city far away has come with an Order obtained under Clause 3 of this Bill, and has appropriated that source, which is the natural right, if it is anyone's, of the town which is situated upon that river. Moreover, if the present natural shortage of water is a serious thing for consumers who are customers of water undertakings, as it is, it is also a serious thing to the various kinds of river interests, some of which I have mentioned.
  As a result of the powers that may be conferred by this Bill on water undertakings to the natural damage which these river interests are now suffering from water shortage will be added further artificial damage from the increased depredations of local authorities and water undertakings. I feel, therefore, that this Bill rather allows the interests of consumers who are customers of water undertakings to override, without sufficient safeguard, the interests of other people to whom the flow of water is a source of value. In that connection I rather distrust the Ministry of Health. I am thankful to say that the powers in Scotland will be exercised by the Secretary of State. But the Ministry of Health, from the very nature of its functions, will, I fear, be inclined to have more consideration for the wafer undertaking than for the other kind of interests to which I have referred. At all events I hope that the Minister of Health, before authorising any water undertaking to do something under his Order which it might not otherwise have obtained power to do, will insist and will make sure that it is exercising every reasonable economy in the use of its
  524
  water and taking every possible precaution to prevent waste. I hope, too, that he will make sure that advantage is not taken of Clause 3, which authorises permanent operations under an Order, to do things under the pretext that they are necessitated by the present emergency—things which really would have had to be done anyhow in a very short time by a water undertaking under powers obtained in the ordinary way.
  Let me say a few words about compensation water. It is important to realise what compensation water is. As the Minister told us, he will have power under this Bill to authorise an undertaking which is under an obligation to discharge compensation water, to suspend the discharge of that water, or at all events to modify and reduce it. When one speaks of compensation water one does not merely mean that an undertaking coming along and impounding the water of a certain area must leave some. There is far more in it than that. The water that any area produces is, a great deal of it, flood water and surplus water, sometimes abundant, which runs away and is of no value. When the water undertaking comes along and impounds the water of an area, what it does is this: It builds a reservoir, which to some extent enables it to catch and save up the water when it is plentiful to meet the other time when water is short.
  What it undertakes to do to what I will call the river, in return for this theft of so much of its water, is to discharge to the river every day, summer and winter, in wet weather and dry, a fixed quantity of water, which may indeed be only one-third or one-quarter of the whole productivity of the area impounded, but which at the very driest season when water is most valuable is actually more than the river would have got from the whole area if the undertaking had never come along. To that extent, therefore, there is a real bargain and a real positive advantage to the river, in that while it is being robbed of two-thirds or some proportion of its total water from that area it is actually going to be rather a bigger river at the very time when water is most valuable, at the driest season of the year. There is real significance in the word "compensation." When I say "the river" I am using it as a brief expression to describe all human in-

  525
  terests, present and future, to whom a flow of water is something valuable.
  It is a well-known Parliamentary precedent in private legislation that a water undertaking must give water compensation and cannot escape that obligation by any amount of money payment. That precedent is founded upon a very sound principle. The principle is that water compensation is the only possible kind of compensation that is enduring and permanent, and that will compensate every possible interest precisely in proportion to its extent. You can only give money compensation for taking away water from its natural course to the big interests and you can only give it to the interests present at the moment. On the other hand, when you give water compensation, which is insisted upon, it lasts for ever and it percolates to everyone. I do not like to see that principle infringed even temporarily in the Bill, and I hope that what is described as a purely temporary expedient will not endanger a principle so sound and valuable.
  Let me turn to two points of detail. First, I do not see any provision for notice being given to persons who may be injured by the suspension of the obligation to give compensation water. I see a provision for notice to owners of lands, etc., that may be entered upon, and provision for notice to people who are parties to a contract where the water undertaking seeks to obtain an order that may modify a, contractual obligation. But in the case of interests down the river which may be damaged there is no contract. If there is a contract at all it is a contract between the undertaking on the one hand and the river on the other I agree that newspaper advertisement is probably the only way of giving notice to such people, but the newspaper advertisement which is provided for in the Bill is an advertisement in a newspaper circulating within the limits of supply of the undertaking. That does nothing to meet the case of the big undertaking or a big city which is drawing its water from many miles away, and probably from the head waters of a river which flows in quite a different direction. I think there should be proper provision for giving notice of applications under the Bill to every interest that may be damaged if the applications are successful.
  526
  Clause 6 provides that, in assessing compensation to be paid to people in respect of injury to them from the suspension of water compensation, regard may be had to what their position would have been if there had never been any water undertaking. I do not see why one should have regard to that. It is not a case of assessing compensation for the initial abstraction of water. It is a case of fixing some compensation for the breaking of a bargain by the other side. If you are going to give compensation to people who may be injured by the destruction of what, from their point of view, is the credit side of the bargain, it is unreasonable that the debit side of the bargain, from their point of view, should be left untouched. If they happen to have made a bargain which, owing to the increased shortage of water, has become more valuable than it seemed it would be originally, surely they are entitled to the benefit and, if you ignore the existence of the bargain which entitles them to water compensation and are going to consider the matter as if there had never been any bargain, by having regard to what their predicament might have been, you must ignore the bargain altogether and also have regard to the question whether the water undertaking should ever have been allowed to go to that area.
  The Bill is to expire in December, 1935, and one has to look back to Clause 3 to find that an Order made under that Clause shall not expire together with the Bill. As a matter of draftsmanship, it would have been better specifically to except Clause 3 from the provision in regard to the expiration of the Act in Clause 11, or, if necessary, make Clause 3 a separate part of the Act which should not expire at the same time as the rest. I have tried to state something of the case for the river—the House will remember what I said I meant when I spoke of the river—in order to place its interests on record when we are being asked to give the Minister and local authorities such wide powers of injury to the river. I have done so in the hope that river interests will not suffer any permanent prejudice from this avowedly temporary expedient.
  5.19 p.m.
  Mr. LECKIE: I listened with considerable regret to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wake-

  527
  field (Mr. Greenwood). I hoped that the official Opposition would take a wider view than they usually do. Here we have a subject which has nothing whatever to do with party politics, and on which every part of the House ought to unite in backing up the Government in what they are proposing to do. Although the right hon. Gentleman criticised the Government a great deal for their lapses in the past, he had nothing to say, as far as I understood it, against the Bill. The Amendment itself is an extraordinary one, purely rhetoric, and I cannot understand why any reasonable person should support it. Certainly the right hon. Gentleman scolded the Government in his very best style, but I do not think that what he said cut much ice, because I feel certain that the House generally welcomes the Bill and will do everything it can to get it put on the Statute Book without delay. It meets the emergency in a very adequate way. It gives very great powers, and it cuts away a great deal of red tape which would ordinarily be involved in such a Measure. Therefore, it is up to us to see that it is put on to the Statute Book with a minimum of delay. I am speaking specially for South Staffordshire, where the water supply of all the towns and villages except Wolverhampton is under the control of the South Staffordshire Waterworks Company. We are fortunately situated. The water is all got from deep wells, and we have no complaint to make with regard to the quality or adequacy in normal times. I am glad to see that even now the company have really done exceedingly well and have not restricted the use of water to any great extent. But, even so, they are feeling the very serious drought. I have here a letter from the chief engineer of the company, who says:
  "Every endeavour is being made by the company, which supplies an area of nearly 400 square miles, to conserve the available water supply and to prevent waste and misuse. It is, however, apparent that water undertakings generally should be granted additional facilities if they are to meet the difficulties which have arisen owing to the drought extending over the past 12 months. I, therefore, hope you may see your way to give entire support to the Measure."
  I think that is the general feeling throughout the country, and it is because I feel that the Bill meets the emergency in an adequate way, and with a minimum
  528
  of red tape, that I heartily support it, and hope it will become law very shortly.
  5.22 p.m.
  Sir BASIL PETO: A large part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) appeared to me to have very little relevance to the point of the Bill or the emergency with which we are dealing. His principal complaint of Government action in the matter was that in the emergency of 1931, which was a financial and not a water emergency, the Government limited the amount of advances to be made to water undertakings and local authorities for the provision of additional water. He showed, taking his own figures, that possibly for the year 1931–2 £1,000,000 less had been spent in consequence of the financial necessities of the time, and for the year 1932–3 possibly £2,000,000. Can anyone suppose that, if we had spent to the full all that could have been spent, according to the right hon. Gentleman, under the legislation initiated by the late Government—if we had spent £3,000,000 more over the whole of the country, and Scotland and Wales, we should have solved the difficulty of the present water shortage? Of course, it would have been literally a drop in the bucket. It would have produced no appreciable effect.
  When I read the terms of the Bill and the Amendment I was exceedingly astonished, because there is not the slightest doubt that it is a Communistic Measure. It gives the same rights to every one except to the people who at present own the water. They are the only people who may be entirely deprived of their water, whereas other people must get some share of it. You cannot go further than that in the direction of Communism, and I was surprised to hear it termed wholly inadequate. The right hon. Gentleman explains why it is so regarded. He said it was not because he disapproved in the slightest degree of any of the provisions of the Bill. The only thing of which he disapproved was that it is limited to six months, and he would like it made permanent. Now we know where we are. If right hon. Gentlemen opposite were to come into power, we should not have a Bill of this kind, promoted only under the conditions of the present emergency, but it would be the ordinary law of the land that no one should have any right to

  529
  provide for themselves for their land, their cattle, their people, their own cottages, whatever it might be, a water supply which would not be at the beck and call of any local authority. Any rural area, or any parish council or small water undertaking could say that there was a very nice and convenient reservoir fed by certain springs upon someone's land and they were going to impound the whole of it and use it for other people.
  Let us see exactly how the Bill would operate. The Minister told us that, though it is designed mainly for great urban areas, it would undoubtedly be useful in rural areas. Let us see how it would operate in a rural area. Clause 1 says that the Minister of Health may make an Order containing provisons for any of the following purposes. Subsection (1, e) says:
  "For prohibiting or imposing limitations on the taking by any person of water from a specified source, including a source from which any person to whom the prohibition of limitation applies has, by virtue of an enactment or of the ownership of land or of an agreement, a right to take water."
  So, if the owner or owner occupier of a certain farm has a water supply, he can be prohibited from taking any of it for his own use. Clause 9 (1) defines the source of water as including springs and wells. Clause 5 (2) explains what the penalty is if the owner, and perhaps occupier, of the farm in question takes any of what is now his own water. He may be imprisoned for three months and also fined £50. That penalty could be imposed, if the Order had been made, if he took so much as a few bucketsfull of water to water his own cattle on his own farm. Clause 7 (2) limits the right of claiming compensation for the taking of this water to one month after the Order ceases to have effect. The owner of the water might be imprisoned for three months after the termination of the Order, so he might be actually imprisoned for using a few bucketsfull of his own water for two months after the term of claiming compensation had expired. When I saw provisions of that kind I really was astonished that the Labour party were not satisfied and said the Bill did not go far enough. I understand that they would like to see such conditions permanently enacted as the law of the land.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. J. W. Johnston) has dealt
  530
  with the other question to which I wish to refer—the right which is to be given by Order to cease to provide compensation water for streams and rivers. But there is one point I would like to make with regard to it. Clause 1 (1, b) provides for the suspension of any obligation to discharge compensation water into a stream. Clause 6 (4) provides for money compensation being paid in the case of this compensation water not being discharged into the stream. I have found it extremely difficult to imagine to whom this money compensation could be paid for it to be in any way equivalent to the vital necessity of compensation water for a river. As my hon. Friend pointed out, to those who live in the river valley this money compensation could be regarded as no equivalent. It certainly would be no compensation to a fishery board. The fish might all be destroyed and, therefore, what would be the use of merely paying a certain amount of money to the fishery board?
  It induces the reflection in my mind as to whether it would not have been better to have dealt far more drastically with the matter under the provisions which are included in Clause 1, Sub-section (1, d), for the limitation of the use of water. It induces the reflection also as to whether it is better, during the few months of the emergency of a great water shortage, to have all the baths and other modern amenities, all using vast quantities of water, in almost every house, old and new, in the country, and to have an empty stream with no compensation water and no fish, and be, perhaps, like some unfortunate countries abroad in the summer—simply have, instead of a stream, a dry water-course, or perhaps what would be nothing better than an open sewer. Instead of that horrible condition would it not be better to limit our demands for water during an emergency to what satisfied our fathers and mothers and grandfathers and grandmothers—to limit our demands always to the use of water for drinking and for such ablutions as are absolutely necessary. Frankly, I would rather give up my bath, much as I love it, during the coming months, as my contribution, than see the rivers and streams in the country turned into dry water-courses and all the fish in them killed.
  The main justification for the Bill is that it is an emergency Measure and

  531
  only to deal with an emergency, but I am bound to point out that Clause 3 applies, as is stated, for an indefinite period, and that is, for all time. That fact, coupled with the frank statement from the Front Bench opposite, that hon. Members opposite would like to see these Clauses a permanent part of the law of the land and all the rights which people now possess taken from them permanently, makes one feel that it is very unfortunate that they should have to be put in a Bill presented by this Government to this House. I would rather have seen the situation dealt with, as I have said, by much more drastically curtailing the use of water in the present emergency.
  There one omission from the Bill. We were told when the Rural Water Supplies Act was before the House that it was a Bill merely to promote new water supplies in rural areas and that it did not deal with the present emergency. We were told that another Bill—this Bill—would deal with the emergency as far as the rural areas were concerned. But I can find no Clause in the Bill imposing an obligation upon local authorities to organise the distribution of water to cottages in cases where the wells or other sources of supply are dried up. A source of grievance in the countryside is the haphazard way in which water is supplied at all, and the way the normal small private supply has failed. While these great powers are proposed to be given to local water undertakers and to local authorities, I should have liked to have seen local authorities instructed that it was their duty to organise the distribution of water if there was to be a great emergency shortage.
  I hope that it may be possible to remedy this matter on the Committee stage of the Bill. Anyhow, I am glad, as this Bill had to be introduced, that it has been introduced by the present Government frankly as an emergency Measure, and that its main and most drastic provisions are limited, at any rate, to a matter of a few months, and I hope that long before hon. Members opposite take charge of the affairs of the nation we shall have got out of these difficulties. I feel certain that, as far as the timing is concerned, the Government have been very wise to put off the introduction of this legislation until it
  532
  was perfectly clear that by this means, and by this means alone, they could deal with the situation, and that legislation was justified.
  5.39 p.m.
  Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: ID listening to the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) I came to the conclusion that he had only one remedy for the present situation, namely, the limitation of the use of water. It reminded me of an incident which took place at the beginning of last week. I was walking in the country when a motor van passed me containing a large number of barrels. I saw on the back of the van a large notice containing these words, "Save your water. Drink more of X's beer." I take it that that will be the type of remedy for the situation which will appeal to the hon. Member for Barnstaple. I think that all Members of the House can give general support to the Bill. It is, perhaps, a little belated, and ought to have been introduced earlier, and if it had been so introduced it would have been possible in various parts of the country to have organised water supplies and the distribution of water in a way which would have enabled us during the summer to meet the situation in a more satisfactory manner. It is the magnitude of the calamity which the country may be called upon to face in connection with its water supplies which has really attracted attention at the moment. Do we realise that as far as a very large part of the country is concerned, including huge districts and hundreds of villages, it is not a temporary difficulty which we have to face? The difficulty has been going on over a large number of years. As in many other directions, it is when you get a serious situation that the legislature or the Executive realises that something must be done.
  No doubt hon. Members have, during the past few weeks, heard over the wireless broadcasts describing the situation in certain villages and in country districts in Essex and other parts of the Eastern Counties. I did not believe that such a condition of affairs was possible, but we were informed that there were large areas with practically no supply whatever of water which was fit for drinking. No wonder that we hear from time to time of certain epidemic diseases visiting those

  533
  areas. Neglect to deal with the situation in those villages is not due to the fact that the Ministry of Health have not repeatedly called attention to the danger which might arise unless something was done. Sir George Newman in his last annual report on the state of the public health has drawn attention to this matter, and also to what, at the moment, is the one way of dealing with the situation, namely, co-operation between local authorities, between adjacent councils, with the assistance of county councils. He says that it is possible to give several recent conspicuous examples of an entire lack of effective co-operation between such councils, and that there have been disastrous results. I do not know whether it will be possible, in connection with the administration of this Bill, to do something to ensure the co-operation of local authorities in this matter.
  The difficulty has been, as was suggested by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), that we have had too many authorities administering the supply of water, not merely public authorities but small water undertakings. Let me give a concrete example. Until the commencement of this month I lived in a large rural area where a portion of the parish has been embodied in an urban council area. The water supply of that parish was provided by three private undertakings. Also in a certain part of the parish was a rural district council. There was no kind of co-operation between those authorities, not even when there was an abnormal drought and the water companies were in difficulties as to the qauntity of water they could supply. Even now there are parts of the parish with no water supply, and they find themselves in considerable difficulty when there is any kind of drought. I trust that the principle which is embodied in this Bill, which is an emergency Measure, will not be lost sight of. The Government have certainly in the Bill adopted principles which might be embodied in permanent legislation.
  There are one or two other points to which I should like to refer, one of which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. R. T. Evans), and that is, the position of the country districts adjacent to the pipe lines of some of the great English cities. As Welshmen we have no desire for their
  534
  hurt. These great English cities and towns enjoy the benefit of the water which they can obtain from the mountains of Wales. Two if not three of the largest cities of the country have already secured an abundant supply of water from Wales. There is one great lake, nearly five miles in length, which forms part of the water supply of Liverpool. Not far from where I live there is a large lake which has been made to supply the Borough of Birkenhead and neighbouring boroughs. The tragedy of it is that the great mains which are supplying Birkenhead are about one and a-half miles away from where I live, and yet there is a large area in that district which has not an adequate water supply. A few months ago I put a question to the Minister of Health with regard to the supply of water to a small rural parish in the County of Denbigh, Llanarmon-in-Yale. I pointed out that the inhabitants had complained of not having an adequate supply of water and that they had sent a petition to the Minister with regard to arrangements for a supply to the area. The Minister replied:
  "I have communicated with the rural district council on complaints received as to water supply in this parish. They are investigating the complaints, in consultation with the parish council and the petitioners, and I am now waiting to hear from them. I shall keep in touch with the council."
  In reply to a supplementary question the Minister said:
  "I can only say that at the present time the matter is occupying their active attention."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1933; cols. 491–2, Vol. 280.]
  That was in July last year. I went through a greater part of this parish about 10 days ago and listened to bitter complaints that absolutely nothing had been done. There was no water available in a great part of the area. That parish is likely to suffer more during the coming summer than it suffered last summer, yet within 2½ or 3 miles of the village of Llanarmon-in-Yale, the Birkenhead water mains run. I should like to know whether in the Bill there will be any authority to the rural district council to get a supply of water for that area. It would be obviously impossible within a short period to arrange for a pipe line for two miles to a certain part of the parish, or perhaps three or four miles; but I notice in the Memorandum on water shortage which was published in

  535
  February of this year that there is this paragraph which says that in rural areas, when local sources are not available and other supplies cannot be readily brought to the districts by main, the district councils should consider organising the carriage of water from the nearest available source.
  Will the provisions in the Bill enable the Ruthin Rural District Council to go to the Birkenhead Corporation and ask them to enable them to take a supply from their mains and to arrange for it to be carried to different parts of the parish of Llanarmon, where there is no adequate water supply at the present time? I mention this as a specific case, because I believe it will be found throughout the rural areas of the country that there are scores if not hundreds of similar cases where it will be absolutely impossible for anything to be done in the way of laying pipe lines, but where without serious difficulty arrangements could be made for the carriage of water from the mains.
  I trust that the Bill will be placed on the Statute Book within a very few days, and that as soon as it has become law the Minister and his Department will do everything not only to encourage local authorities to avail themselves of its provisions, more particularly in the rural areas, but to bring pressure upon the local authorities. It is a trite remark that so far as many rural authorities are concerned there is no endeavour on their part to perform their duties in the direction of providing water for many parts of their areas. This Bill is of an emergency character, but Clause 3 (3) indicates that it may be much more permanent than would appear from the Title. I hope that it will be the first step in arranging for a national scheme for the supply of water throughout the rural areas.
  5.52 p.m.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I always like to be in agreement with the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones) because I feel then that I am on the side of the angels. To think that I have lived to see the day when we should hear of such a thing as a shortage of water! I was bred within six miles of Greenock, where six to 10 feet of water falls at frequent intervals in the 12 months, and where if
  536
  it was ever averred at any time that the day was dry the burden of proof would be upon the man who made that somewhat rash assertion. Here we are landed in the position of having a Bill of this sort brought forward by the Minister of Health. It is said to be only a temporary Measure. It is not a temporary Measure. This is only the thin end of the wedge. It will come on as a hardy annual. It practically means the mopping up of all the streams and rivers and water supplies under the control of the Ministry of Health; a body which I deeply distrust. It is a kind of almshouse or rest home for dud theoretical doctors. As a rule one finds in a country district that the medical officer of health is a kind of angel of death, for when he goes there he prescribes rules and regulations which generally lead to a substantial increase in the death rate.
  Sir F. FREMANTLE: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give particulars of those increases of death rate?
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I imagine that my hon. and gallant Friend knows of them very much better than I do.
  Sir F. FREMANTLE: I know nothing of the sort.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Then you have not been true to your job. I do not want to exceed the time limit in arguing that point, but I have had experience in other countries as well as this of the very disastrous results from the intervention of the so-called medical officer of health. I would not mind if they were always recruited from the practising doctors.
  One of the notable features of this Bill is the complete want of imagination on the part of the Minister of Health. We have heard about streams and water rights and all that sort of thing, but the Ministry of Health have their noses so close to the ground and their eyes so cast down that it never occurs to them to look up to the skies, whence the water comes. Why do they not harness the skies for the needs of the people? I have been in other countries where there is always, more or less, a permanent condition of drought and where the rain falls rapidly in a few weeks time. What do they do? They have very gigantic tanks round their farms in the little country places. In Salisbury, Rhodesia,

  537
  for instance, I spoke to one man who had between 20,000 and 30,000 gallons of water stored in tanks. He said to me: "I am not afraid of any drought; I have a 100 gallons a day here for a twelve-month." That is a very simple remedy for water shortage in the rural areas. Do not try to use water communally, as we do now; you will waste it. When I was standing as a candidate for a Glasgow constituency, one man asked me—I think he must have been a voter in Silvertown—whether I thought that a third tap might not be affixed to the main sink in Glasgow, where there is hot and cold water. He asked me if I would endeavour to get a third tap fixed, so that the voter might be able to turn on beer. I replied that I thought it was a very wise suggestion, but impracticable, and that I was afraid there would be great competition for it.
  We have a serious shortage of water, which is communally supplied. While you may get very considerable results by asking for economy from the substantial majority of people who possess a conscience, the considerable minority who have no conscience will be as wasteful as ever. The great advantage of the Rhodesian, Australian and African way of installing colossal tanks, holding 5,000 or 6,000 gallons of water, is that the water belongs to the individual householder, and it is his own supply, and a good supply. It is far purer and better water than we get from the surface of the earth. In Rhodesia, where so much tea is drunk, all the water is boiled. It is very soft water, with great cleansing properties, coming direct from the sky. You cannot get anything like it in this country. Here we have a remedy to our hand.
  Out there, there are motor lorries going about carrying great steel sheets and a couple of men can soon erect a tank. Here is a suggestion to the Minister of Health for the rural areas. In South Wales we have big works where people make steel sheets. Why not get thousands of these sheets and send motor lorries round every rural village and, by bulk production, enable tank storage to be provided. Every house in the rural areas of England, Scotland and Wales ought to be provided with one of these tanks, in order to catch the water from the sky and to enable the inhabitants to
  538
  tide over periods of drought. But I am afraid that that is far too simple and primitive and far too sensible a suggestion to be adopted by the Minister of Health. It probably never occurred to him. I have great pleasure in making him a present of it, and I leave it to him to see that it is put into force, because it can be done instantaneously.
  The rain is falling to-day and during the next few weeks there will be immense supplies of it. What happens? We have drained this old country to such an extent that as soon as the rain falls it rushes into ditches and then into the rivers, and we get no benefit from it whatever. In the old days there were not so many drains and it sank into the land and the people were able to stand, long droughts. But we cannot stand a long drought now because we have made such provision for running the water away. I suggest a method for storing our rainfall. In the old days, in my part of the country, we had a row of old casks, double the size of a hogshead, which caught the rainwater. Everybody had them, and there was no fear of a water shortage. In these days we can make immense tanks. In Africa I have seen them almost as large as this Chamber, tanks capable of holding colossal quantities of water. These might be provided for rural areas, and thus you would save water through the whole of the country.
  That is a sensible and practical suggestion which could be carried into execution almost at once to catch the rain which will fall within the next few weeks. Hundreds of motor lorries could be employed to transport the material and hundreds of engineers could also be employed; they would know how to put up the tanks. It would help the Welsh steel trade and give many engineers a job, and at the same time, temporarily at all events, solve the problem of water supply in rural areas. These tanks would remain for as long as they would last. That might be half a century or more, and they would provide in dry seasons for certain emergencies. Then we should get the country into a better condition by reafforestation, which has been so singularly neglected up to the present moment. If you get a sufficient number of trees you will always get a rainfall. In Africa there are no trees, and you get long periods of drought; in Malaya you get luxuriant vegetation and you have a river in a day

  539
  from showers of rain. That is a permanent remedy, which is needed. If we reafforest the waste places of our country and give the householder a water store of his own, from his own roofs, a long drought will have no terrors for him.
  6.3 p.m.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) has told us that he was born within a few miles of Greenock, and he has spoken of the heavy rainfall in that area. He will not, therefore, be surprised to hear that to-day, when other places are suffering from a shortage of water, there is no lack of rain in that quarter. I think he is under some misapprehension as to the Minister responsible for this Bill in Scotland. Let me give him my definite assurance that the powers contained in this Bill are under the administration of the Secretary of State for Scotland, so far as Scotland is concerned.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Let me assure my right hon. Friend that that completely removes all my apprehensions.
  Sir G. COLLINS: In that case I will pass on to the criticisms he made on the Bill itself. The Bill applies to Scotland, and the House may think it rather strange that it should apply to Scotland. Those who have been for a holiday in that area always come away with a rather mistaken impression as to our climate. Not only are the heavens very generous to Scotland, but there is an impression that we have more palatable means than water of quenching our thirst. That view is entirely erroneous. I can assure the House that Scotsmen not only drink water copiously, but that, whatever may have been gathered from memories of days spent north of the Tweed, the sun shines there quite a lot, and unfortunately during last year it shone so much that there is to-day in Scotland a considerable shortage of water not only in the towns but in the rural areas as well. During the 12 months ended February, 1934, the average rainfall in Scotland was not less than 25 per cent. below the average rainfall of the last 35 years. The actual fall was, of course, very much less in some areas than in others. The east and the south suffered more than the west. These two areas normally get least rain.
  540
  There is another factor that I wish to emphasise. Rainfall is not the same thing as a supply of water available to the community. Nature may be generous with her rain, but unless man constructs proper works he will not be able to utilise her bounty properly. There are to-day not a few communities in Scotland which have never had a sufficient supply of water, and there are others which in years of normal rainfall have never been much above the margin of safety. Inquiries which I have made show that during the past summer at least 57 of the 195 burghs in Scotland suffered from an insufficient water supply, and in the rural areas 87 special water supply districts went short of water, and 66 villages, which have no public water supply, also experienced deficiency.
  Let me give one or two instances to bring clearly before the House the exact situation. I take two parts of the country. In Fife there are 25 burghs, and in the county area a further 18 special water districts. There is a water shortage in Fife, but it is not spread evenly over the whole county. In various burghs and special water districts the estimated shortage is put at 2,200,000 gallons per day, but in other parts of the county there is a day's surplus of nearly 3,000,000 gallons. Clearly then, if we view the matter arithmetically, there is no shortage in the county of Fife taken as a whole, but owing to the inadequacy of the works in certain areas to catch and carry the water there is undoubtedy a shortage. The problem in Fife is to pool these resources. That is the solution of the problem, and the provisions of this Bill will render valuable assistance in such a solution.
  I turn to Moray and Banff. The coastal towns in these two counties have suffered much during the last two years from an inadequate water supply. In some cases the supply has been taken from burns and the water chlorinated before use; but even then the needs of the local hospital and some other properties could not be properly met. The problem there is very much the same as in Fife, but unlike Fife these two counties have no compensating surplus in the county areas. A new source of water supply is required in that area. This, again, calls for cooperation between the various authorities in that area, and the provisions of the

  541
  Bill will enable these sometime conflicting interests to be brought together and by that means assist in securing an ample water supply for these areas. I could give other instances, but these two cases are, I think, sufficient. Speaking generally, while the low rainfall of last year left our cities and many of our burghs in a fairly satisfactory position, in many small burghs and villages the water shortage was so serious that the normal sources of supply failed and recourse had to be had to inferior and sometimes inadequate alternative supplies.
  In considering this Bill hon. Members will naturally have regard not only to the present, but to the future. We have been directing our thoughts to that matter. We cannot say to-day that the prospect of 1934, so far as Scotland is concerned, is too bright. Waterworks in Scotland depend for replenishment upon the rainfall between November and March, and the rainfall this winter has been much below the average. In several places, along the east coast especially, the rainfall during the earlier months of this year has been sadly deficient. Let me give one illustration to make clear the position so far as most of Scotland is concerned. Take the position in the Stirling and Falkirk district. At the end of February the waterworks there contained only 100 days' supply, in contrast to their normal supply of 150 days. In some areas the position is much worse. The winter rains have failed to make good the shortage in the rainfall of last year, and in the light of this position, although hon. Members have spoken with some fears about the Bill, I submit that this proposed emergency legislation is necessary to deal with the position which we find in Scotland at the moment. The Bill has not as its object the final solution of the problem of the water supplies in Scotland. The problem before us at the moment is not only an emergency one, but we have also to consider the future.
  I have already mentioned that under the most favourable conditions there are a large number of areas in Scotland where the supply is inadequate. The sources and supply of water, however, are riot distributed—this is a matter to which sometimes sufficient attention is not given—with any close relation to the geographical limits of local government
  542
  areas. Not only are many natural catchment areas suited to supply much larger communities than a single burgh, or even a single county area as they do at present, but they are not infrequently situated at a considerable distance from the communities to be supplied. If the best use is to be made of our water resources and unnecessary expenditure to-be avoided, co-operation between local authorities is not only desirable but in many cases must be inevitable in the future. The problem needs not only a local and county outlook but a national outlook, and the Departmental Committee which was appointed last year to inquire into the health services in Scotland have been so impressed with the urgency of this matter that they have presented an interim report, recommending that a survey should be made of the water resources of Scotland forthwith. Steps are being taken to-day to survey the national supplies and national needs of the country north of the Tweed. The Rural Water Supplies Act passed a few months ago will reveal possible schemes of improvement, and will help, I think, to solve the financial problems of the rural areas which are certainly formidable.
  I propose during the coming months to seize every opportunity which presents itself for consultation between the Department of Health and the groups of local authorities who have an interest in a common water supply. Within the next few days the problem in Fife is being considered. Although the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. Johnston) has doubts, or rather fears, as to the interests of the consumers over-riding the river interests, I wish to assure him that while it may not be possible actually to advise all the interests affected by a direct appeal there will be notices in the papers so that all those interests shall be advised as far as possible of the changes which are proposed. I know that it may be difficult to hold the balance fairly between the consumers of water in these various areas and the river interests which are affected, but I assure the hon. Member that we shall do our best to safeguard the due rights of the river interests while above all things securing that the health of the people shall be maintained.
  6.18 p.m.
  Mr. McKIE: I am sure that all hon. Members and especialy Scottish Members listened with considerable interest to the speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I would go further and say that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health had convinced all Members of the House who wished to be convinced, of the necessity for steps of the kind suggested in the Bill being taken by the Government. While I may have some criticisms to offer with regard to certain points of detail in the Bill, I in no way associate myself with the reasoned Amendment which has been moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). He seemed to suggest that the Government were responsible for the sins of omission of Jupiter Pluvius which have led to the water scarcity in Great Britain, and that in this Bill they were following the example of the great Jewish law giver, Moses—so often cited by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten)—and were striking the rock at the last moment, saying "Here now, ye robots, must we bring ye water." The argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield was somewhat wide of the mark and will not be appreciated by the general public as he no doubt would wish them to do.
  The Minister of Health laid emphasis on the differentiation between the two Measures which have been presented in the present Session to deal with the question of water scarcity, namely the Rural Water Supplies Act and the Bill now under consideration. He said that the first Measure, dealing with water supplies in country districts, represented a long-term policy while the present Bill was an emergency Measure. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman stress the point that this is an emergency Bill, especially as he went on to speak of the likelihood of industrial revival and trading and commercial expansion. I think in what he said on that point he right hon. Gentleman put his finger on the spot. That is the crux of the whole matter. It is not merely a question of the scarcity of water at the moment caused by the drought conditions which have prevailed; it is also a question of making provision for the increased con-
  544
  sumption of water which we may expect in the not far distant future.
  We are often told that we may anticipate a considerable decrease in population in the next decade and perhaps afterwards. While that may be true I do not think it is an adequate reason why we should legislate in regard to water supplies upon a temporary or makeshift basis. There may be and no doubt there will be a decrease in population for reasons which we cannot at the moment exactly assign, but, even having regard to that possibility, we cannot say that the position in regard to future requirements of water is such as to justify us in attempting merely to tide over the period immediately before us. We cannot look to the future with complacency and say that matters will adjust themselves and so justify the adoption of a purely short term policy at the present time. The consumption of water especially in Scotland is always increasing. May I with due respect call the attention of English and Welsh Members to the fact that in Scotland we have always had a higher consumption of water per head of the population than other parts of the country? That is a fact, again, to which it would perplex most hon. Members to assign an exact reason.
  Sir JOHN WITHERS: In regard to the theory which the hon. Member is now putting forward may I remind him of the classical instance which is referred to in the Scottish historical poem "'Phairson swore a feud"—
  "'Phairson had a son,
  Who married Noah's daughter,
  And nearly spoiled the Flood,
  By drinking up the water.
  Which he would have done,
  I, at least, believe it,
  Had the mixture been
  Only half Glenlivet."
  Mr. McKIE: I hope that the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) will not expect me on the spur of the moment to reply to that reference. That is a poem or rather a rhyme of which I had no prior knowledge. I shall therefore have to ask for notice of his question. I was saying that the Minister had laid stress upon the emergency character of this legislation. I should like, with respect, to carry his argument a stage further and to suggest that an emergency plan need not be a makeshift expedient. As I say we must look forward to an increased consumption of

  545
  water having regard to the industrial revival and the trade expansion which is sure to follow the activities of the present National Government—prolonged, as I believe these will be, by the electors when the right moment arrives.
  I have reason to believe that many local authorities are seeking to cover up their sins of omission in this respect. Many have not made adequate arrangements with regard to water supplies—I am speaking now not of rural but of urban authorities—and they are seeking to remedy the position by suggesting the plan which this Bill seeks to legalise, namely, the taking of compensation water. As the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. J. W. Johnston) has pointed out, the Clause which grants power for the taking of compensation water reverses' a precedent which has held good in water legislation for 60 years or more. This is going back to 1845 or thereabouts when the first Waterworks Act was passed. In those days the trend of thought, characteristic of the days of the late Queen Victoria, operated in the legislation of this House. The idea was that you could make adequate return in terms of money for water which you took away from an area but after a lapse of 30 years we had a reversal of that idea. We then had the idea, which has persisted since, that when you took water away from a catchment area you had to allow for a certain supply going back to the area or the authority concerned, by way of compensation. That is why I have no doubt that questions will be raised in the course of the further proceedings on this Bill, with regard to what is proposed in this connection.
  In Debates on domestic and Imperial affairs, on financial matters or on matters concerning the position of this country in relation to other world Powers, we have had the view expressed over and over again that it is necessary to face the changing conditions of to-day with an open mind and to fight the battles of to-day with the weapons of to-day. I am not an advocate of rash experiments. I do not endorse the pleas which are put forward from time to time for inflation and reflation and huge expenditure on public works. But I wonder whether the provision of a proper water supply for the community, in both rural and urban areas, is not a matter in which we
  546
  might judiciously expend public money, realising that we shall get from such expenditure a proper economic return. We must consider whether the return from such an expenditure would not justify a small additional imposition upon many rich rateable areas who, with all due consideration for themselves, would be well able to bear the burden. That is why I very much hope that whoever replies at the end of the Debate will give us a little more illumination upon the question of compensation water, and tell us whether the Government mean to make this, besides emergency legislation, a long-term policy.
  I hope that, while realising the necessity for prompt action, they will have regard to the future and urge the authorities, particularly in urban areas, to follow on the line of thought that the city fathers in many cases 30, 40, or 50 years ago had in mind and have regard to the conditions which they envisaged would come to pass before three or four generations had passed away. A very good precedent in this direction is the greatest civilisation that Europe has ever seen, the great days of the Roman Empire, which have left so many landmarks, especially in the southern half of Great Britain. They stressed the importance of an adequate supply of water for the whole community. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) spoke of this as a Communistic Measure. If it be so, all that I can say is that Imperial Rome was Communistic also. We in Scotland, who have based our system of jurisprudence particularly on the Roman system, would naturally look for a precedent in that direction. I very much hope that we shall have a little further enlightenment and that the Government mean to stress, so far as is reasonable, the necessity for making due and adequate provision in time against the conditions that will possibly—nay, probably—prevail before many years are past. By so doing, I believe that they and we in this House, no matter what may be said about those who are always talking about the ratepayers, shall be doing what the people of Great Britain would wish us to do.
  6.33 p.m.
  Lord APSLEY: I should be more enthusiastic in support of the Bill if I really found that in my heart I could

  547
  share the fears of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health of an impending drought, but coming up from the West Country to-day, where it was raining extremely hard and where it has been raining for the last two or three days, and hearing that Scotland is under deep snow and, further, that there is every indication of more rain to come, and in view of the fact that we are quite likely to have a very wet summer, as we have an Australian test team coming over and an American polo team as well, I am not sure that I would so far trust the English climate as to predict a still further long state of drought. Still, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right; he cannot afford to gamble. He has to take the necessary precautions, and he would be blamed, if it should so happen that there was a prolonged spell of drought, if those precautions were not taken. But I would urge that he should not be pushed, by fears of a great and prolonged drought, into hurriedly rushing legislation through, possibly causing great hardship, inconvenience, and litigation difficulties in future, which the following generation might regret very much.
  At the same time, there are one or two matters which I am not sure that the Minister has considered, or at any rate dealt with in the Bill, and I wonder whether some possible further measures might be taken, or it may be that he has power under other Measures that have been passed already to deal with them. In the first place—and this is, to my mind, one of the real reasons for the state of water shortage which undoubtedly exists, particularly in the southern half of the Kingdom—there is the movement from the North, where there is usually an abundant rainfall, particularly in Lancashire and on the North-West coast of England, to the southern parts of the country, causing a considerable increase in the demand for water. Further, the southern half of the country having watersheds which are not of great height and a subsoil, in many parts of limestone or chalk, through which the water percolates to unknown hidden reservoirs, there is a considerable difficulty in supplying the volume required by many of these new industries. Perchance the Minister will consider dealing with this question under the
  548
  powers given to him by the Town Planning Act, which are now being put into execution and where new industries are being started in the South of England, perhaps he will consider the effects on the surrounding country of the increased demand for water and the possibility of its being obtained.
  Secondly, there is an increased consumption of water in the towns, though I am sure there will be no necessity for my hon. Friend the Member for Barn-staple (Sir B. Peto) to go without his bath. It is true that the increased custom of using long baths, with water laid on, causes a considerable increase in the demand for water as compared with the old-fashioned tub that you could have by the fire, which was equally efficacious and far more healthy and did not require anything like the same amount of water; but the amount of water used in baths is infinitesimal compared with what is used in other ways. To begin with, there is the increase in garden cities and in the number of gardens which are, quite rightly, supplied to practically every new house on the outskirts of our towns. A great deal of water is used there. Secondly, there is the increased number of motor cars, and they use far more water than any human being or even any family of human beings for their necessary cleansing. Without any doubt there is a considerable increase in the amount of water that is daily consumed by motor cars, all of which has to come from the watersheds all round, which may be, and are in many cases, running very seriously short.
  The hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) made a very sensible suggestion with regard to conserving rainfall, but he only dealt with rural districts. I would beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider that question also with a view to town districts. I have hardly ever seen a council cottage or a new house in any building scheme that was provided with a proper rainwater tank which would conserve the abundant water that can be gathered from the roof. Even a few days' rain like we have had would supply people with water for their gardens for a considerable time. I am not sure that water undertakings do not discourage it. In my own case, before they gave me a, service of public water from the company, they succeeded in compelling me

  549
  to close my well, and they tried to make me close my rain-water cistern as well; and I am not sure that that is not the case in other parts of the country also. It is a matter well worth investigation, as a considerably increased use of rain water might with advantage be made in towns as well as in rural districts.
  Another problem is the increased drainage that is being brought into use in agricultural districts, on account of which water is undoubtedly run off the land very much more quickly, and there is greater waste down to the rivers and the sea. The rivers rise and fall more rapidly, they do not keep their level, and you do not get the same seepage to the wells in the lower districts, which causes difficulties. But still more in the South of England is there an increased demand for water in the rural districts, and this, to my mind, is largely due to the increased amount of land that is growing cattle during the last 10 years. Uplands which used to be used for sheep and wheat now grow dairy cattle and stores for meat, and in the Cotswolds, where dewponds and wells were sufficient for sheep and wheat formerly, they are now asking for water to be laid on, and it has been laid on, in spite of the fact that by so doing the farmer immediately increases his overhead charges and then wonders why he cannot make a profit when prices for his produce drop. He has now got to pay a water rate on the rateable value of the land, and if he does not have to pay on the agricultural part of it, he has to pay on his buildings and, further, an increased amount on Schedule A, or on Schedule B if he is a tenant.
  These things are hardly thought of, but there is a continual improvement in the social service schemes which are produced from time to time, and every one of them, whether water, gas, or electricity, always means an increase in your operating charges. Either your rent goes higher, or, if it is a farmer, he must get a higher price for his produce in order to meet his overhead charges. I hope the Minister will give assistance in this matter and increase the conservation of water without incurring any great expense either to the public or to the users of it, and then, if the matter is not hurried unduly—and I hope we may get an abundant rainfall—I believe we shall have the measures that we require.
  6.42 p.m.
  Mr. TINKER: We oppose the Bill, but we agree that something ought to be done with regard to the water supply. Although we criticise the method in the Bill, one must join with the Government in bringing the matter forward, as a shortage of water is one of the gravest things that can attack any body of people. The Minister, in criticising our Amendment, asks what practical suggestions we have to meet some of the difficulties, and my contribution to-day will be to try to help in that direction. The Bill speaks of the co-ordination of water supplies, which means to say that if in one district they have more water than they need and some of their supplies are running to waste, then other districts can be allowed to have some of that water. Let me give one or two instances where, if this had been in operation before, certain localities would have had the requisite quantity of water instead of now being short. This week we have had a deputation from Lancashire to meet the Secretary for Mines, and we have been trying to get him to do something with the colliery owners to prevent the flooding of mines. In one part of Lancashire some time ago we had a pumping station that was yielding from 1,000,000 to 1,500,000 gallons of water a day to keep the mines clear, but owing to the lack of understanding on the part of mineowners, that pumping station was abandoned, and consequently all that water that was percolating from the surface to the underground workings prevented the mines from being worked.
  One can readily see that by a co-ordinated effort that water supply could have been made use of. Here we have to all intents and purposes a huge well cut through the water-bearing strata. There is a potential supply of water but nobody seems to want it. The hon. Member for Central Bristol (Lord Apsley) said that in Lancashire in times past we have been fortunate in having more rainfall than other parts of the country. It was considered unfortunate in those times, and it was said that we got more than our fair share. It was a common thing to say that it always rained at Manchester, and test matches have been more frequently postponed at Trafford Park than in any other part of the country. Such rainfall would not be regarded as unfortunate

  551
  now. We had more than we wanted then and that valuable thing which is so necessary for life has been wasted.
  Now we have colliery owners failing to come together to support a common pumping station and allowing mines to be flooded, and nobody is able to make use of that water. If this Bill will give powers to the Minister to say to such localities Chat this water must be got hold of, it is a step in the right direction. If, for instance, this water is running into mines round Wigan or Leigh or Bolton, it ought to be taken charge of and distributed to the nearest places where water is required. It is too valuable to allow to run to waste. One ought not to blame the Government for what nature is doing. I agree that Governments have to bear blame for almost everything, but no one can lay the blame on them for the shortage of rain. What we have to do is to try to give directions to places that want water as to what they should do when they have water within reach. I put that forward as a practical suggestion, and even if it is not taken notice of by the Government, I hope it will be taken notice of in the localities where the water exists.
  Another suggestion I have to make is with reference to baths. The "upper ten" look upon a bath each day as a necessity. In times of stress such as we are experiencing now, may I suggest to these people that they might well forgo their daily bath? We are going to tell householders not to use too much water, and I would say to the people who take a bath every day, that is, the rich people who have no need of it unless there is plenty of water, that, while there is a scarcity they should not have their daily bath. During the drought there will be a cutting down of supplies and everybody should give a share to the common weal. Those people who are advising other people not to waste water—a term I use advisedly—should look to their own use of water and cut some of their baths out.
  I would further suggest that the Minister should get into touch with the Postmaster-General with a view to advertising in the stamp books an appeal to people in the national interest to use water sparingly. A common appeal of that kind would have its effect, because if people realise what is required in the national interest they will generally
  552
  respond; and I feel satisfied that if they know the seriousness of the water position the people of the country will do what they can to save water so that we shall have ample supplies for really necessary purposes. I criticise the form of the Bill, and this and other Governments who have not looked ahead to such an emergency as we have now, and I feel that the suggestions I have made will help to bring to the notice of the people how serious the position is.
  6.52 p.m.
  Mr. CHORLTON: I view this Bill with very mixed feelings, no doubt because of the fact that I have been concerning myself with the water supplies of the country rather intimately for two years. I have felt that during that time something ought to be done to meet the conditions which were inevitably coming upon us. The resistance to anything being done has been to me rather remarkable. When one has a certain standard in the world in the engineering sense and one tackles a problem with a certain amount of care and caution, one can only conclude that this resistance possibly arises from the fact that one might be thought to be interfering with another line of country than one's own. All the steps that are now to be taken have been advised not by myself alone, but by many others before. We are now going to do violently what we should have done reasonably, carefully and efficiently if we had only started when so many people advised us to start. One can go back into the records and see recommendations from different commissions which have been appointed to look into the water conditions of the country, and to advise the Government. I will read the observations of one commission as an example—
  "The allocation of water has become too serious a matter to be left to a succession of Parliamentary committees which are constituted from time to time to deal with particular Bills."
  It goes on to say that the whole question of water resources of the country should be gone into and examined carefully, and then allocated properly afterwards, and it advises this to be done by a special water authority. Another problem which is being dealt with now, namely, the saving of compensation water, is an old trouble which has gone on for years and has repeatedly been brought forward and stressed. How is it

  553
  that this action has to be taken so suddenly? I can understand the Minister saying, "You should not take action until it is needed and, when it is needed you should take it strongly," but, on the other hand, if you do that you run grave risks of doing these things inefficiently. The Minister has an advisory committee of engineers, and how is it that for all this period some more effective action has not been taken and more foresight shown? Who is to blame? Because there is some blame attached to someone. While I am not against the action that has been taken, I think we ought to be told something about how the present position has arisen. I suggest to the Minister that he might consider forming his advisory committee on a much wider basis, so that it included far more interests. The use of water covers the widest field of any service in the country, and he would find some advantage from widening the basis of the committee.
  This Bill, in effect, is a pooling of resources. It provides measures whereby water in one part can be used in another part of the country where they have less. This pooling of resources, as the Minister knows, is what we have been driving at for a long time, and it could very well have been started before, but why has it not been started before? One of the reasons, it seems to me, is that the regional committees which have been set up all over the country to get joint action between the authorities have failed to act because they have no power to compel the adoption of the schemes they have drawn up and to bring them into force. That weakness has been repeatedly brought forward against the 1925 Act. It is said that the regional committees are nothing more nor less than meetings out of which people try to get all they can, and the idea of working together collectively to bring about different schemes has been very rarely carried out. Many of us know instances of this.
  Arising out of this Bill something ought to be done to bring about a very active carrying out of the duties which these regional committees should undertake. The Minister has said that this is an urban Bill and does not deal with rural areas because they have not water which they can pass about from one area to another. If they are not going to be dealt with now, how will they be dealt with later on? I ask that because the
  554
  rural areas are those that are suffering most, and we shall hear about them most later on. A lot of our water legislation fails because there is no compelling power to carry out the recommendations made by the regional committees, and even in this Bill very wide powers are given for orders of all descriptions, but I presume it must be left to the good will of somebody to carry them out.
  I would particularly like to ask the Minister what he proposes to do with reference to the rural areas, because that question is bound to crop up. Can we have some idea what steps are being taken either collectively or otherwise to bore wells here and there and to take water out of rivers? It would relieve a great deal of anxiety if, for instance, we knew that an active committee were dealing solely with the rural areas with a view to arriving at a definite scheme. I should like to ask for a few more details about what will happen when these powers are exercised. Turning to my own part of the country, what is going to happen about Haweswater? It is the biggest water scheme in the country, and is costing over £12,000,000, with a capacity of 75,000,000 gallons per day, which could no doubt be raised even higher. This scheme has been held up. I have suggested that it should form one of our natural reserves and be used to supply the areas contiguous to it. I should be glad to know whether any steps are to be taken to complete this reservoir to the full size, and whether there is any likelihood of such negotiations as those of which we have heard being conducted and of joint action being taken. Manchester and Liverpool, two large cities, have two separate water supply systems which have been entirely unconnected until lately. It has taken all these years to bring about a connection between Manchester and Liverpool through the water mains. Can the Minister tell us what is being done in that respect in other parts of the country? Are there any more definite schemes of pooling and of joint action nearing a head?
  May I refer shortly to London and to what has been said concerning the change in the demand of the South arising from the movement of the population and other causes? Whatever the movement may be—and it has been exaggerated—it is undoubtedly there,

  555
  and, as I have suggested on previous occasions, you will find before many years have gone by a population in the districts supplied by the Metropolitan Water Board of 12,000,000 people. To-day you talk about methods of conservation. Very good, but the consumption per head will inevitably rise, and if you have that consumption of 60 gallons—remembering that in Scotland it is over 100 gallons—the consumption will be 720,000,000 gallons. The present consumption is 280,000,000 gallons, and we are dependent on the Thames. Are you, in the future, with those figures in mind, quite safe? It would be a wise precaution to spread your risk and interconnect with other areas, and, at any rate, create still larger storage reservoirs in the Thames Valley where the inundation usually takes place.
  Can these things come within the scope of the Bill? They are strong measures. There is a possibility of big reserves of water being taken out of the Ouse, which is periodically flooded during the year. Storage reservoirs would get over that difficulty and provide storage for those areas in very dry years. The rainfall varies from 40 inches in Lancashire and on the West Coast to 20 inches on the East Coast, 100 inches in the Lake district, and 80 in the hills of Wales. The distribution of which the Minister has spoken is the distribution according to the month of the year, but our distribution is according to the rainfall and the part of the country. The interconnection of systems should be extended with this object in view. If the water is in the North, it should not be too difficult to devise schemes for helping the South. Los Angeles takes 280,000,000 gallons a day from over 200 miles distant, which is as though the consumption of London were drawn from the Lake district.
  Finally, I hope that the Minister, with these powers, will have a hydrological survey of the country taken to determine our actual resources and their full extent. Existing organisations such as the Ordnance Survey might be used, but if we are going to take real steps we must begin on a real basis, and that means an exact computation and allocation of the water supply in the country. The division of the country into regional areas should be then continued until it is complete. The committees should be set up to take joint action between areas
  556
  where it is required. Those committees operating in rural areas can then, if powers are given to them, see that the schemes which are devised are carried through. All existing systems should, as far as reasonably possible, be inter-connected. The general supply systems of the country are so large in number and so interlocked in their areas—there are over 1,100 in the country—that it is not difficult to carry out a great deal of interconnecting, and I suppose that the Minister, under these powers, will arrange for this to be done. I have dealt with the subject of storage reservoirs, which are not absolutely necessary, but as schemes which will employ a tremendous amount of labour they might very well be taken in hand at a time like this, as we know that from them we should get the requisite safety in future. I am very glad to see at last that this Department is about to take vigorous action, even if the vigorous action is not as effective in its results as it would have been if only it had been started earlier when we begged and prayed the Government to do so.
  7.7 p.m.
  Marquess of HARTINGTON: I have only one criticism to make of this Bill, but I am afraid that it is a major one. With the solitary exception of six lines on page 2, every provision must aggravate, prolong and intensify the unfortunate shortage of water from which certain districts have suffered and are still suffering. It might well be described as "The Foolish Virgin's Relief Bill," as it puts a premium on improvidence and imposes heavy penalties on forethought and the careful storage of water. It is a typical departmental Bill. It exhibits the failings of much Socialist thought, in that it confines itself to dividing up what there is rather than dealing with the situation by making arrangements so that there shall be more.
  The water shortage from which we have suffered can be cured in one way, and in one way only: that is, by adequate provision for storage. Some cities which have taken a wise and a far-sighted view have ample storage; other cities or districts which have taken a less enlightened view are to-day suffering from a shortage, and I believe that the only way in which the shortage will be permanently put right is by having

  557
  such popular indignation aroused that those authorities which have been negligent in the past will find themselves compelled by the pressure of their ratepayers to set to work to make adequate provision for the future. That is the only way in which permanent good can be done. Every Clause and every feature in this Bill tends to penalise either the individual or the water undertaking which has made good provision in favour of those who have not. This House should always be careful of emergency legislation. We hope that the crisis may pass away before this Bill finally emerges from the House, but, with the exception of the few words which deal with the conserving of water or the using of less, I can see nothing which will stimulate the conservation and storage of water supplies for the future.
  I am a water undertaker in quite a substantial way, and I view with great apprehension the provision which can compel water undertakings to deliver water to other undertakings. It stands to reason that every water undertaking is only too anxious to sell its water to as many people as it possibly can. That is what it exists for; that is how it makes its money; that is how it lives. It may be taken as absolutely certain that its only reason for refusing to supply to other undertakings or individuals is its fear that it may have to add statutory obligations to its own business. The undertaking to which I refer, of which I am a director, has, owing to the drought of this year, been approached by three villages adjoining its area of supply with a view to supplying them. That is exactly the right way in which these things ought to be done. The villages have in the past relied on their wells, but have decided that in the future they would like to have an assured supply, even though it may entail a water rate. We shall come before Parliament in the next few weeks for powers to extend our area of supply. That is how the thing should be done. We are now going ahead actively with extending our borings and increasing our storage capacity. Nothing, however, can be more disastrous than an undertaking, of the kind to which I have referred, having the fear that in an emergency it may be compelled by the order of an official to part with water which it has thought right to conserve to meet the
  558
  emergencies of its own ratepayers or customers. A movement of this kind must inevitably have the effect of deterring the flow of capital into water undertakings, tend to the diminution of security, and tend—especially in the case of private landowners, who under this Bill will run the risk of going to prison for three months for using their own water for their own purposes—to make the provision of storage for agricultural estates a less attractive proposition than it is to-day.
  The provision of water undertakings is one of the best possible outlets for the employment of capital. It offers a safe and adequate return, and it is not the least magnificent of the achievements of the capitalist system. Take, for example, the way in which London has, with its colossal growth, gradually been supplied with water, first by the New River Company and then finally by the magnificent institution which at present supplies it with water. Anything, however, which will aggravate the risk or minimise the attraction of providing storage—which this Bill must do—is in the long run prejudicial to the adequate supply of water in the future. If there is a shortage, that shortage can only be cured by the provision of more storage and greater supplies. Where there have been idle authorities, it is as well that there should be a shortage, even at great inconvenience, for a year or so, because that is the way in which an inert authority can properly be dealt with and made to provide storage itself, rather than stealing or begging from its neighbour in time of need.
  Parliament should hesitate before it upsets the provisions which have been made for compensation water. Those provisions have been carefully gone over by Committees of this House with the assistance of learned counsel, expert witnesses and water engineers. Pros and cons have been most carefully debated, and compensation arrangements have been arrived at with many considerations in mind, among others, what amount of water is necessary to keep the flow of a river going, so that it may not become either dry or an open sewer. Very many rivers have sewage discharged into them, and it is essential that there should be an adequate flow of water, otherwise the river will become a positive menace to the neighbourhood through which it

  559
  travels. That and many other considerations have been present to the minds of Committees of Parliament which have framed compensation agreements. Also, great distress may be caused to agricultural districts by depriving them of water for their cattle.
  We have a continual growth in the consumption of water, and I believe that no authority which has ever made adequate provision for water storage has ever suffered for it in the long run. It may have had to wait a year or two before getting its return, but, in the long run, the bolder view has had its reward. That view also applies to the provision of adequate compensation water. If this Measure becomes a precedent for enabling compensation agreements to be cancelled or modified at short notice when an emergency arises, it is bound to put a premium upon shirking and leaving things to chance. For that reason I believe the Bill may make things considerably worse in that respect, and, if the shortage of rain continues, this Bill may have no other effect than that of deterring individuals or local authorities from relieving the water shortage in the only way in which it ought to be relieved.
  7.18 p.m.
  Sir F. FREMANTLE: To an old county medical officer of health this afternoon's Debate has been full of interesting matter and has raised several interesting problems, not the least interesting being that raised by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) in moving the Amendment. We are discussing that Amendment now. That Amendment started with a general accusation against the Government on the law of averages. The first point to be considered is, At what stage is it right for the Government to take emergency measures in order to put an end to the risks? We all know that the weather is subject to the law of averages, and, although a certain section of the community may dislike our living on what they might call a gamble, that we are always living on a gamble or the law of averages. There is an upward and a downward curve in most things, and sooner or later the rainfall curve comes back to the normal. It would obviously be ridiculous for the Government to take emergency measures well in advance of
  560
  the expectation of shortage. The right hon. Member for Wakefield seemed to think that the Government ought to have taken these measures earlier, but he confused his argument by not saying whether he looked upon this as only an emergency measure or as a permanent provision. He definitely wished that it could be a permanent provision, but his criticism is too late from that point of view. If, however, it is merely an emergency measure and subject to revocation when the ordinary cycle of the rainfall comes to the normal again, it is clear that he has not proved his point that the Government have delayed their emergency measure too long.
  It is essential to the policy of us on this side, who trust local authorities and encourage private enterprise wherever possible, as opposed to Whitehall management of all the affairs of life, to let local authorities and private enterprise "feel the draught," so to speak. They have to wait until they see that an emergency is on them or is in sight before they will take measures. That is not the case, of course, with the pure milk of Socialism, for which I presume the right hon. Member for Wakefield still stands. He once said that this country could afford anything it needs. The question is, will it agree that it needs to take action for coping with an emergency before it has seen the approach of that emergency? Obviously the answer is "No," and if any Government were to insist on measures that are in advance of the need and which impose expenditure it would soon be disowned. Therefore, I do not see that the view expressed in the Amendment that the Government have been too slow in introducing their emergency Measure has been established.
  A second point of interest is, What is sufficiency? A large number of Members have suggested that there has grown up an idea that sufficiency is the maximum amount commonly used. The hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Chorlton), who has great experience as an engineer, suggests that probably 60 gallons a day is right, and that if we get only 50 gallons a day we are not getting enough. As medical men we are bound to admit that we are much too clean for the essential purposes of life, but it is now an accepted amenity to have a long bath installed in every cottage; we have got beyond the stage

  561
  when people said such baths would simply be filled with coal. Baths are used daily by the growing generation in all classes—not only among the more well-to-do. There are those who, like myself, have a cold bath in the morning as well as a hot bath in the evening. I like two baths a day, but for anyone to say that is necessary is absurd. There were three or four years during the War when we hardly ever got a bath, and we cannot say that we were any the worse off, though perhaps we were not quite such pleasant neighbours if we were introduced into a London drawing room. There is a perfectly false idea of what is necessary; these baths are, to a large extent, in the category of amenities, they are comforts, they are luxuries.
  The idea that it is necessary to have what is now considered a minimum is, from the health point of view, absurd. At the same time I should be the last to suggest that it is not a good thing to satisfy the general desire of the people to have their baths regularly, to have a sufficiency of water for things to be washed down and kept in a cleanly way. But that does not mean to say that in a time of drought, or if a person likes to live out in the country, he must be provided with 30 gallons of water a day. There must be moderation in this as in all things. We talk of a general provision of 30 gallons per head a day. That is all that is generally necessary even in an industrial town and with provision to be made for the washing of the streets, and we must remember that the requirements of the countryside are different.
  The problem is a much greater one in the rural villages than in the towns. I feel sure that with an enlightened application of the measures in this Bill, as well as ordinary precautionary measures, there will not be any serious shortage or any real hardship in the towns, but I am rather afraid of the position in the country. There is no doubt that a number of villages have suffered and may again suffer if there is continuation of the drought, and there is no question that there are villages which constantly suffer because no provision has been made for a water supply. It is not only for industrial purposes that extra water is needed. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Bristol (Lord Apsley) pointed
  562
  out that another cause of increased consumption of water nowadays is the change-over of agriculture from wheat and arable farming to stock-raising. Then there is the modern custom of water-proofing our streets, backyards and courtyards round houses, which diminishes the conservation of the rainwater, and is another reason why the ordinary rainfall is not sufficient nowadays. But in ordinary village life there is need for a greater provision of water in the interests of the rising generation. I am thinking more particularly of villages dependent on shallow wells. Such wells are hardly sufficient even in a good year, and certainly not in a bad year. Unless there is an exceptional supply of water in the sub-soil there are going to be great difficulties, and there ought to be a public water service to provide for the growing cleanliness of habits among the rising generation. I say definitely that the custom of a complete wash weekly—this could be quite well taken under a shower bath; a bath which takes 30 gallons of water is not necessary—which more than anything else has improved not only the health but the general spirit of self-respect of the rising generation and enables them to mix with people in a more comfortable position in life. There is a great deal in the demand for an adequate water supply, but we must not demand too much.
  One thing I must point out is that emergency measures interfere with things right and left, and create considerable anxiety for everybody who is likely to be hit. I am rather surprised that the Minister has not been attacked more for the strength and boldness, as the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. Leckie) called it, of the Bill. The Minister will make Orders which may be Very drastic and create a good deal of difficulty and personal hardship at times. That, however, cannot be avoided in emergency Orders. But I do not see any provision in the Bill for Parliament to review these Orders. Obviously these Orders ought to lie on the Table of the House. Ineffective as that provision is, it still does give some protection, and the House ought to have these Orders placed before it in that way.
  The last problem that is raised is a very old one—the question of the larger areas of water supply and of watershed areas. The right hon. Gentleman the

  563
  Member for Wakefield suggested a bigger area than that of the Metropolitan Water Board, which he suggested was not large enough. If you say that that is not large enough, I presume that you want to take the area right up to Wales and right across the country. That reduces the idea of watershed areas all over the country to ridicule, unless you are to go in for a national system. A scheme was very largely worked out by the late Lord Haldane and Lord Melchett before the War, and I remember that the British Science Guild made a very good report on the subject, and took a deputation, if I remember aright, to the then Local Government Board, urging either the provision, or an inquiry into the possibility of the provision, of a complete watershed for all purposes of water supply and drainage—the two should, of course, go together—and sewage disposal in a large scheme throughout the whole of the country. That was the intention of a large number of people who looked at the matter from a logical point of view.
  The more complete logic is not simply that of the experts, but of the Members of this House as to what is workable and what is common sense. If there is to be a national scheme it will have to be provided with an inspectorate from Whitehall, but if you are to go on the scale to which we are accustomed, and to work, as we do on this side of the House, for local initiative and private enterprise cooperating together, you have to encourage every kind of effort, and you must not mix up your powers or your authorities. You must not detract from the responsibility of the private enterprises or the local authorities by having yet another set of authorities to take away a large amount of their duties. To have separate watershed areas would, I believe, be a mistake. I believe that the water undertakings have to be used as they are, and that we have to work in with them.
  The point which comes in is in regard to the accusation which we are discussing in the Amendment as to how far the Minister, in trying to meet this emergency, has been sufficiently tender while being sufficiently severe, with the existing water undertakings. We have had evidence from the hon. Member for Platting who spoke as an engineer. I should like to read to the House evidence from my own constituency, and from the
  564
  local district gas and water company whose managing director writes to me:
  "I am writing on behalf of the National Water Policy Committee of the Institution of Water Engineers, of which body I have the honour to be a member, to ask you to be good enough to support their Bill which is now before Parliament. The Institution of Water Engineers is a body consisting of 769 members, and has in its membership practically the whole of the water engineers of the country. The Institution were honoured by the Ministry of Health in being asked to consult with them as to the matters to be covered by the Bill which is now before you, and it is the earnest desire of the Institution that the Bill should be passed."
  I believe that the Minister has taken the right step in consulting existing undertakings and responsible bodies in regard to this Measure and in bringing the Measure forward. He is right in limiting it to a period of six months as an emergency Measure, and I hope that the Bill will go through all its phases and will prove to be a very valuable instrument of emergency legislation.
  7.35 p.m.
  Major MILLS: There are two questions I should like to ask the Minister on behalf of the rural district council in my part of the country who are having great difficulty. Would the Minister be prepared to include in the Bill a provision enabling him, after such inquiry as he thought fit, to authorise the extension of the area of a statutory water company at the request of the local authority concerned? If that be not possible, and I see that there are obvious difficulties, would he consider taking powers to authorise a water company to supply water in this emergency to houses lying outside its own area, but not in the area of any other statutory authority? That, again, is the request of the local authority. The object, of course, in either case is to obviate the delay of an application to Parliament by the water authority.
  7.36 p.m.
  Sir WILLIAM JENKINS: I support the Amendment which was moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) because, even after the statement made by the Minister, I am not satisfied with this emergency Bill. It is said that the other Measure is a permanent one for the rural areas, but that this is a temporary measure applying particularly to the urban areas. In some of the urban and

  565
  rural areas of Wales there has been considerable suffering in regard to water supplies, and we are very dissatisfied with this emergency Measure. We believe that the time has come when the Minister should be preparing not only an emergency Measure but a comprehensive Measure to meet the needs of the nation. He said that we were going to tap new sources, to sink wells. If I remember rightly he said on the last occasion, when he was moving the Bill for the rural areas, that there was plenty of water. These are his words:
  "There is of course plenty of water under the soil, and that can be got by driving a bore-hole and by a small expenditure for a reservoir and a simple pump."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1934; col. 528, Vol. 286.]
  If that can be done at a small expenditure, what is the need for an emergency Measure of this kind?
  Sir H. YOUNG: The difference between the two Bills is the answer to that question. When I was dealing with the other Bill I was dealing with permanent conditions, and not the temporary conditions arising from the drought.
  Sir W. JENKINS: The temporary conditions to which the Minister is referring are also related to the permanent conditions. If the water is there and you know that it is there, why should you not take a comprehensive view and adopt a scheme that will benefit the whole of the people for all time? If there is any matter that calls for special attention, it is the question of the supply of water to our people. I sometimes marvel at the tolerance of our population who are deprived of what is essential for their lives. We are in a civilised country and we all love and our proud of our native soil. Consider the huge population of this country and how very scantily they are served with water in the midst of plenty—as stated by the Minister himself. I am astonished at the attitude of the Minister. The Government seem to be nibbling at the problem by this Bill. For the last 20 years, to my knowledge, the Ministry of Health have been discussing questions of water supply for various areas, sometimes for rural and sometimes for urban areas. There have been reports, commissions, Bills in Parliament and deputations from the country, and all those have been pigeon-holed. At the end the
  566
  Minister comes here with an emergency Measure to deal with the drought, and it is just for one year. Surely the matter demands more attention. The powers that have been given should be utilised, and so should the men who are in the Minister's own Department. The engineers of the Ministry are some of the most capable men I have ever met. I cannot understand why the Minister of Health has come to the House to ask for emergency powers when he could provide for the needs of the people by a comprehensive scheme.
  There should be a definite national scheme to provide for the needs of the people. After all the preparations, we are again considering a temporary Measure. I have heard the Minister on many occasions from this side of the House pressing the Government of the day to bring in Measures on sound business lines that would help the people; I do not consider that this Bill is on sound business lines because we are to spend money to meet an emergency in a way that will not meet the needs of the people. Local authorities in every part of the country have been unable for a very considerable time to come to an understanding with the Minister of Health in regard to water, and the method that is being adopted is not an encouragement to them. I have been at the Ministry of Health on some occasions when the Minister declined to give sanction to a local authority to go on with their water schemes because they said that the rate in the area was too much, and they were unable to meet any additional expenditure. When the last Bill was before the House we were asking
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): What schemes are those?
  Sir W. JENKINS: I am talking of the last scheme, put forward from the Gower rural area. The authority came to the Minister the other day and asked for assistance under the £1,000,000 scheme. They were asked "What are your local authority and the county council prepared to pay towards it, and what is the rural area prepared to pay? We will then consider what part we will pay and how far we are going to assist you." That makes it very difficult for a distressed area. In South Wales there are

  567
  distressed areas which are in need of assistance, and I would like to ask the Minister what financial aid is to be given to those authorities where they put into operation the emergency powers which are being asked for at the present time?
  I want to know also whether local authorities will be compelled or will be asked to carry out schemes in order to meet emergencies in their areas, and what grants-in-aid are to be given to those local authorities? I presume that there is no provision in this Bill—I have seen nothing of the kind so far—to provide for any financial assistance to local authorities. I know of both urban and rural authorities in Wales that will not be able to carry out any scheme unless they get substantial financial aid. I hope that those authorities will be assisted in some way, and that the Minister in this emergency Measure will consider making use of all the information that he has in his Department, in order that we may have a water supply for the whole country, and not merely one provided by emergency measures. Everybody in this country is entitled to have water. Why should they not have it, and why should not the scheme be provided by the Ministry of Health itself? Everyone is looking to the Ministry, and I hope that the Minister will take his courage in his hands and say that he will take the lead and will not allow us to remain as we are at present.
  7.47 p.m.
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I think I may say that, considering the nature of this Measure, the House in general has given its approval to it. The hon. Member for Neath (Sir W. Jenkins) called the Measure a nibbling Measure, but, whatever adjective one might choose, I should have thought that "nibbling" was the last in the world that would be applied to the Bill. The hon. Gentleman referred to an application by a parish in his county of Glamorgan which came before the Ministry under the recent Act. It is untrue to say that that application has been refused; what happened was that it was pointed out that the various authorities should pay reasonable proportions of the charge, and the county council and the parish in question are considering the matter further. It is untrue to say that
  568
  there was any refusal on our part. The main attack came from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood)—
  Sir W. JENKINS: With regard to the Gower application, the Ministry said that they must first of all know exactly what the parish council were prepared to pay, and, secondly, what the contribution from the rural area was going to be, and also what contribution the county council were going to make; and they were told that then the Ministry would consider what part they would take in the matter.
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Exactly; that is common sense. I am very glad that those points have been made because that is the whole essence of the last Act—that the charge should be reasonably spread between the various local authorities.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: I would point out that the county of Glamorgan includes areas like my own, which has already undertaken an expenditure, with others, of over £2,000,000 to provide themselves with water. Why should we be asked to help through the county council to provide water for Gower, and Gower escape?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: We are dealing now with a Bill which touches the drought emergency. The hon. Gentleman is raising a question touching the Rural Water Supplies Act, where that very point was raised. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield, in the reasoned Amendment which he moved, accused us of being both untimely and ineffective. The charge of ineffectiveness seems to have been dropped even by him, and, therefore, we are left with the question of untimeliness. The gravamen of the charge, as far as the right hon. Gentleman was concerned, was that my right hon. Friend ought to have taken action last summer, when he saw that for a month or two there had been an absence of rain. The right hon. Gentleman said that in November and December we ought to have known that, even if there had then followed rain for 40 days and 40 nights, there would still be an emergency. That may be true, but it would have been an emergency of a different character—probably one which would have justified our being asked for a subsidy for Arks. The simple answer to the charge that we should have brought in this Bill before is that there is, even

  569
  at this moment, no general immediate shortage of water. I am sure that my Noble Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) will bear out that statement. If there is no immediate shortage now, except in a limited number of areas and a limited number of undertakings, how on earth could the introduction of this drastic Bill be justified last summer, before the emergency had arisen? I can imagine what the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) would have said, and said justly. He was a little apprehensive to-day, and, indeed, anyone would be apprehensive when a drastic Measure like this is introduced. The only justification for it that the Government have is that the time has now arrived when the Measure should be introduced, and you cannot introduce a Measure like this even a month earlier than is justified. That is the first answer.
  The second is that, even though there is no danger of immediate shortage now, we have introduced the Bill so as to be in ample time for the problems that may arise in certain areas in the course of the summer. Undertakers who rely on surface sources, and, indeed, those who rely on deep sources, may find that the continuance of the drought will put them in difficulties in the summer, or even in the autumn, because there has not been the chance of that replenishment in the winter months which is so vital, particularly for undertakers who rely on deep sources of supply. Therefore, this Bill is brought in in ample time to enable those undertakers to cope with emergency as it arises. The right hon. Gentleman accused me of being gay and irresponsible because I designated as rubbish much of the talk in the Press about the shortage. What I did when I wound up the Debate on the last Bill was to deprecate alarmist talk which was not justified, and I gave several instances in which a complete misrepresentation about the extent of the water shortage had been made. I think I proved my point. But I never denied that shortage existed. What I said was that the condition as regards water in rural areas was chronic, and I notice that I added at the end of my survey:
  "Now we are ready with our emergency powers should the position worsen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1934; col. 594, Vol. 286.]
  570
  We had in mind then that, if the drought continued for another six weeks, an emergency would be inevitable.
  Mr. ATTLEE: The interesting view that the hon. Gentleman is putting forward seems to be entirely in contrast with what the Prime Minister told the House this week, when he said that he must have this Bill at once. He was extremely alarmist.
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I agree that we must have the Bill at once, to enable any undertaker who is suddenly faced with a shortage to use the provisions of the Bill. It is our view that probably the powers will only need to be used later on in the summer, except in a very limited number of cases, because in many cases the supply is still adequate, but, in order to provide for the minority, or even exceptional cases, we think it right that we should have these powers on the Statute Book.
  Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill is introduced in ample time, but the Prime Minister came rushing down to the House and said that the business had to be changed all in a hurry because of it. There seems to be ample leisure and ease on the part of the hon. Gentleman, but it seems to be all flurry on the part of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Do not let us quibble about words. For "ample time" let us substitute "right time." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield went on to talk about shilly-shallying in a national emergency. I think that here he was giving us a bit of autobiography which needs no comment from me. Then he passed on to discuss what was the right authority to supply water—the sort of body that it should be, and the sort of area that it should cover; and there was a good deal of sound sense in his argument when he suggested that often a larger area would be advisable. That is perfectly true, and it is the policy on which we have been working. In the rural district or the parish you must start with the small unit; no other method is of any use. But when you study the watershed you find that regional committees can well study the needs and arrange for the supply within the region of the watershed. That is the policy we have been following at the Ministry of Health, and we are still fol-

  571
  lowing it; and the time will come, of course, when we can co-ordinate the policy in some sort of national way through a co-ordination of the activities of the regional committees.
  The Amendment expresses regret that funds are not to be supplied to promote these regional committees. But, although there was a drought in 1929, the right hon. Gentleman neither brought in an emergency Bill nor suggested that money should be spent in financing regional committees, and, quite frankly, I cannot see what justification there would have been for doing so. At the present time there is no evidence that water supply is being stinted for lack of financial resources, except in the rural areas, and it was to deal with the lack of financial resources there that the Government gave a grant of £1,000,000. Outside the rural areas there is no evidence that water supply suffers through any absence of financial provision, and it would not be justifiable to bribe any local authority, or any number of local authorities in a region, to provide an essential service like water, which, as my Noble Friend the Member for West Derbyshire has pointed out, should as a rule be profitable.
  A number of questions were put to me by various hon. Members. Let me deal briefly with them. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. B. T. Evans) called the attention of the House to the water situation at Swansea. At Swansea, as a matter of fact, the reserves are not particularly low. The trouble there is not so much one of drought as of the expansion of industry, and Swansea is not so much concerned with this Bill. But any growing borough, and particularly one like Swansea, which is attracting, or may be attracting, new industries, has, as a matter of town planning, to study the future and consider the increasing needs of industry. That, however, is not particularly connected with the question of drought.
  The hon. Member asked whether the rural districts between Lake Vyrnwy and Liverpool had a right to tap that supply. The answer is "Yes." They can get the water at cost price. But I very much doubt if it would pay them. As a rule it would be much cheaper for a rural district to sink its own bore. The cost of water supply in rural districts is really the cost of laying the pipes.
  572
  He asked about the survey in South Wales which was made by local authorities. The evidence is still there and is available for any local authority that wants to see it. No doubt if our advisory committee, which is always considering the wisdom of establishing proper regional authorities, should consider a regional authority in South Wales, that survey will be of use.
  The hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple raised the question of compensation water and drew a graphic picture of what would happen if the compensation water were withdrawn and the stream dried up. It is true that there are cases where the authorities lower down the stream depend on the compensation water coming down. In a case like that the hon. Member can trust us. There are other cases where more water is going down than is necessary for the riparian owners or anyone else, and in a case like that, where the users of water may be asked to suffer restrictions, we must have the right to order a reasonable limitation of compensation water. There is nothing to stop the hon. Baronet from putting down an Amendment, and we shall consider it, as we always do. The hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones) raised the case of a parish of which I did not catch the name and which I am not sure that I could pronounce if I had heard it. He did not give adequate information. I should like first to know six or seven other factors, because as he stated the case to the House it seemed as if it came under our previous Act. If he will come and see me I shall be glad to consider the matter.
  The hon. Member for Central Bristol (Lord Apsley) said although he did not trust the weather he trusted the Government, and he went on to raise the very interesting question of the effect of industry in diminishing water supplies. That is a question which will have to be more and more considered. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), although he holds strong views which are not ours, made, as he always does, a constructive and useful speech. It may be that there are cases where water from mines might be taken over by local authorities or statutory companies. Some of this water would come out like soup and might need to be filtered, but it is a case that the local authorities might well watch. The

  573
  hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Chorlton) raised a number of points hardly any of which touched this Bill. He is so full of this water subject that he has brought down on us the speeches he made before experts on other occasions, and I should hesitate to argue with him on any technical point, because I should get the worst of it. I should like, however, to say that we have had throughout the benefit of the advice of the Waterworks Association and the Institute of Water Engineers. The hon. Member must not think we are just acting on our own. He asked what was happening in the rural areas. The answer is that things are happening. There has been a considerable shortage and we are now considering on merits a large number of applications that have come in. The hon. Gentleman knows that we have an active staff of water engineers who are always in touch with any area where there is a shortage, and as a result of their efforts and advice, after going round to about 100 areas, schemes are being actively promoted and we are getting on as fast as we can. Other points, such as what Manchester will do for water, do not touch this Bill, because it will be four or five years before the question will arise and it does not affect a Bill which deals with six months.
  Mr. CHORLTON: I asked if the authorities could take joint action.
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: If the hon. Member means that we are going to interchange all over the country and have what amounts to a grid scheme, that is not economical. It cannot be as profitable as an electric grid, and in fact it cannot be profitable at all.
  Mr. CHORLTON: I do wish the hon. Gentleman would do me the honour of reading the discussion. I am talking of interconnecting systems which are contiguous with each other.
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I have read most of the speeches of the hon. Gentleman with great pleasure, and I am still not convinced that it is a sound proposition, but I will argue that with him another time. The Noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire raised the question of storage, which of course is vital for undertakers or local authorities. Undertakers with large storage and reservoirs may, if the drought continues, have
  574
  to use this Bill. We shall not ask undertakers unreasonably to supply outside areas. Voluntary methods are the best, and the fact that this Bill is on the Statute Book may help the voluntary agreements of which we have heard. The hon. Member for the New Forest (Major Mills) asked whether in this Bill a statutory water area could be extended. The answer is no, but water can be supplied from one statutory area to another.
  Major MILLS: That is not quite my point. It was whether the Minister will take power hastily to extend an area supplied by a company if necessary, or, failing that, to allow houses outside the area to be supplied by the contiguous company?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Yes, but it is not necessary to extend the area if you give power to an undertaker in one area to supply outside its statutory limit. It comes to the same thing. There are powers in Clause 1 of the Bill which enable water to be supplied outside an area.
  Major MILLS: Does not that mean supplied by one statutory company to another?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I think I have given the answer to the question which was asked me.
  Mr. TINKER: Will the hon. Member say something about my suggestion that the Minister should ask the Postmaster-General to impress upon the public in stamp books the necessity for care in the use of water?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: That suggestion will be considered. This Amendment is really not justified by the facts. It is really an attempt to make a political question of the weather, nothing more or less, and it is due probably to the deep depression overhanging the Labour party. The Bill is introduced at the right time, neither too soon nor too late. It is an extremely practical Bill, though one of a nature with which I hope not to be too often associated. It can only be justified by an emergency, but it will for a number of undertakers serve a useful purpose, enabling them to dispense with the sometimes dilatory provisions suitable for normal times, and to have a machinery whereby they can get a supply of water in the quickest possible time.

  575
  Under this Bill the undertaker can go anywhere and do anything, and I hope the House, in spite of the Amendment, will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 184; Noes, 23.

  Division No. 196.]

  AYES.

  [8.14 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Petherick, M.

  Adams Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

  Greene, William P. C.

  Pike, Cecil F.

  Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Pybus, Sir Percy John

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

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro, W.)

  Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

  Apsley, Lord

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Hales, Harold K.

  Ramsden, Sir Eugene

  Balniel, Lord

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

  Rankin, Robert

  Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Ray, Sir William

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Harris, Sir Percy

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

  Blaker, Sir Reginald

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Rickards, George William

  Blindell, James

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

  Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

  Holdsworth, Herbert

  Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Hornby, Frank

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

  Runge, Norah Cecil

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

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

  Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

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

  Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

  Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)

  Browne, Captain A. C.

  Johnston, J, W. (Clackmannan)

  Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

  Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

  Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

  Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

  Salmon, Sir Isidore

  Burnett, John George

  Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

  Salt, Edward W.

  Cadogan, Hon. Edward

  Kerr, Hamilton W.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

  Leckie, J. A.

  Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

  Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Scone, Lord

  Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

  Lewis, Oswald

  Selley, Harry R.

  Clarke, Frank

  Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

  Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Lloyd, Geoffrey

  Skelton, Archibald Noel

  Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

  Loftus, Pierce C.

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

  Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)

  Conant, R. J. E.

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

  Soper, Richard

  Crooke, J. Smedley

  MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

  Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

  Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

  Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

  Spencer, Captain Richard A.

  Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Spens, William Patrick

  Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

  McKie, John Hamilton

  Strauss, Edward A.

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

  Macmillan, Maurice Harold

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

  Sutcliffe, Harold

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Maitland, Adam

  Tate, Mavis Constance

  Doran, Edward

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

  Duckworth, George A. V.

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

  Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

  Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

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

  Train, John

  Duggan, Hubert John

  Martin, Thomas B.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Dunglass, Lord

  Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

  Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

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

  Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

  Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

  Whyte, Jardine Bell

  Elmley, Viscount

  Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'tles)

  Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

  Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

  Morrison, William Shephard

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Moss, Captain H. J.

  Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)

  Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

  Mulrhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)

  Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald

  Wise, Alfred R.

  Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

  Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

  Withers, Sir John James

  Fuller, Captain A. G.

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

  Worthington, Dr. John V.

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

  Nunn, William

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

  Gillett, Sir George Masterman

  Palmer, Francis Noel

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  Pearson, William G.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

  Peat, Charles U.

  Captain Sir George Bowyer and

  Goff, Sir Park

  Penny, Sir George

  Mr. Womersley.

  Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

  Percy, Lord Eustace

  NOES.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Banfield, John William

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Smith, Tom (Normanton)

  Batey, Joseph

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Thorne, William James

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Lawson, John James

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Buchanan, George

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Wilmot, John

  Cove, William G.

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  Daggar, George

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Edwards, Charles

  Maxton, James.

  Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Parkinson, John Allen

  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  DISEASES OF FISH BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  8.20 p.m.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Not for the first time in the same week the house has to regret the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, to whom it should have fallen to move the Second Reading of this Bill. The topic is one of importance. From the point of view of both salmon and trout fishing, not only is it to be regarded as a sport enjoyed by individuals, but as a source of national wealth and of rateable value. There has been for the last generation a very virulent and rapidly spreading disease which affects particularly trout and salmon. So far as the scientist knows, it spread to this country from Europe through the importation of live trout. It made its first appearance in any serious form a year or two before the War. In the last few years it has spread with great rapidity through many of the salmon and trout rivers both of England and Scotland, and there is a general concensus of opinion among scientific students of questions connected with fish, practical anglers, fishery boards and angling associations that the time has come when legislation should step in to do what can be done to arrest the further progress of the disease and, if possible, to eradicate it. The topic has been closely examined and this view clearly expressed by a scientific committee which was appointed by Lord Noel-Buxton and Mr. Adamson, when they wore respectively responsible for the agriculture and fisheries of England and Scotland, and which has now published two extremely valuable reports on the subject.
  I need not emphasise the importance of both salmon and trout fishing. The value of the commercial salmon fisheries in Scotland, for instance, amounts to something like £400,000 a year, and those of England to rather more than half that. The value that attaches to a first-rate trout stream may be gathered from the fact that a single mile of one of the famous chalk streams of the South may be worth in annual value anything from £1,000 to £2,000. Therefore, the House will see that it is of very great import-
  578
  ance that rateable subjects of such value should not be allowed to be destroyed or put in jeopardy by the extension of this disease. As to the seriousness to which it can attain, this kind of fact—an example which can well be multiplied—will give some impression to the House. In one Scottish salmon river in one year there were picked up dead, killed by this disease which is called furunculosis, as many fish as were caught by the rod in the whole season.
  Hon. Members who are interested in salmon fishing know that one of the well-established facts in the mysterious history of salmon is that they always return to the river in which they are spawned. Therefore, if you get a sudden attack of this disease a very great decrease of the breeding fish is almost inevitable, and in the course of years the fish population will correspondingly decline. It so happens that these very severe attacks in the salmon rivers have been for the most part of recent date, and it is not yet possible to trace with accuracy how great the decline in the future population may be. The House may take it, and those who are interested in the Bill will agree, that the disease of furunculosis is a most serious menace both to the sport of angling and to the commercial side of salmon fishing. The most important consideration which ought to weigh most with the House is the question of the rateable value of the rural districts both in Scotland and in England where sporting and fishing rights are one of the main sources of revenue. The Bill comes forward in response to a general consensus of opinion as to the need of something being done, and the only possibility of a diversity of opinion is on the question how it should be done, and whether or not the Bill does enough, or whether, on the other hand, it does too much.
  The first provision in Clause 1 is, I think, accepted as necessary by all. It provides for the complete and unqualified prohibition of the importation into this country of live fish of the salmon species. The second Sub-section deals with the importation of live freshwater fish other than the salmon species, and the live eggs of any kind of freshwater fish, which can be imported into this country only by a licensed consignee, so that there shall be control of their importation. The reason why the importation of other freshwater fish is to be looked

  579
  after and watched and controlled is that, although it is the salmon species that is primarily subject to the disease, it also appears in coarse freshwater fish. I need not say any more in that respect, because as far as I know there is complete unanimity as to the necessity and value of the provision.
  The second main provision of the Bill is to the effect that when an area, either a river, a stream or a fish farm or anything of that sort, has been ascertained to be infected with furunculosis, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in England and the Secretary of State for Scotland in Scotland can issue an Order dealing with the situation. The situation is dealt with in two different ways. The Order may either control or prohibit the transportation and movement of live fish out of the infected area, which is an essential step to prevent any further spread of the disease. The second step which may be taken by Order is that any fish farm, or private fish hatchery which is found to be infected by the disease, may be ordered to be cleansed and the fish disposed of. That is probably the provision about which there may be some discussion, and perhaps it will shorten the proceedings if I do not enter into an argument as to the necessity of the provision, but rather wait and reply to any criticisms which may be made upon it.
  The third important provision is that where an area is suspected of being infected by furunculosis the local inspector may make a standstill Order. That is to say, until the suspicion is either verified or allayed, no live fish shall be moved out of the area. The period of the standstill Order is 21 days, or until the Minister or the Secretary of State decides one way or another either that it is an uninfected or an infected area. I do not think that upon that provision there will be any disagreement, except possibly upon the Committee point as to the proper length of time during which the standstill Order shall be in operation. The only other provision of general importance to which I need refer is one which, I think, will prove of great value. Even in a district which is not a suspected area, the local fishery board, or any occupier of a fish farm or hatchery or any water, may apply to the Minister here, or to the Department of Fisheries in Scotland, for an inspection of the fish in order to
  580
  ascertain whether or not the disease is present among them, and the applicant gets the advantage of the scientific knowledge of the experts from the respective Ministries free of charge, and receives a report on the subject.
  I attach importance to this point. It should be of great value, particularly to the commercial undertakings connected with the breeding of fish, to be able to get in this way without charge a clean bill of health. The only other matter which I need mention is that where a district is declared by the Minister to be infected, if there is a fishery board in the district, they are to be the executive board for the carrying out of the provisions of the Bill, but the main decision as to whether an area is or is not infected is with the Minister both in England and in Scotland.
  I have been very brief on the subject of the spread of the disease. Having regard to the evidence given in the most interesting report of the commission, I cannot but feel that there is here a real danger. It may be said that at this stage provisions less broad than those I have sketched might have been taken, but I think the House will agree that, with the pressure of legislation upon us, it is better on a question of this sort to take all the necessary powers at one time rather than have two bites at the legislative cherry. These, pending any criticism or any observations upon the Bill, are the only remarks that I will make now. I think I have sufficiently sketched the broad lines on which the Bill is based, and the necessity for its introduction.
  8.36 p.m.
  Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: The Bill has gone through its respective stages in another place, and is brought down to us. Apart from the smallness of the expenditure which will be entailed, which may be sufficient but later may be found to be insufficient, we think that nothing can be said. With regard to the purpose of the Bill we think it is perfectly laudable, and in the main we agree with it. We reserve to ourselves as an Opposition the right when the Bill comes to the Committee stage to examine it in greater detail, and if we find it necessary to strengthen the Bill or to take from it some things which we think are inadequate, we shall consider the Bill from that standpoint.

  581
  There are two points to which I would make reference, without going into them in detail; one is the fact that I have to enter my protest against the method the Government are adopting, namely, taking to themselves powers not merely to carry out the purpose of the Bill but to extend the application of it by Regulations and Orders in Council. If there are other classes of fish known to have, or to be subject to, this particular disease, it might have been as well to have taken all the powers in this Bill instead of waiting until disease breaks out in other classes of fish and then, by Regulation, which is a very inadequate way of legislating, to deal with those classes of fish also. I think that general powers, apart from those taken in the Bill, might have been taken by the Government, and then there would not have been two bites at the cherry, which the Under-Secretary says he is avoiding. We think that he is actually taking two bites. He might have taken wider powers now and have included every class of fish, instead of leaving it to Regulations or Orders in Council. When the Bill comes before us in Committee we may have to examine it in greater detail, and if we consider it necessary to strengthen the powers asked for or to deal with it in a wider aspect, we shall do our best to assist the Government in getting the Measure through.
  8.39 p.m.
  Major HILLS: I am in very much the same position as the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean). Although I support the Bill, I do not like some parts of it, and I welcome the Minister's suggestion that he is prepared to consider Amendments. I welcome also the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is in charge of the Bill, for he is a skilled practitioner in the ancient and reputable art of angling, and I am sure that he will do nothing that will damage the art, or interfere with the very great commercial interests which are attached to the supply of fish. I think that Clause 1 is admirable. It is quite right to stop the import of all fish of the salmon family into Great Britain. My objections are limited to Clauses 2, 4 and 6. Clause 2 gives the Minister power to declare an area an infected area. I should like to ask the Minister to define as far as he can what an area is, and what is proof of infection. Take some of the south country rivers. It is quite
  582
  clear from the report of the committee appointed by Lord Noel-Buxton and Mr. Adamson that in a great many of the south country rivers this unpleasant disease is endemic. Would an area mean the whole of a river? (Suppose an infected fish were found in the Test or the Avon, would the whole of the river be made an infected area? What is proof of infection? I will try to show that the disease can be dormant or latent in a river for years and only break out in certain special cases. Therefore, the first question I ask is the extent of the area that can be declared infected because of a certain number of fish being found dead or infected; and my second question is, what would be considered proof of infection?
  The Bill gives power to destroy the fish in a fish farm which is found to be infected with furunculosis. There are two sorts of fish farms—the fish farms which breed fish and sell them commercially, and the hatcheries of many private owners and fishing clubs, which are set up for the purpose of stocking their own waters, chiefly owned by fishing clubs. Nowadays fishing is no longer confined to private individuals of some wealth but, fortunately, is widespread, and through the fishing clubs it is now open to people of smaller means. Under the terms of Clause 10 (1) a hatchery is a fish farm even if it is not run for commercial profit. The Minister can order the destruction of the fish in that farm, and can prohibit the transport of live fish and eggs of fish and foodstuffs for fish to and from the infected area. In addition to the power to destroy the fish in fish farms, one very drastic power is given in Clause 2 (4) whereby the Minister can authorise the occupier of any waters in an infected area to remove any fish from the waters in that area and to do it by methods otherwise illegal. For that purpose he can, I take it, break the lease under which he holds the waters, and he can net the water and take out all the fish. It is rather remarkable that the Minister himself should have no such powers, and indeed it is impossible to exercise these powers, because you cannot get all the infected fish out of a river. Unless these powers are completely exercised they are useless, for infection spreads quickly and all the

  583
  sound fish left in the river would soon become infected.
  Take first the commercial fish farm, the man who supplies fish for the market or to stock rivers. It is quite right, when furunculosis is found in a fish farm, that the transport of fish from the farm should be stopped. Anyone looking at the report of the committee will see that infection is far stronger in rivers where artificial re-stocking has taken place, and will also realise that a good deal of the infection of furunculosis comes from these fish farms. They are not, however, entirely to blame, for the report says that probably the disease came from the Continent of Europe and from fish imported from there. But the case is different, I submit, where a private hatchery of fish is not run for profit, and where fish are put into a river already infected with furunculosis. It seems strange to put fish into an infected river, but I shall show what a strange disease this is. The Minister has the power, in the case of an infected river, to prohibit the import of eggs of fish. That is not an important question, as the committee says that the eggs can be disinfected. What is important is that he can prohibit the import of foodstuffs for fish into that area. In these private fisheries, where fish are hatched artificially, the eggs are obtained from the fish in the river, hatched artifically, and the fish kept in side streams of the river. If the river is infected, I suppose that the side streams are also infected, the whole area is infected, and if you cannot import food for the fish they must die of hunger. I see no evidence in the report that food is a carrier of infection. If it were a carrier of infection I should not have the least objection, but the food of fish is things like mussels, and it has been disproved that this disease exists in the sea. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure me on that point.
  Let me say a word or two on this obscure and very strange disease. It increases in summer at a temperature of about 60 degrees, and after that dies down in the winter; it comes up in the spring and summer, and then falls to almost nothing in the winter. It is worst in a dry season. It was demonstrated at the end of the last century that it was a bacillus, with whose name
  584
  I will not trouble the House. There is no doubt that the bacilli exist and bacteriologists all over this country and in America confirm it. I want to put to the Minister the experience of old fishermen who have lived on the Test for many years before 1894. It is believed by many people that the disease has always been in the Test, the Itchen, and other of the chalk streams. It is believed that it is endemic and that it does not affect the fish unless the fish are damaged. They may damage themselves by fighting on the spawning beds, or may be wounded by an otter. An established rule in most clubs is that all small fish, if they are landed, are returned to the water, and in unhooking the fish some of the scales may be rubbed off and the fish damaged. In these cases it is likely that the disease will break out, but, except for that, these fish are perfectly healthy, fat and lusty, and good to eat. That may go on year after year, yet this area may be an infected area. It is quite possible for the fish to be quite immune unless they are wounded. If this be so, and there is ample proof of it, then to carry off the fish in private hatcheries, except in the case of a bad outbreak of the disease, is useless. The report expressly says:
  "It is not practicable to eradicate or check the disease in an infected natural water course."
  You cannot extract all the fish from the river; that is quite impossible, but I agree that you should not allow fish from these infected rivers to be exported to uncontaminated waters; they would spread the disease. At the same time, you must not allow these drastic powers to an occupier to strip the river bare of fish, to be exercised where only four or five fish are affected in a big river. That is going too far, and it is an unreasonable power.
  The Minister has dealt with the immense value of these fisheries. They are of value to the home market, to local authorities and to the public, in what, I submit, is the most attractice of pursuits. We are all desirous of keeping down the disease. Some salmon rivers in Scotland are let at big rents; £1,000 and £2,000 is nothing out of the way, and it has been reckoned that the Test is worth about £10,000 per mile. I think that is too high. I should put it at about £5,000 a mile, but the House will

  585
  realise the immense rateable value of these properties, and I know of more than one case in which a landowner has been rescued from the bankruptcy court by the rent of his salmon or trout river. I know of a case in which a North country farmer bought outright for £50 the fishing rights of a mile of river. It used to be let to travelling anglers for £2 or £3 a year, but so popular has fishing become that from that bit of river, for which he paid £50, he now gets a steady income of £200 a year. That shows the way in which values have increased in recent years. As I say, we should not allow the transport of fish from an infected river to an uninfected river. Fish which are immune from the disease can be carriers of this disease just as there are carriers in the case of certain diseases to which human beings are subject.
  I ask the Minister is it not better to proceed gradually? I am rather inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Govan that the cherry will be more easily digested if taken in two morsels. Let him try the experiment of allowing the owners of fish farms and rivers to cure the trouble themselves. First, make the disease of furunculosis notifiable, and compel owners to notify the Fishery Board or where there is no Fishery Board, the Minister, when it is found to exist. Secondly, impose strict penalties for non-notification. Thirdly, I would place the onus of proof as to the existence or otherwise of the disease upon a man who did not notify, because I most earnestly wish to prevent the spread of the disease to untouched rivers. Fourthly, I would stop all transport until the Minister had granted a certificate of freedom from disease, and fifthly, I would insist on all waters being open to the inspectors of the Ministry and persons frequenting those rivers, although not themselves responsible, should be warned to notify the proper authority, if dead fish are found. But I should allow fish to be moved from a hatchery alongside an infected river if the infection was of the endemic character I have mentioned. Lastly, I should allow no transport of fish from a fish farm without a certificate from the Minister that the farm was free from disease.
  In those ways I think the Minister would achieve his object, perhaps more easily than by the Bill as it is. He has
  586
  very strong powers, and these enable him to destroy fish. These fish are a commercial asset. They are important businesses, these fish farms, and as I say the Minister has power to destroy them in the event of disease being found. If he would grant the reforms which I have mentioned I, personally, would accept that, without any compensation to fish farmers who have been warned that they have to notify and who have failed to notify disease and it is found to exist. They ought to know that the disease is there and they ought to notify. If they fail to do so and their fish are found to be infected, then I do not think they ought to be compensated. I am glad of what the Minister said in his opening speech, and I hope that when he replies he will deal with some of the points which I have raised.
  9 p.m.
  Major MILLS: I desire to supplement what has been said by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills). We all agree that the object of the Bill is admirable and I do not think that anybody could quarrel with the first Clause. But the methods of procedure proposed in subsequent Clauses seem to be drastic and oppressive, and almost dictatorial. If the Bill consisted only of Clause 1, I believe it would pass without opposition or criticism. The Minister said that the Bill dealt with both salmon and trout but the committee on whose report the Bill is founded was mainly a Scottish committee and were mainly concerned with Scottish rivers, and the infection of salmon. My right hon. and gallant Friend and I are concerned also with the case of trout in the rivers of Southern England though neither of us however desire to throw any reflection at all on the work of the committee. Clause 2 of the Bill begins by providing that:
  "if at any time the Minister is satisfied as respects any area that any waters therein are or have within the previous 12 months been infected waters, he may declare the area to be an infected area."
  Twelve months seems a long time to go back. After the lapse of 12 months the evidence would be vague, unreliable, and unsatisfactory and I would point out that it is 12 months as from any time and not prior to the passing of the Measure. I shall want proof of the reasonableness of that provision before I am satisfied with

  587
  it. I agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend top in calling attention to the unreasonableness of prohibiting the importation of fish food into an infected area. Why starve the fish? If they are healthy and it is desired to preserve and protect them, we should not starve them. They are more likely to give way to the disease if they are starved than if they are kept in good condition. I would emphasise the difficulty of the position on the Test and other southern rivers. In the main river there is the fishery and in the side streams there are nurseries supplying fry, yearlings, two-year-olds, and so on. These nurseries are carefully screened and it is impossible for any infected fish from outside to get into them. They should be looked after and protected in every way, and the fish in them should be fed.
  As regards an infected area there might be disease in the main river but the nurseries might be clean. If, however, the nurseries are inside an infected area they constitute a fish farm and the Minister can come along and order the fish to be destroyed. I do not say that he would necessarily do so but he might take that step as a precaution in some cases. But there is not a word in the Bill about compensation for the destruction of fish which prove to be healthy. Nobody would ask compensation for the destruction of fish which are diseased. They ought to be destroyed at the earliest possible moment, and no compensation should be payable in respect of them. But there should be compensation for fish taken as specimens by an inspector and subsequently found to be healthy. I will not deal at any length with Clause 4, for the Minister very rightly said that it was a Committee point as to whether 21 days were justifiable or not for the duration of a standstill order. I should have taken the most serious exception to that period, because I think the information as to the presence of the disease could be obtained in four days, and unless the Minister had gone to the Outer Isles, there could be no necessity for 21 days in which to get an order. The third Sub-section of Clause 4 states:
  "If any person entitled to fish from any waters, or any servant or agent employed for the purpose of having the care of any waters, has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the waters are infected waters, or observes any unusual mortality among
  588
  any fish therein, it shall be his duty forthwith to report the facts by letter or telegram addressed to the Minister."
  Obviously, any person entitled to take fish from the water must include a guest fishing in private waters, and it is intolerable to put on a guest the duty of sending a telegram or a letter to a Minister stating that he suspects the area to be infected. Even Cabinet Ministers go fishing and entertain each other fishing, and I can well believe that a provision of this sort might easily lead to a first-class Government crisis, which I am sure we should be very unwilling to see. Then the words "any servant or agent" would include the case of a servant under notice to leave, and it is a very simple thing to send a telegram stating that you believe a certain area to be infected. It needs no proof, and such a person could make an awful lot of trouble for his employer without being able to be got at in any way.
  The Minister, in his opening remarks, called attention to the fact that the powers in certain cases would be exercised by the local fisheries board, and not by the Minister. There is this slight difference that that applies to waters which are not fish farms, but in the case of fish farms the duty lies with the Minister, and it seems to me that that is an additional reason for differentiating between fish farms which are run for commercial purposes and the private waters of an individual or a club, or even a hatchery conducted by a board of conservators themselves. I am sure we shall have a conciliatory attitude on the part of the Minister, and I hope that the Bill will be much amended in Committee.
  9.9 p.m.
  Viscount ELMLEY: There is a feeling in the country that in some respects the zeal of the promoters of the Bill, naturally desirous to eradicate this disease of furunculosis, has outrun their discretion. Nobody wants to disparage the very valuable work which has been done in laboratories during the last few years on this subject, but even the new facts which this research has brought to light do not justify, to my mind, the very stringent powers which are to be found in Clauses 2, 4, and 6 of this Bill. There is the fear expressed by those who make their living from fish farms that it is very likely that they may have to close

  589
  down altogether, if the Bill becomes law as it stands. There are three main objections about which people are feeling strongly. There is first of all the question mentioned by a previous speaker with regard to compensation, either for samples or for healthy fish which have been destroyed. I believe that under the Food and Drugs Act, and certainly under the Livestock Act, compensation is paid for any stock or goods used or destroyed in this way, and I should have thought that the fish farm was as important to the man who makes his living by it as stock, live or dead, as the case may be, to those who make their living from them.
  Under Clause 4 it has been suggested that 21 days is a great deal too long to have a standstill order, and it is here that people are most apprehensive, because just about this time of year, when these fish farms do all their re-stocking, sending their fish all over the country, and in many cases all over the world, if a standstill order of 21 days was made on them with which they had to comply, the whole of their work for the year would be ruined. There are two further points. First of all, is it not possible that death may not be due to this disease? May not death be caused to fish by such things as pollution, lack of oxygen, or in some other way? Sometimes abnormally hot water gives the appearance of disease, although disease is not actually present. It is with those points in view that one feels that it is going a little too far if a standstill order can be made only on the supposition that there may be furunculosis present, and I am sure that if it was laid down in the Bill, when it becomes an Act of Parliament, that a standstill order was only to be made when it was quite certain that there was furunculosis, the Bill would command general support throughout the country. In conclusion, might I ask the Minister if he will be good enough to give serious consideration to these points?
  9.13 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir MERVYN MAN-NINGHAM-BULLER: I should like to support the remarks of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills). I think the Bill will meet with the approval of the whole House in its objects, but many of us are rather
  590
  doubtful as to whether it is setting about attaining them in the wisest way and whether they could not be achieved by much simpler methods. Everyone is anxious to see what steps can be taken to check the ravages of this disease. The first Clause deals very thoroughly and satisfactorily with the question of checking the importation of the disease from overseas. Then home waters remain to be dealt with, and it seems to me that they mainly fall under two different categories—first of all, the main rivers and streams, and secondly what are called in this Bill fish farms. Dealing with rivers and streams, once you have got diseased fish in those streams, I do not think there is very much more that can be done than to ensure that as far as possible the diseased fish are removed from those streams as soon as possible. The proposal suggested in this Bill that occupiers of streams should have power to adopt methods hitherto illegal with a view to destroying the fish in that river because of the disease will not, I think, be effective but will do great damage to the stocks in the rivers. All that can be done in the rivers is to remove the dead fish.
  The great danger with regard to the incidence of the disease is in fish farms. Endless trout streams are restocked from hatcheries, and once the disease exists in a hatchery it is liable to spread throughout the country. That is the great danger in the country and one which could most easily and properly be tackled. My view is not the same as that expressed by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon. The right way to deal with the disease in that case would be to make furunculosis a notifiable disease so that anybody suspecting the disease in any fish farm or stream should be compelled to notify his suspicions to an inspector, who would go down and confirm whether it was the true disease or not. Once the disease was proved on a fish farm, the owner should be prohibited from disposing of any more live fish until his farm had a clean bill of health. If the problem were dealt with in that way the responsibility would rest on the owner of the farm. It might be the simplest method for him to destroy his stock and to get rid of the disease in that way, but that is not by any means certain.

  591
  Experiments have shown that it may be possible in anything of the nature of a small hatchery or pool to cure the disease by the application of salt. Further discoveries with regard to that may be made in future, but if the disease were made notifiable and the removal of live fish prohibited until the owner got a clean bill of health, the onus would be on him to get rid of the disease in the way he thought quickest and most suitable. Anybody then who bought live fish for restocking would know that he was not getting fish from infected waters. If the Bill dealt with the matter on these lines it would be a shorter and simpler Bill, and would do as effectively as anything suggested in the Bill in the present state of the disease. Perhaps the changes that are made on the Committee stage will do something on the lines I have outlined.
  9.18 p.m.
  Lieut.-Commander BOWER: I want to say a word on the subject of the fish farms, which have been generally referred to. There appears to me a very good reason for believing that this disease has been spread to a certain extent by fish from these farms, but at the same time I feel it is important for us to remember that as far as the trout streams of this country are concerned, we cannot do without them. Like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills), I am more familiar with the Test, the Avon and the Itchen, but I am not thinking of those chalk streams. I am thinking of the streams in my own county of Yorkshire and all over the country which are fished by rich and poor alike to such an extent that, without restocking from farms, there would be no fish to-day. Therefore the farms cannot be done without. Fish from them have not only stocked this country, but practically the whole Empire during the last 70 years. Therefore, even if this disease has been spread to a certain extent, we must regard it as inevitable.
  I feel that this Bill appears to have proceeded rather with an eye on the Scottish salmon streams, and with perhaps not quite so much regard for the essential stocking of the trout streams. The salmon river has a more or less illimitable reservoir from the sea, although spawning takes place in the rivers, but the trout streams are dependent upon the
  592
  very slow rate of recuperation in the ordinary trout helped along by the fish farm. The powers under the Bill seem to be rather drastic. The bacillus of the disease has, of course, been identified, but beyond that we do not know very much. Even if that be so, and even if, arising out of that we have to adopt the kind of procedure which is adopted under the Contagious Disease of Animals Act in dealing with foot-and-mouth disease, it will be very hard on the fish farms—which are, after all, commercial institutions, if their stock in trout should be liable to be destroyed without compensation. Moreover a standstill order of such a long period as three weeks may occur at the time of year when all their orders are coming in and it may ruin their complete trade for practically a whole season. I do not think many of these fish farms could stand up to the provisions of this Bill, and I would ask the Minister to give some indication that Amendments will be received sympathetically, and perhaps some assurance that the interests of these important sources of supply for our streams will be borne in mind by the Minister at a later stage of the Bill.
  9.23 p.m.
  Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) was right when he suggested that this Bill wanted looking into. In the other place there were very few Members present when the Bill was passed, and it was rather rushed through. I hope the Minister will take account of all the speeches that have been delivered and will reconsider the Bill, for it is very difficult to understand and will need overhauling in Committee. I am taking part in the Debate because some of my constituents have asked me to support any kind of Bill that will do away with this horrible disease. I have also received many letters from fish farms and fishing clubs which are very nervous about some of the proposals in the Bill and do not want it passed unless the Minister can take the advice of the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) and others and will look well into it before passing it into law. The question of compensation is important because it is only fair that farms should receive compensation if their fish are destroyed because of the disease. I find it diffi-

  593
  cult to ascertain from the Bill what is to be an infected area. I take it that it will be something like the infected area in the case of foot-and-mouth disease and that a whole river or valley will be an infected area. When a standstill order is issued over an area with foot-and-mouth disease, the owners get compensation, and the same is true in agriculture for all those cases of which I know where a standstill order is issued over an area. It is only fair that the same rule should apply over rivers where a standstill order is put on for diseases of fish.
  Another point which has already been mentioned, and which I will not stress, is the prohibition of movement. Fish need not carry infection at all, but it is quite certain that if the owners do not know whether the fish are going to be destroyed or not, the fish will die of starvation, and the fishery owner will not only lose his livelihood, but unemployment will be caused. A point made by the last speaker shows the importance of the export trade in live fish to the whole of our Dominions, especially to Australia and India, where I have seen fish that have been exported from this country. I hope that the Minister will go carefully in giving every assistance to these fisheries. We cannot support or keep the trade going if the fish are unhealthy, but at the same time great hardship will arise if this Bill is passed as it is. I am quite sure, however, that the Committee will make a good Bill out of it.
  9.27 p.m.
  Mr. CONANT: After discussing for most of the afternoon a Measure which might have the effect of taking away the fish population of the country from their natural element, I hope that hon. Members will give back to them the result of that superior intelligence as regards diseases which some members of the human race appear to possess. Considerion of the reports of the Furunculosis Committee shows first of all that they have made some very valuable discoveries, and secondly that there is a good deal still to be learned. I hope that this research will be enabled to continue and that all possible facilities will be given. As many hon. Members have said, no one can object to the steps which have been taken in this Bill to prohibit and restrict the import of live
  594
  fish from abroad. If that one step had been taken as soon as the first interim report was made four years ago, probably the spread of this disease since that time would have been largely prevented.
  As regards control over the movement of live fish at home, naturally one is bound to meet with many objections. Everyone dislikes control. The main justification for control over the movements of live fish lies, however, in the discovery made by the committee and reported in their first interim report, that this disease is contracted in fresh water. Obviously, if salmon and sea trout were to bring in furunculosis from the sea, it would be very little use restricting the movements of live fish from fish farms or from one river to another. Since, however, it is definitely established, as far as I understand the first interim report, that the disease is contracted in fresh water and that it is carried forward from one season to another by the permanent inhabitants of that water, by the brown trout, grayling or coarse fish, and conveyed from one stream to another by stocking with trout from an infected source, control of some sort is necessary.
  The whole question is whether the control should be on a voluntary basis—this, I understand, of course with compulsory notification, was more or less the scheme outlined by my right hon. Friend below me—or whether it should be on a compulsory basis. Since this report was issued four years ago there has in fact been in existence some form of voluntary control. People have known these recommendations of the Committee; they have known the dangers which they run from buying and breeding trout from an infected source, and they have therefore been careful. Generally speaking, a voluntary system of control has been tried and has certainly failed, because this disease has continued to spread. That seems to be the main justification for the taking of drastic steps by the Minister to eradicate this disease. Since there is no known method of eradicating the disease once it gets into a stream, and compulsory notification is obviously a slow task and reliance upon a voluntary system will take time, the taking of drastic powers by the Minister is justified.
  I should like to make two criticisms to which reference has already been made. The first is in regard to the inspectors to whom the Minister proposes to give such

  595
  wide powers under Clause 4. These inspectors will presumably not have very great training in this matter, but will have power to make a standstill Order for 21 days. Furunculosis is not like foot-and-mouth disease; it cannot be determined except by bacteriological examination. You cannot tell definitely from looking at a fish whether it has furunculosis or not. These inspectors are not like veterinary surgeons examining for foot-and-mouth disease, and a fish may have died of furunculosis and not show any external damage whatever. The giving of these very great powers to inspectors, which must inflict some damage upon fish farmers, requires some justification. I do not say that it may not be necessary; I think perhaps it is, because it has definitely been proved that perfectly healthy trout can be carriers of the disease. That being so, it may well be that such a step as this is necessary.
  The other criticism that I should like to make is in respect of compensation, to which the hon. and gallant Member opposite has referred. The Minister is asking for very wide powers to compel, among other things, the owners of fish farms to destroy all their fish, whether diseased or not, and if necessary to bury the fish or to destroy them in some other way. They may not even send the fish to market. Surely in a case like that, as a matter of principle, compensation must be paid. The owner of a fish farm is not necessarily in a position to know whether the mortality among his fish is due to furunculosis or, as it usually is, to pollution. Obviously in a case like that some compensation should be paid. The principle that where, in the public interest, private property is destroyed, full compensation should be paid, is one which is accepted by everybody. It seems to me that it should apply in a case of that kind.
  In conclusion I would like to point out, as the Committee observed in their first report, that the seriousness of this disease as regards the salmon fisheries lies in the fact that it affects the potential breeders in a stream, because all the fish who die from this disease are the fish which have escaped the nets—for without casting any aspersions on the Chancellor of the Exchequer or any other anglers, the proportion taken by rod and line is nothing compared to the numbers taken in the nets. The whole of the fish which die
  596
  from this disease are the breeding stock of the river, and the future commercial value of the salmon fisheries of the country, which, as the Minister pointed out, is not inconsiderable, is affected. Therefore, it seems to me that in this instance these exceptional and very drastic powers may very well be justified.
  9.36 p.m.
  Sir IAN MACPHERSON: I quite realise that a Bill of this kind may be necessary, but I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has given some signs of hope that in Committee he will be able to meet some points of criticisms which have been raised. Along with many other colleagues I read the interim report of the Furunculosis Committee. From the information which I received from my constituency, I was compelled to read it with some alarm. No member of that committee had any practical experience either in the management of a salmon river or of a fishery. I happen to have in my constituency a well-known hatchery, and the owner of that hatchery has probably the greatest knowledge of fishing in the whole of the North of Scotland. I understand from him that there is not a scintilla of evidence to show that fish which are bred in hatcheries are ever the bearers of this disease. On the west coast of Sutherland fully 3,000,000 hatchery-bred fish, including salmon, sea trout and other trout of different ages, have been turned into the rivers, with excellent results and not a sign of disease. On the other hand this hatchery owner has ample evidence to show that fish coming in direct from the sea are bearers of this disease. The Committee appear to have assumed that hatchery-bred trout have been responsible for spreading, disease among the salmon trout and sea trout, but he is of the opinion, and he is not without a great deal of support, that the Committee have allowed themselves to be carried away by theories. In the North of Scotland, where this disease has been prevalent on the east coast, the view is held, and it is well worth consideration, that there has been pollution of the waters ever since the Navy has been up there, and that this has been the cause of this disease. I am prepared to substantiate that view with incidents which I have gathered myself.
  This Bill tries to get Parliament to grant the most arbitrary powers. Sup-

  597
  posing there is a standstill Order in any of the fishing districts in the north, what is going to happen? These inspectors, who may or may not be qualified, may be asked to schedule an area. There may be only one infected fish there, and yet the whole area is to be penalised, the man who earns his living in a hatchery is to be penalised, the fishing tenant is to be penalised—everybody is to be penalised. Supposing that by any chance fish which are highly diseased are swept in towards the seashore and are found there dying or dead. There is no proof that the disease is due to fresh water or hatchery trout. The evidence is that the disease has been acquired at sea. In such a case how can we ask a man who has got a hatchery such as the one I have referred to, which has supplied the best known rivers in the country with the best trout, and without any complaint, to sacrifice his livelihood? Yet two or three inspectors are to be appointed and equipped with arbitrary powers to create what is called a standstill Order, which would destroy the livelihood of that hatchery owner and destroy the rights of fishing tenants all over the area. There was never a more drastic proposal introduced into this House.
  The evidence which I gathered in a recent tour of the North is opposed to the view on which this action is being taken. I have the evidence of two distinguished men, Dr. Leiper and Dr. Ruston, who have proved conclusively that salmon come from the sea with the disease. Those two men bear names which are known throughout the whole fishing fraternity in this country. Those distinguished men have been led to the conclusion that the disease is more likely to be caused in the sea rather than in the rivers. If that be true, how can we give these unlimited powers to three or four men who may hold a quite different view without possessing the same evidence as the two distinguished men whom I have quoted?
  I was interested to hear what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Conant) on the subject of compensation. Is there to be no compensation? If we say that an area is to be scheduled, that all the fish are to be destroyed and no fish are to be taken from that district, is there to be no compensation to a man who has honourably built up a world-famous hatchery? I
  598
  would impress upon the Under-Secretary that if a man has established a livelihood under fair conditions, the Government ought not to say that for some problematical advantage his livelihood is to be destroyed without compensation. This Bill is one of the most dangerous I have ever seen introduced, and the House should hesitate a long time before giving it a Second Reading. If it does get a Second Reading, it should be on the distinct understanding that the Undersecretary is prepared to meet us on these important points of the standstill order and the granting to three probably undistinguished men, who may have got preconceived views about this disease of arbitrary powers over the whole fishing industry in the North of Scotland. Unless I am satisfied that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is prepared to get further evidence before the Bill is proceeded with and to see that the Bill is amended in a spirit of fairness which will ensure that no man is asked to sacrifice his whole livelihood without compensation on the arbitrary judgment of three commissioners I cannot assent to the Bill.
  9.45 p.m.
  Dr. SALTER: I have only a very limited knowledge of this matter, but I am bound to say, in regard to the word "drastic" that has been used in relation to the Bill, that the Bill is not drastic enough. What I am saying now is more in the nature of asking for information from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who is, I understand, quite convinced that this disease is spreading not only by contagion and infection of the fish in the sea, but through infected water. The committee definitely established, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that, if you have a stream which contains infected fish, you may tinker about as much as you like with standstill orders or anything else, but as long as there are infected fish in that stream, any new un-infected fish that may be placed there will inevitably contract the disease.
  People who desire to take a scientific view of this problem are of the opinion that once a stream has become infected there is no means of eradicating infection except by clearing out the fish and closing the stream for two years. Obviously that is not a practical proceeding with large rivers, or at any rate it would be a very difficult proceeding. Anything short of

  599
  that will not lead to the desired result, I am advised, because the endemic condition will persist, and unless measures of a much more drastic character than are indicated in this Bill are employed, the damage to the salmon fisheries will continue. I agree that the powers taken in the Bill to deal with hatcheries and fish farms are very desirable. On the other hand, if a fish pond is fed by infected waters, as some of them are, and particularly the side streams from infected rivers, you may clear the hatchery and get it quite free from infection for a time, but if it continues to use water from the infected stream the disease will be reintroduced unless the parent stream has also been cleared. The term "drastic" is applied to this Bill, but the Bill is not nearly drastic enough. I ask the hon. Gentleman to explain what of an important character he expects to achieve by this Measure, with the exception of the provisions dealing with hatcheries and fish farms.
  9.49 p.m.
  Mr. SKELTON: First of all I would like to say to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Sir Ian Macpherson) that he has certainly introduced a little Celtic fire into the discussion which we were conducting with that vision, skill and placidity which is characteristic of some of our Debates. I say to him at once that, so far as I can judge from the Debate, if his point of view is not going to be based upon the character of the report of the Committee and the findings which they have arrived at, he will have to fight a lone hand both in this House and in the Committee.
  The first characteristic of the discussions that have taken place is the complete agreement by all who have spoken as to the soundness of the Committee's general analysis of the situation. The time has long since past for propositions such as that this extremely obscure but now identified and segregated germ: has anything to do with exhaust petrol or oil from warships. That kind of argument seems to have analogy with the arguments of the time when people thought that eels were produced from the tail hairs of horses. I was very lucky in dealing with one difficult question upon which I might have found myself in difficulty. The hon.
  600
  and gallant Member for the New Forest (Major Mills) raised a question as to the rights of guests to catch fish—the entitlement of guests. I was in doubt about that legal question until my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General fortunately came in. He assured me of what I thought to be the case, that guests have no rights or title, and that if I am invited by my right hon Friend to dinner and I try to insist upon a second helping of lobster salad, I have no right to insist upon it.
  Let me deal with the criticisms and the suggestions that have been made, primarily in the speech of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills). There is general agreement as to the necessity of a Bill and of prohibition of imports from abroad, and as to the desirability of notification. I gather from some speeches, particularly that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Northampton (Sir M. Manningham-Buller), that this Bill does not contain provision for notification. I do not think that that can be seriously contended. The provision with regard to the necessity of notification is pretty clear, but if there is any doubt as to whether notification is provided for in the Bill let us make certain in the Committee that notification is in it, because that is our intention. There is general agreement that where you have an infected area it is essential that no fish from fish farms, private hatcheries or rivers, shall be cast forth into another area.
  Now I come to the point on which, I understand, there might be anxiety, that is to say the provision which allows the Minister to deal with fish farms. That point has been fully discussed, but let me explain that the very broad power is inserted in the Bill not for general use in the case of infection but as an ultimate power to be used in the case of absolute necessity. That is the only way in which such a power can reasonably be used. There is no foundation for the view that fish farms are in danger because of the provisions of the Bill. Hon. Members who are interested in this point will probably agree with the Government that it is better to have this power in the Bill, in the knowledge and upon the understanding that power of such a drastic nature would not be used except in the most exceptional cir-

  601
  cumstances. That power should be regarded as a maximum penalty. Everybody knows that a maximum penalty is not normally imposed, but is kept in reserve for very serious examples of an offence. This power is the ultimate power to deal drastically with very serious cases of infection. I do not myself think, nor do my advisers, that it will be necessary to put this drastic power into operation, except, as I have said, in the most unusual circumstances. Undoubtedly the power that will be put into operation, whether in regard to rivers, hatcheries, or fish farms, is that upon which there is general agreement, namely, the prohibition of transportation into a clean area. That clearly covers the case, to which my hon. Friend has referred, of a fish hatchery, because the fish bred in the private hatchery are only used for the relevant stream, and are not transported to other areas.
  Brigadier-General BROWN: I take it that these drastic powers will only be in the hands of the Minister, and not in the hands of the inspectors?
  Sir B. PETO: Does not my hon. Friend realise that, provided these drastic powers are in the Bill, what he is saying at this moment will not have the slightest influence.
  Mr. SKELTON: That is quite true, but the proposition that I was attempting to put before the House was that, whatever powers you give, you have a right to expect that they will be reasonably administered, and there is a usefulness in having them there. That is the whole foundation for the analogy which I have ventured to put to the House, of the maximum penalty. Many of the penalties which are put into Acts of Parliament as maximum penalties would be quite unsuitable if they were going to be the invariable practice. In the same way, when we are dealing here with the disease with the nature of which the House is now familiar, it would in my judgment be a great mistake not to arm the Minister in advance with these necessary powers against it, not for use in every ease, but for use where it may be necessary. Suppose that in a fish farm there occurred one of these very violent outbreaks, widely spread among the fish in the fish farm. It would be clear that drastic action would have to be taken, but even in that case the question of
  602
  how drastic the action would have to be would depend to a large extent upon the topography and other characteristics of the farm. It might be possible only to deal with a part of the farm, and so on. But these powers are put in the hands of the responsible Minister on the understanding, which is the basis of all such powers, that they will be reasonably used, and that, I think, is a proposition with which the House should not have any cause to quarrel. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon asked me some definite questions, to which he desires answers. In the first place, he asked what is the extent of an infected area. The answer is that it depends on the circumstances. It might be, as my right hon. Friend knows, a whole watershed, or it might be confined to a comparatively small tributary of the river. It is a matter of circumstance, and there again what is desirable, and what, therefore, will be done as far as possible, is that no district should be labelled as infected unless there is clear proof of that fact.
  Sir I. MACPHERSON: What sort of proof do you want?
  Mr. SKELTON: That again must be a matter to be decided in each separate case. I think one has to realise that it would be a matter for administrative decision what extent of disease would constitute such infection as to justify the area being notified as infected. Where you have one of these very violent outbreaks, it might be that the district would be deemed to be infected even at the very beginning of the outbreak. On the other hand, if the outbreak were more endemic, I should think it might well be argued that the discovery of one or two carriers in a large river would not of itself be a justification for declaring that the river was an infected area. These are matters which must be dealt with, and can only be dealt with, in individual cases, as I think the House will agree. I was also asked a question, which did not surprise me, as to the provision in Clause 2 regarding the prohibition of foodstuffs coming into a hatchery. I think that that is a Committee point, but I am bound to say that it is a point which, so far as I am concerned, I should not at this moment feel inclined to exercise a great deal of argument in fighting.

  603
  With regard to the question of compensation, there again it seems to depend largely on the extent to which it will be necessary to use the drastic powers. I do not myself believe that the drastic powers will often be used. I do not think it will be necessary. I think their existence will make the owners of fish farms set their house in order before it is necessary to use them, and, therefore, I do not think that there is any analogy as regards the question of compensation between the stamping out of furunculosis and what happens in the case of foot-and-mouth disease, which, when it occurs, can only be safely dealt with in one way, so far as we know, and that is by the immediate slaughter of all the infected animals. The value of those animals is, of course, often great, and clearly the only way in which the farmer can be recompensed for the loss of, possibly, the whole stock of his farm, is to give compensation. That is not the kind of situation that is likely to arise with regard to the fish farms dealt with in this Bill. The whole matter of compensation is one on which I think we may well expect to hear further discussion in Committee, when the general way in which we hope the Bill will operate will become more and more familiar to those hon. Members who are on the Committee. When the whole picture has been put before them in detail, the Committee, and subsequently the House, will be better able to form a final judgment on the question of compensation than when the Bill is being dealt with at this stage for the first time.
  I think I have dealt with all the questions that have been put to me, and, in conclusion, I would only say that the main question of principle which has emerged is whether or not it is wiser to confine the provisions of the Bill within narrow limits, or whether, when we are legislating, it is wiser to take wider powers, well knowing that circumstances will seldom make their use necessary, and that they will only be used in circumstances where it is proved to be essential. Even that matter of principle is one which could well be discussed in Committee, and for the present I think I need do no more than thank those hon. Members who have expressed their opinions on the Bill, and say that all that has been said will be carefully considered by the Government.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  SOLICITORS BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Beading read.
  10.5 p.m.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This is a Bill to prohibit bodies corporate from purporting to act as solicitors. The Solicitors Act makes it an offence for a person who has not a practising certificate to act or purport to act as a solicitor. A short time ago a company was formed which, whatever subsidiary purpose it had, was to carry out the acts of a solicitor, and it was held by Mr. Justice Avory and two other learned judges that a body corporate could not commit an offence against Section 46 of the Act. This Bill is necessary to prevent persons from imitating the activities of the body corporate in this case, and bodies formed to carry on the work of a solicitor will be amenable to the law as in the case of a private person. It is obviously undesirable that the responsible work of solicitors who, as the House knows are officers of the court amenable to certain disciplines should be in this position.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  GAS UNDERTAKINGS BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  10.7 p.m.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The House will not need any reminder from me of the importance of the gas industry in Great Britain. Coal is the one great raw material of which this country has such magnificent supplies, it is the mother of energy and gives us forms of energy which under modern conditions possess great utility and attractions. The gas industry had its origin in Great Britain. We were the

  605
  pioneers and other countries followed suit largely with British capital. Apart from the local authorities whose capital of course cannot be mentioned, it is calculated that the capital of the industry exceeds £140,000,000 sterling, the consumption is 300,000 million cubic feet per year and there are more than 10,000,000 individual consumers. We need not worry about the history of the industry, but the gas companies originally broke up the roads in competition with each other. The nuisance of breaking up a road so constantly brought the House in the middle of the last century to allow gas companies to be formed only in limited numbers and to allot to them areas. As soon as you had gas companies formed with an area to each you had a monopoly and the system of price dividend control began to be devised.
  I said gas was a convenient form of energy. One has only to think of it in comparison with solid fuel and to know of the adaptability of gas as a heat-producing method in industrial processes to which temperature control within given limits is extremely important and then think of the slow and varying combustion and difficulty of moving solid fuel to see what great disadvantages attached to the latter. Gas is an industry that supplies our needs in illumination, power and heat, carbonises large quantities of coal and produces by-products on which the well being of the country depends alike in peace and war. Why then is there any need for a Bill, and why in a session already full should it be necessary to introduce this one? Because committees which have been set up to deal with the suggestions relating to this industry have made reports, to which effect must be given, to free the industry from unnecessary handicaps in modern conditions and render flexible the supply of, gas in special circumstances. For instance, why should the slack time of the day not be used for the supply of gas to industry in a manner which would help the producer and at a price which would make it attractive to the consumer? Why should not the gas company furnish bulk supplies as the competitive fuels are able to do? Let me go through, quite shortly, some of the terms of the Measure itself, and make the position of the House in dealing with this Measure, with its 37 pages of print and large numbers of
  606
  Clauses and Schedules, a simple one. Apart from one or, two points, the Bill gives effect to unanimous recommendations made in the reports of the Gas Legislation Committee appointed by the President of the Board of Trade in 1931.
  The Bill divides itself up into several groups. "Capital and Renewal Funds" are all based on recommendations in the official report of the Gas Legislation Committee. Similarly powers have regularly been inserted in private Acts; it is time these powers were made general. The second group of Clauses dealing with charges is to give effect to recommendations in the second interim report of the Gas Legislation Committee, with one or two minor exceptions, that efforts should be made to extend the use of gas, and these methods of charging will help in that direction. The next group of Clauses gives effect to recommendations of the Gas Legislation Committee regarding non-statutory undertakers and certain others. There is a fourth group of Clauses providing Amendments to the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, some of which are consequential on Clauses in the last group and some assimilating the standards used in the sale of gas to that of other commercial measuring standards. There are a large number of miscellaneous provisions that have been found necessary principally as administrative measures with which, unless questions are raised, I do not think I need trouble the House at this stage in detail. They will, of course, be dealt with in Committee.
  There is one matter to which some prominence should be given, and that is the question of gas referees. When the sale of gas was regulated by the Act of 1920 the measurement of heat units was not in a satisfactory position. It was necessary to place responsibility for the tests in the hands of experts, and the gas referees who had previously been responsible for testing gas in London were the appointed experts. I should like to emphasise the debt which consumers of the gas industry owe to those gentlemen who, under the appointment of the Board of Trade, have held that office for so long. Only those in connection with the work that has been done can appreciate its value, and to-day, as a result, the determination of heating value can be effected for commercial purposes with

  607
  very great precision. The Bill provides an interval of five years before the office of gas referee ceases and the Board of Trade becomes the authority. There are other provisions which I think need not be mentioned in detail, but the Bill may be said to be a modernising instrument by which the needs of the industry, as shown by experience, are provided for, by which a certain elasticity is introduced into the working and machinery of gas supply and of the raising of capital by gas companies which has been found to be requisite. The legislation is brought about as the result of a committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Wrottesley, a distinguished King's Counsel and member of the Parliamentary bar, whose reports have met with nothing but praise. I think I need say nothing more than ask the House to give me a Second Reading.
  10.16 p.m.
  Mr. CLARRY: I am very glad that the Bill is going forward. I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman has the needs of the industry at heart and the industry may feel that the Bill goes some considerable way, but not necessarily all the way that they would desire. They feel, however, particularly grateful for small mercies as they are handed out. They have felt that the gas industry is more or less the Cinderella of industries. They have watched their more pampered and favoured sisters receiving gifts from the fairy godmothers, the Government Departments. Now they are very glad that some notice has been taken and that they are to receive something from the same quarters. I sincerely hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will regard with sympathy any practical matters that may be raised in Committee. In relation to charges, the Bill goes some considerable way towards the point which has been aimed at for a long time in order to give the industry an opportunity of meeting their great rivals under competitive conditions and knocking off some of the shackles which have been put upon them by legislation many years ago. The Bill, as far as it goes, is welcome, and I hope that we shall see a Measure which will redound to the credit of the Government, to the benefit of consumers and of the industry generally.
  10.18 p.m.
  Mr. PARKINSON: I am sure the Bill will meet with the approval of gas under-
  608
  takers. I should like to say something in respect of the miscellaneous and general provisions, because they seem as much out of date as they could possibly be and they are covered by legislation of 1871, 1847, and, I think, 1831. They contain many things which are not quite fair to the consumer. There is the question of entry on to premises, cutting off supplies and keeping appliances in repair. One point that I want particularly to mention is in Clause 18 (4). That Clause deals particularly with the cutting off of supplies. The cutting off of supplies may entail inconvenience and hardship upon consumers who to a large extent may be innocent of any misdemeanour brought against them. Power ought not to be given immediately to cut off the supply without notice being given by the undertaker that there is something in default. An opportunity ought to be given for matters to be put right before the supply is taken away. Clause 19 deals with the entry of premises, and raises the question of entering homes without authority. No authority is required by badge, uniform or anything of the kind. People are getting vary chary of persons coming to their houses and saying that they are so-and-so. These things ought to be looked into in Committee, and I have no doubt that they will be. Clause 20, paragraph (a), says that,
  "the meter shall be deemed to have registered erroneously to the degree so found since the beginning of the quarter next preceding the date of the test."
  That means to say, that if a meter has gone wrong, notwithstanding the fact that an inspector has been and taken the reading of the meter, the consumer is liable to be charged the full extent of the quarter preceding that in which the test was made. That is something which requires looking into. A charge can be levied against the consumer for a period of as much as 5½ months. Although we do not desire to discuss these questions to-night we wish to give an idea of what we shall expect to be done in Committee. Sub-section (3) of Clause 21 says:
  "Where a consumer is required by this section to keep in use any appliance, he shall at his own expense keep it in proper order and repair, and repair, renew or replace it if it is not in proper order or repair."

  609
  The appliance is something which is supplied by the undertaker, but the consumer is apparently compelled to keep it in repair and to replace it if necessary. That seems to be rather harsh. The interests of the consumers must be protected. In Sub-section (7) of the same Clause it says:
  "All undertakers shall have access at all reasonable times to any premises supplied by them with gas upon which the undertakers have reason to believe that a compressor or compressed air or extraneous gas is being used."
  What is a reasonable time? There ought to be some notice given by the undertakers that premises are to be visited in the belief that there is something which may be going wrong and about which they are not sure. The undertakers ought to consult the persons with whom they have to deal. I am satisfied that in the centre part of the Bill the undertakers are really being given too much power over the people to whom they supply their commodity. There ought to be a fairer balance between the two. I do not say that everything ought to go to the consumer or to the undertaker, but in this, as in many other things, the happy medium ought to be struck giving satisfaction to the consumer and to the undertaker.
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. ROSS TAYLOR: I should like briefly to comment on something which the Minister said. He said that, apart from one or two points, the Bill gave effect to the recommendations of the Gas Legislation Committee. There are one or two points to which the gas industry attach great importance, and I support the request from the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Clarry) that when the Bill comes before the Committee the Government will sympathetically consider Amendments which will strengthen the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  GAS UNDERTAKINGS BILL [Lords].

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Southby.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven Minutes after Ten o'Clock.

  UNEMPLOYMENT (PROFESSIONAL WORKERS).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (PROFESSIONAL WORKERS).
HOUSING
  RECONDITIONING, WALES.
  RECONDITIONING, WALES.
  SLUM CLEARANCE.
  SLUM CLEARANCE.
  BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).
  BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).
  ROADSIDE PLANTING (FRUIT TREES).
  ROADSIDE PLANTING (FRUIT TREES).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; and to be printed.
ILLEGAL TRAWLING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read la; and to be printed.
OVERSEAS TRADE BILL.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a; and to be printed.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

TIVERTON CORPORATION.
PETITION FOR BILL.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: Ordered, That the Bill he not further proceeded with.

MINES (WORKING FACILITIES) BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to present a Bill to extend to certain other minerals the provisions of Part II of the Mining Industry Act, 1926, relating to the grant of facilities for searching for and working coal, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

CORBY (NORTHANTS) AND DIS TRICT WATER BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
NEWPORT EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, this Bill deals with a number of matters concerning the operation of the national grid system by the Central Electricity Board. Perhaps you would allow me in a few sentences to remind you of the position which exists in that industry now, as a result of the operation of the Act of 1926. Under that Act the Central Electricity Board was constituted an authorised undertaker for the whole of Great Britain, for the purpose mainly of co-ordinating the generating of electricity by concentrating the production in a limited number of interconnected generating stations, which under that measure are termed selected stations. Those selected stations have to be operated by their owners under the direction, and on account, of the Central Electricity Board. That Board have to take the whole of their output, and in return they must provide the owners of these undertakings with all the electricity they require for their own purposes. In addition to that, they have to provide bulk supplies of electricity to other undertakers on terms which are set out at length in the Act of 1926. In other words, the Central Electricity Board has been constituted the central supply authority for the country, from which all other undertakers have to obtain their supplies in bulk either directly or indirectly. On the other hand, the distribution side and the commercial development of electricity have been left in the hands of the various undertakers themselves.
The national grid system is now practically complete and it is actually in full commercial operation in several of the regional areas which were set up. The various schemes have also determined what are to be selected stations. The experience gained during the construction and bringing into operation of the grid system has brought to light certain

541
doubts and difficulties arising in connecton with the provisions of the Act of 1926, and the Government feel that those doubts and difficulties should be resolved or removed in order to ensure the efficient working of the national grid system, as undoubtedly it was envisaged by the Act of 1926. That is the main object of the introduction of this Bill, and I think that the simplest thing for me to do would be to deal with the Bill clause by clause.
Clause 1 seeks to enable the Central Board and any undertakers who are the owners of a non-selected station to enter into arrangements on such terms as may be agreed for the control of the station by the Board, for the interchange of supplies between the undertaker and the Board, and, if necessary, for the closing down of the station. There are upwards of 450 existing generating stations owned, by authorised undertakers in Great Britain, and the national scheme, adopted for the whole of Great Britain with the exception of the North of Scotland, provided for 119 existing stations and sixteen new stations to be selected stations. There are already provisions in the Act of 1926 by which a non-selected station can be closed down if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Electricity Commissioners that the cost of production would substantially exceed the cost which would have been incurred had the owning undertakers purchased the like quantity of electricity directly or indirectly from the Central Electricity Board.
But there is another class of station to which I want to refer, besides these selected stations and that class of station which can be dealt with under Section 14 of the Act of 1926. These are the stations which, I think one might say, are not sufficiently important to be made selected stations, but which can produce for themselves at a total cost lower than the cost of taking a supply from the Board at the general tariff rates, and at the same time themselves continuing to bear the capital charges which remain to be paid on their own undertaking. This is the class of station with which Clause 1 is intended to deal. At present there is no particular inducement to these undertakers to become connected with the national grid system, but under the arrangements contemplated in this clause this class of station could very usefully be operated in conjunction with the grid
542
system for the remainder of their economic lives, with advantage both to the Board and to themselves. The Central Electricity Board have hitherto dealt with these stations by making special arrangements with the undertakers owning these non-selected stations for the control of the station and for the interchange of supplies between the grid and the system of such undertakers. Lately, however, doubts have been raised as to whether such arrangements can competently be made within the provisions of the Act of 1926, and this clause has been drafted to resolve that matter and to validate all such arrangements as have already been made.
Clause 2 seeks to enable the Central Electricity Board, in cases where they are satisfied that special circumstances exist, to quote special prices for electricity supply directly from the grid system to authorised undertakers to enable these authorised undertakers themselves to quote special prices to particular consumers, such as large industrial undertakings in their area of supply whose demands for electricity are of an exceptional nature. By the Act of 1926 the Central Board are only empowered to supply the undertakers in bulk, and may not supply direct to any industrial or other consumer in the area of the undertaker. The object of the clause therefore is to enable large industrial loads, which might otherwise be made by private generating plant, to be secured for the general benefit of the grid system in cases where the resources of the undertakers concerned would not permit them to quote a competitive price for the load in the absence of this provision. It is now already within the powers of authorised undertakers in general to make contracts for supplies at special prices in special circumstances, and it is in the general interest of the grid system and of industrial development generally—and I think your Lordships will agree—that the Board should have power to quote special prices to undertakers to enable the latter to meet the electrical demands of large industrial developments which might otherwise be beyond their resources.
Clause 3 deals with the terms on which supplies of electricity, taken directly or indirectly from the grid system by certain authorised undertakers, are to be passed on in bulk to other authorised

543
undertakers. I am afraid this clause deals with a very complicated matter, but I hope your Lordships will bear with me for a moment while I try to explain the point at issue. The Act of 1926 envisages that in the development of bulk supplies under the cegis of the Central Board the fullest use will be made of organisations such as joint electricity authorities and power companies already possessing powers to afford supplies in bulk to other authorised undertakers in their districts or areas. The Act makes provision that the supplies taken directly or indirectly from the grid system are to be passed on in bulk to the other authorised undertakers upon the same terms as they are received, together with specified charges and allowances to cover the transmission costs. A number of these undertakers possess extensive networks of interconnected transmission lines which are used not only for giving bulk supplies but also for industrial power supplies and possibly other supplies as well.
In attempting to apply the provisions of Section 12 of the Act of 1926, which deal with this particular point, difficulties have arisen in the past in determining the extent to which such transmission systems are used for the purpose of giving particular bulk supplies. It has also been shown that the application of Section 12 as it stands would in some instances result in considerable inequalities in the charges to be passed on, and would also upset the uniform basis of charge for bulk supplies which has hitherto obtained in various districts. I do not think it is anticipated that difficulties will arise in the application of Section 12 in very many cases, but it has been thought desirable by the Minister to introduce into that section a certain measure of flexibility. The way in which it is proposed to do this is by giving power to the Electricity Commissioners, if the Commissioners are satisfied that it is in the general interest of the undertakers concerned, to direct that the whole or a specified portion of a transmission system of any particular undertaker shall be taken into account, and the costs and charges applicable pooled and properly apportioned, in arriving at the transmission charges to be added by that undertaker in respect of individual bulk supplies passed on through the system.
Then we come to Clause 4. Clause 4 gives effect to a recommendation made by
544
Lord Weir's Committee on Main Line Railway Electrification, and it would enable the Central Electricity Board to give supplies for haulage or traction services to railway companies direct from the grid system. Provision is made in this clause whereby such supplies may not be given by the Central Board in the areas of undertakers who own selected generating stations without the consent of the said undertakers, provided this consent is not unreasonably withheld. Under the Act of 1926 the Central Board may not supply electricity to any consumer in the area of an authorised undertaker, and a railway company desiring to obtain a supply in that area from the grid system for railway electrification must do so through the authorised undertaker. The Act lays down the terms on which the supply received by the undertaker directly or indirectly from the grid system is to be passed on to the railway company for haulage or traction purposes, but I think your Lordships will agree with me that there is great inconvenience in the position as it at present obtains.
For the electrification of any length of railway line passing through the areas of a number of authorised undertakers and requiring supplies at more than one point it would he necessary for the railway company to negotiate contracts for separate supplies from the undertakers at each of the proposed points of supply. Under this clause, subject of course to the limitations which I have mentioned, the Central Board and the railway company would be in a position to enter into direct negotiations for supplies for railway electrification purposes from one or more points on the grid system; and I think I might point out in connection with this clause that it differentiates between the use of the supply for haulage or traction on the one hand and the use for other purposes of the railway company's undertakings on the other, and provision is made in the clause for the consent of the Minister of Transport to such other uses. This arrangement merely preserves the position which was laid down in Section 47 of the Act of 1926. That is a brief explanation of the only clauses that are of substance in this Bill. I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more at the present stage, but I shall naturally at the end of the debate do my best to answer any

545
questions that may be put. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(the Earl of Plymouth.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friends on this side of the House have asked me to speak on this Bill and to offer general support to it. We look upon the measure as useful and constructive, and I wish personally, if I may be allowed to do so, to congratulate the noble Earl on his clear and explicit explanation of this very technical measure. When the 1926 Act—the measure that this Bill seeks to amend—was introduced into Parliament, your Lordships will remember that originally it was intended that the Board should not only control the generation and transmission of electricity but should also be allowed to distribute. There was a very strenuous contest on that point, and the cave-men in the other place were so strong that they prevailed on the Government of the day; and the rights of the Central Board to supply direct were very severely curtailed, as your Lordships are aware. Nevertheless the 1926 Act was, I suppose, the greatest measure of collectivism, or perhaps Socialism even, we have had since the end of the Great War and, more remarkable still, it was introduced by a Government with an overwhelming Conservative majority. We now have the present Bill which carries the original intentions a short step further, and it is certainly very remarkable that it should have been introduced by another government with an overwhelming Conservative majority. As I say, my noble friends on this side of the House are agreeably surprised, and naturally we offer no opposition in principle.
I will, if I may, raise two questions with the noble Earl which are not absolutely clear even in his very lucid explanation, and not indeed quite clear in the Bill. Take, for example, the clause which will attract most public attention—namely, that enabling the Board under certain consitions to supply electricity in bulk to the railway companies. May I ask the noble Earl whether we can be assured that industrial consumers of electricity—and here, in passing, may I remind your Lorships that one result of the grid system has been to extend the use of
546
electricity in the country districts very considerably—will not have to pay for the cheap bulk electricity supplied to the railway companies? It is, I believe, a fact that the supply of electricity during the off-peak period in bulk to the railway companies will be most advantageous, but while being advantageous it will also have an effect on the general working costs of the whole system. I believe my noble friend will agree with me that these benefits should be passed on also to the general body of consumers, and certainly that the general body of consumers should not pay for the special advantages given to the railway companies. I do not think that is the intention, but if the noble Earl could make the position clear it would be an advantage.
Again on Clause 4, may I ask the noble Earl to make this point clear? Your Lordships heard the explanation of Clause 3, but I understand that Clause 4 will also be governed, broadly, by the provisions of Clause 3. In other words, will the railway companies bear the appropriate share of the costs of the frequency changes in respect of supplies received directly from the Board under Clause 4 to the same extent as proposed under Clause 3 with regard to what they will have to pay in respect of supplies from various sources? I am sure it will be recognised by your Lordships that that is a fair proposition; in other words, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and the railway companies should pay their fair share of the costs of the frequency changes.
I would now like to raise a matter of general principle on the Bill, and again with regard to the enabling clause to allow bulk electricity to be supplied to the railway companies. As your Lordships know, the electrification of the railways has been talked about now for some fifteen years, perhaps longer, and so far the Southern Railway is the only railway that has electrified to any great extent. Since the Weir Committee's Report there have been certain technical changes in railway engineering, and I understand now that there is a hot debate between those who believe that the whole railway system of the country should be electrified—that is, not only in the thickly-populated industrialised areas where there is very frequent running of trains, as in the Southern Railway's area,

547
and where there is obviously a clear case for electrification, but also in the sparsely-populated areas through which the long-distance lines run—and those who take a contrary view. If the view of those who want all the railways electrified prevails, it will benefit the grid considerably, because the Central Board want to use their electricity in the more sparsely-populated and less-industrialised districts. The other school say that there should be no electrified railways except in the great centres of population and industry, and that the Diesel engine should be used.
I do not know which school of thought will prevail, and I am certainly not going to attempt to say which is right; but this is certain. Supposing in the next fifteen years the other three railway groups are electrified and "Dieseled," or entirely electrified, whichever prevails there will be a saving in the coal used. That will affect the mining industry. It will throw more miners out of work and create troubles in the mining industry. So we shall have this situation, that the Central Electricity Board, by supplying bulk electricity cheaply to the railway companies, will enable the railway companies to use a great deal of electricity in place of coal, and that will displace miners and depress the mining industry generally. And who benefits? The nation as a whole? Yes, but one section, a great number of workmen engaged in the important mining industry, will suffer. Members of the Party to which I belong have been advocating in this House and another place for many years that there should be an even greater co-ordination, not only of the generation and distribution and sale of electrical power, but also of the supply of coal from which the greater part of the electricity supply of this country is generated. May I put it in another way? If you are going to benefit by electrification, a part of the profits or savings which result should go to support the great mining industry. If you put mining and the winning of coal in one water-tight compartment and separate it from the use of coal for the generation of electricity—and for that matter for the production of oil for use in the Diesel engines and chemicals and so on—you will be doing an injustice to a great industry. It is all very well for the financial people who control mining, the power
548
stations, and the chemical factories. They do not suffer. But we are thinking of the 600,000 men employed in the mining industry, who have been through very hard times indeed. It is admittedly a part of the Socialist policy that they should not suffer.
There is one other point of broad principle to which I would like to refer. Your Lordships will presently be invited to consider an emergency measure dealing with the supply of water. This affects the supply of electricity very intimately. As your Lordships are aware, in a national water system you would use the very cheapest power for pumping, which is electricity, to a very great extent, and it is particularly appropriate to use electricity for this purpose, because here you can use the off-peak load, the electricity of the slack period of the day, for pumping and, therefore, you would level out the whole cost of your generation, distribution and transmission. The noble Earl explained to us that Clause 4 enables electricity to be supplied to the railway companies under certain safeguards. Have the Government considered a similar enabling clause for the Electricity Board to enable it to supply electricity to central water authorities for pumping purposes? I submit that that is a matter of great substance which has become more urgent owing to the water conditions in the country, and it will have to engage the attention of the Cabinet very seriously indeed. I would ask the noble Earl if that could be looked into by his very able advisers in the Department.
This Bill carries us a little step forward towards the public control of all power in electricity. It is, therefore, to be welcomed. We none of us want to see any injustice done to those who have developed the electrical undertakings. I believe they are safeguarded, but there may have to be some further safeguard to see that they are not unfairly treated. I think we are justified in asking that the general body of consumers shall also have their interests safeguarded. With those observations I offer the support of my noble friends to this very useful measure.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I must congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, upon the admirable and, if I may say so, the ingenious way in which

549
he has introduced this Bill on Second Reading. If it were not that I had some knowledge of the subject with which he has dealt I might have found myself convinced by the arguments which he set forth this afternoon in favour of the Bill. But I have studied the Bill very carefully indeed and I have come to the conclusion, in spite of the arguments advanced by the noble Earl, that this Bill ought not to be allowed to pass through your Lordships' House without very important modifications. If I had had any doubt in my mind as to the Bill when. I came to your Lordships' House, those doubts would certainly have been dispelled by the speech to which we have listened from the noble Lord who has just sat down. I feel inclined to suggest to my noble friend that this Bill may become a hornet's nest. I will ask your Lordships to bear with me while I put the other side of the question to that presented by my noble friend.
As I construe this Bill it is in direct contravention of certain very definite principles contained in the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926. By that Act, as the noble Earl has said, the Central Electricity Board was established. That Board was to create a grid system circulatory of Great Britain. When it began to function it was to supply electricity in bulk at wholesale prices to authorised undertakers. Those authorised undertakers in turn were to give retail supplies in their authorised areas. There were, in addition, certain provisions in that Act for dealing with the interim period during which the grid system was being formed. The main principle of the Bill was that, except in one case—that was the railway companies—no preference or favour was to be shown to individual undertakers, and that they all should be treated alike. Another definite principle was that so soon as the authorised undertakers in any area had been approved by the Electricity Commissioners—and subsequently by Parliamentary Order—any electricity in that area, whether obtained from the grid or otherwise, was to be supplied only through the authorised undertakers. The grid was only to supply electricity in bulk and not retail. There was a third very important principle contained in that Act. That was that although the railway companies were to be preferentially treated, in so far as they were to
550
receive supplies at the same cost as authorised undertakers, nevertheless it was very definitely laid down that supplies to railway companies could only be made through the authorised undertakers of the areas in which the railway companies received their main supplies.
Those very important points of principle were included in the Act of 1926 only after considerable discussion in Standing Committee in the House of Commons and in your Lordships' House. Not only that, they were emphasised by members of the Government of the day to be essentials of the Act. That was the case no doubt because of the fact that this Act of 1926, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has said, was the greatest Act of Collectivism passed by any Government. The provisions of the Bill which is before your Lordships' House to-day are in direct opposition to the important principles I have enumerated. Not only does the Bill make definite provision for preferential rates, but it also authorises the Central Electricity Board to supply direct to any area and at any rates they may please to charge. Further, the Bill places the railway companies in such a favoured position that not only may it be arranged for them to receive supplies at wholesale rates from the Central Electricity Board for haulage and traction or for lighting vehicles used on the railway, but they may utilise their supplies—which is not permitted at present—for other purposes and other undertakings which may be of an entirely different nature.
In addition to that, the Bill, as I read it, legalises certain illegal acts performed by the Board since the 1926 Act was passed. That was referred to by my noble friend as removing a few doubts and difficulties. I venture to submit that illegal acts can hardly be classed, or should not be classed, in that category. This part of the Bill relates to cases where the Board have granted to undertakers preferential tariff rates contrary to the provisions of the 1926 Act. Those preferential rates are obviously prejudicial to other electricity undertakings and also—this is an important point—to private 'consumers and industrial consumers in that they have to bear any extra cost which may result from these preferential arrangements. The Act of 1926 lays down very clearly indeed the prices at which the Central Electricity Board are to sell electricity. The present

551
Bill, if it passes, will not only give the Board a free hand to make preferential arrangements, but it will give the Board power to take away from existing electricity undertakers a great deal of their most lucrative business. I regard this Bill—and I am strengthened in that opinion by what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi—as the thin edge of the wedge leading to nationalisation of electricity supply in this country.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: If I am correct in that, then I think the Bill ought to be strenuously opposed or, at any rate, drastically amended in Committee of your Lordships' House. I believe that it is only by private enterprise and free competition and by progressive commercial development that we are going to reach that peak of electricity retail supply in this country which many of us are aiming at and all of us wish to see. Now I should like to turn to the clauses of the Bill and make certain comments upon them. Obviously, Clause 4, dealing with the supply of electricity to railway companies, is the most controversial clause, but before dealing with that I should like to make a few comments on the preceding clauses. Clause 1, as I read it, designs to make lawful retrospectively certain agreements into which the Central Board have entered contrary to the procedure laid down in the Act of 1926. In addition—and this is an important point—it enables the Board to make agreements in future outside the provisions of the Act of 1926; and these agreements, if they are made as intended, and as outlined or indicated in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, must certainly be prejudicial to other electricity undertakings, that is to say, undertakings in other areas. The Act of 1926, as I am sure my noble friend will admit, gives protection, and definite protection, to electricity undertakers in that they cannot be forced—the noble Earl himself referred to this point—to take a wholesale supply from the grid unless the Central Board can prove that that supply is cheaper than the local supply. This clause as included in the Bill will take away that protection from the electricity undertaking and alter the whole intent of the 1926 Act.
The noble Earl shakes his head. Naturally I did not take down his words
552
as he was speaking, but if I rightly recollect, he did tell us in the course of his speech that there were in certain places generating stations which supplied more cheaply than the grid, and that it was intended to take over those generating stations and to incorporate their supplies into the grid system.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Only by agreement.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: The noble Lord says, "Only by agreement," but there is such a thing as force majeure and I see force majeure contained in a great part of this Bill. In addition, under the Act of 1926 the Central Board were empowered to make temporary arrangements with any electricity undertakers pending the building of the grid, but such temporary arrangements had to come to an end as soon as the grid came into commercial operation. What has actually happened? In actual practice the Central Board, instead of making temporary agreements, has entered into long-term arrangements with certain electricity suppliers, thereby gaining control —and this is the same point—of these small generating stations as distinct from the selected stations. The Central Board, moreover, in order to obtain this control, have granted to these electricity suppliers prices very different from those provided under the Act and very much to the advantage of those particular suppliers.
It is obvious that the burden of any preferential and, as I venture to call them, uneconomic prices given in such special cases has to be borne by other undertakers. Where else can it be borne? In other words, the burden has to be borne by other consumers, that is to say, by private and industrial consumers in other areas, as the only revenue which the Central Board has to draw upon is the revenue derivable from the supply and sale of electricity. Let me give your Lordships an instance of this —a case that is very well known in the electrical world. The Central Board have entered into an arrangement with the Wimbledon Corporation whereby control is given over the Corporation's generating station. In return for this, the Central Board have granted a supply to Wimbledon at a price which is lower by 40 per cent. than the price paid by undertakers in other and neighbouring areas

553
And that is not an isolated instance. There are a number of other instances in the country, but that is such a very good one that I will not take up your Lordships' time by citing any more. Therefore this Clause 1, I venture to believe, requires considerable amendment when this Bill reaches the Committee stage.
Now let me say a word about Clause 2. From this clause it appears that the Board, having taken steps in certain cases to give special prices without following the procedure under the 1926 Act—and I cannot understand why they did not follow the procedure laid down by the 1926 Act, under which, if they are going to give special prices, they are supposed to obtain approval of them by a Parliamentary Order—are now asking Parliament to whitewash. if I may use that word, what they have clone and to legalise these illegal acts. What is more, they are asking it in this way, that the prices which they have granted are prices which they are to be deemed always to have had power to grant. I should have thought that the powers contained in the 1926 Act had sufficient elasticity and were sufficiently large to give them all the powers that they need. I cannot say that I was at all convinced by the explanation of the clause which was given by my noble friend.
Then Clause 3 of the Bill seeks to give power to the Electricity Commissioners under which prices may be equated over a grid area, and its obvious purpose is to mitigate the fact that in certain cases the prices for supply charged by the Central Board are higher than the prices for supply at present being given outside the Central Board. It is obvious, again, that whatever relief may be obtained by a particular undertaker under the clause will have to be borne by a higher charge to other undertakers. In the case of all these clauses, whatever relief is given elsewhere has to be borne by other undertakers and passed on to the consumers in other areas.
Now, my Lords, I come to the most controversial clause of all in the Bill; that is Clause 4. What is the present procedure with regard to supply to the railway companies? As a matter of fact, the Act of 1926 already puts them in a most favourable position. Under the procedure laid down by Section 12 of that Act, whilst railway companies are
554
bound to obtain their supplies of electricity through authorised undertakers, nevertheless they have the advantage of obtaining those supplies at the same price the undertakers pay to the Central Electricity Board, but, unlike the undertakers, they do not have to contribute to the expenses of the Electricity Commissioners or to the standardisation expenses of the Central Electricity Board. The result is that in any area in which a railway company draws its main supply the railway company is preferentially treated in relation to the other consumers in the area, not only in regard to the direct price, but also because the proportionate cost of these expenses which I have enumerated has to be spread over the cost of electricity supplied to the other consumers in the area. On the other hand, I agree that as a set-off against this the undertaker receives certain compensation in the shape of what is called diversity factor. This does help to compensate him, and also the consumer, for the expenses which I have named.
But what is going to be the effect of this Clause 4 as it now stands? The Central Electricity Board, I have no doubt—I say this because they have already taken the precaution to have inserted a cautionary clause in the agreements between the undertakers and the railway companies—will in time supply all the railway companies direct, whether the undertakers like it or not, in spite of the point connected with unreasonableness and so on contained in the clause. In that event the private consumer will not only have to defray the proportion of the expenses of the Electricity Commissioners and the standardisation expenses of the Central Electricity Board properly chargeable to the railway company, but will also lose the advantage of the diversity factor. When I examine the clause still further I observe that it contains the following words:
"…the Central Electricity Board may supply electricity directly to any railway company upon such terms and at such prices as may be agreed."
I want to emphasise those last few words —"upon such terms and at such prices as may be agreed." This means, read in conjunction with the earlier clauses of the Bill, that the prices to be charged to the railway companies in the future may be, if the Bill becomes law, even lower than they are to-day, and the result

555
of this may be that the private and industrial consumer will have further charges placed upon his shoulders.
Then again, in the last paragraph of the clause there is another point to which I think it is important I should draw attention, because it is a grave departure from the present procedure. At the present time railways may only use the electricity supplied under the special bulk terms for their haulage and traction and, of course, for the lighting of the vehicles of the railways themselves. They may not use such electricity in their workshops or flats, or offices or hotels, stations, signal boxes, and so on. The electricity used for those purposes is supplied by the undertakers under the ordinary tariffs, but under the proviso in subsection (2) of Clause 4 it is now provided that the electricity supplied to the railways may be used for other purposes of the companies' undertakings. The word is "may," but when you use the word "may" so often it is turned into "shall." The electricity may be used for these other purposes which are at present supplied through the authorised undertakers, and if that is so there is another charge which will be placed on the shoulders of the private and industrial consumer in the area whence those main supplies are drawn. I suggest that, apart from its being quite uneconomical, the whole of this Clause 4, as well as some parts of the other clauses, are utterly unfair to the private and industrial consumer. Not only that, but it is absolutely contrary to the whole policy involved in previous electricity legislation, under which the right of electricity undertakers to give supplies to the railways has been definitely preserved.
I should like to give an instance of this. When the Act of 1926 was being debated in the House of Commons an Amendment was moved by Major Glyn, to give power to the Central Board to supply a railway direct. The Chairman of the Standing Committee immediately ruled it out of order, and there was no challenge to this. On another clause of the Bill the then Attorney-General, Sir Douglas Hogg, now the Leader of this House, emphasised that the Central Board was only set up to give wholesale supplies to other electricity undertakers, and that if ever they gave a supply in an unoccupied territory, when that
556
territory became occupied the right of the Board to supply would cease. There are two of the most important members of the Government of the day, one of whom still holds a very important position in His Majesty's Government, making definite statements in connection with the policy contained in that measure, and I venture to hope that the representations that will be made in the course of this Bill, and will no doubt be made outside as well, will induce His Majesty's Government to reconsider the policy which they have incorporated in this Bill.
The question of the electrification of the whole railway system in this country has been raised by my noble friend and by Lord Strabolgi, and therefore I need not apologise for detaining the House while I deal very shortly with that point. I would not have mentioned it but for the fact that I see in Clause 4 an instrument which might be used for the purpose of bringing that policy into effect. So far as I am concerned, I would content myself with observing that if wholesale electrification of the railways is to be undertaken the country ought to be satisfied that it can be done economically and without prejudice to other interests, such as private and industrial users of electricity and users of road transport, and of the coal-mining industry, to which Lord Strabolgi referred. I am afraid I take a rather different point of view from that which Lord Strabolgi takes on this subject, because whilst he has raised the issue of the coal-mining industry, it was rather from the point of view that if there were any additional profits to be made out of electricity they should be applied in assisting the coal-mining industry and the coal miners, in the event of less coal being mined as the result of the electrification of the railways.
I take an entirely different attitude. I do not believe that the total electrification of the railways is justified at all. From what I have always understood, and I have discussed the question with many experts, the only economical electrification of the railway system is that in urban areas, or in some area where there is a sufficiently dense traffic to warrant it. There are exceptions, of course, in a country like Switzerland, where there are exceptional conditions, and exceptional water-power, and so on, but for

557
all practical purposes the electrification of long-distance haulage is utterly uneconomic, and I venture to submit that these factors must be taken into consideration before we are launched into a project of this magnitude and nature. I wish your Lordships to realise that apart from the other matters I have mentioned this clause might launch us into this project, and, speaking as one closely connected with the electricity industry, I am very much opposed to any such step being taken without the gravest consideration. I am certainly very much opposed to its being "slipped through" by means of a clause in a Bill like that before your Lordships' House this afternoon. I have nothing more to say except that I am sorry the Government have thought fit to present this Bill to your Lordships' House, and that I hope your Lordships will not allow it to pass in its present form.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, I think that it is a somewhat fortunate chance that the issue of the sixth Annual Report of the Central Electricity Board coincides with our debate here this afternoon on this Bill. It is a fortunate coincidence, because we are now considering what further powers should be granted to the Central Electricity Board, and therefore it is not altogether unfitting that we should review for a moment or two some of the doings of the Central Electricity Board during the time it has been in existence. I would like to tender respectful congratulations to the Board for the prompt manner in which they have issued their Annual Report. They have, indeed, in this respect at any rate, set a good example to some of the older Departments.
It is, I think, a striking thing to note that, while the world output of electricity for consumption from the years 1929 to 1933 has only increased by 5 per cent. we in this country have increased our consumption during the same period by no less than 30 per cent., and we have done that in spite of the difficulties with which we have been confronted—trading difficulties, and difficulties of the reconstruction of the electrical industry, the re-arrangement of the productive capacity of the industry and renewals of equipment, which have inevitably had to be undertaken during this transitional stage. It is also very comforting to think that,
558
comparing the year 1931–32 with 1932–33, we find that while in 1931–32 the consumption had increased by 7 per cent., in 1932–33 it has increased by no less than 10.7 per cent., and I understand that the advance recorded in 1932–33 has been more than maintained during the months that have passed this year. That is a great achievement, and credit must be given for it to the undertakers of this country as well as to the Central Electricity Board and the Electricity Commissioners.
The Report makes reference to the electrification of part of one of our railway systems. It is good to see that the electrification which has been carried out has met with success, and that there are proposals for the extension of the system. For my part I feel that the electrification of the railway systems of this country has been lamentably slow and ineffective when we judge it by the results already attained in countries overseas. I welcome the powers of this Bill—subject to the incorporation of some minor safeguards—which will assist the further electrification of our railways. At any rate I feel that it is interesting to note that, so far as those responsible for the electrical industry are concerned, they at any rate have not placed any obstacles in the way of the electrification of the railways of this country. I would never support any policy which in any way tended to sting the railway companies, because they obviously have to pass through territories of many small undertakers who are themselves quite unable to give the service which they have the right to expect; and in so far as the railway companies' lines pass through the territories of the larger undertakers, with their selected stations, no doubt those stations will give that supply. Personally I accept the principle of this Bill that railway companies should not be called upon to carry on piecemeal negotiations, and that the Electricity Board should be furnished with wider and more general powers.
Reverting to the Report of the Board, it is good news to see that the last tower of the initial scheme has been erected, that no less than 4,000 miles of overhead lines have been put into place, and that 3,000 miles are working at the very high voltage of 132,000. I am also glad to see it hinted that means have been devised

559
now for tapping these overhead high tension lines more cheaply. I hope that this line of advance will be actively pursued, because there has been a great deal of opposition in rural areas, owing to the fact that landowners, farmers and other dwellers in the country see these great lines passing through their territories and near to their homes while they are unable to obtain supplies. Therefore, it it were possible to devise some system of tapping more generously, not perhaps the highest voltage lines, but at any rate some of the intermediate voltage lines, it would be of great benefit to the countryside, and tend to allay the uneasy feeling which at. present obtains among those who dwell there. I cannot help feeling that unbiased observers will admit that the Central Electricity Board have met their responsibilities with courage and foresight, and have carried out, to the satisfaction at any rate of the majority, the duties imposed by the Act of 1926. It was a tremendous change which that Act brought about, and it was quite inevitable that teething troubles would have to be overcome; but, happily, the main objectives—namely, the security of supply by an inter-connected system and the reduction of redundant plant—have been properly and effectively met, and are being met, with very little disturbance or dislocation of the industry as a whole.
I also think that Parliament may take some credit for the fact that, although seven years have passed, so little amendment is now asked for in the 1926 Act. The further powers sought for in this measure are, I think, justified. They arc required if the Central Electricity Board is effectively and efficiently to discharge the duties imposed upon them in the national interest. I support the Bill on the broad general ground that the position should be clarified. It has been said that the Board have been exceeding their powers in certain respects, although it can be argued against that that the action which they have taken has never been challenged in a court of law. In this Bill I see nothing revolutionary, although noble Lords who spoke from the other side of the House appeared to welcome it rather on those grounds. To me it seems to contain nothing revolutionary or sensational. It is a clean, straightforward attempt to deal with difficulties,
560
to link up the grid system with, or to weave it into, the system which is at present in operation.
Fears have been expressed that the Central Electricity Board would adopt the policy of under-cutting prices. I cannot say that I in any way share that fear, but the fear has been expressed and it is strongly held in certain quarters. These fears should be met by Amendments which I think can easily be introduced into this Bill. After all, the Central Electricity Board are wholesalers, and it is no part of their duty or functions to sell current retail; that is the duty of the authorised undertakers. The policy of the Central Electricity Board is to provide electricity on such terms as will promote the interest of their customers—that is to say, the authorised undertakers—and it is not their policy to depress or cut into the prices so as to reduce them to an uneconomic level.
Reverting to some of the clauses in the Bill, on Clause 1, for example, we have had a rather alarming picture drawn by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, who preceded me. He has suggested that Clause 1 will authorise arrangements with non-selected stations which will be detrimental to other authorised undertakers or that possibly non-selected stations will be induced to enter into agreements with the Central Electricity Board by reason of force majeure. All I can observe on that point is that, having regard to the personnel of those engaged in the electrical industry, I cannot imagine they will be forced into anything by force majeure. I think the industry is run by men of good will who would not attempt to exercise power in that way.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: If I may intervene, I did not say that individuals are going to use force majeure. I said that as a result of this Bill force majeure might obtain certain results.
LORD ELTISLEY: I am very glad to have that correction, and I am sorry if I failed to interpret correctly what was said. But I would like to point out that as far as the industry is concerned parent companies frequently enter into special arrangements with their own subsidiaries, and I think this proposal is very much on a parity with what is already being done. The Bill enables the Central Electricity Board to run out

561
generating plant to the best advantage and utilise to the full the remaining economic life of that plant, and it can often be with considerable advantage to the country as a whole and the industry as a whole, and of real advantage to the particular undertakers concerned, if the burden of outstanding capital charges which have been amortised are taken into account. I would like to point out that the argument Which has been used that these stations should be selected stations is not a sound one, because there are many of these smaller undertakings whose stations could never be advantageously turned into selected stations—possibly for geographical reasons or because there is no room for their expansion or development.
Clause 2 contemplates special terms for large consumers in a position to take heavy and steady loads, and I suggest that the point we are really concerned with here is that the special tariffs which are given must not involve undue preference to one consumer as compared with another consumer operating under approximately similar conditions. Also, that the tariff rates for other consumers must not, as I believe they need not, be unduly increased, and there must not be any undue preference to the non-selected stations as compared with other undertakers who have not got any stations. I would also like to suggest that when the agreements are entered into they should be given the fullest reasonable measure of publicity. Reference has been made to the case of Wimbledon where a 40 per cent. reduction in tariff had been granted, it is said, unreasonably. I do not wish to go into the merits of that case, but I would like to point out that in any arrangement made there are two factors which have to be taken into account. One is the cost of the current and the other the capital commitments already entered into or amortised; and these two factors must be both taken into account at the same time.
Personally I regard as one of the safeguards of the proposal contained in this clause, the establishment of the technical consultative committees. I believe they are very valuable bodies. It is true they have been set up by the Central Electricity Board, and nominated and appointed by them and presumably can be dismissed by them, but nevertheless I consider they are very valuable bodies
562
which can do much to advise and assist the work of administration, much to see that tariffs are not unduly cut, and that abuses do not creep in under this proposal. They have a very strong personnel, and I am sure they provide a very valuable safeguard. Then we are entitled to consider at the same time the personnel of the Board, which is composed of business men of high standing, with a very able chairman, Sir Andrew Duncan, and with men like Sir James Devonshire and Mr. Richard Fox, the secretary. I cannot believe they would do anything unreasonable or unfair because, after all, it is not to the advantage of the Central Electricity Board to depress prices to an unremunerative level and to upset the industry.
It is true, perhaps, that under the provisions of this Bill the Board could act autocratically. There is a possibility of inroads into certain classes of business now being successfully carried on by various undertakers, but my answer to such a possible misuse of powers is that safeguards can and must be added to this Bill. I suggest that the greatest safeguard is already there. Briefly stated, that great, safeguard is that any weakening in the general position of undertakers, whether they be municipal undertakers or company undertakers, would inevitably react, and react at an early date, on the financial results of our great grid system. Therefore it is abundantly clear that it is just as much the interest of those who are running the grid to keep up a proper level of prices as it is of the undertakers themselves. The grid, with the assistance of the various undertakers, is making and will continue to make a real and valuable contribution to the solution of the great problem of unemployment, by assisting in the industrial revival of the country, and for these reasons I venture with great respect to offer hearty support to this Bill and to hope that, subject to certain Amendments, it will speedily reach the Statute Book.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: My Lords, I would not have ventured to address your Lordships' House after the speeches we have heard if the case of Wimbledon had not been mentioned. I think the case of Wimbledon was also mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, when he criticised Clause 1 of the Bill. I am a member of the London and Home

563
Counties Electricity Authority which was largely responsible for the Wimbledon negotiations. It is true that the price at which electricity is sold to Wimbledon is below the grid price, but that was arranged after most careful calculations and after it had been discovered what the cost of generation would be at Wimbledon. It was found, after the figure had been carefully analysed, that the cost would be such as was eventually agreed to when the contract was made between the Board and the Corporation of Wimbledon to take a supply from the Board. This Wimbledon arrangement is in no way detrimental to any other user of electricity, or to any individual generally; in fact it is rather to the advantage of London. Wimbledon being shut down, the load is transferred to other stations in the London area, and the diversity factor increases, with a general benefit all round in the case of electricity in the London area.
Clause 1 will enable this type of arrangement to be made permanent throughout the country in cases where it is considered to be an advantage in connection with non-selected stations. I think Clause 1 will meet with very considerable approval in many parts of the country where the question of cheap electricity is of great importance. As regards Clause 2, there great benefit also will be derived, but I would like to say that I feel that some reservation should be included in Clause 2 whereby the Electricity Commissioners, or some other body, should have a say in what the prices are, and be definitely certain that no undue advantage is given to anybody at the expense of other undertakers. It is a criticism that has been made by several other of your Lordships who have spoken on this Bill. As regards Clause 4, I was a little anxious when I first read it. I felt that it was perhaps rather revolutionary, but on closer inspection I realised that Clause 4 must necessarily be taken in conjunction with the 1926 Act and be read with that Act. It will be seen that authorised undertakers give a supply to railway companies under Section 12 of that Act—that is to say, at the cost of production. The only real advantage to the various undertakers from a railway load is that it includes a diversity factor. It always seems to me that the advantage of this diversity factor which
564
is derived from railway electrification should not belong to any one authorised undertaker but should be distributed amongst all the various undertakers throughout the country, or, more properly, should be handed over to the Central Board who would then reap the advantage and pass it back to the other undertakers they supply.
I do not think that the authorised undertakers need be excessively alarmed by Clause 4, because the present position is that a railway company takes a supply from an authorised undertaker, and it can transmit that supply throughout its whole system and use the current in areas which belong to other authorised undertakings. Take, for example, the Brighton Railway. I do not know the existing conditions of the Brighton electrification scheme, but it is possible that a load can be taken on at Brighton and transmitted by the railway company throughout its system up to London, passing through the areas of a number of other authorised undertakers and offering no advantage to those authorised undertakers whatever, they having no say in the matter. A load like that can only be of advantage to one undertaker. I do not see why just that one authorised undertaker should reap the advantage of this load: it should be distributed amongst all the authorised undertakers on the system.
But I do not feel there is any injustice in this clause in this respect; in fact it has considerable technical advantages. Naturally a railway company will not want to negotiate with a very large number of authorised undertakers dotted up and down its system. It will only want to make contracts with one or two large authorised undertakers to take the load off at certain points of the system and transmit the load along its system to the various sub-stations where it is transformed and rectified. This means, as the law stands, that the railway companies have to have their own transmission system. As we know, the grid has been established throughout the country, and is at present operating very satisfactorily. The grid, in many instances, runs in the near neighbourhood of the railway line, and it seems far and away the most reasonable thing that the grid should be tapped here and there, wherever it is considered economically sound to do so, and the electricity used

565
from the grid by the railway company, so saving the railway company the expense of having its own transmission system.
There is a very considerable advantage in Clause 4, and I hope that your Lordships will agree to it. There is, however, one exception which I think requires a certain amount of consideration and that is the proviso on page 4. Here, it appears to me, an injustice might be done in the case of an authorised undertaking which is supplying large railway goods yards or railway workshops with electric current. At present they are carrying on this part of their business in the same way as they carry on any other part of their business of supplying electricity for lighting or general industrial purposes. It is conceivable, under the proviso to Clause 4, that the loss of this load to authorised undertakers might be a considerable injustice to them. I think it is only justice that these authorised undertakings should be compensated for the loss they have sustained and which, in many instances, they will sustain, owing to their having embarked upon considerable expenditure to supply a load which was subsequently not required
Certain noble Lords stated that they considered it unfair that the railway companies should not have to pay the charge for the standardisation of the frequency which other consumers of electricity have to pay. I rather think when this matter came up for discussion in the 1926 Act one of the principal reasons why the railway companies were excused from this charge was that it was felt that, unless the railway companies were excused, they would put up their own generating stations. That is a thing which I am certain all your Lordships will realise is undesirable. The railway load is wanted very badly indeed by the grid and the selected stations up and down the country, and they do not desire that any inducement should be given to the railways to put up their own stations because they could generate more cheaply than they could buy if they had to pay this charge. A change of frequency would be very detrimental to the development of the electrical supply throughout the country. I hope your Lordships will agree to the Second Reading of this Bill, which, I feel, will be of considerable advantage to the electrical supply industry.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I have no reason to complain of the reception of this Bill at your Lordships' hands, and I will endeavour to answer some of the questions that have been put to me and some of the criticisms made regarding the measure. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked me two specific questions. He asked, first of all, will the industrial and rural consumers in the vicinity have to pay for the cheap bulk supply given to the railway companies? I cannot imagine anything more unlikely. I think the chances are that they will gain as the result of any transaction of the kind contemplated by the clause. I think the result of transactions of that kind would be to spread the overhead charges of the undertaker—the Central Electricity Board—and in that case to reduce the cost to everybody concerned. Then he asked me another question to this effect: Will the railway companies bear their share of the cost of frequency changes such as are contemplated in Clause 3? I think that was the effect of his question.
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The position at present is that the cost of frequency changes is borne by a general levy which is paid by the undertakers and the undertakers cannot pass it on to the railway companies.
LORD STRABOLGI: Will the noble Earl excuse my interrupting him, as this is a point which very much interests some of my noble friends. Where the Board supplies under Clause 4 direct to a railway company and not through an undertaker, with the agreement of the undertaker, will the railway companies then pay any share of the cost of frequency changes?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I think my answer holds good in that respect also. I think I am correct in saying that, but I will make certain and if later on I find that I have misinformed the noble Lord I will correct my mistake. The noble Lord also raised a number of large questions which I think it is hardly proper to attempt to discuss when we are debating a comparatively limited measure such as this. He asked me whether the Government had in contemplation enabling the Central Electricity Board to supply such bodies as central

567
water authorities in the same way as Clause 4 would enable them to supply railway companies. On that I would like to point out that the positions of railway companies and central water authorities are not in any way analogous. Central water authorities can very easily obtain their supplies from the authorised undertakers in their areas. Their interests are limited to a comparatively restricted region and their position is entirely different from the position of railway companies whose lines invariably must pass through the areas of a number of different undertakings. Beyond saying that, I am not in a position to discuss the very big problems that he raised during the course of his speech.
I turn now to the remarks of my noble friend Viscount Elibank. After having levelled a number of criticisms at the provisions of this Bill he put forward the contention that in his view, at any rate, this Bill was the thin end of the wedge of nationalisation. Of that contention noble Lords opposite signified hearty approval. I do not think the noble Viscount often finds himself in agreement with noble Lords opposite. I regret, or I am glad to say, according to the way in which you look at it, that I am in disagreement with both the noble Viscount and noble Lords opposite. Nothing is further from the intention of the Minister of Transport than to insert the thin edge of the wedge of nationalisation. I think both the noble Viscount and noble Lords opposite have attributed to this measure an entirely exaggerated significance. It is a measure important in its way undoubtedly, but it is a measure comparatively restricted in its scope, and I think that they have exaggerated views as to the possible results of it.
Neither can I accept the view of the noble Viscount that the provisions of this Bill are contrary to the whole tenour of the Act of 1926. In one respect I am quite prepared to admit that the present measure is a reversal of a decision that was arrived at when discussion on the 1926 Act was taking place in regard to railway companies. To that my reply is that experience of these further years and of the operation of the national grid system has shown that the arrangement by which railway companies have to obtain their supplies from a whole series
568
of separate undertakers all down their lines is altogether too cumbersome and must militate against the electrification of railways. The case for this clause is set out very clearly in the Report of Lord Weir's Committee, and if your Lordships wish to remind yourselves of the views of that Committee on this particular subject may I be allowed to suggest that you refer to the section in the Report which deals with this question?
The whole burden of the criticisms which the noble Viscount levelled at the various clauses of this Bill was that they were going to be prejudicial to the interests of other authorised undertakers. To my mind that is an entirely false view. I do not agree with it at all. I think on the contrary that other authorised undertakers are very likely to gain profit when this measure comes into operation. Surely, the Central Electricity Board in their own interests will not conclude any arrangement with non-selected stations which is not going to yield an advantage to them. So far from placing an additional charge upon the remaining undertakings I think it will enable the Board to quote a lower general tariff to all undertakers than would otherwise be the case. We have heard a great deal about preferential prices, but I would like to point out that though those prices may be preferential it, does not necessarily mean that they are also uneconomic.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, has referred to the case of the Wimbledon Corporation. I do not think it is necessary for me to deal with that except to say that I have no doubt that the facts as he stated them are perfectly true, and that arrangements made in that case were advantageous not only to the Corporation but to the Board, and that that advantage will be reflected in the prices which, taken in the aggregate, they are able to quote to other authorised undertakers. Then the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, put forward the suggestion that authorised undertakers other than the owners of selected stations might be forced under the provisions of this Bill to come to agreements with the Central Electricity Board. That point has been dealt with—I think the noble Lord Who sits behind me, Lord Eltisley, dealt with it—but I wish to point out that there is no element of compulsion whatsoever in the provisions of this clause, and that it

569
is entirely open to such undertakers to come to arrangements with the Central Board or not, as they think best from their point of view.
Certain criticisms were made by the noble Viscount of Clause 2, to the effect that what is desired could be attained under Section 11 of the Act of 1926. That is a matter of detail. As I am advised, Section 11 was not intended to deal with small matters of detail such as this, and it is therefore considered necessary to put into operation the provisions of Clause 2 to meet the situation. With regard to Clause 3, I think there was hardly any criticism at all. It is perfectly clear that the provisions for that clause are such as will on the whole help to ease the situation and to do away with any inequality that may arise unless the position is dealt with in that way.
I have already stated the point of view of the Government regarding Clause 4 of the Bill, dealing with railway companies. I am not in a position this evening to give answers to the various issues raised in connection with that clause, but I should like to mention the last proviso in the Bill, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, referred, and which I think he regarded as something quite novel. I do not think it is at all novel. As a matter of fact, I think that that proviso in the Bill really preserves the position which at present obtains as the result of Section 47 of the old Act.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Is my noble friend quite sure of that? Because under the arrangements of which I am aware, electricity supplied in bulk for the railways is only used, and at the present moment can only be used, for the haulage and traction and lighting of the vehicles, and for nothing else.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: No, my Lords, I think I am right in saying that
570
that is not the case. There again, I am myself not very familiar with the working of this Act, but I will inform myself on the point. As I am at present advised, I believe that that is not the case, but that the electricity can, with the assent of the Minister of Transport, be used for other purposes as well. However, as I say, I will look into the matter.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I am very sorry to interrupt again, but if that is the case, why was it necessary to re-insert it in this present clause? If it is already provided for in the 1926 Act, surely that is unnecessary?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: It is necessary because this clause deals with the Central Electricity Board and they were not dealt with in that Act. I should like to say a word with regard to the speeches of my noble friends Lord Eltisley and Lord Falmouth. They made no criticism which I think requires an answer from me now. I am very grateful to them for the general support which they gave to the Bill. I note that they think that minor Amendments may be necessary during the Committee stage of the Bill, and I wish to assure all your Lordships that if Amendments are put down they will receive the fullest consideration from the Government. I hope in these circumstances your Lordships will be prepared now to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MARRIAGE (EXTENSION OF HOURS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
House adjourned at six minutes past six o'clock.