Sitting of 25 April 1934

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Chailey Rural District Council Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday, 3rd May.
Marriages Provisional Orders Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    REFORM.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will invite the Governments of the United States, Japan, Germany, Italy, France and Russia to collaborate with His Majesty's Government in the examination of the question of the reform of the League of Nations, with a view to recommendations being placed before the League at Geneva?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to my right hon. Friend on the 29th January last, in reply to a similar question.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: If any such consultations take place, will the right hon. Gentleman confine the conversations to the free States and leave out the slave States?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman told us the other day that he was taking the opinions of the French and Italian Governments on the question of the priority of disarmament over reform, will he also make inquiries of the other nations and take their opinions?
    Sir J. SIMON: I can add nothing by way of answer to a supplementary question on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal obviously involves a very large issue, as is shown by the names of the Governments he mentioned, and I do not think that I can be expected to give a reply to the supplementary question.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not want to press my right hon. Friend unduly, but why did he pick out two of the great Powers and not consult the others?
    Mr. MANDER: Is not the present machinery of the League of Nations reasonably satisfactory if worked with good will by all parties?
    HON. MEMBERS: "No."
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider appointing a committee to assist the Government in formulating a scheme for the reform of the League of Nations?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): No, Sir. I do not think it necessary.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I, with great respect, ask the Prime Minister whether he realises that we shall never get general disarmament until all the great Powers are in the League of Nations, and that they will never enter the League while the League remains un-reformed?
    Mr. PIKE: Is the Prime Minister aware that the vast majority of the people in the country at the moment consider it to be more necessary that the Government should formulate a scheme with the intention of ultimately chloroforming the League of Nations?

    SAAR TERRITORY.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider proposing to the Council of the League of Nations, in connection with the arrangements for the plebiscite in the Saar territory, that a special international police force should be recruited for the purpose?
    Sir CHARLES CAYZERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will propose to the League of Nations that steps should be taken to postpone the holding of the plebiscite in the Saar

    1691
    territory if in the opinion of the League undue pressure has been brought, or appears likely to be brought, to bear upon the inhabitants of the Saar territory from any source prior to the holding of the plebiscite?
    Sir J. SIMON: A committee of three was appointed by the League Council in January to report to the Council at its forthcoming session on the problem raised by the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles in regard to the Saar Plebiscite and to make recommendations as to their execution. The committee was, in particular, to study any suggestions as regards the maintenance of order during the period of the plebiscite that might be submitted to it by the Saar Governing Commission. It would obviously be premature for me to express any view until this report has been received and considered.
    Mr. MANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware whether this proposal has received any consideration, or is being put forward?
    Sir J. SIMON: I think that that is undoubtedly within the scope of the consideration of the committee of three.
    Mr. JANNER: Have any representations been made to His Majesty's Government, in view of the statements in regard to the committee?
    Sir J. SIMON: I do not think that that arises out of the question.
    Sir C. CAYZER: If the plebiscite is held next year, will the influence of the British Government be exerted with the League of Nations to ensure that there is no possibility of victimisation of any section of the population in the Saar after the plebiscite has been held?
    Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the object of the committee of three is to consider what suggestions can be made as regards the maintenance of order, and that of course includes securing that the plebiscite is conducted fairly.

  BULGARIA (BRITISH INVESTORS).
  Mr. RANKINasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any further negotiations are to take place with a
  1692
  view to obtaining a settlement for British bondholders in regard to the Bulgarian post-War debt?
  Sir J. SIMON: Negotiations took place between the League Loans Committee and the Bulgarian Prime Minister during the latter's recent visit to this country, and an agreement was reached, the terms of which were published in the Press on the 20th April.

  ROYAL NAVY (RUSSIAN FILM).
  Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the new Soviet propagandist film entitled "Sailors of the Royal Navy "; and whether, in view of the unconscious humour of this film, he will consider permitting its display for the amusement of the lower deck?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): My attention has been drawn to reports of this film which have appeared in the Press, but, so far as I am aware, no copy of the film intended for exhibition is in this country, and the second part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

  JAPAN AND CHINA.
  Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now able to make a statement as to the result of his communication to the Japanese Government?
  Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir; the communication which the hon. Member refers to, was despatched on Monday, and I understand that His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokio is seeing the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs to-day. I do not anticipate that I shall be in possession of the full views of the Japanese Government until after a few days, and in the meantime I am not in a position to add anything to the reply which I returned on Monday to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester (Sir C. Cayzer).
  Mr. JOHNSTONE: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate the Japanese reply to the House when he receives it?
  Sir J. SIMON: A statement will certainly be made, but I must, of course, see what are the terms of the reply before I can give a definite assurance.
  Mr. ATTLEE: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the report that the statement in regard to non-interference has been confirmed by the Japanese Cabinet?
  Sir J. SIMON: There has been a very large number of statements, and it is very difficult to be sure which of them are authoritative; that is one of the matters into which I am inquiring.
  Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter and other matters of foreign affairs on the first available Supply day.

  KENYA.

    GOLDFIELDS.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information about the visit of Sir Albert Kitson to the Kakamega goldfield; whether its purpose is to supplement the previous reports made by turn to the Government; and whether he has been entrusted with any other official mission?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I understand that Sir Albert Kitson recently visited Kenya in a private capacity. During his visit he completed and submitted to Government his final report on the geology of the goldfields on which he had been engaged for some time. The report is being printed in Kenya, and it was hoped to publish it in Nairobi by the 17th of April. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. LUNN: Is it not a fact that this gentleman was appointed to make reports upon the Kakamega goldfields, and is he now engaged in his own capacity in setting up a private company for the exploitation of the gold in that territory?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I believe that Sir Albert Kitson is now employed by a private company. He has completed the work which he was doing for the Government, and, as I have said, the final report on which he was engaged is now published.

    NATIVE INTERESTS.
    Mr. BANFIELDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state
    1694
    what reply he has made to the memorandum addressed to him by a joint committee of representative Kikuyu organisations, urging representation of Africans by Africans on certain bodies concerned with native interests, the representation of Kikuyu interests by an elected paramount chief, the opening of a college for secondary education for African children, the teaching of English instead of Swahili in elementary schools, the restitution of alienated land, the abolition of the but tax and of the Native Registration Ordinance, the payment of proper salaries to African civil servants and chiefs, and the abolition of restrictions on coffee growing by natives?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have asked the Governor of Kenya for his comments on this memorandum, and propose to await them before considering my reply.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    LEVANT FAIR.
    Mr. JANNERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what nature of assistance has been given by the Government of Palestine towards the enlarged Levant Fair at Tel Aviv which opens this month?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Government of Palestine are granting the same Customs, railway, postal, telephonic and telegraphic facilities as were extended on the occasion of the Levant Fair of 1932. They are also providing a sum of £700 to meet the cost of a Government exhibit, including the rent of the building which has been provided by the exhibition management as a Government pavilion.

    OTTAWA AGREEMENTS (DAIRY PRODUCE).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether it is the intention of the Government to continue the agreements made at Ottawa with regard to dairy produce after these expire in June of next year?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The position with regard to dairy produce will be open to review next year, but I cannot, at this date, forecast the situation which will result.
    Mr. MANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is proposed to hold a conference with the Dominions before any decision is come to by the Government of this country?
    Mr. THOMAS: It is always the intention of His Majesty's Government to consult the Dominions on matters that affect them.
    Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Is it not the fact that these agreements were come to in furtherance of Imperial policy in order to bring about greater freedom of trade between the Dominions and this country; and has not that policy been very much to the advantage of this country?

    LIVERPOOL CUSTOMS BILL OF ENTRY.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the Board of Customs and Excise are proposing to discontinue publication of the Liverpool Customs Bill of Entry; and if, in view of the inconvenience which would be caused thereby, he will cause that matter to be reconsidered?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I am aware that it is proposed to discontinue publication of the Liverpool Customs Bill of Entry owing to the loss incurred in publication. The information hitherto published in this way will, however, be available to interested parties on payment of fees sufficient to cover the expense incurred in extracting the necessary figures.
    Mr. WHITE: Will not the hon. Gentleman give further consideration to the point, bearing in mind that it is a serious thing to discriminate against one port in this matter, and will he make further inquiries and see if those who are benefiting by the information given will not be prepared to meet a charge towards the loss that has been sustained?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend is in error if he thinks this decision applies to one port only. It applies to all the ports concerned. Owing to the falling off of subscribers, the Treasury has been involved in a loss of £5,000 or £6,000 a year, and it is not considered appropriate that the taxpayer should sub-sidise sectional interests.
    Mr. WHITE: Will not the hon. Gentleman give the matter further considera-
    1696
    tion in view of the feeling and the obvious inconvenience that will be caused not only to those in the port, but also to those in the interior markets of the country?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: We have offered to assist the interests concerned in any way that may appear to be suitable. If they make their application to us, all their requirements can be met, provided that they are in a position and willing to defray the cost.
    Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Is it the intention of the Treasury to give general application to the principle laid down, that it is not proper for the Treasury to subsidise sectional interests?
    Sir JOHN SANDEMAN ALLEN: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the serious loss to trade generally, which will react more seriously on the Treasury than the small cost referred to?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, I do not think that is the case. I am sorry, in view of the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) that I ventured to use the word principle.

    NEW ZEALAND (RECIPROCAL TRADE).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of summoning an Imperial conference at an early date to consider the issues raised by the offer of the New Zealand Government to provide a free market for British goods in return for a similar free market for New Zealand goods in this country?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As will be seen from the correspondence recently published as a White Paper (Cmd. 4557), and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs explained in reply to a question by the hon. Member for South Shields on 28th March, no such offer has been made. The question asked by my hon. Friend does not therefore arise.
    Mr. MANDER: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the grave danger to the whole economic future of this most loyal of the Dominions by the rejection by the Government of the offer, or whatever it may be termed, which was actually made by the New Zealand Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member persists in assuming that what I have said is not true.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that one of the results of the new policy of the Government is to reduce markets for Dominion goods? This Dominion now has a smaller market for its butter than before the new policy of the Government was introduced.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: Is it not the case that, if New Zealand did not make an offer, the New Zealand Government made an inquiry as to whether an arrangement could not be arrived at for the free interchange of goods?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have always been taught to believe that there is a difference between an offer and an inquiry.
    Major COLFOX: Is not the real cause of the difficulty that New Zealand is suffering from the fact that so many countries competing with her in our market give big export subsidies which entirely outweigh any benefits that New Zealand gets under the Ottawa Agreements?
    Mr. MANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of summoning a special Imperial Conference to consider the inquiry made by the New Zealand Government into the possibility of some arrangement of this kind?

  HONGKONG (MUI-TSAI SYSTEM).
  Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the numbers of mui-tsai in Hongkong; whether registration of existing mui-tsai is properly carried out and the number of inspectors is sufficient for that purpose; and if he is satisfied that the law is not being evaded by the system of adoption of the young children who are being imported?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The number of mui-tsai still remaining on the register on the 30th November last was 2,749. The reply to the other parts of the question is in the affirmative. As the hon. Member may be aware, I receive half-yearly progress reports from the Governor in regard to this question, and copies of these reports are placed, on receipt, in the Library of the House.
  Mr. LUNN: Is it not a fact that many children are being imported into Hong-kong, and are being adopted by people in order to evade the conditions which are laid down?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir, certainly not. If the hon. Gentleman will read the reports which come regularly from the Governor, he will see how very satisfactory the arrangements are that are now in force. I hope that he will not make adverse comments upon the very successful progress of operations until he has made himself acquainted with the facts.
  Mr. LUNN: I have endeavoured for several years to do my best to abolish this abominable system.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If the hon. Gentleman will read the reports of what is happening on the spot and what are the facts, I am sure that he will join with me in satisfaction at the admirable progress that has been made.

  CHURCH OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE, JERUSALEM.
  Mr. RANKINasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can now make any further statement as to the steps which will be taken to prevent the falling into ruin of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I cannot at present add anything to the reply given to the Member for East Willesden (Mr. D. G. Somerville) on the 31st January, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.
  Lord APSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any special measures to protect the Holy Sepulchre, including the tomb and famous church?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I understand that measures are to be put in hand that will protect the whole of the Church.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is British money, or Palestinian money, being used for this purpose?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Certainly there is no charge upon the British taxpayer. At the present time no money, I think, is being expended. An expert is making reports as to what can be done.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is not fair to take the money of Jews and Moslems in order to rebuild a Christian Church?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I must deprecate statements of that kind. This is a great world memorial, and it is obviously in the interests of the country in which it is situated that it should be maintained.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that the other day the Patriarch of the Holy Sepulchre was raising funds by selling titles, and can he not get money in a better way?

  ROYAL AIR FORCE (SURVEY WORK).
  Rear-Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the useful experience that would be gained, he will consider allowing Royal Air Force pilots and machines to assist His Majesty's surveying vessels in surveying the coast of Labrador, instead of allowing this work to be done by United States pilots and machines as has been done for some time?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): My hon. and gallant Friend's question appears to arise from a misapprehension. I can find no corroboration of the statement that United States aircraft have been assisting for some time in this survey work, though one did render some assistance on an isolated occasion two years ago. The Department fully recognises the training value of air survey work, but the provision of Royal Air Force aircraft for such work in Labrador would present many difficulties of organisation and would involve quite disproportionate expenditure.

  AVIATION.

    PRIVATELY-OWNED AIRCRAFT.
    Lord APSLEYasked the Undersecretary of State for Air the number of privately-owned aircraft in the United Kingdom in March of this year and the corresponding number in March, 1933 and 1932, respectively?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Figures for March are not readily available. The numbers of privately-owned aircraft registered in the United Kingdom on 31st December, 1931, 1932 and 1933, were 385, 402 and 408, respectively. These figures are exclusive of aircraft used for transport, taxi-work, training and club-work.
    Lord APSLEYasked the Undersecretary of State for Air the number of privately-owned aircraft in France, Germany, Italy, and America, respectively, in March of this year and the corresponding number in March, 1933 and 1932, respectively?
    Sir P. SASSOON: As the answer contains figures in tabulated form, I will, with my Noble Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    I regret that the precise information asked for is not available. It is possible, however, to give, as at 31st December of each year, the numbers of registered civil aircraft other than those owned by regular air transport companies, and these figures are shown in the table below. Figures for this country have been added for comparison.

    —

    31 st Dec., 1931.

    31st Dec, 1932.

    3lst Dec, 1933.

    France

    1,164

    1,116

    1,435

    Germany

    887

    695

    874

    Italy

    582

    463

    325

    United States of America.

    10,090

    9,800

    8,780

    Great Britain

    889

    939

    995

    GLIDING CLUBS.
    Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many gliding clubs now exist in the United Kingdom to-day; what steps are being taken to organise competitions between gliding clubs; and whether a day could be set aside for a national gliding competition?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I understand that there are at present some 22 gliding clubs in the United Kingdom, though not all of these are active. The matters raised in the last two parts of the question are primarily for the Royal Aero Club and the British Gliding Association.

    AIR-MAIL SERVICES (COLONIES).
    Mr. HALL-CAINE (for Mr. HUTCHISON)asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the satisfactory operation of air-mail services between this country and the African Colonies and Palestine, and the benefits which have accrued as a result, he can state what steps he contemplates to assist the establishment of similar services between this country and other British Colonies at the earliest possible opportunity?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The policy of His Majesty's Government is primarily directed at present to the development of Imperial trunk air routes, and British territories which are situated on, or adjacent to, these routes will naturally benefit from the pursuance of this policy. My Noble Friend is continuously alive to the possibility of the extension of the existing services, and certain proposals for such extension are under active consideration.

  TRANSPORT.

    RIVER FORTH (ROAD BRIDGE).
    Mr. GUYasked the Minister of Transport if he will now consider the completion of the survey for a road bridge across the River Forth at Rosyth, which was suspended in 1931?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): In present circumstances the answer is in the negative.
    Mr. GUY: Does the Minister realise that there is a strong body of opinion in favour of this bridge; and does he also realise that a proper decision cannot be arrived at with regard to the practicability and cost of the scheme until this survey is completed?
    Mr. STANLEY: My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that there is now in process of construction a bridge at Kincardine, and a very considerable improvement has been made in the ferry service. Until we see the results of these two improvements it would be clearly wrong to proceed with this survey.
    Mr. GUY: Does the Minister realise that the Kincardine bridge is no good to Edinburgh?

    FISH (RAILWAY CARRIAGE CHARGES).
    Mr. LOFTUSasked the Minister of Transport if he will now make representations to the railway companies to-abolish the prepayment of carriage on fish, which was imposed by arrangement as a War-time measure only?
    Mr. STANLEY: The standard terms and conditions on which merchandise is carried on the railways, which were settled by the Railway Rates Tribunal under the provisions of the Railways Act, 1921, provide that in respect of the carriage of perishable merchandise by passenger train or similar service, the Company's charges for carriage shall be payable in advance. I have no jurisdiction in the matter, but it is open to any representative body of traders concerned to apply to the tribunal for an amendment of these conditions.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: Does the Minister realise the very great hardship that this requirement causes to those who are carrying on the industry in the face of strenuous competition?
    Mr. STANLEY: As I said in my original answer, I have no jurisdiction in the matter.

    MAULDETH ROAD WEST, MANCHESTER.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the action of the police in Manchester in warning off riders of horses from the rough grass strips in Mauldeth Road West; and whether, in view of the desirability of riders making use of grass margins as far as possible in the interests of road safety, he will take steps to legalise their use, especially in cases where, as in this instance, no special powers exist to prevent it?
    Mr. STANLEY: I have made inquiries, and am informed that a space in the centre of the road was originally reserved for use as a tram track. It has now been kerbed, turfed and planted with shrubs, and is kept as an ornamental area. This House will have an opportunity in due course of considering proposals included in the Manchester Corporation Bill, now before Parliament, for the prohibition of walking or driving on certain grass-covered areas forming parts of streets maintained by the Corporation.

    ROAD WIDENING, BRIDGEND, GLAMORGANSHIRE.
    Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Transport whether he is prepared to consider the representations of the Glamorgan County Council and the Bridgend Urban District Council for a grant to widen Bridgend Brewery Road approach, which is recognised as one of the most dangerous places in Glamorganshire?
    Mr. STANLEY: I am informed that the question of widening the Bridgend-Maesteg Road, in the vicinity of the Old Brewery, Bridgend, is being considered by the Glamorgan County Council, but that some considerable time may elapse before a definite scheme can be prepared as discussions and negotiations with property owners will be involved. Subject to funds being available for the purpose, I shall be prepared to give consideration to an application for a grant when the definite proposal is submitted and the authority is in a position to proceed with the scheme.

    BRIDGES.
    Captain STRICKLANDasked the Minister of Transport whether any further progress has been made with regard to the repair of weak bridges and, if so, to what extent?
    Mr. STANLEY: Twenty-seven Priority Lists have now been received as a result of the County Conferences so far held concerning weak bridges, and I am informed that negotiations for the strengthening or rebuilding of weak bridges included in these lists are actively proceeding between highway authorities and bridge owners.
    Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Will the Minister consider urging forward the improvement of these bridges in larger numbers?
    Mr. STANLEY: I miss no opportunity of urging the local authorities to take every opportunity of strengthening these bridges.

    ROAD CONSTUCTION AND MAINTENANCE (CIRCULAR).
    Mr. CAPORNasked the Minister of Transport whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the circular which he recently addressed to highway authorities making suggestions to them for the improved construction and maintenance
    1704
    of roads, with a special view to the security of the road user?
    Mr. STANLEY: I am arranging for copies of the Ministry's circular 390 (Roads) of 6th February, 1934, to be available in the Vote Office.

    MOTOR INSURANCE.
    Mr. HALL-CAINE (for Mr. HUTCHISON)asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the facility with which some insurance companies evade meeting charges in respect of motor insurance, he will consider the adoption of a standard form of contract which all companies shall be compelled to use unless they can produce something better which his Department can approve?
    Mr. STANLEY: I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to Clauses 7–12 of the Road Traffic Bill now before Parliament which are designed to prevent such evasions as he refers to. If my hon. Friend were to bring to my attention any particular points in connection with these clauses, I would of course take them into consideration.
    Mr. WHITESIDE: Is my hon. Friend aware that the tariff companies already issue a standard form of contract?

  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (BATTERSEA POWER STATION).
  Mr. ALAN TODDasked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied that the pledge given by the Government on 26th September, 1929, to the representatives of the Chelsea Borough Council, with reference to the emission of sulphur fumes from the Battersea power station, has been fulfilled; and if he will make a statement as to the question of emission of smoke and fumes from the power station?
  Mr. STANLEY: The pledge referred to still holds, and the remaining sections of the new Battersea power station will not be sanctioned unless the gas-washing plant already installed is working efficiently. The position at present is that, while there is no reason to be dissatisfied with the results so far obtained, the station has not yet been in commercial operation sufficiently long for a final conclusion to be reached.

  BRITISH ARMY (CLOTHING CONTRACTS).
  Commander MARSDENasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any provision is made in contracts for the supply of uniforms for His Majesty's Army for the payment of fair wages to and satisfactory working conditions for the employés of the contractors concerned?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): Contracts for uniforms, like Government contracts generally, contain the Fair Wages Clause, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. and gallant Friend.
  Commander MARSDEN: Although there may be provisions in the clauses of the contracts, may I ask my hon. Friend if his Department takes any initiative in seeing that the provisions in these clauses are carried out?
  Mr. COOPER: We rely upon the firms with whom we make contracts carrying out those contracts according to their terms. If it were brought to our notice that a contract had been broken, we should always be extremely anxious to take action.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any of these contracts are given to those foreign firms who have established so many factories in this country?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    DUBHAM.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Health the number of able-bodied workmen receiving assistance from the public assistance committees in the county of Durham, including the boroughs, for the week ended 19th March, 1934?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The returns made to my Department relate to monthly periods. These returns, moreover, do not distinguish the numbers of able-bodied workmen in receipt of relief. During the month of March, 1934, in the county of Durham, together with the associated
    1706
    county boroughs, the average number of men in receipt of out-relief who were ordinarily engaged in some regular occupation was 15,505.

    HEALTH INSURED PERSONS (MEDICAL TREATMENT).
    Mr. JOHNasked the Minister of Health whether it is intended that persons who are in receipt of transitional payment and who have lost their medical benefit under the National Health Insurance Act shall be entitled to medical treatment from the public assistance authorities?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: All persons who are insured under the National Health Insurance Acts are entitled to medical benefit under those Acts. Persons who have ceased to be insured, whether in receipt of transitional payment or not, and who are in need of medical treatment and are not in a position to meet the cost of such treatment, are entitled to have recourse to the public assistance authorities.

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM-BULLERasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that in some cases men are being disallowed benefit because they have refused a situation offered them at a weekly wage of 21s., plus commission, for 12 hours' work a day for seven days in the week; and whether it is the policy of his Department to treat such an offer as a suitable situation?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I am not aware of such cases, but, if my hon. and gallant Friend has particulars of any and will send them to me, I will cause inquiries to be made. The question whether employment is suitable is decided not by the Department but by the court of referees, subject to the usual rights of appeal to the umpire.
    Mr. MAXTON: Is it not the case that officials of the Ministry are definitely told off to act as touts for jobs under very inferior conditions indeed?
    Mr. HUDSON: No, I do not think there is any justification for that allegation.
    Mr. MAXTON: If I produce evidence of many cases of that description, will the hon. Gentleman see that it is stopped?
    Mr. HUDSON: I am always glad to look into any case that the hon. Member brings forward.

  HOUSING (RURAL AREAS).
  Earl WINTERTONasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the difficulty experienced by agricultural labourers and manual workers generally in the country districts of obtaining cottages at a rent which they can reasonably afford to pay is as great as ever in most areas in the home counties; and whether, in these circumstances, he will circularise local authorities suggesting to them that they should provide cottages for the teachers, police officers, and other persons in their employ who at present, in many cases, occupy houses which are rent restricted and suitable for the tenancy of labourers?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend is not aware that the difficulty to which my Noble Friend refers can be attributed to any appreciable extent to a failure to make use of such powers as local authorities possess to provide houses for persons in their employment or pay, but, if my Noble Friend will supply such evidence as he has, my right hon. Friend will consider whether he can take any steps in the matter.
  Captain HEILGERS: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the progress that is being made under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act in regard to the reconditioning of cottages for agricultural workers?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I wish the progress were faster. I shall be glad to have the co-operation and suggestions of my hon. and gallant Friend.
  Earl WINTERTON: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, while I shall be very pleased to supply him with that information, this is a matter of almost notoriety, known to every local authority? Surely he can obtain through official channels confirmation of the gross scandal which exists in the South of England.

  SCOTLAND.

    DEER FORESTS.
    Lord SCONEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is his intention to introduce legislation with regard to deer forests during the present Session?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): My right hon. Friend regrets he is not yet in a position to make any statement.

    MILK MARKETING BOARD.
    Lord SCONEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to refer the complaints of the East of Scotland milk producers against the Scottish Milk Marketing Board to the investigation committee?
    Mr. SKELTON: While the questions to be referred have not yet been received in their final form, the answer, speaking generally, is in the affirmative.

  EASTER (FIXED DATE).
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date communications were issued by the League of Nations to the various religious authorities on the question of the adoption of a fixed date for Easter; what religious authorities have so far failed to reply; and whether the British Government will take action for establishing the Easter holiday on a fixed date without further delay?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): His Majesty's Government has not yet received from the League of Nations full information on the results of the League's communications with the various religious authorities; and, as previously stated, they are waiting for this information before considering the matter further.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that practically every Christian denomination has approved of stabilisation with the exception of some hesitation on the part of the Vatican, and does he not think it desirable that this country, which is Protestant, should follow the opinions of the other Christian denominations in the matter?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: We are making inquiries through the Foreign Office of the League of Nations on the points referred to in the first two parts of the question. When we get the reply, we shall know where we are.

  LICENSED HOURS (SUMMER TIME).
  Mr. THORPasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that much inconvenience will arise, particularly in Sussex, by reason of the decision that summer time is not a special occasion within the terms of the Licensing Act, and that many licensed victuallers have assumed that the justices were right in their view of the law on this subject and made their arrangements accordingly; and whether, in the circumstances, he will take the necessary steps to introduce a Bill to deal with the problem at an early date?
  Mr. JOHN LOCKWOODasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that by a recent legal decision it has been held that summer time is not a special occasion within the meaning of the Licensing Acts, with the result that licensing justices have no power to grant an extension of licensed hours during summer time; and whether, in view of the inconveniences which this will cause, he will consider the introduction of legislation to enable licensed premises to remain open for the additional hour notwithstanding the recent decision?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I am aware of the decision referred to. I understand, however, that an appeal is to be taken, and it will be appreciated that, in the circumstances, I am not in a position to comment on the issues involved.
  Mr. THORP: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the appeal must take a considerable time before it comes to hearing, and that His Majesty's judges will not attach the slightest importance to the opinion of the Home Office on a point of law, and in the circumstances, in view of the confusion which will arise, will he consider the introduction of legislation at an early date?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I think we must await the result of the appeal.
  Earl WINTERTON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that meanwhile there will
  1710
  be complete chaos as regards the licensing law? Will he also consult his Cabinet colleagues who are interested in bringing tourists to the country?
  Mr. THORP: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the narrow view with regard to matters sub judice being applied to the India Select Committee?

  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the present inadequate statistics available, he will arrange during the current year to ascertain the extent to which revenue from Entertainments Duty is obtained from theatres, cinemas, greyhound racing tracks, and other places, respectively, with the object of establishing whether this duty is levied in the most desirable and scientific manner?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As has been explained on previous occasions, separate particulars of the receipts of Entertainments Duty from different classes of entertainment are not available, because in the case of duty paid by the purchase of stamps or stamped tickets there is no information as to the class of entertainment for which the stamps or tickets may be used. I do not think I should be justified in setting up the new and expensive machinery that would be necessary to procure the information desired by my hon. Friend.

  AIR STRENGTH.
  Sir M. SUETERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the contents of the recent French Note on Disarmament, he can state what action the Government propose now to take to fulfil the pledges made to Members of this House who have pressed for air security?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave on Monday last in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Sir C. Cayzer).
  Mr. WHITESIDE: Are we to understand that the Government are now taking preliminary action to build up to parity?
  The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend must understand that the Govern

  1711
  ment mean to put into operation the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council.
  Mr. EVERARD: Is the Prime Minister aware that since the statement was made in the House of Commons there has been a very large increase of building in Air Forces of some of the Powers which are not members of the League of Nations, and does he not realise the very great feeling of uneasiness among the British public on this point?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Batey.

  COAL MINES MINIMUM WAGE ACT.
  Mr. BATEYasked the Prime Minister if he intends to introduce legislation to amend the Miners' Minimum Wage Act, 1912?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Government has no such Bill under consideration.
  Mr. BATEY: Is the Prime Minister aware that last Friday a private Member's Bill dealing with this subject was rejected on the advice of the Government, and is he not aware of the urgent need of something being done to amend the Minimum Wage Act?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think that my hon. Friend is drawing upon his imagination. The Government did not reject the Bill last Friday.
  Mr. T. SMITH: Is the Prime Minister aware of the terribly low wages in existence in some of the coalfields, and may we have an assurance that the matter will be dealt with in one way or another?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are very well aware of what my hon. Friend has said in the first part of his question, but he knows perfectly well that, if he studies the Bills which have been produced from time to time to remedy this great evil, the differences of opinion are more conspicuous than the agreements.
  Mr. SMITH: Is the Prime Minister aware that ever since the Miners' Minimum Wage Act was put upon the Statute Book in 1912 there has been no amendment of it?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, since 1912.
  Mr. PALING: Can the Prime Minister state when he is likely to be in a position to give as much sympathetic consideration to the miner as he is to the building of armaments, for instance?
  Mr. BATEY: Is the Prime Minister aware that I did not say that the Government rejected the Bill last Friday? I said that the Bill was rejected on the advice of the Government through the Secretary of Mines.
  The PRIME MINISTER: My information is that that is not accurate.

  TANGANYIKA (ROAD TRANSPORT).
  Mr. HALL-CAINE (for Mr. HUTCHISON)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Tanganyika Government proposes to prohibit the carriage of goods by motor transport over any section of any road in the territory which runs parallel with any section of the railway; whether this is a policy which is being adopted generally in the British Colonies; and what is its justification?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Tanganyika Government has been advised that the existing legislation in that territory has not eliminated uneconomic motor competition with the railway, and the question of amending the existing legislation is under consideration. It is the policy to effect a co-ordination between road and rail transport.

  FACTORY ACCIDENT, WIMBLEDON.
  Mr. LUNN (for Mr. THORNE)asked the Home Secretary if he has received a report from the factory inspector in connection with the serious accident at Wimbledon when a man was drawn into a binding machine; and if he can state whether the machine in question was adequately protected?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I have received a report upon the accident to Wilfred Sand-ford on the 18th April, to which I think the hon. Member refers. I am glad to say this accident turned out not to be serious: the injured man is expected to return to work in a week. It occurred at a part of the machine at which danger had not previously been anticipated and additional fencing is now being provided.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE (CANTEEN SERVICE).
  Mr. LUNN (for Mr. THORNE)asked the Home Secretary (1) whether he is aware that the new form of organisation of the Metropolitan Police canteen service, in which the management is to be removed from the elected representatives of all ranks and vested in a board of higher officials nominated by the Commissioner, is a breach of the undertaking given and implied by the present practice which has been established since 1920; and whether he will consider the appointment to the management committee of elected representatives of the Police Federation;
  (2) whether, in accepting the recommendation of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police respecting the reorganisation of the canteen service, he has considered the wishes of the members of the Metropolitan Police; and what steps he is taking to acquire the property and stocks of the present owners, the central canteen committee, as representing all ranks of the force?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: So far as I am aware, the new arrangements involve no breach of any undertaking. I have considered the representations made to me by members of the force and have reached the definite conclusion that it is neither necessary nor desirable to provide for the appointment of Branch Board representatives on the new committee of management. No steps are required in respect of the property, which will continue to be held by trustees on behalf of the force. Ample provision is made under the scheme for enabling members of the force to bring any suggestions to the notice of the Board of Management.
  Mr. LUNN: Is it not a fact that the management and control of these canteens under the elected members of all sections of the Police Force have been admirable within the last 12 years?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: From the report made upon it, I think that they have been admirably conducted, but at the same time, the financial responsibility rests with the commissioner and myself.
  Mr. LUNN: If the management has been admirable during the last 12 years and no complaints have been made, why
  1714
  make a change of this kind and eliminate the lower ranks of the force?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: While it may have been admirable, I take the view that there is nothing which cannot be improved, and I am quite satisfied that this can be materially improved.

  PRIVILEGES.
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to give leave to the right hon. the Earl of Derby, K.G., G.C.B., G.C.V.O., to attend to be examined as a Witness before the Committee of Privileges.—[The Prime Minister.]

  CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. Cape to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill); and Sir Cyril Cobb to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Employers' Liability Bill).
  Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Privileges,—That they give leave to the Earl of Derby to attend in order to his being examined as a witness before the Committee of Privileges appointed by this House, his Lordship (in his place) consenting.
That they have agreed to,—
Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill,
Overseas Trade Bill,
South Metropolitan Gas (No. 1) Bill,
Brighton Hove and Worthing Gas Bill,
East Worcestershire Water Bill, without amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provision in regard to the finances of the harbour undertaking of the urban district council of Watchet; and for other purposes." [Watchet Urban District Council Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Councillors of the Metropolitan borough of Wandsworth to erect municipal buildings and other buildings and premises and to acquire land; and for other

1715
purposes." [Wandsworth Borough Council Bill [Lords.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  WANDSWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords].
  Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill): Mr. Vyvyan Adams; and had appointed in substitution: Brigadier-General Spears.

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Mr. Bossom, Mr. Leslie Boyce, Mr. Brocklebank, Mr. Clarry, Mr. Macquisten and Mr. Raikes; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Dower, Captain Elliston, Dr. Leech, Mr. Macmillan, Mr. Rankin, and Sir Luke Thompson.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.
  Considered in Committee [14 th Allotted Day].
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

  UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.

    FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Constitution and Proceedings of Unemployment Assistance Board.)
    3.28 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, in page 69, line 28, to leave out "power to hold land without a licence in mortmain, and."
    This Amendment raises what is really a legal point, and I am moving it on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. Really, in order to make the proposed Amendment intelligible I must refer to certain Amendments on the Paper, and I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I make a short general statement, which is really necessary in order to explain this particular Amendment. If hon. Members will look on the second page of the Amendment Paper, towards the bottom, they will see an Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend—in page 70, line 7, at the end, to insert:
    "9. The functions of the board, and of the officers and servants appointed by the board, shall be exercised on behalf of the Crown,"
    etc. That being the position—and I shall have a word or two to say about it in a moment—namely, that the functions of the board, and of the officers and servants of the board shall be exercised on behalf of the Crown, there is no need for the words which appear in the Bill as presented, namely, "power to hold land without a licence in mortmain." So really it is a drafting Amendment dependent upon the fact that the board and the servants are exercising their functions on behalf of the Crown. It will be agreed that this is a board set up to perform a national service in accordance with the provisions of Clause 34. The salaries of the members of the board are to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, the salaries of the other officers of the board are to be paid out of money voted by this House and the main expenses of the board—with the exception of con-
    1724
    tributions from local authorities under Clause 44—will be borne by the Treasury. It will be agreed, I hope, that in these circumstances the board and its officers should exercise these powers on behalf of the Crown, and I suggest that that would have plainly been the position without the insertion of the express words which my right hon. Friend is moving to insert at a later stage. The reason for the Amendment is that the Bill as originally presented did not in all details recognise that that would and must be the position of the board. If that had been recognised fully and in every detail the words which I am now proposing to leave out would not have been inserted; they would have been unnecessary, because the board are acting on behalf of the Crown. It is desirable when Parliament sets up bodies that it should be clearly and expressly stated in the Act whether they are exercising their functions on behalf of the Crown.
    3.32 p.m.
    Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I agree with the Solicitor-General that it is always just as well to be clear in an Act of Parliament as to the position regarding a body of this kind. I understand that this Amendment is really part and parcel of the Amendments on page 768, the addition of the two other paragraphs which stand in the name of the Minister of Labour. I should like to ask a question or two on the situation as disclosed by the present Amendment and the subsequent Amendments. The present Amendment deals only with the holding of land and has no relationship to the position of the officers and servants of the board with regard to other matters. When it comes to the constitution of the board and the officers and servants as if they were a Government Department, for that is substantially what is being done, are we to understand that there will be no possibility of bringing an action against those officers and servants except under the usual form in which an action is brought against the Crown? Will they be liable for torts or under contract to be sued in the event of doing something irregular or improper in regard to the functions which they are supposed to carry out under the hoard? The Solicitor-General knows that the proceeding which has to be adopted when it comes to bringing an action against the Crown, is something

    1725
    which anybody embarks upon with considerable trepidation, and it makes it almost impossible for any action to be brought in those circumstances.
    Where you have a peculiar type of body which is not a Government Department and which has not that incident of a Government Department which gives protection to the subject by being represented on the Treasury Bench, it is extremely dangerous to set up such a body as being representative of the Crown and, therefore, only able to have actions brought against it and its servants as if they were a Government Department, because there is this essential difference between such a body and a Government Department that they cannot be got at in any way through political means. I am sure the Solicitor-General will agree with me that this is a very serious point and one which ought to be considered by the House, quite apart from any party consideration. I think I am right in saying that we have had no case hitherto in the development of this type of body where there has been a provision of this sort put in an Act of Parliament to constitute the servants of the body as if they were servants under a Government Department.
    If, for instance, it were proposed in regard to the Tariff Commission that in regard to matters where they might be sued the commissioners and their servants were to be treated as if they were servants of the Crown, that would be equally open to the objection that there is no representative here to speak for the Tariff Commission, just as there will be no representative here to speak for the Unemployment Assistance Board. There is that very vital difference, and I suggest that this matter ought to be explained very fully to the Committee if we are for the first time in the history of the country—I may be wrong—to give immunity, which is really what it amounts to, to the servants of a body such as this. That is the change which is made by the first Amendment and the subsequent Amendments in the statutory position of the members of the board. I take it that there is nothing further behind it and that there is no intention to extend the powers of the board, but that the object is merely to explain the statutory position which they occupy. It is not for us to develop statutory commis-
    1726
    sions of this kind and to set them up with the legal position of a Government Department, acting on behalf of the Crown.
    There ought to be, as there have been in relation to some Government Departments provisions made whereby certain people can be sued in the case of action desiring to be brought, and where it is not necessary to bring an action against the Crown. I think the Postmaster-General is a case in point. There is a special provision whereby the Postmaster-General can be sued as such, instead of the Crown. I am not certain whether in connection with the Board of Admiralty there is also provision for power to nominate someone to be sued instead of action having to be brought against the Crown. I would ask the Solicitor-General to consider that point, if it had not already been fully considered, and to tell us whether he thinks it is wise in circumstances of this kind to give this type of what I call immunity to the servants and officers of this Department.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Solicitor-General has raised what is really a wider question than the point covered by this Amendment. I do not think there is any objection to a general discussion on all the Amendments, but I want to safeguard the position of the Chair by saying that if we have a general discussion on the present Amendment it must not be repeated on the later Amendments.
    3.39 p.m.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: I will not intervene in regard to the merits of a legal discussion. The very presence of the Solicitor-General is naturally alarming. A conversation has taken place, in very conversational terms, between himself and his predecessor. When two hon. and learned Gentlemen get together I begin to wonder what is behind it. I am concerned but for a different reason. We are setting up a very peculiar and novel authority charged with wide and extensive powers, which will affect hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens. Their existence will depend on the administration of this new board as we are proposing to hand over to it practically the whole of our Poor Law which, hitherto, has been a local matter. There is no doubt that many of these citizens will feel that they have been

    1727
    robbed if they are not able to go to their own Poor Law authority. Hitherto, they have been able to approach the Minister through their Member of Parliament, but this new authority is to be something quite apart and detached, something away from the ordinary public administration of the country. It is going to sit independent, high up in the mountains, quite out of contact with the public. We are now told that this new body is to be in a privileged position, similar to that of a Government Department. It is to have a legal status and will not be subject to the ordinary laws and regulations like the London County Council or large city corporations. We have a right to know what it all means. Does it mean that this authority cannot be sued in the ordinary courts? If an individual suffers a wrong because of a breach of the law by this authority is it to be treated as being a State Department which you cannot sue for damages? I think the Committee should know the implications of the proposal.
    3.43 p.m.
    Mr. LAWSON: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has indicated our position in reference to this Amendment. He asked whether it means an enlargement of the functions of this board. Let me put the question a little more explicitly. The Amendment gives fuller powers to the board than were originally proposed, powers to which they are entitled and which are needed. May I ask whether this has any connection with the visit of the Government Commissioners to distressed areas? When I saw that land was being brought in it seemed to me that it was being done with a view to this board operating possibly when the commissioners give their report. I should like to have a definite answer on this point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke in Newcastle on the day when we discussed distressed areas in this House and he suggested that the board should be used for investigation and a general survey of the areas. I was somewhat uncomfortable when I read that, but I am pleased that the Government have decided to send their own representatives rather than the board. It would hamper the work of the survey and any future work which may have to
    1728
    be done if it is to be done by this particular body. That is the worst possible way of doing it.
    Mr. COVE: The commissioners are not much good.
    Mr. LAWSON: This is a different matter altogether. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give me a definite reply. There may not be a great deal in it, but in view of the Chancellor's statement and the Amendments of the Government on this point, I think the Committee should have a definite statement on the matter.
    3.46 p.m.
    Mr. DENMAN: The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has rather withdrawn the attention of the Committee from the Amendments actually before us, and as they are of importance I hope the Committee will devote its attention to them. I ask the Solicitor-General to give us a more complete explanation of the purpose of the Amendments before we pass them. The change they make in the Bill is considerable. They set up an authority for which I know no precedent. I do not think the Solicitor-General can give us a precedent for the creation of an authority which is a fragment of the Crown. We frequently create corporate bodies which are self-sufficient and which have their functions laid down by Parliament, but this body is not self-sufficient, or completely corporate by itself, and its functions are to be exercised on behalf of the Crown. It is a novel kind of corporation. The matter is not one of theoretical importance. Ordinarily the Crown is represented by Ministers. The Crown can do no wrong; but Ministers can. But what if this body does a wrong, if anyone is aggrieved, how are they to get redress? It is to exercise functions on behalf of the Crown; will it be legitimate then to criticise the Crown? In the presence of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) I will not pursue that problem, but it does produce a real difficulty. Where there is no Minister, what is the position of a body which is performing its functions on behalf of the Crown?
    The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol raised the practical difficulty of the suing of the servants of this body. There is another practical difficulty, the

    1729
    rating and taxation of this board. If it is a fragment of the Crown it is free from rates, and if it is to hold land then presumably it will occupy a considerable amount of property in various parts of the Kingdom. Are those parts to be legally free from liability to rates? There are all kinds of difficulties involved, and I hope for a more complete explanation than we have yet had.
    3.50 p.m.
    Mr. NOEL LINDSAY: I am afraid I did not follow the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) in his novel suggestion about a fragment of the Crown. I shall be interested to find out what it means. Will the learned Solicitor-General deal with the matter in this way: People draw a distinction between what it seems to me are the two different points involved. First of all there are the functions of the board under the Bill. Does this Amendment affect those? Suppose that there is some mismanagement of the functions of the board, can the person who is injured proceed by mandamus? Is not that a proper method? Is that or is it not affected by the Amendment? Those are the ordinary functions of the board. But there is a second one, and it is that which troubles the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). Suppose that in the course of its occupation of land and the carrying out of its functions under the Bill the board does something which conflicts with the ordinary common law. Suppose, for instance, that it runs over someone with one of the super-power motor cars which presumably the board will employ. Suppose that there is some defect in the premises that they occupy and some person is injured. What is the position then? How is the person injured, say by the falling of a pile, to proceed? What is the intention? I ask the learned Solicitor-General to draw a distinction between the functions of the board and the ordinary common law.
    3.52 p.m.
    Sir BASIL PETO: I only want to refer for a moment to the importance of the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). He appears to-day in the somewhat novel role of Satan rebuking sin, for it was only quite recently that he announced to the country in general that it was pre-
    1730
    cisely this type of board, outside the control of Parliament, with which he proposed at a not very distant date to carry on the whole of the administration of the country.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Will the hon. Baronet read the quotation from my speech in which I said that? I never said anything of the sort.
    Sir B. PETO: That was certainly the impression made by a speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Therefore, it seems to me to be of peculiar interest and of immense importance to notice that if there is anything novel in these proposals regarding the powers of this extra-Parliamentary Board, and the legal position of the members of the board in relation to all the matters mentioned, that the Solicitor-General should make it perfectly clear why there should be this extension of the board's powers, and why immunity from ordinary proceedings at law should be necessary for the board in carrying out its functions. It is a very small matter comparatively speaking, but we are going to set up a precedent by appointing the board with the enlarged powers provided by the Amendments. In order to do something which might be done equally well in another way we may be setting an example to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol, which he and his party will not be slow to follow in days to come.
    3.54 p.m.
    Mr. MAXTON: I have allowed myself to assent in silence to a proceeding which seems to me, now that I have had time to think it over, not appropriate. You suggested from the Chair, Captain Bourne, that we should discuss the Amendment now before us in conjunction with other Amendments on page 768 to another part of the Schedule. I am afraid it was necessary for the learned Solicitor-General to refer to those subsequent Amendments, but it seems to me that the Committee would be making a mistake to have the major discussion on this Amendment, to which I think the Committee might agree. I can see the consequences. As I understand it, the consequential Amendment is one that must necessarily follow. But I think the appropriate attitude for the Opposition is to accept the proposal to remove the phrase dealing with power to hold land

    1731
    without a licence in mortmain. Presumably if we delete that phrase we taken away the power from the Unemployment Assistance Board.
    I do not know exactly how easy or how difficult it is to get a licence in mortmain. I have held a wireless licence and a dog licence, but so far I have never been under the necessity of getting this sort of licence, which is probably much more imposing than a dog licence. But if this board is going to hold land let it apply to some authority to do it. That puts it more in line with common men. It brings it down a little from the high heaven in which the Government are endeavouring to place it. Therefore, I do not see why the Committee cannot agree quite heartily with the point of view that if this Unemployment Assistance Board desires to hold land it should just get into the queue with the rest of us down at the mortmain office, and apply. The suggestion you made, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, that we should discuss the two Amendments together, I think should not be proceeded with, but that we should have an opportunity on the Opposition benches of supporting the Government Amendment to withdraw from the board the power that was being given them, and then at a later stage refuse to them the power to be given by the two paragraphs which the Government will move in a subsequent Amendment.
    3.58 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I hope that Members of the Committee will acquit me of any intentional discourtesy either to the Committee or to the importance of the subject-matter if I introduced this Amendment rather briefly. I welcome the suggestions which have been made and the opportunity of dealing with them. First of all, I can give the Committee the most complete assurance that this Amendment is neither intended to, nor in my opinion does it, enlarge the functions of the Board. Nor has it any connection of any kind with the decisions taken with regard to the Commissioners. On the Bill as drafted, having regard to the functions imposed on this board—for instance, under Clause 34, dealing with this matter as a national service, dealing with it to almost the whole extent out of moneys voted by Parliament, members of the board being
    1732
    paid out of the Consolidated Fund—having regard to all those facts, in my opinion it is clear, looking at the scheme of the Bill as a whole, that the board is and would be held by any court to be exercising functions on behalf of the Crown, and, therefore, would be within such immunity as is conferred under the existing law.
    This body, which is exercising its functions on behalf of the Crown, is entrusted, under an Act of Parliament, with the performance of a national duty—a duty which the principle of the Bill accepts as a duty of the State of improving the conditions of unemployed persons and of making allowances to them. The principle of the Bill is that that is a duty for the State to undertake, and, therefore, those whom the State employs to carry out the duties of a State undertaking would, in my opinion, be held to be exercising their functions on behalf of the Crown in the same way as members of a Government Department, whether they are or are not exercising State functions, where, under our Parliamentary procedure and practice, there is a Minister directly responsible in this House for that Department, or whether, as in this Bill, the responsibility and control of this House does not take the same form.
    When you add to that that the salaries of the members of the board and payments have to be made good from moneys voted by this House, and you have the very large measure of control of this House and the responsibility, it seems to me plain that the board as set up by this Bill are exercising their functions on behalf of the Crown. Hon. Members on many previous occasions have referred to the extent of the control by this House, on the Minister's salary, on the Consolidated Fund Bill and on the presentation of the Annual Report and with regard to ail the matters as to which the Minister has to give his approval. Regulations have to be approved by this House, although it is true to say that, while the principle of the Bill does not really arise on this Amendment, it is really a retention of control by this House.
    That being the position, and that being our opinion, having regard to the principle of the Bill, that was the only and inevitable result to make it clear in ex-

    1733
    press words in the Bill. The result of that is, first of all, that, as far as contracts are concerned, contracts made by servants of the Crown are enforceable against the Crown by Petition of Right. There may be some procedure which may be simpler, but that is another question, and my hon. and learned Friend opposite who has had experience of actions brought by Petition of Eight, knows that it is very easy to exaggerate the complexities and difficulties which are put in the way of subjects by that Procedure. For a period after the War, when the State Departments had entered into contracts of all kinds, there were countless Petitions of Rights which went through with the same ease as ordinary actions for debt. As far as torts are concerned, the case was put by the hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. Lindsay), and a similar case, I think, was referred to by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), of an accident when someone is run down by a servant of the board—
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Or fraud.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My hon. and learned Friend shows his general attitude to the board which Parliament is setting up by regarding fraud as a likely incident. The position would be the same as has happened in many cases with regard to those who drive Post Office vans or Admiralty or War Office lorries. The subjects injured have a right of action against—and only against—the individual; but the practice, as my hon. and learned Friend opposite knows perfectly well, is that the Department, in fact, stands behind the individual, and although the individual may not have the means himself if he is called upon to satisfy any judgment which may be found against him, the Treasury provide the means for satisfying the judgment. That is the practice of Government Departments to-day, and it will be the practice as far as servants or officers of this board are concerned. The reason for that, of course, is that in an ordinary case a master is sued if his servant knocks a man down. But in the case of the servants of the Crown, you cannot stop on the way to the Crown and say that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General is the master, and therefore must pay when a mail van knocks down somebody in the street, because he is not the master. It is the Crown, and the Crown, under
    1734
    our constitution, can do no wrong. You cannot, of course, issue a writ and take legal proceedings against the Crown. That is the theory which lies behind the practice—a practice which does not inflict hardship in its results, because in this case the Government Department and the Treasury do, in fact, stand behind the individual, and the damages which are payable are paid.
    Another hon. Member, I think, referred to the question of certiorari or mandamus. I apologise to the Committee for raising these technical matters, but they are necessary. This board, in that it has certain functions placed upon it of deciding certain things of a technical nature, will be subject, as any other body set up by Statute, with the function of taking decisions of being stopped if it exceeds its jurisdiction, and being compelled to act if it declines wholly to fulfil its function. Those are the legal remedies which apply. Therefore, in my submission, it is not accurate to say that a body, exercising its function on behalf of the Crown, is outside the law.
    The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) raised the question of rating and taxation. That is a matter which is dealt with, as it has been dealt with in every case, namely, by the Treasury making a payment in lieu of rates to the local authority in whose area land is owned on behalf of the Crown, and which therefore, technically, might claim immunity. All those matters are dealt with without any great dissatisfaction in the case of Government Departments.
    The point raised by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) was as to whether there was an exact precedent. I think that the answer is "No." I think there may be other bodies, such as the Forestry Commissioners—a Commissioner does not sit in this House necessarily—who are clearly exercising their functions on behalf of the Crown. But I do not in the least disagree with what is obvious, that this body has no precedent, and those who approve of the passing of this Bill are proud of that fact. We believe that we are, without a precedent, producing a great social improvement. Discussion may arise on the main principles of the Bill as to whether this is a good idea or a bad one, but I ask

    1735
    the Committee to accept the view for the purpose of this discussion that it is a good idea that it is in the interests of the unemployed to set up a board to perform this national service with the degree of Parliamentary control provided by the Bill. No other solution is right or possible than that they should be expressed to be exercising their functions on behalf of the Crown, because, in fact, they are performing a vital national service, and a function of Government which this House has expressly stated, by the principle of this Bill and on other occasions, to be a responsibility of the State. For those reasons, I ask the Committee to accept this Amendment and the consequential Amendments which, in my submission, really make explicit what was implicit in the principle of the Bill.
    4.12 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. and learned Member has enlightened the Committee, I am sure, in pointing out to the Committee and the country one thing of which we have had no full admission before. We now have it from the hon. and learned Gentleman that this body is to be set up to perform the functions of government in this country, which is precisely what we have been saying. Here you have a body set up, not to look after some insurance fund, but to perform the functions of government—functions of government which have been taken away from the House of Commons to be performed by a body outside, a body which is described in the Schedule as
    "a body corporate by the name of the Unemployment Assistance Board with a Common Seal "—
    words wholly inappropriate to the setting up of a Government Department. The hon. and learned Member said that anyone would interpret, under this Bill, the Unemployment Assistance Board as obviously being a servant of the Crown. I venture to suggest that there is no case where a body corporate with a Common Seal has been set up by Parliament as a servant of the Crown. There have been cases—the British Broadcasting Corporation, the Central Electricity Commissioners, and all those other bodies carrying out vital administrative duties to the State or to the community which have not been set up as servants of the Crown but as separate bodies corporate with a
    1736
    Common Seal—separate entities given, as this body is given, a Statutory existence, and not merely introduced into the structure of the State as an agent for the Crown in a particular function of the Crown.
    The importance of the matter is that when the Crown acts through agents in Governmental functions, those agents must always be represented in the legislature. That is essential to a democratic constitution. Here we have the setting up of a separate body corporate with a Common Seal which is not in its nature likely to become an agent of the Crown with political responsibility. You take away from it that political responsibility. You say that you are going to put it outside the House of Commons, because it is a separate body corporate with its own Common Seal and its own separate life. Having done that, you say that it is to be treated as if it were an agent of the Crown. Hitherto those two things have been wholly inconsistent in the constitution of the country. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that he is setting up a new body. I am all in favour of setting up new bodies. I think it is an excellent thing to do. On the other hand, I am not in favour of setting up new bodies which are not responsible to the Government and the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If hon. Members including the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) who appears to take exception to that statement, will do me the honour of reading what I have written on this subject, they will see that I have insisted on more control by the House of Commons over any such body as this and not less control.
    Sir B. PETO: Is it not the case that the hon. and learned Gentleman said that when Parliament assembled, after his party had come into power, it would be asked to pass one Act and one Act only setting up a body which would, as he described it, get on with the job?
    Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. Baronet will find that I have never said any such thing in my life. If he does not accept my statement, will he be good enough—
    Sir B. PETO: I accept anything which the hon. and learned Gentleman says on the subject. He knows better than I do what he actually said, but I have given

    1737
    my recollection of what he was reported to have said, and what I think the general public believed him to have said.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. Baronet may take it from me that in anything which I have said or suggested I have always insisted that there should be a greater measure of control by the House of Commons and not a less measure of control. My whole ambition has been to try to set up a form of procedure in the House of Commons which would enable a greater and not a less measure of control to be exercised over Ministers. If the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General wishes to express any view on that point he has the opportunity of doing so.
    Mr. PALING: Why not get up and express dissent if you are anxious to do so?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have not got the book.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will get it and that will be another copy sold. In the case of this board the Solicitor-General rightly takes pride in the setting up of a new body, but I seriously ask the Committee to consider the type of body which is being set up and to ask themselves whether it is right to set up a corporation of this type, without any direct responsibility to this House or to the people through any representative or elected body. I would also draw attention to the fact that it is at the same time to be given a type of immunity which hitherto has only belonged to people who have that political responsibility. That is to say this body can only be sued in a case of contract by petition of right, and they cannot be sued at all as regards other types of action.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to make a joke because I suggested the case of fraud. The reason why I suggested the case of fraud was this. It is true that the Treasury will accept liability in a case of accident, but they will not always accept liability in cases of fraud. That comes into a different area, and the Treasury might take the view that they were not responsible for a fraud by their servants. In this case you take away the chance of bringing an action against the master whether he is liable or not. The exact quantum of difference does not matter very much, but the fact is that by putting this body
    1738
    in a privileged position of some sort we shall be making things very difficult. Having taken away political responsibility, it is wrong to give that kind of immunity and before this new body with these unprecedented rights, representing a new constitutional feature, is introduced, the matter should be given further and careful consideration by the Government.
    4.21 p.m.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: I hope that before we leave this question we may have a little light thrown upon it and that some attempt will be made to clear up the confusion to which many of us have been reduced after comparing the functions ascribed to this board by representatives of the Government, with the situation revealed by the observations of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). My hon. and learned Friend in speaking of the relationship of the House of Commons to the new board referred to the degree of Parliamentary control. On the other hand the Minister of Labour has said that the Minister on behalf of the Government, will assume sole responsibility for the policy and regulations of the board. In the "Times" of 28th March will be found a reply which the Minister gave to a deputation representing the Childrens Minimum Committee. In that reply he said there had been confusion as to what degree of Parliamentary control and responsibility there would be for the board and its operation and he added that he assumed full responsibility for the policy and the regulations which this new body might lay down.
    If that is correct it is manifestly not in this Bill and if the Bill becomes an Act and these Schedules are passed there will be a position for which, I think, there is no precedent. The Minister will be responsible for administering regulations but neither he nor the Prime Minister nor the Cabinet will have any initiative to alter the regulations or the policy laid down by the board. The Minister may consider that he has those powers but I shall be grateful to him if he will point out any part of this Bill which states that there is the right on the part of the Minister to take the initiative to alter any regulation proposed by the board and brought to this House. Perhaps it might be sent back to the board with a suggestion from the Minister but when it has received an affirmative Resolution

    1739
    apparently neither the House of Commons nor the Minister has any further say in the matter.
    4.24 p.m.
    Mr. JAMES REID: I do not rise to deal with the general question further than to say that the Amendment seems the logical conclusion of the Bill as we have passed it up to date. It makes explicit what is implicit in the provisions already passed by the Committee. I rise to ask the Lord Advocate a question with regard to the position in Scotland. In Scotland the position as regards civil actions differs from that in England. We are not subject to all the trouble of a petition of right in these cases. The Lord Advocate is the proper defender in the case of any action against a Government department. I should like his assurance that in the case of any action against the board based on contract or the like, he or his successor will under this Bill be the proper defender. As far as civil wrongs are concerned, I think the Solicitor-General for England has given entirely satisfactory assurances as regards England and I would merely ask the Lord Advocate whether the Scottish position is the same as that outlined by the Solicitor-General in reference to England.
    4.26 p.m.
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Wilfrid Normand): In answer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. J. Reid), the position of the Board in Scotland in the event of anyone wishing to sue them for breach of contract or for fulfilment of contract is this. There would be a direct right of action in that case against the Lord Advocate as representing the Board. That is an ancient right of the subject in Scotland, now regulated by the Crown Suits Act. There is no need whatever for the procedure which exists in England of petition of rights. I think there is just the same right of action in Scotland as one subject would have against another subject as far as contract is concerned. Then, as regards wrongs or what are called torts in England, the position is exactly the same in Scotland as has been stated by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for England, to be the position in England. The right of action would be a
    1740
    right of action against the individual committing the wrong, but, in Scotland, the Lord Advocate as representing the Crown would undertake the burden of the defence and the Government would bear the financial consequences as found by the court of law.
    There would, in short, be no difference between the consequences of a wrong committed, say by the driver of a Post Office van and the consequences of a wrong committed by a member of the board so far as the person wronged is concerned. As regards such matters as writs of certiorari and mandamus the position in Scotland is this. I think there would be a right of action of interdict against the Lord Advocate representing the board, on the one hand, to prevent some wrong being done and, on the other hand, there would be power to petition the Court of Session to compel the board to perform statutory duties if it was failing to do what the Statute requires.
    4.29 p.m.
    Mr. JANNER: After the very clear explanation which has been given as to how easy it is to take actions of this kind and as to the simplicity of the procedure in Scotland, I should like to know why it is that a committee is sitting at present to examine into the defects and difficulties which exist in regard to actions of this particular type. There is considerable dissatisfaction and misunderstanding with regard to actions against the Crown, and there is justification for a thorough investigation of the question. I suggest that this is an appropriate occasion for more clearly defining the procedure in connection with these actions and perhaps making it simpler.
    I would like to put another point. Are the Government prepared to make what is implied in the Bill in respect of the rights to be maintained in the House over matters which come within the purview of the Crown as explicit as they are in respect of this particular provision which the hon. and learned Gentleman is bringing forward to-day? If, as he says, it is implied that the position of the Unemployment Assistance Board is such that it becomes similar to that of another Crown body, we would like to have a definite statement in the Bill giving us the right to bring every matter relating

    1741
    to the actions of that board before the House, in the same way as we have that right in respect of other matters which come within the purview of Crown bodies. In those circumstances, it may be that my hon. Friends above the Gangway and we here may be prepared to meet the hon. and learned Member half way or both ways.
    Mr. COVE: Or any old way.
    Mr. JANNER: But if he is going to tell us that for the purpose of actions and the vesting of property this board is to be regarded as being purely and simply a Crown Board, that it is to have the same privileges as every other Government authority, and if he is then going to say that he is not prepared to let that board have its actions governed by a similar procedure to that governing every other body which comes within the provisions of a similar scheme, then we cannot accept, or we ought not to be prepared to accept, the Amendment that is placed before us.
    4.32 p.m.
    Mr. DENMAN: While thanking the learned Solicitor-General for his lucid and detailed explanation of the Amendments, which in many ways are very confusing, I must confess to some regret that the Government have not left the Bill as it was originally introduced, because, on balance, it is difficult to believe that this change is an improvement. The sort of corporation to which we have become accustomed is the British Broadcasting Corporation, or the Electricity Commissioners, or the Forestry Commissioners, but it has not been necessary, because these perform national functions of great importance, to invest them with this particular dignity of being agents of the Crown, and there is attached to a body whom you make an agent of the Crown a liability to unpopularity which seems to me unfortunate. I am thinking of my constituents who may happen to be in dispute with that board. If a constituent has a contract with the board and wants to have its merits thrashed out in a court, what is the use of telling him that he can resort to a petition of rights? The procedure is formidable and, in the provinces, expensive. Instead of having the thing thrashed out in the local court in a few days, he perhaps has to suffer what he regards, it may be without reason, as an injustice.
    1742
    I see the Postmaster-General on the Treasury Bench. He knows very well the amount of unpopularity—[HON. MEMBERS: "'He knows, he knows '"]—which, quite unjustly, is attached to the Post Office because it is not amenable to the procedure of the ordinary courts. He knows that there are many cases in which a man wishes to have his rights, and I have not the least doubt that justice is done. The Postmaster-General and I, at our age, have seen a number of cases in which I am sure more than justice has been done and in which the Treasury has perhaps erred on the side of generosity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Members opposite show surprise, and I admit that it is not altogether credible, but people who have these things to administer know very well that it may be better to err by giving a little more than a court might give, in order to have peace. But the fact that you can dictate when you are the agents of the Crown prevents satisfaction even for a man who is well treated. It seems to me that this procedure makes this board liable to quite unmerited unpopularity in a number of small instances. Therefore, I think the board should have been left as it was originally, without special immunities and subject to the ordinary principles of law, and I wish the Government had stuck to their original intention.
    4.36 p.m.
    Mr. MAXTON: As we go on, we gradually gather understanding of the position. The learned Solicitor-General has been more than candid in telling us that he wants this board to have a power greater than any existing board, without any precedent in our national constitution. The Government all through have been making this a detached, independent board that is above criticism, and now we gather that while it is not to be above legal proceedings, such legal proceedings are to be as difficult as possible. The Solicitor-General has explained how these things affect the position in England, but I am more concerned about the position in Scotland. I know that there is a distinction between Scottish law and English law, and we have a Solicitor-General for Scotland no less than a Solicitor-General for England. I want the Scottish Law Officer to explain to those of us who are present

    1743
    from Scotland exactly what effect the inclusion or exclusion of the phrase about "a licence in mortmain" has in so far as the holding of land in Scotland is concerned. That would aid me in coming to a conclusion as to how my vote should be cast on this matter.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: The phrase in question has no effect in Scotland. There is no law of mortmain in Scotland. But the board will be entitled to hold land according to the law of Scotland.
    4.40 p.m.
    Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: I cannot understand the position taken up by the learned Solicitor-General, because, as I gather, in Scotland the board will not be able to enjoy the immunities which are claimed for it in England, and yet I gather, because no Amendment is being made in the legal status of the board in Scotland, that it will be equally efficient in the discharge of its duties there as in England. If, therefore, the efficiency of the board will not be impaired in Scotland by the wider liberty accorded to the subject, how will its efficiency be impaired in England? Perhaps the Solicitor-General will tell us that. Why should not the subject in England be placed in the same relationship to the board as the subject in Scotland? I think we have got ourselves into a most absurd situation. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has pointed out, this method of legislation does indeed establish a new principle in our constitution. It is usually considered that where an elected representative is not allowed to exercise his right of protection for his constituent, the courts are in a position to do so, and where a man has not got the right to come to the House of Commons because a Statute has been passed by that House which defines his relationship to some other citizen, if he thinks he is aggrieved, he can go to a court; in other words, when we pass an Act of Parliament we for the moment finish with the citizen, but the courts are still there to protect him.
    Under this present provision, as I understand it, we are going to make it as difficult as possible for the citizen in England to protect himself against the board, and I would like to learn from
    1744
    the Solicitor-General why it is that the citizen in this country cannot be put in the same relationship to this board as the citizen in Scotland. If this is a radical departure in our constitutional practice, why should so radical a change be made for so frivolous a reason? I can understand a substantial case being made out that this board could not function in any other legal conditions, and all those hon. Members in all parts of the Committee who have supported the setting up of the board would naturally swallow that additional condition, because without it the board could not efficiently function, but now we are informed by the Lord Advocate that its legal status will not impair its efficiency in Scotland, and why should we permit the passage of this piece of legislation, which is without precedent, for a reason which obviously will not stand examination?
    I am not able to argue about whether action can be taken against the Crown in torts, or retorts, or anything of that sort. I am unable to argue the legal implications, but as the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has pointed out, we are gathering knowledge as we go along, and the comparison of the situation in Scotland with that in England leads me to conclude that either the Lord Advocate is wrong or that the Solicitor-General for England is frivolous in his contention. Hon. Members will observe that the House is much more anxious to protect the rights of property than to protect the ordinary rights of unemployed poor people. People possessing property and means will be able to command adequate legal assistance to guide them through the mazes and intricacies of a petition against the Crown. The poor man will, of course, not be able to do so.
    Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: If the hon. Member will make inquiries, he will find that there is machinery for assisting the poor litigant in all sorts of ways.
    Mr. BEVAN: I always bow to the legal wisdom of my hon. and learned Friend, but it was recently pointed out by lawyers in all parts of the House that the Act to give legal assistance to poor persons was woefully inadequate. No one would suggest for a moment that a poor person is put in the same position to obtain legal redress for his wrongs as the rich person.
    Mr. KNIGHT: The case to which the hon. Member refers is provided for by the rules for the assistance of poor litigants. Consequently, it cannot be related to the grievance he is citing, where a poor person desires to pursue a petition of right. That also is provided for.
    Mr. BEVAN: I am unable to argue the legal point with my hon. and learned Friend, but I shall be glad if he will illuminate my ignorance outside the Chamber afterwards. I think hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will agree that it is an exaggeration to say that a poor person can by the use of the procedure to give poor persons legal aid put himself in the same status as the rich person. When the Government set up the Electricity Commission, where rights of property are deeply involved, they were very careful to see that actions could lie in the courts against them and that they were not made agents of the Crown. When the Government set up a board which is to have control over the lives and bodies of 5,000,000 citizens, they are careful to see that there is no redress in the courts for them. This board will take over the 1,000,000 people who are on transitional payment, and, together with those taken over from the local authorities and their dependants, the board will be responsible for over 5,000,000 people. When the Government consider property they take care that property rights are protected by making court action as easy as possible, but when they put poor people under this new board they are careful to see that not only can they have no redress in the House of Commons but no redress in the courts either.
    It appears to me that hon. Members have been regarding this board rather frivolously. The Solicitor-General said it was not true to say that this piece of legislation had anything to do with the promise given by the Prime Minister with regard to the distressed areas and the sending out of commissioners. I would like to enter one more protest against asking us to accept powers on the mere statement of the Front Bench opposite that the powers will not be used in a certain way or that they are not intended to be used in a certain way. That is not good enough. The Solicitor-General's speeches in the OFFICIAL REPORT are not the law. We have to discuss
    1746
    the powers which are given by the Bill. Hon. Members who bear the peculiar label of National Socialist Members of the Government have assured us on numerous occasions that this board is so important and valuable that it will take over the problem of the distressed areas. It has been suggested that it will even have power to establish new industries in the distressed areas.
    Mr. KNIGHT: Who said that?
    Mr. BEVAN: The statement has been made there. If the hon. and learned Gentleman says it has not, I will look up the OFFICIAL REPORT, and if I find I am wrong I will apologise.
    Mr. KNIGHT: The hon. Member is not referring to me?
    Mr. BEVAN: No, the hon. and learned Member is always good enough to confine his speeches almost exclusively to those branches of legal learning in which he shines so illustriously. The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day said that he hoped this new board would, as part of their functions, try to deal with the problem of the distressed areas. Not only, therefore, is this board to have the superintendence of allowances and the governance of training camps, but it is to deal with the wide and important social problem of the distressed areas. The board, which will have governmental powers and the power of initiating the most important and radical changes in our national life, is to be set up in a way which gives it complete legal immunity from the ordinary processes of the law. The Government have travelled very far in the course of the last two and a half years in legislation of this kind. The taunts which have been made against my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol are nothing to the charges we shall make against this Government in future, because they will have made more inroads into the Constitution and restricted more liberty in the last two and a half years than Governments have done in the last 100 years. We ought not to permit such grave curtailments of the liberties of English citizens to be accomplished on the frivolous explanation that has been given from the Front Bench opposite.
    Amendment agreed to.
    4.56 p.m.
    Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, in page 69, line 30, after "appointed," to insert:
    "for a period not exceeding three years."
    The object of the Amendment is to limit the period of office of the board to three years instead of five. The Solicitor-General used a very apt phrase with reference to this board when he said that they were performing functions of government. He also said that the board was an authority without precedent, and he pointed out that it would perform new functions altogether. We accept that statement as to the position and functions of the board. I said, with reference to the Statutory Committee last night, that it was a great experiment. That applies with much more force to the Public Assistance Board. We have not a great deal of control over the Statutory Committee, but we shall have much less control over the board. It will have a chairman, a vice-chairman, and not more than four additional members and not less than one additional member, with maximum annual salaries of £12,000 a year, and it will have powers that are not only almost greater than any authority has ever had in this country, but powers that are so great that they impinge on and challenge the powers of the democratically elected authorities of this country. It is definitely stated in the Seventh Schedule that:
    "A public assistance authority shall not order outdoor relief to be given."
    I ask the Committee to note that this board will not only perform certain functions that are given to it but will immediately trespass upon the powers of a publicly elected body. We are told in the Seventh Schedule that the public assistance authority shall not grant assistance to any person under certain conditions. The board is thus given an authority that at once threatens and impinges upon the authority of the elected representatives of the people for relief purposes. The public assistance committee cannot give public assistance to any person whose needs have been considered by the board. I hope the Committee will note that point, because I am arguing that the powers of the board are so great that it will be almost impossible for it and the public assistance authorities to live side by side. The great experiment upon which the Government are launching will prove
    1748
    much greater and much more disastrous than they can guess. No person whose needs have been considered by the board can be considered for assistance by the public assistance committees. If the board say that a person is entitled to nothing, the public assistance authority is prohibited from giving him any money. So one could go on. It refers to any person whose needs have been taken into account by the Unemployment Assistance Board—the words are very explicit—and to any person in receipt of unemployment benefit, no matter how much or little that may be. It gives powers in regard to persons who are sent to a workhouse—I need not detail those powers, they were discussed when dealing with cases of special difficulty.
    The powers are so great that we say that no board ought to be given such powers. It is a board which not only will have the lives and well-being, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) has said, of hundreds of thousands of people under its control, but will almost determine the standard of life of people all over the country. It is our experience in Durham, where there are commissioners in pretty much the same position as this board, that they not only determine that certain people who come directly under their authority shall not have relief, but determine indirectly, and sometimes directly, the standard of relief that the public assistance committees give. I hope this Committee and the Minister are fully seized of that fact. There have been cases in which the Durham Public Assistance Committee have said, "We will give this person 2s. 6d. or 5s. a week more because of certain circumstances in his case," and the commissioners have said, "Very well, you can give him that if you like, but if you do we will reduce the amount that we give." Therefore, the country must be prepared to see the board determine ultimately the standard that will be set by the public assistance committees, which are elected by the people of the country.
    I know that it is the intention of the Minister of Labour that things should work the other way—at any rate, I think that is his intention. He bases himself on the words in sub-section (3) of Clause 37 of the Bill, where it is laid down that the assessment must be based upon need and upon the household in-

    1749
    come, and there are certain words there which the Minister argues give must more scope than is available under the means test as now applied. One thing which has been satisfactory throughout the proceedings on this Bill is that although the Government and their supporters have defended the principle of the means test I have not heard anybody in the House ever defend its application and operation. Therefore, in the Sub-section to which I have referred there are the special words to which I have alluded, upon which the hopes of salvation of the National Government are said almost to depend. The words are:
    "The need of an applicant shall be determined and his needs assessed in accordance with regulations made under this Part of this Act, and such regulations shall in particular provide that the resources of an applicant taken into account shall include the resources of all members of the household."
    Up to that point the position is much the same as under the old principle of destitution, which is the basis of the means test at the moment; but then it goes on to say:
    "of which he is himself a member (due regard being had also to the personal requirements of those members whose resources are taken into account)."
    It is to those words that the Minister pins his faith to make a distinction between the destitution test and the Poor Law. He says, in effect, "We have a new system to deal with the great block of people who are out of benefit but are employable and cannot come under the Poor Law." The Government say that this is a great new experiment. Personally, I am very doubtful whether, in actual practice, it will prove to be anything more than the old destitution test. I think it is almost impossible to get a great body of officials to exercise that high and lofty spirit of wisdom and discretion which would be necessary to get a generous interpretation of that principle in the case of every individual. The officials will play for safety. I repeat that the board will have terrific powers and that it will really almost determine the further term of life—or the death—of the old time system of Poor Law relief. The board will also determine whether the new system which the Government propose will work out even to the satisfaction of the Government—assuming, if one could have so much imagination, that the Government are still in office at the
    1750
    end of the three years. We say that not only is three years quite long enough for this experiment, but that it is, indeed, far too long.
    I trust the right hon. Gentleman will give very serious attention to this matter, just as he promised yesterday to give serious consideration to the position of the Statutory Committee. The board will be in a much more powerful position than the Statutory Committee, because it covers a wider range of people, and those who need the most sympathetic consideration of this House and of their fellow citizens. I refer to the people in the great areas which have suffered so much from the cyclone of depression that the Government have had to take them under their special care. We think the operations of this board may lead, in practice, to a continuation of the old system which, while it was designed to check cases where people were getting too much money, has operated so as to take money from those who had hardly anything in the first place, and has scraped millions of pounds out of the poorest people.
    5.13 p.m.
    Mr. WHITE: When the Committee were considering yesterday the Amendment, in similar terms, dealing with the duration of the appointments to the Statutory Committee under Part I, my friends and I had quite an open mind on that subject. Although we preferred that the experiment should be a short one, we felt there was force in the argument that it might be difficult to obtain the services of those with the requisite qualifications for that responsible work for so short a period. In the circumstances we welcomed the Government's offer to reconsider the question. When we come to this Amendment, however, we are in no state of uncertainty whatever. For various reasons we object to this board root and branch. They have been stated on many occasions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has just enumerated some of them. It may be sufficient to say that this new board, being independent in its character but free to compete with the Statutory Committee, and free, also, to develop a policy which may clash in a serious way with the activities of local authorities in a large number of the services they have hitherto performed,

    1751
    is a very much more important body than the Statutory Committee.
    The board is to take over a task which has never fallen to the Ministry of Labour in the past. The function of the Ministry in the past has been to deal with poverty as an industrial problem, caused through lack of employment. The new board will have to deal with poverty arising not only through unemployment but with poverty where it either arises from or is aggravated by or in some way altered by certain circumstances in no way connected with unemployment. That is a task which hitherto has been done in the localities by the local authorities. A body of which we have no experience, and whose personnel we can hardly guess, are to take on these new and responsible tasks, and we have no hesitation in saying that three years is, if anything, too long a period for them to be entrusted with such powers. It is quite impossible to foretell the reactions of the work of this board upon the activities of the local authorities. So many families will be on the borderline between the operations of the board and the scope of those services which have hitherto been rendered by the local authority, that three years are certainly quite long enough to allow the board to operate before this House has an opportunity of reconsidering its decision, in the light of the experience which will have been gained.
    I would urge the Minister to accept the shorter period in his own interests, because I wish to protect him against the board. When this Bill becomes an Act he will be in a position that has never been occupied, so far as my knowledge goes, by any Minister of the Crown. The Minister may express an opinion upon the regulations of the board, and may send them back to the board when they first come to him, but from the moment that they have been submitted to the House with the observations of the board upon them and any suggestions of the Minister, and have received an affirmative Resolution, no initiative lies with the Minister, the Prime Minster, the Cabinet or anybody else to alter or change the regulations, which will then have been laid down by the board and passed by this House. I imagine that the Minister will wish to consider very carefully
    1752
    whether three years might not be a long enough period for him or his successors to occupy a position of that kind.
    I do not wish to reiterate arguments with which the Committee are already familiar, but when the British Broadcasting Corporation make mistakes in their programmes or anything of that kind, they cause only annoyance; when the London Passenger Transport Board do not run their train services up to time, or anything of that kind, they give rise to annoyance, and to nothing more; if the Electricity Board make mistakes, they do not affect the intimate details of people's lives. In a service of the kind which we are discussing, and which will be operating in a way which nobody can foretell, perhaps clashing with other authorities and interfering with the traditional responsibility of local authorities, it is impossible to see how things are going, and to work them out. I am therefore convinced that three years are quite long enough as a period in which to try such a hazardous experiment.
    5.18 p.m.
    Mr. TINKER: I beg to support the Amendment, and I make an appeal to the Minister. It is well known that we object fundamentally to this Unemployment Assistance Board, but the House of Commons has decided to have the board, and there ought to be a limit of time for their operations. They are taking over very great functions which have never been performed before in the history of Parliament, and they are taking from the grasp of Parliament many of the matters over which Parliament has had control. If the work that they do is good, nobody will be able to speak against it after a length of time, but three years are sufficient for the experiment. After that time, if the work is satisfactory the Minister can ask Parliament to allow it to continue, and, if not, we may satisfy the Government that some other body should do the work. We are asking that the period should be cut down. I believe there is agreement in every part of the Committee that there should be a limit of time to the operations of the board. The Committee should recognise that there is a big volume of opinion against giving more than a limited time to the board, who are being given power that has never been given before.

    1753
    The large number of people who will be affected have been estimated by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan); there will be at least a million, but I do not know what the actual number will be. Those people have been protected in the past by their local representatives and their Members of Parliament, but they are losing that protection. Surely it will be recognised that a period ought to be placed upon that state of things, whether the period be one, two, three or four years, but there should be a limit. I have been looking through this Schedule and I do not find any time limit at all. The period is indefinite and unlimited, and therefore we have a right to ask that something should be inserted of that kind in the Bill.
    Yesterday, arguments were used for limiting the period of operation of the Statutory Committee from five years to three years. We think that, as protection has been given in that case, protection should be given in this case also. The work that will have to be done by the Unemployment Assistance Board is even greater than the work of the Statutory Committee, over which body we have some sort of control. I fail to see that we have any sort of control over the Unemployment Assistance Board. The men and women who are now passing away from our control to this body are entitled to our protection more than any body of persons at the present time. If I might revert to Clause 34 for a moment, it appears to me, on examining the powers that have been given to the board, that Parliament ought to have control over the whole of them. The arguments that have been used for this Amendment have soundness about them, and one does not care to repeat them because there is no need for repetition when the arguments have been put so well. On those arguments, we are entitled to have the period of three years inserted.
    5.23 p.m.
    Mr. COVE: I beg to support the Amendment. The more I consider the functions and the powers that are being given to the board the more I am filled with apprehension. An examination of the powers, problems and duties which the board will have to face results in an appalling picture for the future for millions of our fellow-citizens. I am not
    1754
    quite sure, even when they are dealing with people who will come under their jurisdiction in regard to allowances, whether, in the long run, the powers which this board will possess will not be most dangerous. It is appalling to think of the setting up of a board in perpetuity, with complete security of tenure and with no limitation of any kind, to deal with allowances, but no one, not even the Government, knows the extent of the powers which will be added to the board.
    From what I hear, including the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from reading Clause 34 and from various other suggestions which have been made, the board will not only be an administrator of the needs test and of allowances, but will become a sort of industrial dictator in this country. They will have the power to compel men to undergo compulsory labour and to organise compulsory labour camps, a sort of step towards the concentration camps of which we have heard so much from Germany. I do not wish to labour this point, but the situation will be simply appalling, and I should have thought that the Minister would have agreed to a limit of time. The Solicitor-General has clearly stated, as has been emphasised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), that this is not merely an administrative board but that it will have Governmental functions. We are setting up a board which will legislate outside this House.
    It is useless for the defenders of the Government to say that we shall have much power to control the board; we shall not have any effective power of control over this body, which will be almost, if not completely, outside our jurisdiction, and outside any word of criticism. This is a new and vital constitutional principle—or unconsttutional principle, if I might put it in that way—which is being embodied in the Bill, and the Government should go very carefully and slowly about it. We should make perfectly sure that we do not tie the hands of Parliament for too long a period. We ought to have an opportunity, within three years at least, of reviewing the situation completely, and we ought to have a chance in three years' time of dealing with the men and women who will be on this board, administering the fund and making laws

    1755
    in accordance with the power which is given them by Clause 34.
    From the suggestions which have been made, I conclude that a great industrial power is being set up in this country outside the control of Parliament, and it will not only have to deal with the misery, the needs and poverty of millions of our fellow-citizens, but it will have a tremendous effect upon hours, rates of wages and conditions of employment. I am terrified at the power which the board will have in regard to allowances, but even more terrified at the powers which they will have in regard to conditions in the industries of this country, and I hope that the Minister, having had an acknowledgment from his legal expert that he is setting up a new instrument of legislation in this country, a new governmental power—
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I ought to point out that the functions of Government are not only legislative but include administration just as much as legislation. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman realises that, when I used the phrase "functions of government," I did not mean that the board would exercise such functions as are necessarily legislative rather than administrative.
    Mr. COVE: The hon. and learned Gentleman will agree, in the first place, that I have not put any further interpretation upon his words than was put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol, and, in the second place, the Solicitor-General did not take the opportunity of correcting my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol. It is rather late in the Debate, if I may respectfully say so, for the correction to be made. I am afraid that the Solicitor-General is sorry for the phrase that he used.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for giving way. In debate it really becomes rather intolerable if one is going to jump up and correct a subsequent speaker whenever one thinks that, possibly quite properly and for debating purposes, he is taking a particular sentence and saying that one has made an admission. Therefore, I did not correct the hon. and
    1756
    learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). My recollection of what he said is not very clear, but, if he went as far as the hon. Member went just now, I think that there was not only misrepresentation, but that it was, if I may say so, very marked, because every one must agree that "government"—which was the word referred to by the hon. and learned Member—obviously includes administration as well as legislation.
    Mr. COVE: I am very glad of that explanation, but I would like to observe that I am not disagreeing with the Solicitor-General that government includes administration. I hope, however, that he will agree also that it includes legislation—not only the power to administer laws, but the power to make laws; and, as the Solicitor-General has not yet denied that this body will have legislative power, in that sense it will have the power to make laws governing the whole conditions of 3,000,000 people. Undoubtedly, when the Solicitor-General made that statement, it was at the back of his mind that we are doing something exceedingly important in setting up this body, and I now recollect that he said that it was an unprecedented body. I do not think he will deny that. Evidently it is agreed between the Solicitor-General and myself that it is an unprecedented body, with unprecedented powers. There is nothing like it in British history as far as these powers are concerned. This body is to be given powers, outside the control of Parliament, of life and death over millions of our fellow-citizens—power to inflict misery or otherwise in millions of homes—and one would have thought that the Government would have agreed to limit its life to three years.
    Last night, on the question of the life of the Statutory Committee, the Government seemed ready to consider shortening the period from five years to three years, but this body is being appointed without any limitation in point of time, and its members will probably be irremovable. If it came to a question of choice, I should be less afraid of a longer period of time on the insurance side than on this other side. The question is far more important in this part of the Bill than it is in Part I. Therefore, I hope that the responsible Minister will have due regard to the extremely serious statement of his own Solicitor-General that this is

    1757
    an unprecedented body, that it will have the function of Government as regards administration and legislation; and that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his own attitude and say with us that three years is a long enough period for which to give these people a run.
    5.35 p.m.
    Mr. JANNER: I hope that the Minister will regard as reasonable the request of those who are supporting this Amendment. I cannot see that any serious argument has been adduced against a time limit with respect to the appointments of men who are going to occupy such a very important position as this. I was rather surprised that the Solicitor-General took up my hon. Friend so quickly in reference to some remarks which had been made on an earlier Amendment. The Solicitor-General knows very well that in normal circumstances certain conclusions are arrived at which are subject to revision on appeal, the result of the appeal comes to the notice of courts dealing with subsequent cases, and a body of case law is built up. I understand, I believe correctly, that in connection with this board some 300 appeal boards are to be set up, but there appears to be no method of co-ordinating their opinions or of co-ordinating the boards themselves. The Umpire's decisions will not, as hitherto, be brought to the notice of courts of referees, but each appeal body will have to come to its own conclusions, and ultimately some 300 different bodies will be acting on conclusions to which they have come, irrespective of the conclusions arrived at by similar bodies in other parts of the country. That means that there will be thrown upon the Unemployment Assistance Board much greater responsibility and much greater powers than is the case even with an ordinary court of law, which has at its disposal decisions upon which it can base its future decisions.
    If that be so, why should this body be a permanent or quasi-permanent body? It may be admitted that experience does bring with it a considerable amount of ability in dealing with matters of this kind, but nevertheless we all know that tribunals come to regard certain conditions of affairs in an automatic manner, and, when you have a body which is to deal intimately with the lives of the applicants who come before it, and which also has the power to say whether a
    1758
    person is to be deprived of his liberty or not—a very serious matter—it is important that that body should from time to time be changed, and that other people should be put on to it. Here we are faced with a position which, as the Solicitor-General himself has said, creates a body that will be covered in its actions by the same methods as bodies that are controlled by Parliament, and in all things that it does it will have the same immunity from attack.
    We are told about writs of certiorari and mandamuses, but these things are not within the sphere of knowledge of every individual, and the result will be that the actions of this body will go almost entirely undisputed. That being so, it will itself create a policy. The policy may be a good one, but, on the other hand, it may be a bad one, and, if these people are going to remain there for a length of time which cannot be controlled or which is beyond what is reasonable, the policy will become permanent, and it may be a permanent policy which is highly undesirable. In these circumstances, I think it is only reasonable to ask that the period during which the board can operate shall be short, and that we may be able from time to time to control what it is doing, even if we cannot directly control it in the House itself. For these reasons, I think the Minister might very well grant this concession.
    5.42 p.m.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: There have been during this stage of the Bill many discussions on the principle which is now before the Committee, and it might be thought that everything has been said that could be said on the matter, and that further speeches are a waste of time. We on these benches could agree in that if we were convinced that the Conservative Members of the House were equally instructed with ourselves as to what this part of the Bill means, but they have almost invariably been absent from the Committee when this matter was under discussion, and, therefore, we still venture to put forward our point of view, in the hope that they will read it on the following day. I do not think I shall be exaggerating, but rather understating the case, if I say that the defence of this portion of the Bill which has been made from the Front Government Bench has

    1759
    been woefully inadequate, for, apart from the opening speech of the Minister, I cannot recollect anything that has been said which really defended this part of the Bill. Ordinary Members of Parliament who are supporters of the Government are quite satisfied with the Bill, because they can say, "This board prevents us from being bothered any more, and that is first class."
    Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) defended it.
    Mr. BEVAN: The hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) defended the Bill, but his defence was one for which the Government are not answerable in any way, and I do not hold them responsible for what he said. We have now come to a stage when we do not expect to be able to change the structure of the board, but we want to try and protect hon. Members against the worst consequences of their present policy. The reason for this Amendment, proposing that the life of the board should be restricted to three years, is, first, because we do not like the board at all; and, secondly, because it will give us an opportunity at the end of three years of reviewing what has been done in the meantime; and, as has been pointed out already, it is desirable, in purely experimental legislation of this kind, that there should be such a review at the earliest possible moment.
    What is it that the board proposes to do? I have estimated roughly that it will have under its superintendence a population of something like 5,000,000, but it will interfere in the lives of a much larger number. It will be imposing the means test and, therefore, will be interfering with the lives not only of those who are direct applicants for allowances but also of their relatives. Therefore, the number of people who will be interfered with will represent much the larger proportion of the adult population of the country. An estimate was once made that about 15,000,000 people were directly affected by unemployment insurance every year. If you add 1,000,000 persons and, further, those now in receipt of public assistance, hon. Members can realise the dimensions of the problem with which the board will be faced. They will have three categories
    1760
    of unemployed people to deal with: those now in receipt of transitional payment, those who have had transitional payment and have been disqualified and are now receiving public assistance, and those who have never had it at all. They will be lumped together into one category. The board will have superintendence of that large number of people over the whole length and breadth of Great Britain, a larger administrative unit than any other body in the country has at the moment.
    I cannot understand for the life of me why the Government are embarking upon this sort of legislation. I can see why the Bill is necessary if you are going to perpetuate the practice of 1931. I can follow the Minister's reasoning that you cannot have a means test unless you have a board of this kind. The local authorities' administration of the means test is highly unsatisfactory to the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Health. They have striven to coerce them to their will in the last two years, and they have failed in many cases, and in those cases where they have succeeded they have incurred great unpopularity. But I cannot see why the Government should expose itself to such grave perils for so small a gain. It gains something like £15,000,000 a year. That is a lot of money, but it is a very small amount when it is set off against what is likely to happen. I am not advancing the argument as my own. It has been recognised by defenders of democratic government that one of its virtues is that it provides a valuable shock absorber for grievances. The right of ventilating grievances and of access to an elected representative is the most valuable virtue of representative government. It is even more valuable than the right to make laws, because there is nothing that makes suffering so bitter as to add helplessness to it. If you have no opportunity of articulation, the safety valve is sat on and you burst out somewhere else.
    This is a non-elected board which will sit for an indefinite period and will destroy all the public representatives to whom these poor people have now access, and it will deprive representative government of one of its most valuable safety valves. I would perhaps have welcomed this piece of legislation precisely because of that fact were it not that I am not certain that, when you destroy representative government in this way, you can

    1761
    always rely upon the bulk of the population going quickly enough to the left. There was a time when some people might have argued, "Let us get rid of this sort of Government. Let us get rid of this safety valve. Let us get rid of this opportunity of political expression." Now it is coming to be recognised that, when people suffer from grave political frustration, you never know in what direction their revolt will go. In Russia it has gone left. In Germany it has gone right temporarily. One does not know what is going to happen in Germany. You are here rendering these people comparatively dumb as far as any means of expression is concerned, and you must face the consequences of that. In South Wales every public assistance committee is manned by a Socialist majority. The same thing was true of Durham until the commissioners were appointed. Indeed, Labour majorities have been increasing in the course of the last few years. The main attack has been in that area up to now and on those who are responsible for local government. Whenever there has been criticism, it has been directed against Labour representatives, because it was held by the poor, quite naturally, that they were not having sufficient redress of their grievances. This board sweeps us away.
    The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert): I did not hear the earlier part of the hon. Member's speech, but he appears to me to be arguing against the constitution of the board. He cannot do that on this Amendment.
    Mr. BEVAN: We are under a very great disability in Committee. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) opened the discussion in the widest terms, because it was understood from the Chair that we were entitled to argue very widely and, indeed, the speeches that have been delivered so far have been very wide speeches discussing the functions of the board. I am arguing that its life should be statutorily limited to three years, because of the important considerations that I am advancing.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Committee, having passed the Clause saying the board shall be constituted, and obviously cannot go back and argue against the constitution of the board. The Amendment merely deals with the time for which the members of the board are to be appointed, and I must ask the hon.
    1762
    Member to keep clear of arguments which deal with the constitution of the board and to treat that as an accepted fact.
    Mr. LAWSON: May I point out, Sir, that the Schedule deals with the constitution and the proceedings of the board?
    The CHAIRMAN: The method of constitution, not the fact of the constitution.
    Mr. LAWSON: It is a procedure that has been followed by every speaker up to the present to argue for a time limit in view of the power that the board possesses.
    The CHAIRMAN: It is right to argue for a time limit, but not to argue against the constitution of the board.
    Mr. LAWSON: I take it that it will be possible, as others have done, to deal with the powers that the board possesses in order to argue for a limitation of time.
    The CHAIRMAN: Yes.
    Mr. BEVAN: I do not think I was arguing against the constitution of the board. I believe I was arguing that it is undesirable for the board to have a life longer than three years because of the important functions that it has to discharge, and I was engaged at the moment in describing the importance of those functions. I should like to urge further the realisation of what is going to take place when the board starts operating, because you have destroyed those shock absorbers that exist now. In industrial communities where unemployment is widespread you will be faced with the gravest possible civil situation if this board starts operating in the way that the commissioners have operated in Durham. Nothing has happened in Durham up to now, because the people are awaiting this sort of legislation. All I wanted to do was to warn the Committee that it must give the board this unlimited lifetime with its eyes wide open, and realise clearly what is involved and what it is doing. It would shift from the local authority and from the House of Commons all responsibility. Having shifted it from the local council and from the Floor of the House of Commons, where do you place it? Where the individual can find some way of expres-

    1763
    sion. That is what the House is doing. I do not mind that a bit. I think that the time has come when we must get rid of some of our circumlocutions of constitutional government, but I do not mind a bit as long as hon. Members realise where they are taking this country. They are taking it to a point where they will be putting powers in the hands of these unemployment assistance officers who will necessarily have to be bureaucratic. They cannot help themselves. Hon. Members must realise that whenever the old guardians functioned they had to take into consideration the individual circumstances of the case and to adjust the allowances accordingly, but the unemployment assistance officers will have to investigate, and carry out instructions from headquarters, and apply the regulations. If, as has been held in very many cases, it is undesirable to allow bureaucracy to grow up, we ought to limit bureaucracy at the moment.
    This is the last time we shall have an opportunity of discussing this portion of the Bill, and I warn hon. Members seriously against the situation which is likely to arise. Nothing at all will be left to those men except bodily violence against the instruments of the Crown. Public meetings, manifestoes and demonstrations will be of no use. There can be no means of articulation except physical violence. That is what the Noble Lady the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) is supporting by voting for this proposal. You are driving men to attempt to injure the servants of the Crown in order to obtain public recognition of their grievances. The Noble Lady has the reputation of being very generous to people who are helpless, but she is not prepared to allow the helpless person to claim her generosity? That is what we are asking here—to impose the will of the helpless person upon the nation.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the hon. Gentleman know that under this Bill the most helpless people in the country are getting more than the Trades Union Congress ever promised in their wildest moments? The Labour party never even promised to give them what this Bill, against which they are fighting, will be
    1764
    able to give them. The hon. Member knows that fact as well as I do.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A Bevan) is not in order in arguing against the setting up of the board, and perhaps he will, therefore, apply his remarks strictly to the Amendment, and not be led away into discussing the matter raised by the hon. Lady.
    Mr. BEVAN: All I am advocating at the moment is that if you have a legal limit fixed to the life of the board, you have some sort of objective at which to aim; you can then say to people who are interested, that they are coming to an end in three years time, and you can promote political agitation in order to prevent them from being set up again It is a very small thing, but you would have some definite objective to which to relate your propaganda and agitation. If you set up the board permanently you can have no such objective. You will have merely the unemployment assistance officer against whom you can direct your attack. How can you attack him? If I were a helpless man—and I recall the circumstances in which I found myself in 1921 and 1923—
    The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps that explains what has happened. The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension as to the effect of this Amendment. If he carried the Amendment, the board would not come to an end in three years. It is only a question of the time for which members are appointed to serve thereon.
    Mr. BEVAN: They would have to be re-appointed at the end of three years.
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will confine his remarks to what he said just now it will be all right.
    Mr. BEVAN: It appears at the moment that the intervention is entirely a matter of language. If you were speaking to a man in your constituency, and said that this board would come to an end in three years, it would then be taken to mean the personnel of the board. That is how they would understand the board. At the end of three years you would have an opportunity of reviewing what had been done. Nothing at all is left execept the unemployment assistance officer. When I

    1765
    think of the circumstances which existed in those past years, and which exist now in my district, where there are mining villages with 98 per cent. of the adult population unemployed, and others where there is no employment at all, and you put one or two individuals in charge of those areas to determine the total income and the life of the areas, the education, food, clothing, shelter and everything which appertains to those people, without any means at all of influencing the kind of policy to be carried out, what is there left except demonstration? The hon. Member opposite smiles. Why should Englishmen be prepared to sit down cowardly in a docile fashion like a machine and accept injustice? It is part of our function to see that they have not to put up with it indefiniely. If you are going to destroy democracy, then we shall have to take other measures to defend ourselves. That is the position. The setting up of this board for an indefinite period, with power over the most intimate relations of the life of the people, is the most tyrannical conception that has been devised in the last 300 years.
    Mr. HOWARD: Does not the hon. Member realise that there must be a General Election every five years, and that upon a change of Government, a single Clause Bill would abolish the whole board?
    Mr. BEVANThe hon. Gentleman would limit it to the chance of putting a cross on the Ballot Paper once every five years. Does he imagine that men are going to be satisfied with that form of political expression?
    The CHAIRMAN: The whole of the hon. Member's speech for some few minutes has been irrelevant, and I must ask him to keep strictly to the Amendment which is under discussion.
    Mr. BEVAN: I was about to bring my remarks to a conclusion when I was interrupted by the hon. Member. I know that hon. Members do not like to hear this, but they will have to hear it here and outside again. Believe me, hon. Members are going to hear it. It is our duty to voice in this House—
    The CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member please address himself to the Amendment before the Committee?
    Mr. BEVAN: I said that I was bringing my remarks to a conclusion, and I suggest that if speeches are to be confined to the question of three years, all I can say is that no speech at all can be made on such a matter. We are labouring under the difficulty that we have one Ruling from one Chairman and another from another Chairman, and we do not know where we are.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member not to break the Rules of the House by reflecting upon decisions given from the Chair.
    6.11 p.m.
    Mr. PALING: I hope that when the Solicitor-General or the Minister replies, he will make clear one or two points in which we are in doubt. On the wide difference in appointment as between this board and the Statutory Committee with which we dealt yesterday. I agree that the Minister is to make the appointments to the Statutory Committee, and that in this case the appointments are to be made by His Majesty's Council. Why should these people be placed in that privileged position as compared with the Statutory Committee?
    The CHAIRMAN: That has nothing to do with time.
    Mr. PALING: My next point is one which, I hope, will be in order. Terms were laid down very definitely in the Schedule as to the period for which the chairman and members of the Statutory Committee should be appointed, namely, five years, and in the discussion the Parliamentary Secretary said that he would do his best to try to see whether the term should not be three years. The point was made that it was necessary to put in five years in order to get the best possible people appointed. Is this board, compared with the Statutory Committee, of such infinitely great importance that you cannot expect to get anybody to agree to be appointed unless it is for the term of their natural life. Mark the difference. Yesterday five years was thought sufficient, and, after discussion, probably three years, even though it was admitted that the job was so important that you needed the very best men you could get. To-day no suggestion whatever is made as to any period of time. Appointments are to be made without

    1767
    any time limit, except perhaps when the superannuation age is reached. I should like to know why there is a difference in that respect. It was laid down very carefully in paragraph 5 of the Second Schedule that:
    "If a member becomes, in the opinion of the Minister, unfit to continue in office or incapable of performing his duties, the Minister shall forthwith declare his office to be vacant."
    Apparently the Minister in regard to that particular appointment thought it was necessary that he should have that power, but, curiously enough, no such power is asked for in respect of this body. In the first instance, a limit was laid down regarding the term of office. No limit is made in the present case. Powers were also taken in the first case, so that if any member proved to be incapable in any shape or form he could be removed, but the Minister asks for no such power in regard to the second body. There is no mention made of removal for incapacity. What is the reason for this vast difference in the appointment of the two bodies? Paragraph 4 of the Schedule says:
    "Any person who has ceased to be a member of the board shall be eligbile for re-appointment."
    What are the conditions under which a member can cease to be a member of the board, and what are the circumstances upon which he can be re-appointed? I hope that someone will explain the necessity for the vast difference in the appointment of the two bodies. Apparently, it is the opinion of the Minister and of the Parliamentary Secretary that the job to be performed by the second one is so important that there must be no limit put to the term of the appointment, not five years, not three years, and there must be no power to remove any of the members for incapacity. It is admitted that the board is of an entirely new character and something unprecedented. If the duties are so important and the board are to deal with 7,000,000 people, who may be subject to the disabilities which my hon. Friend has just mentioned? Is it not more necessary that a limitation should be put upon the term they are going to serve and that powers should be taken to remove them for incompeteney and in efficiency, than in the case of the first body? There may be some good reason
    1768
    in the mind of the Minister for the course which is proposed; if so, the Committee have a right to know it. We are entitled to be informed why so much difference is made in the appointment of the two bodies.
    6.18 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Those who were present during the discussion yesterday will appreciate what I mean when I say that I will deal with the Amendment as put forward in a constructive spirit with a view to improving the Bill. Some of the remarks that have been made to-day, as was pointed out by the Chair, appeared to proceed on the basis that a three years' limitation of time would in some way bring the board to an end, or would provide an occasion for this House to review the whole matter. That is a misapprehension. The appointment will be, as the Schedule stands, by His Majesty by warrant under the Sign Manual on the advice of His Majesty's advisers. Whatever period one puts in the Schedule, reappointments could be made or fresh appointments made without this House necessarily being in any way affected. Of course, there would be the ordinary method, in this as in other matters, open to hon. Members for raising discussion so far as this part of the Bill is concerned. Therefore, I put on one side at the outset those parts of the speeches to which we have listened which were based on the false assumption that the board would come to an end or that the period of time for reappointment would provide in itself an occasion for the House to discuss or review the matter.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: It would be a natural objective to aim at if we put a limit to the time of the appointment of any member of the board, and Members of the Opposition would take advantage of that fact.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That is not so. The mere fact of somebody's term of office on the board running out and a re-appointment being made, or some member retiring, when presumably someone else would be appointed, would not, in itself, be an occasion for debate.
    Mr. BEVAN: It might be made the occasion.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Of course, and so could any other moment

    1769
    of time, but the real occasion for debate would be if it were felt by hon. Members in any quarter of the House that things had been done by the board which called for criticism or comment.
    Mr. LAWSON: May I point out that this Amendment is part and parcel with subsequent Amendments which deal with appointments by the Minister rather than by appointments by Sign Manual? Therefore, the House would have an opportunity at the end of three years to discuss the appointments.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, but the point I am making remains the point of substance, namely, that there will be many occasions when the conduct of the board can be brought up and discussed in the House; but the time when you are merely reappointing someone, or someone has resigned and some other person is coming in, would not in itself necessarily provide the appropriate occasion for raising a discussion. The real time when the House will want to discuss the board and how it is working is when its annual report comes in, or when something is being done by the board which hon. Members think is an appropriate matter to be brought before the House.
    A large part of the speeches to which we have listened went to prove that the functions which the board will have to perform are very important. It is sufficient for the purpose of my reply to accept that statement in that form, while not agreeing with the many highly controversial reasons which were put forward as showing the importance of the board. We all admit that the board has very important functions to perform. In the discussion on the Statutory Committee yesterday two or three points were emphasised as to what ought to be in the mind of those who consider the appointments to a body of this kind. In the first place, there was the consideration that if you want to get, as naturally you do, the best man, you may have to offer a fairly considerable term of security of tenure. If the best man you can get has other employment, which appears to be secure, obviously, in order to induce him to give up that work and do the work you want him to do, you may have to offer him a considerable period of security of tenure.
    1770
    There was another very useful suggestion brought forward, and that was that you may appoint a man and you may find after two or three years that, while it is impossible to say that he has in any way misconducted himself or is incapable of performing his duties, he has not quite come up to expectations, and that by the comparatively painless process of allowing his term of office to expire, you can appoint someone else in his stead, and get a desirable change of personnel. It was suggested that it was advisable to do that after three years rather than five years. That argument has, to a large extent, been repeated to-day. There was a third point which it was said might be considered, and that was the necessity of giving the persons appointed a fairly long run so that they might have a chance of becoming thoroughly versed in the matter and of gaining experience.
    My hon. Friend who spoke last asked a number of pertinent questions. I agree that in regard to this particular body the provisions are somewhat different from the provisions with respect to the other body. It is also quite clear that the functions of the two bodies are different. I do not want to make any invidious comparisons between the importance of one body and the importance of the other. They both have very important functions to perform, but I would draw attention to one or two differences. For example, the Statutory Committee is to contain certain persons who are to be appointed after consultation with organisations representing the employers, and with organisations representing the workers. One is to be appointed after consultation with the Minister of Labour for Northern Ireland. Where members of a body are selected after consultation of that kind it is more appropriate that the appointment should be made by the Minister than by His Majesty by Warrant under the Sign Manual. Under the latter process His Majesty acts, as in other matters, on the advice of his Ministers.
    I think hon. Members will appreciate the reasons for saying that where you put into the Schedule that certain appointments are to be made after consultation by the Minister with certain organisations, it is more appropriate that the appointments should be made by the Minister. On the other hand, where you

    1771
    are setting up, as in this case, a body of great importance and of high status, the procedure of appointment by His Majesty by Warrant under the Sign Manual is one for which many precedents can be found, and it has been included in the Schedule as the appropriate method for appointing these members.
    With regard to the Amendment, taken in its widest form, we resist it, and I desire on behalf of my right hon. Friend to give the reason for resisting it. My right hon. Friend wants his hands to be free. There may be considerations for a longer tenure and there may be considerations for a shorter tenure, and it is desirable that the conditions should be left open. The conditions of appointment will be contained in the Warrant, and in considering what advice should be tendered to His Majesty as to the Warrant, the Minister desires that he should be free, because he desires to be able to get the best possible personnel for this body. I am in a position to assure the Committee that the considerations which have been so ably urged to-day and yesterday will be borne in mind by my right hon. Friend in deciding the matter. I hope that with that assurance the hon. Member will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. PALING: Has the Minister the same power against the board as he has against the Statutory Committee? If the board happens to act in a way which the Minister or the Government does not approve, will he be able to sack them?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I really cannot answer a question so hypothetical. There will be plenty of opportunities to consider the work of the board, and, obviously, it is impossible to say what might be done in such a case.
    6.32 p.m.
    Mr. T. SMITH: I am very disappointed with the reply of the Solicitor-General, and I hope that on the Report stage we shall find the Government giving way on this matter. Yesterday and to-day we have had a somewhat peculiar argument put forward with regard to the five years' appointment. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that it has taken him two years to understand his duties at the Ministry of Labour, and from that he argued that a man appointed to the
    1772
    Statutory Committee would take some time to get a knowledge of its work. We have had the same argument advanced this afternoon. When the Minister of Labour is looking round for people to appoint on the board, he will have plenty of people to choose from, people who have had long experience in Poor Law work and who will be specially fitted to perform these duties. The argument that you must have a long period of tenure in order to secure the best men is not sound. I think that we shall get the same thing as happened during the Labour Government, when we had to choose a reorganisation committee and had plenty of people to draw from, but found the Prime Minister interfering and putting someone in the job at £7,000 a year, when a very able man could have done the job at £2,000 a year. It is not good enough. There should be a limit of three years, and, in my opinion, within three years you will get such a revulsion of opinion in this country against the working of this board that the Government will feel that the matter must be reviewed.
    The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have tried to make out that the board is going to deal fairly with the people who come before it. I have listened to the Parliamentary Secretary so many times on this point that I have come to the conclusion that he believes that when the board is set up they will be waiting for the applicants, will shake them by the hand and say, "How much do you want this morning?" I have had a few years' experience of Poor Law administration in a big city, and what is going to happen is this: you will get a Poor Law system without the elected guardians. You are going to have the same relief given by this board as was given by relieving officers between meetings of the committee, and I challenge any hon. Member who has had any experience of Poor Law administration to deny the statement that relieving officers were not over-generous in giving relief between the meetings of the committee. I think that under this board people will be treated worse than they are now. I hope that I am wrong, but I think that the tendency will be to save as much money as possible in the relief given to people outside insurance. If not, then there is no point in it. Take an unemployed agricultural worker. Is

    1773
    it assumed that the board will give more to the agricultural worker than he would get if he had been in work, although his wages are low? If they did, you would have the farmers in the locality complaining that the relief given to unemployed labourers was such as to take away the incentive to find a job. Take the cities. Will the board treat unemployed labourers better than if they were in work?
    Mr. MOLSON: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is permissible to widen the discussion—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will perhaps leave the matter to me. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) introduced the argument with reference to the time, and I hope he will bear that in mind.
    Mr. SMITH: I contend that I am keeping strictly within your Ruling. I am arguing that the limit of appointment should be three years, because I think it will be found that the board and its officers will not treat the people in the way which the Minister thinks they will be treated. I was giving one or two examples to prove my point. After the War, in 1920, we had a fairly high Poor Law scale for able-bodied poor. Then came the slump in wages in the autumn of 1920 and the spring of 1921. The position was that the relief scale was about equal to what a labourer could get for working six days in the steel trade, and immediately we had employers' organisations and chambers of commerce passing resolutions against the scale because, as they said, it was taking away from the unemployed the incentive to find a job. Is it expected that the board will give unemployed miners more than they would get if they were at work? You have here an entirely new procedure, and I suggest that there should be a three years' limit. There is no precedent, as far as I know English history, for the establishment of a non-elected board to deal with able-bodied poor outside insurance, but I do know that every time power seems to be going towards the workers' movement in this country there is legislative action by the House of Commons. In view of what is likely to happen in the next three years, I think that the appointment should be for that
    1774
    period only, and if at the end of that time the board is working smoothly and those appointed are carrying out their duties, they would not be automatically discharged; they could be re-appointed. I am keenly disappointed with the statement of the Solicitor-General. I appreciate his promise to give the matter consideration, but the whole attitude of the Minister of Labour is not one which suggests that he is going to make any concession. If he carries out all the promises he has made to consider things on Report, we shall need more than five or six days for discussion. I think the Committee would be wise to accept the Amendment.
    6.40 p.m.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I hope that the Minister will reconsider the position. In my view, there is a most reasonable case for reviewing the work of the board each year, and three years is a fairly lengthy period. The Solicitor-General said that there would be opportunities in the House to review their work. I do not disagree with him, but the only way it can be done is to raise the matter on the Estimates of the Ministry of Labour. Votes of Censure can, of course, he put down; but that is the only real way of reviewing their work. You cannot get more than three days to discuss the Estimates of the Ministry without taking time from the discussion of other Estimates, and, as a rule, there are only two days upon which we can debate the Estimates. There are a great many questions which hon. Members will want to debate—the question of staffing, which is too little discussed, the management of the Exchanges, and trade boards, and it does not leave much time for a discussion of all the matters which hon. Members may desire to raise. By the Bill you are now making the Estimates of a Ministry more complicated than ever, and in that way throwing on the Opposition the necessity of raising many more questions on the Estimates. It is impossible to do all this in two days, and, further, it will be very difficult to pick out the Estimates of this board and get a coherent discussion upon them. The work of the board ought to be the subject of careful scrutiny in the House; and the only way is for it to be re-appointed, when the House of Commons would have an opportunity of passing its opinion as

    1775
    to whether the work had been good, bad or indifferent.
    What is the case against the Amendment? It is said that it will take three years for these people to get accustomed to their work. That, in my opinion, is a reason why the Amendment should be accepted, so that we may know at the earliest moment whether they have got to know their job. The board, whatever may be its faults or virtues, must be an approachable board. In other words, if this board is to be anything at all, it must be a board which has certain qualifications. First, it must be easily approachable by the trade union movement, by such a body as the Trades Union Congress, which acts for great masses of men. Secondly, the board must be easy of approach by people who represent the unemployed workers who may not be organised but are on the means test, who by reason of long periods of unemployment have dropped out of the organised movement. Thirdly, there are the local authorities, which must have contact with the board. But under the proposals of the Bill it would be a board that is not easy of approach. I would sooner have to approach the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin), who was once Prime Minister and is now deputy Prime Minister, than some of those whose names I have seen. Whatever the faults the right hon. Member for Bewdley has, he is approachable. He will see you and discuss matters with you. He does not think he is superior, above his ordinary fellow mortals.
    I can imagine the members of the board put into this position with the fresh glow of the power that has been given to them. There is nothing more annoying in life than the man who has suddenly been transplanted to a position of power. These men will be put into a position of power, and they will be impossible of approach. We are asked to tolerate that state of things for five years. The Minister of Labour with his civil and nice manner gets us down. We all feel at a disadvantage with him. He is approachable. But I have seen Ministers who could not be approached. The right hon. Gentleman who was once Member for Preston, Mr. T. Shaw, and was Minister of Labour in the first Labour Government, had great capacity, and he was the easiest man to approach on a labour
    1776
    problem whom I ever knew. He was a capable Minister.
    On this new board you will have three men with as great power as any Minister of Labour ever had. They will say to themselves, "We are it. We are the men that matter. Who are you? You are Members of Parliament. You have signed us on for five years and we need not bother." I can tell the Committee when they will bother. They will bother in the year when they are to be re-appointed. There will be a new House of Commons then, and everyone in it will not be as bad as some Members of this Parliament. We ought to have some review of these appointments, some way of getting the board's work brought before us for consideration, not on the Estimate of the Minister of Labour and not on a Vote of Censure. I see the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winter-ton) in his place. He is one of the few Tory Members of character in this House. If he wanted to criticise the board he would not want the matter to be complicated with other questions on the Estimates I am sure. That would be a bad way of criticising the board. It would create prejudice and there would not be the proper feeling in it.
    My criticism of the appointment is that it is for more than a year. I think the members of the board should be re-appointed every year. As that cannot be secured, let the appointments be for three years. This House would then ask what had been the board's work and how the members had done their job, and the House could pass judgment. The Monarchy used to have great power in this country, and the Lords and Barons had great power, also. This new board will have greater power over human beings than the Monarchy had many years ago. I know that the Ruling of the Chair will not allow me to develop that argument. But let us consider what the powers of the board will be. It will have power to deprive men of benefit entirely. It can deprive them of personal liberty. It will have power to substitute payment by kind for payment by money. The number of persons involved will not be 1,000,000, for during the year that number will turn over at least two-and-a-half times, and therefore from 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 people will be affected every year by the board's decisions.

    1777
    The least that this House can do is once in three years to sit down and decide what it thinks of the board and its work. Under the proposal of the Bill we shall have no executive control at all over the board, except through the Vote of the Ministry of Labour. That Vote comes up for two days in a year, and those two days are covered by a large number of other points. I am sure that if the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham were sitting here in opposition, and a Labour Government proposed to give such powers over the lives of people, without any definite time limit, he would insist on the House of Commons putting some time limit on the appointment. Every one who remembers the Noble Lord's work in the last Parliament knows that he would do that. I trust that those Members of the Committee who can rise above the ordinary feeling of party discipline will support the Amendment. If the members of the board do their work diligently they need fear no one. The Government know in their hearts that the board will have to do terribly disagreeable things such as this House would not do. Occasionally on a human issue it is possible to rouse Members of this House into doing things even against their Government. I trust that hon. Members in all quarters of the House will support the Amendment.
    6.57 p.m.
    Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I thought that the Debate was coming to an end, but if it is to be carried on there are a few things I want to say. The Debate, and especially the speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), are most important, because they indicate the difficulty in which this House is going increasingly to be in future. Nowadays all parties in the House, in order to deal with necessary business, are advocating the appointment of boards and persons with great powers—powers to some extent independent of His Majesty's Government, and the House, feeling that it has not got the same control over these extraneous bodies as it has over civil servants through a Minister, raises claims to control these outside authorities by the threat of periodical dismissal. That is the danger into which this House is going to lapse.
    The whole of the arguments we have heard have been that the House of Commons is getting weaker, that the House cannot manage its business so as suffi-
    1778
    ciently to discuss the proceedings of the board, and therefore hon. Members opposite say, "Let the members of the board be continually subject to dismissal periodically, on a vote of the House of Commons, in order that the House may exercise some control over them." It is a sign always of weakness and senility to say, "I cannot control my servant and therefore I shall sack him periodically." The same sort of argument was used by one hon. Member opposite. There is fear on the Opposition side of the House, and quite natural an arguable fear, that the establishment of this board is bad policy and that the board as a system will not work. But what did the hon. Member say? He does not contemplate the Government three years hence saying, "The Unemployment Bill was a mistake. We shall have to abolish the board and put a new system in its place." That would be a difficult and cumbrous operation, requiring great courage from a Government.
    Mr. BEVAN: Our case is quite clear. It is that such a board is a necessity imposed on the Government by the application of the means test. If that were abolished, this would be unnecessary.
    Lord E. PERCY: That has no earthly connection with the point made by the hon. Member's colleagues. I can understand saying that a future Labour Government will abolish the board, and that then the appointment of members will come to an end. But the hon. Member did not say that. He did not contemplate a future Labour Government repealing this Measure and setting up a new system in its place. He contemplated that this House would take the line of least resistance, and throw upon the members of the board the responsibility for the bad system they are trying to administer, that they would visit on the head of the members of the board all the evils they see in this Measure, and, instead of carrying out a reform, they would content themselves with the gesture of sacking the members of the board and appointing somebody else. That is precisely the danger into which I see the House drifting in dealing with the semi-dependent boards, and it is an argument for the House so revising its procedure that it will be able really to scrutinise, de die in diem almost, the proceedings not only of Ministers to whom it has given

    1779
    wide discretionary powers, but these extraneous bodies. It is a strong argument for that, but otherwise it strongly reinforces, to my mind, the case for a long term of office, so that members shall not be subject to the fear that the House of Commons will treat them as the Committee of Public Safety in revolutionary France treated its commissioners, giving them autocratic power, subject only to the periodical intervention of the guillotine.
    7.4 p.m.
    Mr. MAXTON: The Noble Lord when he rises in the House or Committee always advances some philosophical arguments which at least interest me. The one he has propounded to-day is one I shall have to take home and think over in more suitable surroundings than those of the Committee stage of a Bill. It is only people who have reached the stage of senility, he says, who ever dismiss their employé. So presumably, the cause of our unemployment problem is the senility of employers! As I say, I have not come to a final conclusion, but I will give that very full and adequate consideration. I am surprised though at the argument being put forward, that because we want these bodies to function efficiently, we must give to the men who are working them a greater security of tenure than is given to persons in any other walk of public life.
    Lord E. PERCY: What about Civil servants?
    Mr. MAXTON: Nobody in the Civil Service has a security of tenure similar to what is proposed here. There is absolutely nobody in the country in the same position as the members of this board will be except His Majesty and His Majesty's judges. I think that is a preposterous claim which will not stand examination for two minutes. I do not know what employés the Noble Lord has in his own service. Presumably he has some and presumably he is a good employer, and keeps his employés about him for long periods of time. But he would not say to any of them: "You are here for life, and your salary is not subject to my will or desire, but is a first charge on the family estate of the Percys." That is what is being said to these chaps. His salary as a Member of Parliament may go, his other public
    1780
    charges may go, the money to give public assistance relief may go, but the salaries of the board remain as long as the old ship is sailing at all. On the deck are His Majesty, as is right and proper, His Majesty's judges, as, I presume, is also right and proper, and alongside of them the members of the public assistance committees.
    Lord E. PERCY: And His Majesty's civil servants.
    Mr. MAXTON: The Noble Lord, with his inside knowledge of Government Departments, and as an ex-Minister of the Crown, must not attempt to mislead the Committee or the public by suggesting that the status proposed for the members of the board is not an infinitely higher status than is granted to the chief permanent official of the Ministry of Labour. The chief permanent Secretary of that Ministry has not the status proposed for members of this board, either in the matter of security of tenure or of freedom from criticism. The Noble Lord says "Yes," and I say "No," and we can go on arguing all the time, but if he had been here for the earlier part of the Debate he would have heard the learned Solicitor-General explaining that it was necessary to give them a higher and more independent status, and if there is a difference between himself and the learned Law Officer of the Crown, I must ask them to settle it between themselves. In the meantime, I must take the authoritative statement of the responsible Minister from the Despatch Box rather than that of the distinguished ex-Minister who never dealt with this particular problem.
    I put it to the Committee that we are appointing a body of men to take up a job that everyone here recognises as a great, new experiment. I will put it at that, and say for the moment that we are agreed that this experiment should be made which revolutionises our whole system of public relief. We are going out into the vast, and dragging in five or six men whose selection must be of a very experimental nature. Presumably, men will be chosen who hate experience of public work of one kind or another, and who we think will perform the functions in the most effective fashion. During the War you picked your admirals generals and field-marshals from men who had a record of work in those professions

    1781
    behind them, and before long you had to scrap here and change there, and substitute in the next place. Here you are choosing men who have not been trained for this job, because it never existed. You put them in to perform what my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said are functions of life and death for 2,500,000 people. You do not know a solitary thing about them, and the Noble Lord say that, whether you find you have inefficient men or not, they are to be there in perpetuity or as I understand it, only to be removed in the same way as a Judge of the High Court can be removed, which is a tremendously complicated and difficult procedure.
    It is a preposterous right for the House of Commons to hand away from itself. It is no good for the Noble Lord to say that it shows senility on the part of the House of Commons to want a power of dismissal over these people. He knows that if we are to be masters in our own house, if we are not going to throw away the democratic rights of this Assembly which have been built up during a long history with a whole lot of struggle and difficulty, we must not put people outside of ourselves in a position of greater power than the House of Commons itself. That is not senility, but it is imbecility to suggest that the governing assembly of the country should place over the lives of citizens another body with greater power than the elected governing assembly itself, and I shall resist this proposal in every way available to me.
    7.13 p.m.
    Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: thought that the proposal were that the board's proceedings should be subjected to review in this House at a fixed period, whether three or five years, I certainly should desire time to consider it. I can see reasons why that would be a very useful provision, and I can see reasons which might be urged on the other side. Without having examined it in any great detail, and not having made up my mind, I express no opinion on that point, but what I have observed is that the effect of this Amendment, if carried, will not be to give the House that which, I am sure, hon. Members opposite who have spoken in favour of it really desire to happen. It is plain, if we look at the second rule of the Schedule, that the
    1782
    term for which the people who are to be appointed to the board are to hold office, must be under the conditions of the Warrant of Appointment. It is clear, after the first body has been appointed, that you will arrive at a time when they will not all finish at the same moment whether they are appointed for three or five years, or for life, or as long as they behave themselves, or until such time as it may come about that they are no longer fit to undertake their duties. If the members of the board are appointed for a period of five years, and if at the end of 12 months one member dies and a new member is appointed you immediately arrive at a state of things in which all the board will not cease office at the same time.
    I have listened to this discussion almost since its commencement and it seems to me that this Amendment does not achieve what its supporters desire. In accordance with the promise that has been made, the Minister is going to consider how long these appointments should run. Suppose we fix a period of five years for each person and at the end of two years two or three members resign. The board will not then come to an end. Indeed under the very first rule in this Schedule it is plain that the board is to be made a body corporate, that there will be perpetual succession and that the board will go on, notwithstanding who the individuals are who constitute it from time to time. This is not the first time in the course of these discussions that we have had an Amendment from the other side which hon. Members opposite thought had a certain effect but which, on close examination, was found to have another and different effect. I hope that it will be possible during the Report stage on a properly framed Amendment to discuss the larger question indicated by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy). But how on earth are we going to alter the present situation in that respect by saying that an individual member of the board is not to be appointed for longer than a certain fixed period?
    I should be out of order if I went into cases of other Amendments proposed from the opposite side of the Committee on which a similar criticism had had to be advanced. It seems a pity, however, that we should be considernig this question on an Amendment which is appar-

    1783
    ently aimed only at the individual. We might have the case of an individual member, whose term of office had expired and who was up for re-election. There might be questions and answers and discussions in the House of Commons directed against that individual. But that individual Member might have been in a minority on the board and might have opposed whatever policy it was desired to criticise in the House of Commons. I submit that the very interesting points which have been made as to the control of the House of Commons over outside bodies do not arise on this Amendment. Much as I would like, upon an Amendment which was properly framed, to discuss the wider question of whether it would not be in the interest of all that there should be, at fixed periods, opportunities of discussing the work of all the members of the Board and not merely of one who happened to be resigning, I feel myself in the circumstances compelled to vote against this Amendment.
    7.20 p.m.
    Mr. J. JONES: I am glad to have listened to some of the constitutional experts this afternoon. When I first entered this House I was shown a part of Westminster Hall where, I was told, the Star Chamber used to conduct its operations. Listening to this afternoon's Debate I wondered whether the Star Chamber was going to be revived. This board is not to be called the Star Chamber, but its duties will be on the lines of those of the Star Chamber. It is to have the right of deciding questions of life and death to a large proportion of the people who are down and out under the present industrial system. At least 2,000,000 men, women and children will have their lives and liberties placed at the disposal of this new Star Chamber. We are going to pass a Bill which establishes the principle that the English people, or those among them who are unfortunate, are to have no redress against this new constituted authority:
    "Their's not to reason why,
    Their's but to starve and die."
    And this in the England which we were told to fight for only a few years ago—the country which was to be "fit for heroes to live in." Now you have to be a hero to get a living in it. Some of
    1784
    us are opposed to the whole system of this board and all its concomitants. Who are the members of the board to be? We have had some experience of commissioners and apparently these are to be commissioners under another name. In West Ham we had three retired civil servants, already getting substantial pensions and they were paid salaries on top of their pensions to crucify the poor.
    Mr. PIKE: What about Eccleston Square?
    Mr. JONES: I know what the hon. Member means by "the square." Anybody who gets a job under this board, if his party are in power, will have to be "on the square," or will have to wear one. We have known something of people of this kind. Men and women in West Ham, poor as they are, have given lifelong service to their fellow citizens, have sat on local authorities at their own expense and, in some cases, have lost their jobs through having had the courage to stand up against those in authority. But none of those men and women will get a chance under this new board, with this Minister of Labour, and there is no Labour man worth his salt who would take a job under such an authority in such circumstances.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am not so sure about that.
    Mr. J. JONES: I said in qualification of my statement "no Labour man worth his salt." There are some Labour men who are not worth salt and the board might make some use of them. To give them salt would only make them thirsty. But none of the men and women in the Labour movement who have given years of their lives to dealing with the problem of poverty would accept a job of this kind. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" and we are going to resist in every way the proposal to hand these things over to this board. I do not care who appoints them, whether it is Buckingham Palace or Eccleston Square. I am not prepared to hand over to either of those institutions the right to dominate over the members of the class to which I belong. Our past history in this country has been unwritten—[Laughter.] I can only speak to hon. Members opposite in the English language. I cannot give them the means of understanding it. But I tell them that in this

    1785
    matter you are going back upon the history of Great Britain. The results of the struggle that has taken place in this country since Magna Charta established the liberties of the people are being gradually undermined. Hon. Members opposite on public platforms declare that they are opposed to Fascism and dictatorships. Here in an indirect manner, merely because it is only the poorest of the poor who are affected, they are helping to establish a dictatorship. The only difference is that while in Austria or Italy or Germany there is only one dictator, you are going to have five in England—a mutual admiration society. It will be a case of "You scratch my back and I will scratch yours and God help the poor." But
    " in vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird."
    You are not having us on toast in this matter. Hon. Members opposite require some consolation after the Hammersmith election. We shall give them more at Upton and show them that the people of this country are not going to stand
    this kind of thing for ever. It is because they know that, that hon. Members opposite want to establish this permanent board. They are afraid that a day of judgment for them is coming. It will come and I hope that we shall have a Labour Government strong and determined enough to wipe out of existence all these fancy boards that this Government are establishing. The Government are trying to square the situation for the future, to make sure that capitalism will continue to operate and that the workers will have even less control than they have now. Some of us, however, are determined to fight against the whole principle of this proposition. Instead of three years in Whitehall I would give them seven years in Portland, because the people whom you are likely to select, will probably be worse than the people who go there.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 63; Noes, 274.

    Division No. 208.]

    AYES.

    [7.30 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

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

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Maxton, James.

    Banfield, John William

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Bevan, Aneurln (Ebbw Vale)

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Paling, Wilfred

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

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

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Buchanan, George

    Holdtworth, Herbert

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Cape, Thomas

    Janner, Barnett

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Cove, William G.

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Daggar, George

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

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Kirkwood, David

    White, Henry Graham

    Edwards, Charles

    Lawton, John James

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Wilmot, John

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Lunn, William

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    McKeag, William

    Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Burnett, John George

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

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

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Beit, Sir Alfred L.

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Albery, Irving James

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Bernays, Robert

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

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

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Borodale, Viscount

    Carver, Major William H.

    Apsley, Lord

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

    Athoil, Duchess of

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

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

    Christie, James Archibald

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

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

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Bainlel, Lord

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Burghley, Lord

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Collox, Major William Philip

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Ray, Sir William

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Held, David D. (County Down)

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Held, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Cook. Thomas A.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Renter, John R.

    Cooks, Douglas

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Cooper, A. Duff

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

    Rickards, George William

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Lewis, Oswald

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridgs)

    Crookshank, Col. C. da Windt (Bootle)

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

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

    Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Cross, R. H.

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Danman, Hon. R. D.

    Locker-Lampson,-Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n)

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Danville, Alfred

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Dickie, John P.

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Drewe, Cedric

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Mabane, William

    Scone, Lord

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

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

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Dunglass, Lord

    MacAndrew. Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Fortar)

    Eastwood, John Francis

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Shute, Colonel J. J.

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Emrys- Evans, P. V.

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

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

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Soper, Richard

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Magnay, Thomas

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Manningham Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

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

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

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

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Spens, William Patrick

    Glossop, C. W. H.

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

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

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

    Goff, Sir Park

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Stevenson, James

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

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Storey, Samuel

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Milne, Charles

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Graves, Marjorie

    Mitchell. Harold P. (Br'tl'd & Chisw'k)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Grigg, Sir Edward

    Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

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

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Morrison, William Shephard

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Hales, Harold K.

    Moss, Captain H. J.

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

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Mulrhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Munro, Patrick

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Hartland, George A.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Train, John

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

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Tree, Ronald

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

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

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Nunn, William

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Heneage. Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Hepworth, Joseph

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

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Hopkinson, Austin

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

    Hornby, Frank

    Pearson, William G.

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Horobin, Ian M.

    Peat, Charles U.

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Penny, Sir George

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

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

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

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

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Pike, Cecil F

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

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

    Wise, Alfred R.

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

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Womersley, Walter James

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Pybus, Sir Percy John

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

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Radford, E. A.

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

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Jamleson, Douglas

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

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and Major George Davies.

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    It being after Half-past Seven of the Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19 th December, successively to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment moved by the Government of which notice had
    1788
    been given and the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at Half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's sitting.
    Amendment proposed: In page 70, line 7, at the end, to insert:
    "9. The functions of the board, and of the officers and servants appointed by the board, shall be exercised on behalf of the Crown.
    10. The board shall have power to acquire land for the purposes of their functions under this Act, and to dispose of any land held by them which is no longer required
    for those purposes."—[The Solicitor-General.]
    Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
    The Committee divided; Ayes, 269; Noes, 62.

    Division No. 209.]

    AYES.

    [7.40 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Loftus, Pierce C.

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

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

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Albery, Irving James

    Eastwood, John Francis

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

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

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

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Apsley, Lord

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Magnay, Thomas

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Manningham Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Bainlel, Lord

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

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

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

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

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Glossop, C. W. H.

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

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

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Golf, Sir Park

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Benn. Sir Arthur Shirley

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Bernays, Robert

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

    Milne, Charles

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

    Borodale, Viscount

    Graves, Marjorle

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Grigg, Sir Edward

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Grimston, R. V.

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

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Hrocklebank, C. E. R.

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

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

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

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Morrison, William Shepherd

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

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Hales, Harold K.

    Mulrhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Munro, Patrick

    Burghley, Lord

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Burnett, John George

    Hartland, George A.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Butt, Sir Alfred

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

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

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Nunn, William

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Heligers, Captain F. F. A.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Henoage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Carver, Major William H.

    Hepworth, Joseph

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

    Pearson. William G.

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

    Hopkinson, Austin

    Peat, Charles U.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Hornby, Frank

    Penny, Sir George

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Hornbin, Ian M.

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

    Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Howard, Tom Forrest

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

    Christie, James Archibald

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

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Pybus, Sir Percy John

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Radford, E. A.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

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

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

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

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Ray, Sir William

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

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

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Jamleson, Douglas

    Held, Jamas S. C. (Stirling)

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Cooke, Douglas

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea. West)

    Remer, John R.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Craven-Ellis. William

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Rickards, George William

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Law Sir Alfred

    Ross, Ronald D.

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

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

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Ruggles-Brlse, Colonel E. A.

    Cross, R. H.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Lewis, Oswald

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Russell. Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)

    Danville, Alfred

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Dickie, John P.

    Lieweilln, Major John J.

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Drewe, Cedric

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Stevenson, James

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Scone, Lord

    Storey, Samuel

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Welle, Sydney Richard

    Shute, Colonel J. J.

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Tate, Mavis Conetance

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

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

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Soper, Richard

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

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Sot heron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Womersley, Walter James

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Train, John

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

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Tree, Ronald

    Spens, William Patrick

    Tulnell, Lieut-Commander R. L.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert

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

    Wallace, John (Dunfermilne)

    Ward and Lord Erskine.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Adams, D. M (Poplar, South)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Maxton, James

    Banfield. John William

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

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Batey, Joseph

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Paling, Wilfred

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Parkinson, John Allen

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

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Buchanan, George

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

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Cape, Thomas

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Crocks, Frederick Seymour

    Janner, Barnett

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Cove, William G.

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Dagger, George

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

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Davits, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    White, Henry Graham

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Kirkwood, David

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Edwards, Charles

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

    Wilmot, John

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Lunn, William

    Foot, leaae (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

    Question put, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Fifth Schedule to the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 268; Noes, 64.

    Division No. 210.]

    AYES.

    [7.50 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Burghley, Lord

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds W.)

    Burnett, John George

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

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

    Albery, Irving James

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Denville, Alfred

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Dickie, John P.

    Apsley, Lord

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Drewe, Cedric

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Carver, Major William H.

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Banile, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

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

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Dunglass, Lord

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Bainlel, Lord

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Christie, James Archibald

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

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

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Bernays, Robert

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Borodale, Viscount

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Cooke, Douglas

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

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

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

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Goff, Sir Park

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

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

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

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

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Cross, R. H.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Graves, Marjorle

    Magnay, Thomas

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

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

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Grigg, Sir Edward

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

    Sandeman, Sir A. N, Stewart

    Grimston, R. V.

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Scone, Lord

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

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

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Hales, Harold K.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Shuts, Colonel J. J.

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Milne, Charles

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

    Smith, Louts W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Hartland, George A.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Klne'dine, C.)

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

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

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

    Soper, Richard

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

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

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Hepworth, Joseph

    Morrison, William Shephard

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Hopkinson, Austin

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Spens, William Patrick

    Hornby, Frank

    Munro, Patrick

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Horobin, Ian M.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

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

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Stevenson, James

    Howard, Tom Forrest

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

    Storey, Samuel

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

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Nunn, William

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Pearson, William G.

    Tate, Mavis Constance

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

    Peat, Charles U.

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Jamleson, Douglas

    Penny, Sir George

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

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

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Pike, Cecil F.

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

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

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

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Law Sir Alfred

    Pybus, Sir Percy John

    Train, John

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

    Radford, E. A.

    Tree, Ronald

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

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

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

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

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Lewis, Oswald

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Wallace, John (Dunfermilne)

    Liddall, Walter s.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Ray, Sir William

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Lleweilln, Major John J.

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Wedderbum, Henry James Scrymgeour

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Renter, John R.

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Rickards, George William

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Ropnor, Colonel L.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

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

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Wise, Alfred R.

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Withers, Sir John James

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

    McLean. Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and Mr. Womersley.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    McKeag, William

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Banfield, John William

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

    Maxton, James

    Batey, Joseph

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Sevan, Aneurln (Ebbw Vale)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Paling, Wilfred

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

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Buchanan, George

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

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Cape, Thomas

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Janner, Barnett

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Cove, William G.

    Johnstons, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Daggar, George

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

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Kirkwood, David

    White, Henry Graham

    Edwards, Charles

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

    Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Wilmot, John

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Lunn, William

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Inca)

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

    SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(Constitution and Proceedings of Appeal Tribunals.)
    The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper: In page 70, line 18, at the end, to insert:
    "who shall arrive at their decisions in a judicial manner."—[Mr. Dingle Foot.]
    7.57 p.m.
    The CHAIRMAN: I was not proposing to select this Amendment, because I think the points that can be raised on it can be raised on a later Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner)—in page 71, line 5, at the end, insert "(b) as to the power to take evidence on oath." If the hon. Member has any other point he wishes to raise on his Amendment which he cannot raise on the other Amendment, perhaps he will tell me in order to enable me to judge whether I shall select it or not.
    Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I think my Amendment covers rather wider ground than the taking of evidence on oath. It covers such things as whether both sides shall be heard and whether one side shall have the right to cross-examine to other. It also covers the hearing of evidence through third parties other than the party immediately concerned. I venture to submit, therefore, that my Amendment covers much wider ground that the other Amendment.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I submit that this Amendment is wider than the other for certain other reasons. Some people are very doubtful about evidence on oath. We may take the analogy of an appeal to the court of referees under Part I, in which case a person is served with a notice of the complaints against him. As I understand this Amendment, it means that any person making an appeal would be served with a proper notice stating the complaint lodged against him, in order that he might meet it, and the use of the phrase "in a judicial manner" would also indicate the need for that person to be present at the hearing. Therefore, I submit that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) is a more comprehensive one than the other.
    Mr. JANNER: I would respectfully submit that the other Amendment does not—
    The CHAIRMAN: There is no question of order here. I am merely asking for information to assist me in the exercise of my power of selection. I agree that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) is considerably wider than the later one, but I was under the impression that he had put it down to cover only a particular point, but as he wants to raise other points I think I shall call his Amendment. But in that case I should need some persuasion before I could select the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner), which deals with the power to take evidence on oath. I should like to know the wishes of the official Opposition in this matter and whether they would be satisfied by my selecting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee.
    Mr. LAWSON: We should prefer that you should select the wider Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) because it covers all that we want to raise.
    8.4 p.m.
    Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I beg to move, in page 70, line 18, at the end, to insert:
    "who shall arrive at their decisions in a judicial manner."
    This Amendment does not impute any reflection on the persons who are likely to serve on these appeal tribunals. It is concerned with the procedure to be followed. At present we are entirely ignorant of the manner in which these tribunals will conduct their proceedings. Under Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Clause 38 it is laid down that it will be possible for any person aggrieved to appeal against the determination of the unemployment assistance officers, but until we see the rules to be framed for the conduct of these appeals it is impossible to form any notion of how valuable that right of appeal will be. In the first place, has the aggrieved person any right to be heard in person or to be heard by a representative? Secondly, will he be able to cross-examine the officer or whoever appears on the other side? Thirdly, will he be entitled to hear the case against, him, or, to take the point presented just now by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), will he be entitled to have a copy of the case against him, something in the nature of depositions

    1797
    showing the sort of evidence he will have to meet? The effect of this Amendment, if accepted, would be to provide that each of these tribunals shall act in a manner as nearly as possible similar to that in which a court of justice acts. In other words, it would provide that these tribunals must observe the fundamental miles which always govern judicial proceedings.
    I think those rules can be summarised under three headings. First, both sides must be heard, and each in the presence of the other. Second, the tribunal must not receive information from one side which is not disclosed to the other, whether that information be oral or documentary. Third, it must not receive evidence from outside sources or from third parties unless, of course, such evidence is shown to both parties concerned. The importance of such elementary rules being observed is obvious. We recall the dictum of the Lord Chief Justice, I think it was, a year ago, when he said that it was not only necessary that justice should be done but that it should appear to have been done. I believe that is particularly true in the kind of case which will be dealt with by these appeal tribunals. We are concerned here with the most depressed class in the community, in many instances with persons who have been defined as cases of special difficulty, people who have begun to feel that they are the Ishmaels of society, with every man's hand against them, people with a special sense of grievance. In such cases there ought to be every possible safeguard to make sure not only that there shall be a fair determination of the matter in issue but also that every one shall realise that there has been a fair determination.
    There is only one other point I wish to make. I do not know whether the Government have considered the rather extraordinary position which is going to arise in Scotland with reference to men who are transferred from the Poor Law authorities to the jurisdiction of the Unemployment Assistance Board. Certain provisions of the Scottish Poor Law lay it down that in certain cases people aggrieved by the determination of Poor Law authorities shall have a right of appeal, in some cases to the sheriff and in other cases even to the Court of Session. The incapacitated or sick unem-
    1798
    ployed, who are under the jurisdiction of the Poor Law authorities, have a right of appeal to the sheriff, and the able-bodied unemployed have a right of appeal from the public assistance committees to the Department of Health for Scotland, and the Department of Health can give them a certificate which enables their case to be heard actually in the Court of Session. What is to be the position when people are transferred in Scotland from the jurisdiction of the public assistance committees to the jurisdiction of the Unemployment Assistance Board? Though not very many may be affected, it will mean that those who are will lose the safeguard, which up to now they have had, of having their claim determined and reheard, in the last resort, by a court of law. It may be that it is not possible, under Part II of this Bill, to give the same right to everyone who is in receipt of an unemployment assistance allowance, but by passing this Amendment we can lay it down that at any rate they shall have the right to have their cases reheard and the determinations reconsidered by a tribunal which is bound to act in a judicial manner and to observe the ordinary canons of judicial procedure.
    8.10 p.m.
    Mr. JANNER: I rise to support this Amendment. I believe the Solicitor-General will agree that our present judicial procedure is the best for the proper investigation of a case. I understand that something like 50,000 to 100,000 cases may arise here, and that we are to have some 300 appeal tribunals. There will be considerable difficulty in getting the decisions of these appeal tribunals honoured by the lower bodies which have to deal with matters arising under this part of the Bill. That being so, it is highly important that appellants should have every protection possible and that their cases shall be properly dealt with. I do not know what knowledge of procedure will be possessed by those persons who will be appointed to these tribunals. It may be that some of them will understand the rules by which the courts have been controlled for many years and will put them into practice. On the other hand, they may not be conversant with those rules at all, and may wish to deal with cases according to their own methods and their own judgment. In certain arbitration cases the arbitra-

    1799
    tors are not bound to observe the rules and regulations which have been laid down for a judicial inquiry.
    In my submission, we cannot regard these tribunals, which will be the supreme court of appeal as far as these matters are concerned, in the same light as one might regard an ordinary set of arbitrators. The appellant should be entitled to the protection of the rules of evidence, and not, for example, be submitted to the possibility of the tribunal utilising information which is not strictly proven. He should not be subjected to the possibility of evidence being accepted which would not be accepted by a court on the ground that it did not comply with the well-tried rules in force. Opportunities should be given for the appellant to be present during the whole of the proceedings and to hear the arguments put forward in respect of the respondent's case. Generally speaking, the proceedings should be conducted in the manner which has been thoroughly tried out in the past.
    There is the question of taking into consideration judicial opinions. It may very well be that in the course of the proceedings of this body, it will be necessary to refer to opinions which have been expressed in similar proceedings or in proceedings which do not come directly within the purview of the appeal board. I cannot understand why there seems to be reluctance on the part of the Government so far as this is concerned. There should be some kind of continuity about the opinions which will be arrived at, but we cannot expect continuity if each appeal tribunal has the power of conducting its business in a manner which is not judicial. There will be chaos, not merely in respect of minor matters, but in respect of vital matters.
    The matters referred to the appeal tribunals may be of extreme importance. For example, there may be questions of the position of the public assistance committees, or as to whether a person is or is not entitled to relief from one body or another. Such things should not depend upon decisions which are arrived at without a regular procedure. It will not be seriously contended that an appellant should be denied the right of being properly represented, a right which exists at the present time in other directions. I do not think that the Solicitor-General
    1800
    will contend for one moment that a member of the Bar or of the lower profession should not be entitled to appear in these cases. I am sure he realises that the people who will be on the tribunals should have the position of the appellant placed before them in a proper manner, not only from the point of view of the appellant but from the point of view of the tribunal.
    I know that debating points may be raised. When one talks about conducting the proceedings in a judicial manner all sorts of interpretations may be given which do not comply with the intentions of the Mover of this Amendment or of those hon. Members who will follow in the Debate. If debating points are raised, I hope that the Solicitor-General will assure us that he will accept what is intended by the Amendment and that he will give us an Amendment at a later stage incorporating in full what he knows to be the intention, which is that these tribunals should be conducted in a manner which will give satisfaction. That does not mean that everybody will be satisfied with the results or with the method of arriving at those results, but that the tribunals shall be bodies consistent with each other in procedure which will give satisfaction to the people who will come within their purview.
    8.19 p.m.
    Mr. BANFIELD: I support the Amendment, because it is of the utmost importance that the tribunals shall be so set up as to give everyone confidence in them. I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the people who are likely to come before the tribunals will be not very well versed in the law and will be very poor, and that they will want all the protection that it is possible to give them. It is necessary that some definite rules of procedure should be laid down. The position of the unfortunate people under this Bill will be by no means so good as it had been previously. Members of Parliament will be unable to assist them, because the whole matter will be taken out of the hands of Parliament; the outside Body will be in full control, and, unless extreme care is taken in regard to the appeal tribunals, there will be a great deal of discontent and unrest, and a growing sense of injustice.

    1801
    I have had experience of courts of referees in connection with unemployment insurance, and I know that above everything else it is necessary, as far as is humanly possible, to ensure that the people who will appear before the tribunals know absolutely that they are to get a square deal. I can imagine nothing worse when a number of these tribunals are in existence, in different areas, up and down the country, than for one chairman to give a decision in one way and for another to give a decision in a similar case from an entirely different point of view; or for one chairman to supply those who appear before the tribunal with all the particulars and for another to declare that that is absolutely unnecessary; or for one chairman to say, "You can cross-examine the other side in this ease," and for another to say, "I will not allow that to happen at all." The provision for which we are asking will give a sense of security to the appellants.
    The difficulty of which I have always been aware is not only in regard to matters that are contained in the Bill; I have always been afraid of the way in which the Bill might be administered, particularly Part II. If the Bill is to remain a humane Bill, everything will depend upon how it is administered. Consequently, we ought to do all that we possibly can to make sure that the appeal tribunal will be impartial, that the parties concerned shall have all the information disclosed to them and that there shall be, as far as possible, the same rulings on the same matters, so that we shall not have, as we have had in the past, one ruling in one place and another ruling in another. That gives rise to comparisons and discontent, and whatever we can do to avoid that kind of thing is well worth doing. I hope that the Government will see their way either to accept this Amendment or to give us satisfaction on the point that we are raising. I am sure that every Member of the Committee desires that care shall be taken to see that appeal tribunals shall be conducted in a proper and impartial manner. Nothing could, give rise to more discontent than to instil into the minds of unfortunate people who are down and out to commence with and whose lot has been very hard that if they have to go to the appeal court the
    1802
    odds will, in some way, be weighted against them. For that reason, I hope that we shall get satisfaction in regard to this Amendment.
    8.25 p.m.
    Mr. MANDER: I desire to support the Amendment, because it will afford the Solicitor-General an excellent opportunity for giving us some idea of the method by which these appeal tribunals are to carry out their work. We have no idea by what rules or regulations or in what manner they are going to function. Under Part I of the Bill there is the clearly defined and more or less well understood procedure of the courts of referees. Is it contemplated that anything of the same kind will operate in the case of these appeals under Part II? I do not say that that would be satisfactory, but at any rate it would be something that is well understood. I should like to stress the importance, from the point of view of the large numbers of people who will be making appeals, of bearing in mind the personal, human element. Appellants attach enormous importance to the opportunity of coming themselves, with any friend whom they may care to bring—not necessarily a distinguished "silk" or luminary of that kind, but someone who can explain exactly their whole circumstances. If the Solicitor-General is able to give some assurance that opportunities of that kind will be allowed to these unfortunate people—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that there is an Amendment later on the Order Paper dealing with the question of representation before the tribunals. If that matter is raised now, I may find myself precluded from selecting the later Amendment.
    Mr. TINKER: It would perhaps have been as well to have allowed the representative of the Government to explain what they intend to do.
    8.28 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I did not want to appear anxious to shorten the discussion. I cannot accept the Amendment, but I think I can say a good deal to reassure the Committee and those responsible for the Amendment. In the first place, it is a fundamental principle of our law, which is in force

    1803
    without express words, that those who have to decide anything must observe certain fundamental rules of justice. It was stated by Lord Loreburn in a case in 1911 that:
    "Such people must act in good faith, and fairly listen to both sides for that is a duty lying upon anyone who decides anything."
    So far as what I may call the fundamentals are concerned, it would, I suggest, be most unfortunate if general words were inserted which suggested that it was necessary that a body or board or tribunal should observe these fundamental rules. That will be implied, and is implied, in our law, without any express words, as regards any board or body or persons who have a statutory duty laid upon them of deciding a matter of this or an analogous kind. Taking the actual words of the Amendment—though I do not wish to tie hon. Members down to the precise words they have put on the Paper, because they are entitled to raise the general question—I think they could only be construed in the most general way, that is to say, as meaning that the decision shall be come to after seeing the applicant, hearing the full case on both sides, and so on. It is unnecessary to put in such words to attain that result; it is implicit under our law by the fact of a tribunal being set up at all. This Amendment deals simply with the tribunal, and I am quite clear in my mind that, without any express words, a body having the attributes of a tribunal must observe the fundamental principles of justice to which reference has been made.
    Mr. DINGLE FOOT: The Solicitor-General will agree, will he not, that this tribunal is not necessarily a judicial body? Would it not be on a par with the court of referees, which, as the Solicitor-General knows, has been held to be an administrative rather than a judicial body?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I was not saying that it was a judicial body; I was saying that there are certain fundamental principles, sometimes called principles of natural justice, which have to be observed by anyone who has to decide anything on judicial or administrative grounds. That is so in the case of the courts of referees. Both sides must be heard in each other's presence, reasonable notice must be given,
    1804
    and so on. All these fundamental rules are binding upon a tribunal of this kind without any express words, and it would be unfortunate if words were inserted which suggested that it was necessary to tell the tribunal to act generally in a judicial manner, and that, if such words were not inserted, it might be able to depart from those fundamental rules. So far as the object of the Amendment is directed to what I call the fundamental principles on which any hearing must be based, it is unnecessary and undesirable.
    The hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner) would apparently like it to go very much further. He said, and he hoped I would agree, that the methods pursued in a court of law are the best for investigating any question, and, therefore, obviously, he would desire that those methods, rules of evidence and so on, should be incorporated in this class of hearing. I do not agree with him, and I very much doubt if the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) would agree with him. In the first place, such methods are not altogether appropriate here. These tribunals will not have to deal, like courts of law, with questions as to which there is a definite rule of law to be applied on one basis or another to proved facts. These bodies necessarily, under the Bill, will have to apply, within a certain area and in accordance with regulations, a discretion. One hon. Member said how very desirable it was that the tribunals should give the fullest possible weight to the personal human element, and I agree, but in courts of law, as we know, it is frequently necessary to disregard the personal human element, because the rule has to be enforced in its rigidity. Hard cases make bad law, but a proper consideration of hard cases may very well make good administration.
    I agree that it is not desirable to carry over into these tribunals the procedure of the law courts. Cross-examination has been referred to. With the existing rules that you get in a law court, each side is supposed to cross-examine the other on its own case and the judge is entitled to say, "This evidence was not cross-examined to; therefore, I accept it." In this tribunal where the applicant may not have a friend with him versed in this kind of matter, surely the board should be allowed to say, "It is true that the evidence was not cross-examined

    1805
    to, but the applicant is not a lawyer and we will disregard that fact." I merely quote that as an example of the fact that you do not want to introduce ordinary legal procedure and rules of evidence. So far as the Amendment means that, I shall resist it. We are very much more inclined to believe that the sort of procedure that is adopted in courts of referees is sounder for this purpose than the purely legal procedure that you get in a court of law. That view was endorsed by the Morris Committee set up by the party opposite. That Committee said, in reference to the procedure in courts of referees, that the intention of the Legislature appeared to have been to avoid the forms of procedure in courts of law, and such a tendency in their view was to be deprecated. They believed it was in the interest of claimants to maintain an informal procedure. They later referred to the informal atmosphere which is more in keeping with the administration of the unemployment insurance scheme. If I may, without being accused of being dictated to by the Trades Union Congress, quote what their representative said—I do not agree altogether with his evidence, but it is somewhat relevant to the point:
    "There are many complaints that the chairman, by reason of his legal training, is completely out of place in the atmosphere of the court of referees, that he examines and cross-examines in the fashion of the law courts and is obsessed by the legal rather than the human aspect of the matter."
    I do not altogether associate myself with that, but it illustrates very well that one does not want, in this class of case, dealing with this class of people, to take over lock, stock and barrel the sort of procedure that you have in the law courts. The general principle that both sides should be heard, that each should hear what the other case is, that the applicant should have the fullest possible information as to the evidence and the nature of the case that he will have to meet—all that is implied and would have to be carried out by the tribunal even if there were no safeguards. But there is a safeguard in that the rules of procedure have to be laid down and approved by the Minister, and, if they are thought to be too legal or judicial, or not sufficiently legal or judicial, the Minister can be attacked at once for having given his
    1806
    approval. That, surely, is the right procedure. We are setting up a board with new and very complicated and difficult duties. It may be a difficult question exactly how far you want to introduce legal procedure and how far you want to preserve informality. Surely the right thing is not to tie their hands by saying, "Here you shall be legal, and here you shall be informal." I can assure the hon. Member that it is the intention of my right hon. Friend that everything that can possibly make for fairness and seeing that the applicant has a proper and fair hearing will be considered.
    8.41 p.m.
    Mr. TINKER: The hon. and learned Gentleman has certainly cleared up the situation, and I am satisfied with his explanation, but I should like to ask, if at any time the way appeals are carried on does not meet with our approval, what means we have of drawing the attention of the Minister or the House to what is hoppening. Shall we be debarred from making any protest? Then, will this Tribunal, whose decisions will be final, be guided in any way by previous decisions? The Umpire, over a long period of years, has laid down definite lines governing the work of the Unemployment Board as it has gone on stage by stage. Will those decisions have any effect upon the Tribunal or will it disregard them? In matters like this we have to wait and see what happens, but I certainly want some assurance whether we shall be in a position to raise any point that we are not satisfied about if the Tribunal does not carry out the work as we should wish.
    8.44 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If Members, wherever they sit, are dissatisfied with what is happening, they first of all have the ordinary channel of approach to the Minister. Further, the fees paid to the Chairman of the Tribunal will appear on the Estimates.
    Mr. TINKER: Will that be a separate item?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am told that the expenses of the Appeal Tribunal will appear as a separate item. Also the matter could be raised on a Vote of Censure. The second point was whether they would be guided by previous decisions. I think the position is this. First of all, regulations will be approved

    1807
    by this House. Subject to that no doubt, certain questions of principle may well arise as to which uniformity is desirable and should be established. It is difficult to give an absolutely hard-and-fast answer, but, having regard to the general nature of the duties laid upon them and the tasks that they have to perform, there would obviously be a framework of rules, and it would surprise me very much if there was not in this case considerable elasticity for discretion within that framework of rules. I appreciate that I cannot give a completely satisfactory answer to the hon. Member, but that I think must be the position.
    8.46 p.m.
    Mr. HOLDSWORTH: We are in somewhat of a difficulty regarding all these things By reason of the reply which is so often given that we have an adequate opportunity of raising these questions in the House. We on these benches cannot accept that view. On Clause 17, we moved that in regard to any regulations which might be brought before the House we should have the power of Amendment. The Solicitor-General says that rules of procedure will be drawn up, and that the House will have power to say "yes" or "no" to those rules of procedure. But it may be that among those rules will be certain things which we approve and other things of which we disapprove. We shall have to say "yes" or "no" in regard to the whole lot; at least I understood that to be the case from the Parliamentary Secretary.
    There is another point which I shall be glad if the Solicitor-General will answer at the same time. There will be many branches of this board up and down the country and many different decisions will be given, and I would ask the Solicitor-General how such decisions are to be co-ordinated. I have heard the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), when speaking in this House, refer to the Umpire and say that a decision when given becomes case law. We want to know, if different decisions are to be given, how they are to be co-ordinated. I may be wrong with regard to the first point, but I should like some further explanation of it, and I should like the Solicitor-General to answer the question as to how the different decisions are to be co-ordinated.
    8.48 p.m.
    Mr. JANNER: The Solicitor-General commented upon the fact that I had pointed to the present procedure as being effective, but it may not be the best that can be conceived for the purpose of the rules of this particular board. What I want to know, and what the hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered, is whether he can give us an assurance that, before we part with the Bill—never mind about waiting until the rules of the Minister are brought forward in the manner he has indicated—some definite general principles for the procedure of these tribunals will be adopted? That is why I asked that he should not hold us too rigidly to the actual terms of the Amendment. We are anxious to know how the interests of the individuals who come before the board are to be properly guarded.
    That brings me to the second point which is in furtherance of the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth). The question will naturally arise in each case as to what judicial principles are to govern the appeal tribunal in arriving at its decisions. It is all very well talking about the human element. It can very easily come in even if there are rules of procedure. The discretion of the appeal tribunal may be of such a nature that it can encompass within its framework all the human elements, and at the same time act upon the judicial principles of its procedure. If we are to have some 300 appeal tribunals each acting according to its own likes on questions of human understanding without any guiding principles at all, we shall not know whether they are acting in accordance with the wishes of the county itself, and we shall not know how one tribunal is acting vis-à-vis another tribunal. That is why we are so concerned about the matter. We want those principles to be laid down and to have the opportunity of discussing them here. We want to know what the procedure is to be, and how we shall be able to govern the decisions of the appeal tribunals so as not to have some 300 different decisions in different parts of the country.
    8.51 p.m.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: This matter is more important than the court of referees. Generally, when a person comes before

    1809
    the court of referees he is charged with some form of misconduct by his employer. An employer is usually fairly careful about what he says. He can be sued at court, and he has tangible assets which prevent him from saying things. On the other hand, we are faced with the position that a great number of men who will come before this board will have to meet statements made against them by people who have no assets at all and consequently are free to say whatever they like practically without any limitation being placed upon them. Statements may be made from malice, and I would ask the Solicitor-General to bear in mind the fact that because statements may be made more readily, there is need for the person involved having greater access than ever to the evidence laid against him. As far as I gathered from the answer which he gave earlier, the rules are not to be approved by the House, but only by the Minister. They will be laid before the House, and we shall not have the power to reject them but only the opportunity of raising them after Eleven o'Clock at night.
    This point is very important. The great mass of the difficulties will be personal and domestic in character. I do not think that the appeal tribunals will be faced so much with a question as to whether the amount shall be 28s. or 29s. The safeguard there is that the chairman will not give the right to appeal to the tribunal. The Parliamentary Secretary must know that before a case can go before the appeal tribunal the chairman must give permission and that he will not be likely to give permission on trivial points. Therefore, there must be matters of substance; otherwise, the chairman will not give permission to go before the tribunal. There will be a good many personal difficulties of one kind or another. The tribunal, for the first time, is going to be mixed up with all manner of domestic, educational and religious quarrels in settling these matters.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Not the Exchange.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. Member says, "Not the Exchange." The man is paid his benefit from the Exchange, and he signs on at the Exchange. He couples the two together. He does not draw fine
    1810
    distinctions. To him it will be the Exchange, the Ministry of Labour people. They will be concerned in domestic matters. A man may be charged with getting the worse for drink. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Dr. Salter), I do not think that is a very serious crime. I am a rather narrow teetotaler myself, but I do not look upon it as very bad to have drink. I think a poor fellow, a Member of this House, was punished out of all sense of decency for it the other day. Charges will be made out of vindictive spite, and in most cases the letters will be written anonymously. About three-fourths of the complaints made are anonymous complaints. A man may be hauled before the court on such a complaint.
    I am pleased to hear that those who come before this tribunal will get the same hearing as in the court of referees, but I want a firm guarantee from the Solicitor-General that the man will get a copy of the complaint made against him. Will he be supplied with a copy of the complaint in the same way that he is supplied with a copy of the complaint when an employer makes a statement against him? If some person alleges that he is a drunken character, will he receive a copy of the complaint? If it was a case that came before a court of law, he would be supplied with a copy of the charge made against him, and he would be in a position to meet it. That is the point of the Amendment, that the decision shall be arrived at in a judicial manner. The Solicitor-General has not met the point fairly. In the court of referees the man is supplied with a copy of the statement of the charge made against him. Will he get that before the new appeal tribunal?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: This tribunal will clearly have to supply any party brought before it with any charge, evidence or document on which it intends to rely. I think that is clear. Anonymous communications should be thrown in the fire; but if they are brought before the tribunal the man should be shown them.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I am satisfied on that point and will not press the matter further. It is the most satisfactory thing that I have heard from the Solicitor-General. What I dread most is the anonymous business. I have had terrible

    1811
    experiences of it. I welcome the Solicitor-General's statement more than any other statement I have heard in connection with the Bill, and I hope that those who run the show will take his advice and act on it.
    Amendment negatived.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand that the next six Amendments are all part of the same question.
    9.0 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, in page 70, line 22, after "chairman," to insert "and members."
    All the six Amendments are designed to the same end. The present form of the Schedule can only have been an oversight in the part of the Minister, because, as at present drafted, in the Sixth Schedule, the appeal tribunal which is to hear appeals from the Unemployment Assistance Board and its officers is to be appointed as to two of its members by the board itself. That seems to be about the worst conceivable type of appointment there could be, because the board is the body against whom the appeals are to be made. There could not be a more unsuitable body for appointing the members of the appeal tribunal. Quite apart from whether, in fact, there is any likelihood of these appointments being made so as to influence the direction of the decisions of the appeal tribunal, there would clearly be that absence of impartiality which is more important as an appearance of justice than anything else.
    One thing that everybody desires is that this body which is to be set up should be accepted as a body which will do impartial justice, and it is impossible for the ordinary man in the street to understand that it will be a body doing impartial justice if he knows that it is appointed by the people against whose decision he is appealing, which is the position at the present time. I do not think the Minister can have the slightest objection to the whole of the appointments, instead of merely the appointment of the chairman, being in the hands of the Minister rather than in the hands of the board. That is substantially the object of all these Amendments. Whether the Amendments are absolutely right in form or not does not much matter, because the hon. Member can give us an undertaking
    1812
    to have the alterations that we are asking for made.
    Apart from any question of principle underlying the Bill, I am sure that if this tribunal is to be set up, it is highly desirable that it should have the fullest air of impartiality, which alone can be derived from its appointment by some outside person or some outside body altogether, and not by the very body whose acts will come before it for the purpose of being tried on appeal. When it comes to the question of the replacement of the members of the tribunal, when perhaps one has fallen out, and another has to be put in his stead, it would be even most unfortunate if the Unemployment Assistance Board were to put on some new person and if, by any chance, there was a change of policy in the decisions as a result of that, it would immediately be said: "Yes, this man has been appointed in order that so and so might be done." That supposition might be wrong altogether, but there would be that appearance and it would be extremely unsatisfactory. Therefore, I am sure the Minister will accept the Amendment.
    9.4 p.m.
    Mr. HUDSON: I do not want to try to cut the discussion short, but I understand that it will be convenient if I reply now, because the hon. and learned Member is busy and has another appointment. There might be something to be said for his Amendment if the description he gave of its effect was the real effect of the Amendment. Unfortunately that is not the case. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member has taken the trouble to look at the Clause as it would appear if his Amendments were accepted. I will read it as it would appear and I think it will be sufficient to show how impossible it is to accept them. Clause 3 would read as follows:
    "The Chairman and members of every appeal tribunal shall be appointed by the Minister, and the two members shall be appointed by the Minister from a panel of persons nominated by the Minister to represent workpeople."
    The hon. and learned Member did not disclose to the Committee the latter half of the change proposed.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I said that I did not mind the precise terms.
    Mr. HUDSON: We are dealing with a series of Amendments the effect of which is so far from being innocuous as to change the whole form of the tribunal from an impartial tribunal on which both sides are represented, with the chairman occupying a position of decision, to a tribunal which is entirely biased and weighted in favour of one side—namely, the appellants. The chairman would be unable in any case to make his views heard as in every case he would be in a minority of one as against the two members representing one side only. That is a tribunal which the hon. and learned Member would not suggest is impartial or one suitable for carrying out the purposes of this Bill. Therefore it is impossible to accept the proposal.
    I quite agree that it is of supreme importance that the tribunal should not only be impartial but should be seen to be impartial. I think he did less than justice to the proposals in the Schedule. This is not a tribunal to be nominated by the board from persons chosen by the board. The chairman is to be appointed by the Minister and the rest of the tribunal is to consist of two persons, one nominated by the board and the second the representative of the work-people.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Appointed by whom?
    Mr. HUDSON: Appointed by the board, but from a panel chosen by the Minister. The persons who are to form the panel are to be appointed by the Minister just as in the case of the court of referees. The board cannot appoint anyone to serve on the tribunal unless the person has been selected by the Minister.
    Mr. COVE: But it is the board who will make the appointment.
    Mr. HUDSON: The Minister nominates a panel of persons from whom the board will select an individual for a particular day, just as is done in the ease of the court of referees, for administrative reasons. The Exchange manager selects the representative of workpeople for a particular court on a certain day; it is a matter of administrative convenience. I can assure hon. Members that I am just as keen as they are to see that these tribunals have a high standard of impartiality, and the only reason why the board are to select the person from the
    1814
    panel appointed by the Minister is the purely administrative convenience of the board. The officer of the board will call the tribunal together and it would be a cumbrous procedure for the board to say to the Exchange manager that they desire the tribunal to meet on such and such a day, "will you invite the workpeople's representative?" It is obviously more convenient for the board's officers to say to the workpeople's representative, "You are on the rota for a particular day" than to do it through the Exchange. If hon. Members feel that my explanation does not make it clear that the board does not appoint the representative but that it is the Minister who does so, though the board may select him as a matter of day-to-day administration, then I will certainly see if we can devise some alternative words for Report stage.
    9.10 p.m.
    Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I have looked at this matter very closely, and I feel the same doubts about it as the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). I have listened to the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary and appreciate what perhaps I did not appreciate before, how it is to be done, but at the same time I feel that the form of words chosen is apt to create an unfortunate impression in other minds. If it creates an impression in my mind and in the mind of the hon. and learned Member, then at least it is possible that the same impression will be created in the minds of people who have not had the opportunity of legal study. In these circumstances may I suggest that the form of words should be recast in order to express what is really intended so that there shall be no doubt or difficulty in the future. It is most important, with regard to any judicial body, not merely that justice should be done, but that people should have complete confidence in the tribunal which is administering that justice. The mere fact that any question is being raised about this at all is a reason why the matter should be reconsidered and the drafting of the Schedule altered at a later stage of the proceedings.
    9.13 p.m.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: May I suggest that the panel of persons should be nominated not by the Minister, but by designated organisations of workpeople?
    Mr. HUDSON: That is difficult.
    Mr. BEVAN: It has been done before in several cases, and I see no reason why it cannot operate in respect of this panel. There must be a power to send for a particular person on a particular day because other persons may not be available. I can quite understand that; I can see the wisdom of allowing the board the right to select from persons on the panel, but under the present form of words the panel itself is appointed by the Minister. That is always unsatisfactory, and the desire of the Committee is that the workpeople themselves should feel that they have a share in nominating the panel. The individual can be selected by the board to sit on a particular case on a particular day. I have had some experience in this matter. I have sat on these committees for years, and we were always nominated by the Miners' Federation or the Steel Workers' Federation to serve on the panel. We had a notice from the court of referees to attend the rota committee on a particular day. That was accepted by the Ministry of Labour and was found to be quite satisfactory. I am simply putting the point for the consideration of the Parliamentary Secretary that when he comes to the redrafting of this provision he should redraft it in such a way as to say, "Nominated by the workpeople's organisations in the district." That would meet our position and would put the tribunal as much above suspicion as such a tribunal could be.
    9.16 p.m.
    Mr. JANNER: I think that we on the Liberal benches ought to say that the manner in which the Parliamentary Secretary has approached this suggestion commends itself to us, so that it may be known that the matter is approved by all sections of the Committee. I do not think there is anyone who will suggest that there was not a difficulty here. It has been pointed out that even some of us who happen to be concerned from time to time with legal matters find that a difficulty does present itself. It must be clear to an ordinary individual that although justice may be done it may not appear to be done. Whilst we are in that difficulty I think the Parliamentary Secretary ought to feel that he has the backing of the whole Committee on the point. I think, too, that the matter
    1816
    might be left now in the way that he suggested.
    9.18 p.m.
    Mr. J. REID: I think that the Parliamentary Secretary has done right in offering to reconsider the matter. I do not think there is any real objection to the wording of the Bill, though it is liable to misconception. Has the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) considered that a number of these applicants may not be members of trade unions at all? Accordingly, when we select people for the rota to represent the workpeople it is quite obvious that we must not only select trade union leaders but must select people who will represent non-trade unionists as well. That would be quite an impossible position.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: The hon. Member must acquit me of any desire to claim for the local trade union branch a privileged position, but there is no other way by which the people may in an organised way express their desire. If you have merely a large number of people and select arbitrarily you are in fact making an appointment because a man happens to be a workman, but you cannot say that he is a workmen's representative. The only way to get over that difficulty is to arrange for some organised expression of opinion.
    Mr. REID: There may be some difficulty with regard to the appointment of a representative of non-trade unionists, but I do not think the Minister should give up hope of obtaining suitable people who would represent those outside the trade unions. There is another question. It does not follow that all trade unions live in complete harmony together. One knows of certain occasions when one trade union takes a different view from another. What is one to do in that case? Is it the view of the hon. Member that a representative of a particular man's union should always sit on the appeal tribunal? One can see that in such a case there might be considerable objection. If, on the other hand, the representative of another union from outside comes in there may be objections to that course also. I do not see how one can lay down in black and white in a Schedule any provision limiting the sphere from which representatives are to be taken.
    9.21 p.m.
    Mr. HUDSON: I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Mr. J. Reid) that this is really common form, that my Department has been accustomed to setting up these panels for a very long time, and, as far as I know, without claiming undue credit for the Department, we have never come across any difficulty in finding a panel of persons in every area really representative of the workmen. What I want to do is to try to meet the point of difficulty of hon. Members opposite, and it struck me that the drafting might be improved if in line 24, instead of the words "one shall be appointed," we inserted "one shall be selected" in order to make it clear that it is the Minister who does the appointing and that the board merely selects for administrative convenience one man for one day and one man for another. If that meets the convenience of hon. Members opposite I shall be pleased to move an Amendment in that form.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: That change would considerably improve the language and would remove these people from suspicion. Would the Parliamentary Secretary give us the same assurance in this case as he has always given in respect of unemployment insurance, namely, that the panel of persons will be nominated by the Minister after consultation with the usual trade organisations?
    Mr. HUDSON: I cannot give a definite pledge that in all circumstances and in every single case that will happen, but obviously my Department desires a quiet life, and therefore its normal procedure will be to consult the organisations concerned. I say that although I cannot give a definite pledge that we shall never go outside what they recommend.
    9.23 p.m.
    Mr. LAWSON: I am very pleased that the Parliamentary Secretary has been a little more amenable in this matter. What we are asking is that the present practice should continue. Some of us are very chary of legal matters. If the Parliamentary Secretary will agree in practice to have trade unionists he will find that non-unionists will be very pleased to have the representative of a workmen's organisation on these tribunals. The term generally used is
    1818
    that he is "the contributors' representative."
    Mr. J. REID: I did not in the least mean to imply anything against the impartiality of a trade union representative. I merely stated that I did not want to see a limitation inserted. I can see, of course, that the trade union representative would represent the majority, but I did not want to see any provision that trade union representatives alone will be selected.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: In page 70, line 24, leave out "appointed," and insert "selected."—(Mr. Hudson.)
    9.25 p.m.
    Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, in page 70, line 38, after "such," to insert "salary and".
    I do not know if the Minister has anything to say about this Amendment. I am not too strong on it.
    9.26 p.m.
    Mr. HUDSON: One of the outstanding characteristics on which this country can pride itself in its government is its capacity to get a great deal of often onerous and unpleasant work done for nothing or for bare out-of-pocket expenses. The court of referees, on which the whole unemployment insurance system of this country largely turns in its present working, has been in existence for years, and members other than the Chairman have been willing to give their services free with only out-of-pocket expenses and payment for loss of remunerative time. We do not want to do anything that will put the members of this tribunal on a lower plane than the court of referees, and I hope the hon. Member will not press it.
    Amendment negatived.
    9.27 p.m.
    Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I beg to move, in page 71, line 2, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that in the case of any such officers and servants who on the twenty-third day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, were in the employment of local authorities or of commissioners appointed by the Minister and who have ceased to be so employed by virtue of the provisions of this Act the salary and allowances to be paid shall not be less than those which such officers or servants were receiv-

    1819
    ing on the said twenty-third day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-three."
    This is one of a series of Amendments which intended, in this Schedule and the proceeding one, to lay down some kind of Safeguards as to the terms of service of the people taken over by the new authorities from the former ones, but it so happens that the exigencies of business have left this Amendment the only one which we have been in a position to have discussed. I say frankly that on consideration I am not very well satisfied that it is the happiest illustration of the principle on behalf of which we have been striving for a number of public servants. I can see that if passed in its present form it might raise difficulties, and as the Financial Secretary is to make a statement which will cover the case of these public servants, I will do no more than formally move the Amendment.
    9.27 p.m.
    Mr. HUDSON: I appreciate the opportunity you have very kindly given me to make a short statement on this matter covering the Amendments which have been put down. The first thing I want to point out is that the permanent servants of the board will be civil servants and will be in possession of Civil Service certificates. That being so, it is quite clear that they will have to conform roughly to the conditions of civil servants. On the other hand, entrance to the board's service will be purely voluntary and obviously no present servant of a local authority will join the board unless he thinks the conditions of service, pay, pension and so on are at least as good as or better than those he at present enjoys. Lest it may be thought that any existing servants of local authorities may suffer, our opinion is that there is no danger of redundancy. In spite of the very heavy additional work thrown on local authorities by the system of transitional payments there has been no appreciable increase of permanent staff and practically the whole of the extra work has been done by increases of temporary staff. I should like to reassure the Committee, therefore, that so far as we can see, these proposals so far from creating a redundancy of local authority staffs will create a shortage. As far as I know there is ample scope in the Poor Law work under
    1820
    the Act of 1929 to absorb the full energies of the staffs who remain with local authorities.
    It is clear that the Board cannot possibly take over and carry out the very extensive work with which it is being entrusted without a nucleus of trained staff, trained in public assistance work generally, and, therefore, there will necessarily be an incentive to the board to make the conditions sufficiently attractive to attract a certain nucleus, at any rate, of local authority staffs. The only subject left, therefore, is the question of temporary staffs and as to that I should like, if the Committee will permit me, to read the statement which my right hon. Friend had intended to make on the Fifth Schedule:
    "Under the Bill the board appoints its officers and servants in consultation with the Minister and subject to the consent of the Treasury. It is contemplated that the Board will make known the terms and conditions of the appointments which it will be offering. A considerable number of the appointments will be in the permanent service of the State, but from the character of the work it is clear that its total volume will fluctuate as unemployment alters. There will, therefore, have to be a margin of temporary posts.
    Whilst it is not possible at this stage to make any statement committing the board, it is contemplated, as regards the permanent staffs, that officers at present in the permanent employment of Local Authorities and engaged upon the work to be transferred will be given an opportunity to make application, and that full consideration will be given to the qualifications and experience they possess. Applications from permanent officials of Government Departments with analogous experience will likewise be considered. As regards temporary staff, it is contemplated that the board will give a first preference to the temporary officers at present engaged upon the work under Local Authorities.
    Arrangements are contemplated for informing the board of the effect of the Act on local authorities' staffing requirements, and whenever practicable due weight will be given to this consideration."
    9.32 p.m.
    Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: The Committee are indebted to the Parliamentary Secretary for the explanation we have had on this matter and I am sure they will agree that if there is a body of men who have had placed on their shoulders an onerous task in the past 2½ years it is the investigation officers temporarily appointed to do this work. I am certain that all Members are pleased to hear that in the establishment of the new staff

    1821
    preference will be given to persons who have been doing this work for some time already. It has been very unpleasant work, particularly in mining areas where there have been such large aggregations of unemployed. Persons doing this work have been placed in such an invidious position by the nature of the work, that it would be difficult for them to obtain employment in any industrial occupation in those districts. I trust therefore, that they will be engaged under the new system in accordance with the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary.
    9.36 p.m.
    Sir HENRY JACKSON: May I express my thanks to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for the statement which has been made and especially for the very valuable undertaking which it contains to the effect that first preference will be given to the present temporary officers.
    9.37 p.m.
    Mr. LAWSON: This is an illustration of how reasonable the Government and hon. Members supporting the Government can be when dealing with matters of this kind, apart from industrial matters. It is a good illustration of the fact that under a system of nationalised mines more consideration would be given to the miners than they get at present.
    9.38 p.m.
    Mr. MANDER: I wish to associate myself with what has been said regarding the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary on behalf of the Minister. I am sure that it will be much appreciated by the 4,000 temporary employés in different parts of the country who have recently been passing through a period of anxiety. They have been working on weekly and in some cases day-to-day engagements and by general admission they have carried out a difficult work in an admirable way. By giving them a first preference in these appointments the board will be doing the obviously commonsense and businesslike thing. It will save the board from having to advertise or go to any trouble in getting new staff. I wish to emphasise the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams) that the unpopular nature of the work which these men have been called upon to do, has not ingratiated them in the districts where they have been placed. Their position has be-
    1822
    come most invidious and they would find it more difficult to obtain work than those who have not been engaged in employment of that kind. That is another reason why preference should be given to them.
    Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: In view of the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary on behalf of the Minister I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, at the same time thanking the Minister in the name of those numerous bodies of public servants who have been consulting with me on this matter.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    9.40 p.m.
    Mr. HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 71, line 8, after "and," to insert:
    "in connection with references to an appeal tribunal and in connection with."
    This Amendment and the following Amendment are consequential upon Amendments made in Clauses 47 and 63 designed to secure that where there is any question of an excess allowance having been granted, the man will have an automatic right of appeal to an appeal tribunal.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 71, line 10, after "appeals" insert "references."—[Mr. Hudson.]
    The CHAIRMAN: Sir Henry Betterton.
    Mr. LAWSON: On a point of Order. Is it not intended to call the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) and the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams)—in page 71, line 10, at the end, to insert:
    "and as to the payment of costs of witnesses."
    There is a point involved here which we would like, if possible, to discuss.
    The CHAIRMAN: I was calling an Amendment in the name of the Minister which raises the same point as the Amendment to which the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 71, line 15, at the end, to insert:
    "(d) as to the payment by the board to persons attending appeals and references of travelling and other allowances (including compensation for loss of remunerative time)."

    1823
    This Amendment would enable the board to pay travelling and other allowances to persons attending appeals and references. It is wider than the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan) and I think is, on the whole, preferable to that Amendment.
    Mr. E. WILLIAMS: It appears to me that the Amendment proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary would meet the point and is satisfactory.
    Amendment agreed to.
    9.42 p.m.
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: I beg to move, in page 71, line 15, at the end, to insert:
    "(e) for entitling an appellant to be represented at the hearing of his case by the appeal tribunal by any person duly authorised by him to act on his behalf;"
    When Clause 35 was under consideration on 19th February the Parliamentary Secretary made a statement in this form:
    "The rule which would be made by the board and which must be approved by the Minister…will provide that in such cases the applicant will be entitled to have a friend to make sure that his case is properly presented."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1934; col. 141, Vol. 286.]
    This Amendment gives the Parliamentary Secretary an opportunity to implement the promise then made. It is well known by those who have had experience of the court of referees that a man's case is often prejudiced by the way in which it is put. If a man could take with him a friend who would put his case in the best possible way, it would be very helpful to the claimants. I need not, I think, press this matter or enlarge upon it. The Amendment speaks for itself. We want these words added to the Schedule so that a man will know that, under the law, he has a right to take with him to the appeal tribunal a friend who can help him in putting his claim.
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. HUDSON: I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Deritend (Mr. Smedley Crooke) was in the House when my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General was explaining why he thought it was undesirable that the forms of law should be imported into proceedings before appeal tribunals, and when he was arguing that in our view such pro-
    1824
    ceedings should be as informal as possible. I think the Committee agreed with him in that matter, and it is for that reason that I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment, which goes a good deal beyond the promise that I gave. I said—and I stand by what I said—that rules would be introduced providing that a person could be accompanied by a friend. My hon. Friend will realise that that is a different matter from saying in the Statute that an appellant shall be represented by someone whom he has appointed. I believe firmly that the rules that we shall make will fully satisfy and dispose of any apprehensions that the persons in whom the hon. Member is interested will not get ample justice. The rules will try to secure that justice shall be done to them, but this Amendment goes very much further, and gives a statutory power to be represented. In view of that explanation, I feel sure my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.
    9.48 p.m.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: I think the Committee will have heard the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary with surprise, and I cannot understand why he finds it difficult to accept the Amendment. I gather from what he has said that in a rule proposed to be drawn up an appellant before a tribunal will be given an opportunity of being accompanied by a friend, and that, of course, is of value, but that friend will have no status to speak on behalf of the appellant.
    Mr. HUDSON: Yes, he will.
    Mr. BEVAN: If that be so, why not accept the Amendment? The language is clear. It says:
    "for entitling an appellant to be represented at the hearing of his case by the appeal tribunal by any person duly authorised by him to act on his behalf."
    How much further does that go than the hon. Gentleman said he was prepared to go? If the hon. Gentleman has something in his mind which I have not in mine, I would like to hear it, but I cannot see why a legal title should not be given to an appellant to be so represented. If it is the hon. Gentleman's intention to include in the rule that not only shall an appellant have the right to have a friend there, but that that friend also shall have the title to speak on behalf of the appellant, there is very little further in this Amendment than that, ex-

    1825
    cept perhaps that the appellant might employ a lawyer, who might not perhaps be described as his friend, though I do not see why a lawyer should not be described by a man as his friend, if a man wishes to be represented by a person of legal training. His case might be one of great intricacy and difficulty, and I think the Committee will understand that there are grave questions involved here.
    We are not now dealing merely with allowances; we are dealing with our old friends, cases of special difficulty. If a man is not adequately represented before the tribunal, a sentence may be passed which will leave upon him a stigma for life. The allowance officer might have the right to say to a man, "I think you are an improper person to have charge of the allowance, and so I will give it to your wife." That is a very serious thing. It is very serious indeed to state that a man is so unfitted to have charge of an allowance that his wife must receive it on behalf of the family, and this tribunal will have the right to say that a man is of that order. Then again the appeal tribunal will have the right to say, "This man shall be refused an allowance in cash and shall only receive it in kind." That is the next category. The third punishment is that this man shall not receive any allowance at all, but that the allowance shall be paid to a public assistance authority on his behalf and the man incarcerated in a local institution. That is particularly serious; he will be put in a workhouse indefinitely. But it can go beyond that. The appeal tribunal will have the right to take a husband from his family and put him in a camp for an indefinite period, or to take a woman from her husband and put her in a penal camp for an indefinite period.
    Those are very serious punishments, as serious almost as any that our penal system has the power to inflict, and if a man wishes to avoid heavy penalties of that kind and to be adequately represented before the tribunal, he should be allowed to have a lawyer if he wishes. The appeal tribunals will start building up, as the courts of referees have already built up, a number of leading cases, an elaborate system of case law. One appeal tribunal will permit itself to be governed in its decisions by previous appeal tribunals, or by some superior appeal tribunal, and it will be exceedingly difficult for an applicant to protect himself against
    1826
    that accumulation of knowledge. It almost invariably happens that the appellant will not have the means to employ a lawyer, but the trade union of which he is a member may be able to supply a lawyer for him. If the trade union comes forward and says "This is an important case which involves questions of great difficulty and we think this man ought to be legally represented," ought he not to be legally represented? Probably the chairman of the tribunal will be a legal person and the spokesman of the board. The tribunal will consist of a chairman appointed by the board—
    Mr. HUDSON: The hon. Member really must not misrepresent things like that. The chairman will be an independent and impartial person appointed by the Minister in order to see that justice is done between the board and the appellant.
    Mr. BEVAN: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I was not intentionally misrepresenting the position. It is true the chairman will be appointed by the Minister, but I can see no difference in that. The chairman will be a legal person appointed by the Minister of Labour, who will himself have to answer for the conduct of the board before the House. There will also be a representative of the workpeople and a representative of the board. We do not know who the representative of the board will be, but he might be a lawyer. We might, therefore, have two lawyers on the tribunal. The workmen's representative will very rarely be a person of legal training and the appellant will not have a legal person to represent him. It seems reasonable that he should be allowed to select whom he likes to act on his behalf. I do not see why the tribunal should have an elaborate procedure. The hon. Member cannot have had much experience of local government or he would realise the important part carried out by commissioners appointed by the Government to hold informal inquiries with local authorities without the legal trappings of a court. Nevertheless, you are entitled to have trained men to represent your views there. This is not a party question, and I would urge the Committee to press the Minister to accept the Amendment because it ought to be passed in the interests of liberty and the well-being of the subject.
    9.58 p.m.
    Mr. STUART BEVAN: I am sorry to hear the Minister say he is unable to accept the Amendment. I and a great many Members of the Committee await with interest to know what fundamental objection there is, or what objection at all there is to the inclusion of the words of this Amendment. I imagine that there are two essential matters to be considered. The first is that every appellant should have the opportunity of presenting his case clearly and fully. Some appellants are constitutionally able to do that. Others are constitutionally incapable of doing it. It is appalling to think that in certain cases—this covers cases under Clause 39, which are cases of special difficulty—a man may be handicapped or prejudiced by his natural inability to present his case.
    A second important thing is that whether the decision is against him or for him a man should go away satisfied not only that justice has been done, but that justice has been done by a true, full and fair presentation of his case. I would ask the Minister to tell the Committee what the objection to this Amendment is. Whether a man is represented by his next friend, a lay friend, a fellow workman, or a lawyer can make no difference. A case presented by a muddled mind is an embarrassing and tiresome case for the Tribunal to deal with. It is to the advantage of the Tribunal that the case should be put before it with the utmost clarity, and I do not suppose that in one case in 500 will a lawyer be employed. But the opportunity should be given to the man, if he thought that his was a case of difficulty and intricacy, to employ a lawyer to present his case succinctly and clearly to the advantage not only of the appellant, but of the Tribunal.
    10.1 p.m.
    Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I treat anything that falls from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn (Mr. S. Bevan) on such a topic as this with the greatest respect, but I am bound to say that in this particular instance I profoundly disagree with him. So far as the Minister's statement is concerned that a friend of the appellant is to be permitted to attend, all I can say, with such experience as I have had of one or two wages tribunals and other tribunals
    1828
    of that sort, is that this particular method has managed to work out extremely well. We are dealing in this case, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) has rightly pointed out, with matters which may be of importance, but they are matters which are of the most considerable human interest; and the less the lawyers have to deal with such topics the better. While I welcome such an Amendment in the interests of my profession, I cannot help feeling that it is not really in the interests of the people who are going to make the appeals. There is a great danger that lawyers may lose sight—and it is one of the dangers of the profession that we should lose sight—of the human interest in a case, and it is precisely for that reason that our forefathers introduced the jury system into the Courts: it was in order to see that cases are not too much in the hands of the lawyers.
    As far as I can see, the tendency may be under this Schedule to introduce lawyers more and more into matters of this sort, and I say deliberately that I should very much regret it. It is said that there may be a lawyer or two upon the appeal tribunal. If that be so, they will be people of experience in those points which are likely to come up and will deal with a particular subject, unlike the ordinary appeal judge who has to deal with dozens of different Acts of Parliament. They will only deal with this particular Act, and they will have before them, I have no doubt, in course of time, most points, if not all the points, of difficulty that can arise. As I understand the suggestion of the Minister, there will be people who will appear on behalf of the appellant in the nature of a friend who will probably be, I suspect—and quite frankly I hope—in the majority of cases a trade union representative detailed for the task, or a member of a similar organisation such, for example, as the British Legion. People of that sort, knowing much more about the conditions of working people than the average lawyer, will be much better able to present a case before the appeal tribunal. If we use the word "represented" I think it will be unfortunate, and in view of the pledge given by my hon. Friend the word seems to be much too broad.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: We are not suggesting that this should be compulsory, as one would gather from the hon. and learned Member, but that an applicant who wishes to select a lawyer to present his case should be allowed to do so. Surely that is not going very far.
    Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for the opportunity of dealing with that point. We all know that there are lawyers and lawyers, and that there is a type of lawyer who somehow manages to get into cases in a mysterious way which some of us do not always quite follow. There is a danger that that kind of lawyer, not, as a rule, the most reputable members of the profession, will, if I may use perfectly blunt language, go round touting for cases which are to come before the appeal tribunals. I do not think those cases will be better done, and they will probably be worse done, and they will be done at the expense of the appellant instead of being done through a trade union or other organisation. I hope very much that hon. Members opposite, who I know are sincerely interested in this matter, will reconsider their attitude and come to the conclusion that this Amendment is far too wide, and is not really and truly in the interests of the people on whose behalf it is moved.
    10.8 p.m.
    Mr. JOHN WALLACE: I would like to associate myself with the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn (Mr. S. Bevan). I would appeal to the Minister to reconsider his attitude on this Amendment. He always states his point of view with great clarity and precision, but what he said to-night was, in effect, that the provisions he has in mind to deal with this particular point differ only slightly from those of the Amendment. I am sure the Government want to do justice to the people affected by this Amendment—which comes from the British Legion—and while it is possible the Mover of the Amendment may withdraw it, I should like the Minister, between now and Report stage, to consider a form of words giving his own idea of what should be done in this matter, while keeping in view the spirit of the Amendment. I am rather unable to follow the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) in his indictment of a very learned profession.
    1830
    In this Amendment there is no reference to lawyers, and the sole claim here is that the appellant should be entitled to be represented by any person duly authorised by him. I think the Minister slightly misread the terms of the Amendment, because he made it appear that it would be mandatory on the appellant to be represented. That is not the purpose of the Amendment, and I hope that he will consider the spirit of it rather than its precise form, and, before the Report stage, give us a form of words which I am sure we shall be glad to accept from him, knowing his interest in and his solicitude for the class of men represented.
    10.10 p.m.
    Mr. HUDSON: I hope the Committee appreciate that this Amendment does not refer only to ex-service men, but is of universal application among appellants. We have had on this Schedule a very full discussion of the procedure to be followed before the appeal tribunals, and it has been generally agreed, I think, that the nearer the procedure approaches to that which is at present followed by courts of referees the better. Before a court of referees a man is entitled to be represented—he can be accompanied by a friend or representative. To take an extreme case, under this Amendment the man would not need to appear at all. Professional touts could go round to every man who was appealing and say, "Appoint me as your representative and I will carry the appeal before the tribunal." I do not say that it would happen in the majority of cases, but it is conceivable that it might happen in a number. We say that every legitimate claim by an appellant will be met by this tribunal, and I really beg of the-Committee not to accept this Amendment, which goes very much further than has been found necessary under the procedure of the court of referees and nobody has suggested that that is unfair.
    10.12 p.m.
    Mr. JANNER: I am surprised at the attitude adopted by the Parliamentary Secretary towards this Amendment, and I am sure that it must come as a matter of grave concern to a large number of hon. Members. With the greatest respect to my hon. and learned Friend the Member

    1831
    for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson), I do not think the position is, in many respects, as he has put it. It is a simple proposition: Shall a man who has an appeal have the opportunity of having his appeal put forward by persons who are competent to do it—that is, if he so desires, or if others who are advising him so desire, whether it be a trade union or the British Legion or anybody else? The abuses to which my hon. and learned Friend referred would not justify the refusal of a provision of this nature. The same abuse exists in respect to workmen's compensation claims and running-down cases, but nobody suggests that because those abuses exist—and I am not making any accusation as to the nature or extent of them—a person shall not be entitled to be represented before the tribunal which is dealing with those matters. I ask my hon. and learned Friend to consider it from that standpoint.
    One very important point has been overlooked. I cannot blame my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for not having it in mind, because it is of a technical and legal nature. We have been told that the tribunal has to act in a certain judicial capacity. Supposing it does not, and that a mandamus or a writ of certiorari has to be taken out. I am presenting a case which is quite possible, and which is of extreme importance. If the tribunal does not act fairly and properly, it may be necessary to appeal to the High Court, and a layman, in those circumstances, might be unable to appreciate the possibilities in that regard. It may be that such a case will not arise, but the possibility of dealing with it should not be taken away from the appellant.
    I would be content, and so, I am sure, would my hon. Friends who are moving this Amendment, if the Parliamentary Secretary would undertake that there would be a provision of this nature in the rules, although it were not made a statutory provision. I would prefer to see all the rules statutory provisions, but we are not likely to get that in view of the suggestions which we made earlier in the evening. If there were an undertaking that a rule of this sort would be incorporated, we would be prepared to withdraw, or not to press, the Amendment. If an assurance is not given, we
    1832
    say that that is not dealing fairly with the person who wishes to come before the final appeal tribunal. An appellant must have every opportunity of satisfying himself not only that justice has been done but, as has already been said, that justice appears to have been done. The British Legion, for example, would be approached for advice by one of their members as to whether they considered the case was of such an intricate nature as to need legal representation. A trade union would act in a similar manner. They would not take legal representatives with them unless that were necessary, and if those who were dealing with the case felt that they had sufficient legal knowledge. It would be open to a poor man to go to the poor persons legal department, to whatever organisation he belonged, if he found himself in a legal difficulty, and to ask for legal assistance, if he had no other friend who could accompany him. In those circumstances, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will concede the point. We are not asking for a terrible lot. It is not as though there were going to be a lawyer in every case before the appeal tribunal. There are so many people who imagine that they are much better than the best lawyers in the country.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: So they are.
    Mr. JANNER: We are not asking for a big concession, and I hope that it will be granted.
    10.18 p.m.
    Major LLEWELLIN: I have been approached in regard to this matter, particularly by the British Legion. Those who approached me were only keen to retain their existing rights before the courts of referees. I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary that he has given an assurance that in future they will have the same rights with the courts of referees as they have had in the past, and, in those circumstances, I think that the great majority of the Committee ought to be satisfied. The hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner) said the Amendment would give a right to poor persons' defence. Indeed it would not, because that right does not apply to these tribunals.
    Mr. JANNER: Why not?
    Major LLEWELLIN: Because the Act of Parliament which lays down the poor

    1833
    persons' defence does not apply to these particular tribunals.
    Mr. JANNER: It could be made to apply.
    Major LLEWELLIN: We will pass that by. The Amendment will clearly enable a man not to appear before the tribunal at all. If he is to be represented by any authorised agent, the tribunal will have to go on with his case whether he is there or not, just as in the High Court you can proceed now as long as you are represented by a barrister, without the plaintiff or the defendant being present in court.
    Mr. JANNER: As far as my recollection goes—I may be wrong—the appeal tribunal itself has the right to call evidence. If not, that could easily be provided for.
    Major LLEWELLIN: I was trying to convince the hon. Member that the putting in of these words would mean that the appellant could be represented by anyone who was authorised by him, and the person appearing for him would be able to say, "Parliament has given the appellant the right to be represented by anyone, and you have to go on with the case, because Parliament has said so, whether the appellant is here or not." That, quite clearly, is going to be one of the results of this Amendment if it be carried. Personally, I think that, in cases of this sort, it is important that the tribunal should see the actual man concerned, as it is in the case of the court of referees. Some hon. Members may take a different view, but, holding that view, and seeing that that may not happen if this Amendment be carried, I am opposed to it on that ground.
    In the second place, the Amendment, clearly, would authorise lawyers to appear before these tribunals. You do get, unfortunately, and you will get in cases of this small type, a certain type of lawyer, referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson), who will go round touting for these cases, and will, in many instances—we know that it happens—take a certain amount of whatever the man may get from the appeal tribunal.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Oh!
    Major LLEWELLIN: Perhaps the hon. Member thinks they will take the whole, and that is very likely; but we have had no complaint under the existing system of courts of referees, where the man is able to be represented by a friend, perhaps a trade union official or a representative of the British Legion, either of whom would probably represent him extremely well. The Minister has assured us that the existing procedure will continue, and, with that assurance, I hope that the Amendment may be withdrawn.
    10.24 p.m.
    Mr. E. WILLIAMS: I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Major Llewellin) does not appreciate the problem which confronts the persons who have to go before these tribunals. If hon. Members had had experience before the courts of referees, they would realise the nature of the problem better. For 10 or 12 years it has been my function to represent people before courts of referees on three or four days a week. The powers that are to be given to these tribunals are much greater than those of the court of referees. In fact, these tribunals will have as much power as the court of referees and the umpire's court combined. I cannot understand how the British people can hope to be satisfied if the appellant has just the same rights as he now possesses before the court of referees. From the court of referees there is an appeal to the umpire. The umpire stands by the appellant, as also does the chief insurance officer under the Ministry of Labour. Under this tribunal the appellant will lose all right of appeal beyond the tribunal itself, so that is is imperative that he should have adequate representation. Adequate representation may mean a trade union representative or from time to time, it may be, a lawyer.
    Another important feature that I should like to put before the Committee is this. One has a right to assume that it is only a matter of time before we shall have built up a substantial amount of case law, much like what we have to-day at the Umpire's court. The tribunal will have to define cases of special difficulty, and it will be impossible for the appellant, and it may also be impossible for a layman, to argue technically the interpretation that may be placed upon the term "special difficulty" in accordance with Clause 38. At present,

    1835
    if I may give the case of my own organisation, a trade union official at all times represents the individual in the presentation of his case before the court of referees, but immediately the case passes from the court of referees to the Umpire's court a lawyer is engaged. We have a very eminent lawyer in South Wales who has specialised in this kind of work. Whenever a case is to be heard, whether an individual case standing on its own feet or a test case, the solicitor presents the case on behalf of the appellant. Surely, if there is provision for a lawyer to represent the appellant in the Umpire's court, seeing that this tribunal will, in fact, fill the dual capacity of the court of referees and the Umpire's court, the appellant ought to have the right, if he so desires, to select a person with a trained legal mind to present his case adequately. There are features in Clause 38 which oftentimes call for a legal mind to present them, and certainly no member of the Committee would have any appellant deprived of his rights for want of adequate representation. The Amendment is very reasonable, and I hope that it will be accepted.
    10.29 p.m.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I think that the Parliamentary Secretary misled the Committee. His chief argument was that to allow this concession would leave it open for touts to come in. There might be some danger of touting if the man got paid his benefit at the place where the case was heard. But he has no money and he is not paid for a week, and the tout will be miles away. Those who take that position can have no conception how the thing works. I have attended more courts of referees, possibly, than any man in Britain. I attended in one week, after the Act of the Labour Government came into operation, no fewer than 500 cases before the court of referees. I attended alongside the so-called touts. The touts did not last long. If they have nothing to do, they soon die off. It is different with regard to workmen's compensation. There a lawyer takes the case, and if compensation is granted, it is paid by the employer, and there is a first charge upon it. There is no comparison in this case. Touts do not exist, but there are
    1836
    people who try to do decent things on behalf of poor people. I am thinking particularly of the Roman Catholics in my division where they have established an advisory committee to help and to advise people. There is no question about touting in that case. They know the folk and how to argue their cases.
    The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. J. Reid), when we were discussing yesterday the question of an Amendment to increase the membership of the Statutory Committee by two, put perhaps the most cogent case of all for this Amendment. The hon. Member made a sincere argument, and I ask hon. Members to realise with how much more force his argument applies here. He pointed out that if a man had at his elbow another representative of the same interests, he could keep his end up better than if acting alone. If his argument was one-tenth correct on that occasion, it has a hundred thousand times more force on this occasion. As I have said, the touts do not exist; they only exist if there is a living to be got. The tragedy is that you cannot get many people to look after these poor folk. When an applicant wins a case, he walks away and leaves the man who has helped him; if he does not win his case, he does not walk away, but abuses him. That is what happens sometimes to trade union officials. The hon. Member above the Gangway who sits for one of the Welsh divisions knows of this. He has done it, and has had a good deal of abuse, and little credit. This is a human problem which ought not to be trifled with. The hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) knows that a man can be charged with a certain offence and can write to the court. He might write, "I do not appear," but he might enclose £l or £2 for the fine. The court could, if they thought fit, accept that, or they could say that the man must appear. I have gone to the courts of referees in hundreds of cases. Where a man has just got a job I have told the court that he would not appear, and that it was more important that he should be at his job than that he should be at court. Very often it is important that the man should not be present in court. If he has just started work it is important that nothing should happen in the first day or two to jeopardise his job. He does not go to

    1837
    the court, and perhaps his wife may appear or a friend may appear for him. In these cases the court may say that there are circumstances which demand the presence of the man, or they may say: "The man has got a job. We are glad to hear it, and we do not want to do anything that will take him away from his job. Therefore, the case may proceed in his absence."
    It is one of the most important things in the day-to-day work of the Employment Exchanges that a man should be given the statutory right of being represented by a friend at court, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will reconsider the matter and give the right to a friend to appear. The question about touting has been exaggerated out of all knowledge. There are very few touts now. The difficulty is in getting people to take an interest in such cases. Even the British Legion, I am sorry to say, are not doing the work they used to do in my early days. I do not blame them, because they get a lot of abuse and little thanks. I find that the religious people still take some interest in these cases. From the general point of view. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary seriously and earnestly to allow it as a statutory right that the person concerned shall be able to bring a friend to court to help him to state his case. If the court desires the presence of the person himself, it can insist on that. If the Parliamentary Secretary cannot insert in the Bill what is desired by the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner), I hope that he will give us a firm guarantee that in the regulations it will be provided that the person can bring with him anyone whom he likes to help him to state his case.
    10.39 p.m.
    Captain STRICKLAND: Having debated this matter at some length, the Committee will not desire to carry on the Debate much further, provided that the feeling of the Committee can be satisfied by some assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary. I am not greatly impressed as to the impossibility of inserting the Amendment in the regulations. I cannot see that it presents any greater difficulty than the carrying out of the following provision:
    "for enabling appeals and applications to be proceeded with notwithstanding that the members of the tribunal are not all present."
    1838
    If we take the desire of my hon. Friends in regard to this matter, coupled with the assurance which appears to have been given by the Parliamentary Secretary, of the extent of which we are not certain, one would be right in withdrawing the Amendment and relying on the word of the Parliamentary Secretary to carry out the desires and intentions of the Committee. What is it that we desire? In pension appeals and other matters the case very often is prejudiced by the inadequacy of its presentation, the man is naturally nervous in appearing before a court, and the case goes against him. We want a man who has to appear before the Tribunal to be entitled to take with him a friend who, if necessary, shall present his case for him. We have an assurance that a man is entitled to take a friend with him, but we want to know whether he will be able to present the case on his behalf. If we could have an assurance that if a man is represented by a trade union official or by the British Legion, or if he likes to take a solicitor with him as his friend, they will be entitled to present his case, there is no need to press the Amendment to a Division; but unless we have such a guarantee, I do not see how we can withdraw it. If we can have such an assurance, then we can leave the matter in the hands of the Parliamentary Secretary.
    10.42 p.m.
    Sir GEORGE HUME: I should like to support the appeal that has been made. It is a matter which is causing grave anxiety to many people. I agree that the Amendment may be too wide, but anybody who has had any experience of staff appeals and has seen the appellants before the Committee, their utter helplessness in the face of the Committee and their incapacity for putting their case, must realise that, no matter who the appellant may be, trade unionist or otherwise, he should be allowed to take a friend with him, and, if necessary, put his case for him. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say that the matter shall be considered between now and Report, and give something more than a comfortable assurance—a definite right.
    10.43 p.m.
    Mr. CAPORN: I also rise to ask the Minister to consider whether he cannot

    1839
    do something to meet the substance of the Amendment. I have listened to the Debate, and I am convinced that there is no argument at all against the substance of the Amendment. It may be that the actual wording goes a little further than the proposer desires, but the substance of it, to my mind, is a simple matter or ordinary justice. If it were proposed that the man must be represented by a lawyer I should oppose it. It does not do that. The plain case is that if a man happens to belong to a powerful trade union, which has behind it a political party which can raise questions in this House, he can be represented, but if he does not happen to belong to a trade union, he has to go by himself. To my mind, there is neither sense nor justice in that. Unless we can get an assurance that something more equitable will be laid down in the regulations, I shall be bound to vote for the Amendment.
    10.45 p.m.
    Sir EDWARD CAMPBELL: I understand that the Minister has already given the assurance for which my hon. Friends were asking. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) talked about staff appeals. I happened to have been chairman of the London County Council Staff Appeals Committee. We allowed friends to come in, for we found on many occasions that those who came to put their cases personally were totally incapable of doing so, and that they prejudiced their cases by the very poor way in which they presented them. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has already given a promise that such a friend will be permitted in future.
    Mr. JANNER: Is it the hon. Member's suggestion that if you are going to send a representative to a post-mortem examination he must be someone other than a doctor?
    Sir E. CAMPBELL: I do not know very much about post mortems, except the one we shall shortly have on the Liberal party. It is quite unnecessary to put this matter to a vote. We on this side in any case have the word of the Minister, and as far as I am concerned that is sufficient.
    10.47 p.m.
    Mr. HUDSON: I do not know that I can add anything to what I have already said twice on this Amendment. I have given an assurance that the rules will be so framed in governing the procedure of the tribunal that justice will be done and that the appellant will be entitled to be accompanied by a friend in order to assist the Chairman in seeing that the facts are right. There is a very considerable difference between this tribunal and a court of law. Legal questions will not be involved. What the tribunal will be answerable for will be to establish the facts.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Does not a court of law establish the facts?
    Mr. HUDSON: The decision of a court of law depends on an interpretation of the law as well as on the ascertaining of the facts. This will be a question of establishing the facts. It is extremely important, as has been said, to make sure that the appellant is seen by the tribunal and not that he sends somebody else in his place. We shall see that rules are brought into operation that will ensure justice to the appellant, and in particular that he will be able to be accompanied by a friend. I hope that with this assurance my hon. Friends will be satisfied and will let us get on with the remainder of the business.
    Sir REGINALD BANKS: When the Parliamentary Secretary says that the appellant will be allowed to be accompanied by a friend, does he mean that the friend is to preserve silence?
    10.49 p.m.
    Mr. HUDSON: He will be entitled to assist the chairman in arriving at a proper decision. In spite of the statement that touts do not exist, we have had considerable experience, possibly greater than that of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), and we know that these things do happen. What I frankly do not wish to see is any word of mine twisted into an admission that we will allow some tout to come in and make an hour's oration on some political matter that has nothing to do with the case. We have to preserve the right of the chairman to see that the appellant's friend is limited to helping to elucidate the facts.
    Mr. PIKE: Has the Parliamentary Secretary considered the possibility of the appellant being either deaf or dumb?
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: I understand that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has given an assurance that claimants will be able to be accompanied my a friend. If I am right in
    understanding that the friend will be able to put the case. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    HON. MEMBERS: "No."
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 50; Noes, 227.

    Division No. 211.]

    AYES.

    [10.51 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Parkinson. John Allen

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Asks, Sir Robert William

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Banfield, John William

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Batey, Joseph

    John. William

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Bernays, Robert

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Kirkwood, David

    White, Henry Graham

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

    Leonard, William

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Buchanan, George

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Cape, Thomas

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    McKeag, William

    Wilmot, John

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Daggar, George

    Mallalleu, Edward Lanceiot

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Maxton, James.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Milner, Major James

    Mr. Holdsworth and Mr. Janner.

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

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

    Albery, Irving James

    Culvarwell, Cyril Tom

    Jamleson, Douglas

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Jennings, Roland

    Apsley, Lord

    Dickie, John P.

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Dower, Captain A. V. G.

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Drewe, Cedrie

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Dugdate, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Law Sir Alfred

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Bateman, A. L.

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

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Liddall, Walter S.

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

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Borodale, Viscount

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mars)

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Loftus, Pierce C.

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

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Ganzonl, Sir John

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

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Gautt, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

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

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

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

    Glucksteln, Louis Halle

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Goff, Sir Park

    McKle, John Hamilton

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Goldie, Noel B.

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Burghley, Lord

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

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Burnett, John George

    Greene, William p. C.

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    Magnay, Thomas

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

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

    Carver, Major William H.

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

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

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Hales, Harold K.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

    Hall. Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

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

    Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Christie, James Archibald

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

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Milne, Charles

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

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

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Hepworth, Joseph

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

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

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Hopkinson, Austin

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Hornby, Frank

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Mulrhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Copeland, Ida

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Munro, Patrick

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

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

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

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

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brig)

    North, Edward T.

    Cross, R. H.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Nunn, William

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Pearson, William G.

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Peat, Charles U.

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Penny, Sir George

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

    Scone, Lord

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

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

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwelll

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Pybus, Sir Percy John

    Shute, Colonel J. J.

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Radford, E. A.

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

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

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

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

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

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

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Rankin, Robert

    Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.

    Ray, Sir William

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham.

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Waymouth, Viscount

    Held, David D. (County Down)

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Soper, Richard

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Remer, John R.

    Spens, William Patrick

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur O.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Rickards, George William

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

    Womersley, Walter James

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Stevenson, James

    Rose Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Stones, James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Storey, Samuel

    Major George Davies and

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Commander Southby.

    It being after Eleven of the Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19 th December, successively to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given and the Questions necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion.
    Amendments made: In page 71, line 16, after "appeals," insert "references."
    In page 71, line 19, after "appeal," insert "reference or application."—[Sir H. Betterton.]
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

    SEVENTH SCHEDULE.—(Modification of enactments relating to the relief of the poor.)
    Amendments made: In page 73, line 40,
    leave out "provision of medical relief," and insert:
    "affording of relief in respect of the medical needs of any person."
    In page 74, line 8, leave out "medical relief," and insert "relief in respect of medical needs."
    In line 12, leave out "medical relief," and insert "relief in respect of medical needs."—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]
    Question put, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Seventh Schedule to the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 54.

    Division No. 212.]

    AYES.

    [11.4 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Albery, Irving James

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Burghley, Lord

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

    Apsley, Lord

    Burnett, John George

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Cross, R. H.

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernaro

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Carver, Major William H.

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Castlereagh, Viscount

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

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chaster, City)

    Dickie, John P.

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

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

    Dower, Captain A. V. G.

    Bernays, Robert

    Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Drewe, Cedric

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Christie, James Archibald

    Dugdale, Capta'n Thomas Lionel

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Borodale, Viscount

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Eillston, Captain George Sampson

    Braithwaite. J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Emrys- Evans, P. V.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Cooper, A. Dull

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

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

    Copeland, Ida

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Magnay, Thomas

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Ganzonl, Sir John

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

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Gault, Liaut.-Col. A. Hamilton

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

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Scone, Lord

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

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

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Goff, Sir Park

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Shepoerson, Sir Ernest W.

    Goldie, Noel B.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Shute, Colonel J. J.

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Milne, Charles

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Greene, William P. C.

    Mitchell, Harold P. (Brt'fd & Chisw'k)

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

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

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Moreing, Adrian C.

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

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Morrison, William Shephard

    Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)

    Hales, Harold K.

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Hall, Capt. W. D'Arey (Brecon)

    Mulrhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Soper, Richard

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)

    Munro, Patrick

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

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

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Spens, William Patrick

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Nonnand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    North, Edward T.

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

    Hepworth, Jossph

    Nunn, William

    Stevenson, James

    Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Stones, James

    Hopkinson, Austin

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Storey, Samuel

    Hornby, Frank

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

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

    Pearson, William G.

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Peat, Charles U.

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

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

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

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

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

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

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Jamleson, Douglas

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

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

    Jennings, Roland

    Pybus, Sir Percy John

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Radford, E. A.

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

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

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

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

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Lockle, J. A.

    Rankin, Robert

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

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Ray, Sir William

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Held, Capt. A. Cunningham.

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Held, David D. (County Down)

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Wells, Sidney Richard

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.G'n)

    Reid, William Allan (Darby)

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Loder, Captain J. de Vera

    Remer, John R.

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Richards, George William

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Mac Andrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Wise, Alfred R.

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Womersley, Walter James

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Sir George Penny and Lord Ers

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Maxton, James

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Milner, Major James

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Paling, Wilfred

    Banfield, John William

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Batey, Joseph

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Bevan, Aneurln (Ebbw Vale)

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

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

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Buchanan, George

    Janner, Barnett

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cape, Thomas

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    White, Henry Graham

    Cove, William G.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Kirkwood, David

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Daggar, George

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Leonard, William

    Wilmot, John

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lunn, William

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Edwards, Charles

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot

    Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.

    Eighth Schedule (Repeals) agreed to.

    NEW SCHEDULE.—(Weekly rates of unemployment benefit.)
    "Class of persons to whom rate applies.

    Rate of benefit.

    s.

    d.

    Persons of the age of twenty-one years and upwards and young men and young women who are in receipt of an increase of benefit in respect of dependants—

    Men

    17

    0

    Women

    15

    0

    Persons who have attained the age of eighteen years but are under the age of twenty-one years, not being persons in receipt of an increase of benefit in respect of dependants—

    Young men

    14

    0

    Young women

    12

    0

    Persons who have attained the age of seventeen years but are under the age of eighteen years—

    Boys

    9

    0

    Girls

    7

    6

    Persons who are under the age of seventeen years—

    Boys

    6

    0

    Girls

    5

    0"

    —[Sir H. Betterton.]
    Brought up, and read the First and Second time and added to the Bill.
    Whereupon The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the Bill, as amended, to the
    House, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19 th December.
    Bill reported; as amended, recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Clause (Treasury advances to Unemployment Fund) for Tuesday next.—[Captain Margesson.]
    Bill, as amended, to be printed. [Bill 107.]

  SALE OF FISH ON COMMISSION BILL.
  Order [16th February] that the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee, read, and discharged.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Friday.—[Sir M. McKenzie Wood.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  SALE OF FISH ON COMMISSION BILL.

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

  PRISON SERVICE (OFFICERS' GREATCOATS).
  PRISON SERVICE (OFFICERS' GREATCOATS).
  TAXATION.
  TAXATION.
FORESTRY COMMISSION.
  PRODUCE (SALES).
  PRODUCE (SALES).
  FIREWOOD.
  FIREWOOD.
  CHOPWELL (WOODS AND GROVE ESTATE, HAMSTERLEY (EMPLOYÉS).
  CHOPWELL (WOODS AND GROVE ESTATE, HAMSTERLEY (EMPLOYÉS).
  CUTTING AND PLANTING.
  CUTTING AND PLANTING.
  POOR LAW RELIEF (NEGROES).
  POOR LAW RELIEF (NEGROES).
  AIR MAIL SERVICES.
  AIR MAIL SERVICES.
  ADMIRALTY FLEET ORDERS (EMPLOYES).
  ADMIRALTY FLEET ORDERS (EMPLOYES).
  HOUSING, SCOTLAND.
  HOUSING, SCOTLAND.
  JAPAN AND CHINA.
  JAPAN AND CHINA.
KENYA.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
  KAKAMEGA GOLDFIELD (NATIVE WORKERS).
  KAKAMEGA GOLDFIELD (NATIVE WORKERS).
  LICENSED HOURS (SUMMER TIME).
  LICENSED HOURS (SUMMER TIME).
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY (FOOTBALL CUP FINAL TICKETS).
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY (FOOTBALL CUP FINAL TICKETS).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD NUFFIELD.
Sir William Richard Morris, Baronet, O.B.E., having been created Baron Nuffield of Nuffield in the County of Oxford—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
STOCKPORT CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
WATCHET URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS (No. 1) BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
BRIGHTON, HOVE AND WORTHING GAS BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
EAST WORCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
WANDSWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SUNDERLAND AND SOUTH SHIELDS WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
NORTH WALES ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
TITHE BILL. [H.L.]
Committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday, May 3.

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, I beg leave to present a Bill to amend the law as to the effect of death in relation to causes of action and as to the awarding of interest in civil proceedings. I move that the Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE: LORD DERBY AS A WITNESS.
Message received from the Commons requesting that their Lordships would be pleased to give leave to the Right Honourable the Earl of Derby, K.G., G.C.B., G.C.V.O., to attend to be examined as a witness before the Committee of Privileges appointed by them.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, it will be perhaps for the convenience of your Lordships if I explain the meaning of the Message which has just been read at the Table. It appears that last week a Motion was made in another place by Mr. Winston Churchill in which he made certain charges with regard to tampering with witnesses who were appearing before a Joint Committee, and he moved that those charges be referred to the Committee of Privileges in another place. That Committee has since met and, as I understand, at their instance the Message which has just been read has been sent by the House of Commons asking the leave of this House to my noble friend the Earl of Derby to attend as a witness before that Committee. I understand that the noble Earl, who is in his
712
place, will presently express his own willingness to accede to that request, and I imagine that your Lordships' House will be only too anxious if he sees fit to allow him to render any assistance in the way of giving evidence which may be possible.
The position which gives rise to the present Message results from the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House. One of those Orders, No. LXIV, which I think dates back some 260 years, provides that:
"No Lord shall either go down to the House of Commons or send his answer in writing, or appear by counsel to answer any accusation there, upon penalty of being committed to the custody of Black Rod, or to the Tower, during the pleasure of this House."
My noble friend Lord Derby, being anxious to avoid those penalties, thought it right to communicate with the officials of your Lordships' House with regard to this matter. I propose to move in accordance with precedent that leave should be given to my noble friend Lord Derby to attend the Committee of Privileges in the House of Commons, pursuant to the Message of to-day's date, if he thinks fit. I presume that if that Resolution is passed a communication will be sent to the other House in accordance with its terms. I need hardly say that in passing this Motion we are consenting to the request which has been made to us that the noble Earl shall attend as a witness. It would be, of course, quite impossible and improper that there should be any attempt in another place to treat him as anything but a witness in the course of the proceedings which are taking place before the Committee of Privileges. I beg to move.
Moved, That leave be given to the Earl of Derby to attend to be examined as a witness before the Committee of Privileges appointed by the House of Commons, if he thinks fit.—(Viscount Hailshain.)
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I sincerely trust that your Lordships will assent to this request from the House of Commons. I certainly give my fullest assent to it personally.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

ANCIENT MONUMENTS.
LORD CONWAY OF ALLINGTON LORD CONWAY OF ALLINGTON had given Notice that lie would call attention to the lack of provisions in the Ancient Monuments Acts for the maintenance of houses of historical or artistic importance; and move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think I need apologise for calling your Lordships' attention to a matter which is really of the greatest importance to this country. England, as the centre of the English-speaking world and as a country full of the interest and importance and history of Europe, preserves a marvellous collection of old buildings, ecclesiastical, civil, domestic, unrivalled by any other country in the world. That is our great heritage. The heritage of this people is in what its forefathers have left behind on the surface of the earth—not merely the cathedrals and churches they built, but still more the houses in which they lived and in which they took so much pride. Those houses are now in a very perilous condition. They are actually in danger from year to year of going backwards, and even of falling down. Many of our ancient houses, houses of first-class historical importance, have already suffered. Some have been pulled down; many are no longer inhabited and no longer taken any good care of, and they are in a condition of peril. Our heritage of the past is imperilled by the way in which we are treating its monuments.
This is not a matter which I raise as a single individual. The condition of our ancient monuments is a matter which has attracted the attention of Parliament more than once, and which receives great attention from the public. There have been from time to time important attempts at legislation. The Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1882, the Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1913, and the Ancient Monuments Act, 1931, show how considerable has been the attention which even Parliament has been able to devote to this question. In addition to those Acts, in 1921, when the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, was First Commissioner of Works, he appointed an Advisory Committee to consider the whole question of the position of ancient houses. That Committee reported, but its Report naturally did not receive much attention, and it has been forgotten. So far has it been forgotten that I believe I possess the only
714
copy of the Report which survives; and I should be glad if that Report could be reprinted and laid on the Table of the House.
That Committee, dealing with the Acts, and especially with the Act of 1913, considered the whole question. They began by deciding what an ancient monument was, and they defined it as any monument specified in the schedule to the Act of 1882, and any other monuments or things which in the opinion of the Commissioners of Works are of a like character, and any monument or part or remains of a monument the preservation of which is a matter of public interest by reason of the "historic, architectural, traditional, artistic, or archaeological importance" attaching thereto. That definition would seem to be wide enough to embrace any ancient monument, even a house, but the Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1913, in Section 12, subsection (3), provides:
"This section shall not apply to any structure which is occupied as a dwelling house by any person other than a person employed as the caretaker thereof or his family."
The Finance Act, 1930, further dealt directly with this question by enacting in Section 40, subsection (2), that:
"… such pictures, prints, books, manuscripts, works of art, scientific collections or other things not yielding income as on a claim being made to the Treasury under this section appear to them to be of national, scientific, historic or artistic interest"
should be exempted from Death Duties. It would appear that the wording of that section is wide enough to include houses, but as a matter of fact it does not include them. Houses, however wonderful as works of art, however treasured as historical monuments, are excluded from any protection under any of the Ancient Monuments Acts.
Let me for a moment direct your Lordships' attention to the French law dealing with ancient monuments. By that law the owner of a national monument, or of a house scheduled as of national importance, is forbidden to interfere with its artistic qualities, but he receives from the State in return the undertaking of certain parts of the upkeep. In fact, in France, the State does maintain the structure of ancient houses of sufficient importance to be included in the schedule

715
of ancient monuments. Many of your Lordships will be familiar with the chateaux on the Loire. They are all marvellously well preserved; and they are preserved at the expense of the State, but they remain inhabited, habitable by and useful to their owners. I have not the figures and I do not know how much that action costs the French Government, but at all events, in return for giving up a portion of his rights, and for allowing his property to be visited at certain hours by the public, the owner gets his structure or his building kept in order by the State.
I would call your Lordships' attention to the fact that a great many of the great houses in England are in a parlous state. The owners cannot afford to spend upon them the money which the upkeep requires. I will not name any particular house; your Lordships know them well. There is, for instance, one house with many acres of roof, and that roof is in a condition needing very considerable expenditure, which the owner cannot meet. Unless it is taken over by the Government in some shape or form, that house is doomed; the roof will fall in and then it will be a ruin. The remarkable fact is that while it is still roofed and still inhabited it must bear Death Duties, it must pay taxes—Income Tax and so forth—on a valuation. It has to bear all that, and the owner gets no assistance from the British public, which possesses so vast an interest in that building and in others like it. If it were to become a ruin, if the roof were allowed to fall in, then it would be possible for it to be scheduled as a public monument and for the Office of Works to take it over, to repair or replace the roof, and bring it again into a habitable condition; but it would not be inhabited while it was an ancient monument. While it is an ancient monument and is inhabited it can get no assistance whatever from the State.
It is not enough to buy one of these houses and make a kind of museum of it. That has been done in several cases. Old houses in some of the great towns have been bought, or received as gifts, and have become the property of the city in question, but what do you get? You get a sort of museum piece. What we really want is to have houses lived in—houses that have been lived in by
716
generations of one family, houses which contain the accumulation of family portraits, and one thing and another which give life and vitality to a building, not a mere museum. We have museums enough perhaps; I sometimes think that we have too many. We do not want to have a number of houses treated as museums; we want them to be lived in. We want our kinsmen beyond the seas, when they come in great numbers to visit the Mother Country and to see her treasures, to see places that are alive and not dead museums, which might be copied and rebuilt anywhere else in the world. We want a living thing preserved, and that is one of the difficulties with which we are faced in this connection.
It is a commonplace to say that this failure to maintain our great houses is due to the Death Duties. The Death Duties on these houses are not heavy. These houses are treated, so far as I know, with considerable liberality by the Government, and indeed I think you will find that most of these great houses which are tending to come into a parlous condition are lightly treated when it comes to Death Duties. It is not the Death Duties on the houses which really cause the trouble but the Death Duties on the estates. A man inherits a great national house. He inherits not an asset but a very heavy liability, and one that his estate is very likely unable to bear. It is with these houses as it has been with some of our English cathedrals. Take Westminster Abbey for example. It was richly endowed by pious donors in the past, and it was a very rich corporation. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners, when they were founded and brought into operation, took away the bulk of the estates of these very rich old establishments and left them with incomes sufficient for carrying on their daily work as places of worship, but they left nothing for the maintenance of the fabric. The result was that when, a few years ago, there was a great cry that Westminster Abbey was in danger, they had not the money for doing the necessary repairs. A subscription was opened and largely subscribed to, and they were thus enabled, by the generosity of living people, to save the Abbey for posterity. That ought not to have been necessary. There was an estate sufficient

717
ten times over for all purposes, but it had been confiscated.
The same thing is happening in regard to our great national houses. The owners of them have not had very large demands made upon them for Death Duties on the houses, but the demands for Death Duties on the estates have been such as to eat up all the financial resources that would have enabled the owners to maintain their houses. That has happened generation after generation, and each generation comes nearer to the point when the inherited property is almost insufficient for maintaining the family house, and no considerable help is obtained from outside. Take the valuation for Income Tax and so forth. I need not mention the name of any great place, but your Lordships will easily be able to dot my "i's" and cross my "t's," if I take an imaginary case. A question arises as to the valuation of an estate for Income Tax and Death Duties and rates and taxes. The proper valuation is small, but the authorities come down on the owner and say: "No, it is true you have got a large house and it is historic and costs you money to maintain it. You may have two such houses, or a park or two such parks, all valued for rates and taxes and so forth, and if you were to pull down your great houses and eat up your parks into building land you would not only receive a much bigger income but also save the great expense of living in your ancestral home."
There is a direct urging from the Government side to destroy and not to preserve our national heritage. It is absolutely impossible to look forward one hundred years and see surviving, with any certainty, any considerable number of our great houses, and not merely our great houses, because some of the most important architectural monuments which remain are small houses, and those are falling under the scythe of taxation from year to year in increasing numbers. It is this impoverishment of the propertied classes, in so far as it applies to houses, that is the cause of our unfortunate position. We are using up our national heritage and allowing it to disappear. We are allowing one of the great assets of our civilised country to pass out of our hands. We are allowing a great treasure to be destroyed, and it is not merely a sentimental treasure but it is a great practical treasure.
The tourist industry, as we all know, is very badly run in this country. I am told that if we ran the tourist industry with the same ability as the Italians do we might reckon on a profit of £10,000,000 a year, which we are far from getting now; but the tourist industry, if it is to yield a return, must include the great houses. People come from the ends of the earth to see England, but they want to see the houses, the names of which are on the tips of our tongues. They are allowed to see them. The owners are very generous in this matter and they open their doors to the public, two or three times a week it may he, freely, and in return for that they get nothing. In France if a man throws open his house for public enjoyment he gets a return. The Government step in and save his house from destruction, and schedule it as a national monument. We are threatened on all sides in this country. It has happened to be my duty to investigate the condition of these old houses in England, and I can assure your Lordships that the condition of many of them is terrible.
I beg your Lordships to consider the importance of this question. I am not making any demand for money, I am not putting forward any proposal as to how the trouble should be met. I merely desire to raise the question in order to obtain support from the public in a movement to maintain and preserve, and repair if necessary, the great heritage we possess in our fine and beautiful ancient buildings. You have a schedule drawn up of ancient monuments and houses that are not inhabited, but it is the inhabited house that we want to preserve. Once an old house becomes empty and abandoned it has lost three-quarters of its charm, and much of its value. We want to preserve the important houses that people live in, and we want a schedule of them and some contribution from the State towards their maintenance in a useful state.
I do not believe there exists one member of this House who does not substantially agree with what I am saying. Everybody who realises the condition to which our ancient and important houses are gradually being reduced must see that it is time that something was done to arrest this destruction and decay. What that should be it is not for me to say. It is a question in the first instance of finance., with which we have

719
nothing to do. It is a question for the Government to take up as opportunity arises and as soon as possible, so that we may retain the possession of these buildings of great value and hand them on to posterity not wrecked, ruined and destroyed, but repaired, kept beautiful and in a condition of utility. I lay this question before your Lordships with confidence that I shall obtain public-spirited support from all classes of the community in this agitation in which I am taking part. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Conway of Allington, asked me whether I would support his proposal as representing the smaller manor houses, as he has been speaking rather of the great houses of England, so many of which belong to members of your Lordships' House. I do indeed gladly support his proposal, and I would make one or two specific suggestions about it. It so happens that I live in a house which is universally acclaimed by artistic people as a house of beauty. Mottistone Manor, to which by great good fortune I succeeded some years ago, is a very beautiful manor house. Its roof is in good repair, and I believe it will remain so during my lifetime and my son's. But I tell you this because of an interesting experience I had, which reinforces the argument which the noble Lord has addressed to your Lordships' House and the Government.
I was asked not long ago if somebody could come down—I think from Country Life—to draw pictures of the house and write an account of it. A most interesting man came, and I said to him when he had done his work: "How sad it must be for you to think that your very interesting task must now be coming to an end, for I think you told me that for seven years you have been going round England seeing these beautiful old Elizabethan and Tudor houses, big and small." He replied to me: "Oh, no, that is not the point at all. There are enough of them in England for me to continue going round seeing houses of historic and artistic interest for another twenty years, but I have got to hurry up, because so many of them are falling down." This was a man who really knew what he was talking about. The thing is urgent. England, I believe, from what this man and others have told me, has
720
more beautiful buildings of this kind than any other land on earth. I think Sir Edwin Lutyens would agree with me in that, indeed I am sure he would, because he told me. Yet we are taking less care of these buildings than any other country.
The noble Lord, Lord Conway, instanced the castles on the Loire, and in almost every country special arrangements are made whereby beautiful buildings of historic or artistic interest, whether big or small, are relieved of taxation and relieved of rates and other burdens in order to induce owners to continue to live there and maintain them intact as beautiful buildings. Now I would suggest to His Majesty's Government, with deep respect, that they really ought to act before it is too late. Lord Conway told us of one historic house the roof of which is falling in. There are many others. Why should not the Government revive Lord Crawford's Committee? Why should they not then decide to treat historic houses as we already treat great pictures and say that if the owner will give facilities on a reasonable scale, as is done in France, those buildings should be exempt from Death Duties, and that other things shall be done to help the owners to keep them in good repair, and so maintain them for the advantage of all concerned? I respectfully beg the Government to take this matter into their immediate consideration. It is not one of those things that can afford to wait. I hope they will take some action forthwith which will preserve, let us hope for all time, these glories of England.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the object of the Motion which stands in the name of my noble friend is to recommend the inclusion in the Ancient Monuments Act of provisions for the maintenance of houses of historical or artistic importance. But in reality I believe that the wishes of the noble Lord go somewhat beyond that, for his speech was devoted to the possibility of relieving the landlord or the owner of these historic houses of the crushing burden of Death Duties, which, of course, do—and I think that is generally recognised—on the succession of a new life seriously prejudice any appreciable chance there may be of carrying out the necessary repairs and maintenance. The Ancient Monuments Advisory Committee, of which my noble friend is a

721
member, gave a full report on this point, under the heading of "Secular buildings in use," and I will endeavour to explain to my noble friend why these recommendations were not accepted by His Majesty's Government.
In the first place any attempt by the State to exercise a reasonable degree of control over inhabited houses was likely to raise considerable opposition on the part of the owner, or if the Commissioner accepted responsibility for repairs and maintenance he must of necessity be given large statutory powers. Secondly, the expense involved in any large scheme of taking over responsibility for maintenance in whole or in part of any of these historical or artistic buildings must represent a figure which, although it is not possible to estimate it, would certainly be one of considerable size. The additional questions of rating, taxation and Death Duties would all have to be taken into account. Under the existing Ancient Monuments Acts, 1913 and 1931, the Commissioner of Works has power to schedule, or with the owner's consent to assume guardianship of, any ancient monument which is not an ecclesiastical building in use or a dwelling-house inhabited by anyone except the caretaker. On the other hand, buildings of an artistic nature and importance can now be scheduled as having special architectural or historical interest under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, and cannot be demolished without the consent of the local planning authority. That, as the noble Lord will see, does guard to some extent against the destruction of these ancient buildings.
The noble Lord raised one or two points which I shall endeavour to answer. I fully realise that the noble Lord has a particularly strong case, but I cannot let pass his remark that it appeared to him that His Majesty's Government were destroying our national heritage. I believe that the policy which His Majesty's Government have pursued arid which has resulted in a reduction of taxation has considerably alleviated the distress of the owners of these properties. On the other hand, the noble Lord will recollect that if the Opposition one day assume the powers of Government and proceed upon a policy of taxation of land values, a very different story may be told. The noble Lord based his claim for the exemption of these properties on
722
the ground that, under existing law, pictures and works of art which are adjudged to be of national, historical, artistic, or scientific interest are exempt from Death Duties until they are sold.
The claim that land and buildings of national importance should also be exempted from Death Duties has been put forward from time to time and was last considered by the National Parks Committee in 1931. This Committee in effect rejected the claim for exemption from Death Duties of lands and buildings of national importance so long as they remained in private ownership. They did, however, recommend the exemption of land and buildings which are given or bequeathed by will to the National Trust or some similar institution. This decision was accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and a clause was inserted dealing with that point in the Finance Act of 1931, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that date was not prepared to give effect to the suggestion that relief should be extended to lands and buildings remaining in private ownership. I am afraid that His Majesty's Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day do not feel inclined to alter the decision on that point. The object of exempting works of art from the payment of Death Duties was to induce the owner not to sell these works abroad. It was hoped it would give him some inducement to keep them and value them, and for that reason they were excluded from the payment of Duty.
I fully agree with my noble friend and with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that these historical buildings entail a very heavy expense to the owner and may be, as they sometimes are, largely kept up for the benefit of an interested and admiring public who have rights of access to the property. These, I am advised, are not considerations which can lead to their exemption from Death Duties, but they are factors which are taken into consideration in determining the value of property on which Duty is chargeable. A large house of historical or artistic importance is not really valued at any very large sum of money for Death Duty purposes. On the contrary, it is valued at an exceptionally small sum. If the owner of the house is also the owner of large property round about it then the graduation of his Death Duties will

723
be due entirely to the value of the land which he owns.
The noble Lord addressed one or two questions to me, and he asked if the document from which he quoted about the situation of the chateaux in France—namely, the Report of the Ancient Monuments Advisory Committee of 1921—could be reprinted. I understand there are a certain number still at the Stationery Office, but if the noble Lord could give me some indication of the number he requires I should be happy to arrange for the publication of further copies of this Report.
I am sorry I cannot accept the Motion of the noble Lord. I hope he will realise that His Majesty's Government fully appreciate that Death Duties are a heavy burden upon the owners of land and the owners of these historical houses, but it would be quite contrary to the decisions of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer if a policy were instituted allowing the owner of an ancient house of historical interest to reside in that house for the remainder of his life and for his heirs and successors to do likewise, and for the maintenance and upkeep of that house to be chargeable to the public purse. I wish sincerely that I could accept the noble Lord's suggestion. Indeed, if he suggested to me that he wished the complete abolition of Death Duties I should be with him, but unfortunately the public purse requires money, and at the present time His Majesty's Government cannot give any indication of relief in the way my noble friend suggests. I would therefore ask him to withdraw his Motion.
LORD CONWAY OF ALLINGTON: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

LIBERIA.
LORD MESTON LORD MESTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have any information they can give to the House in reference to the position in Liberia; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, some little time ago I heard it said half in jest but probably more than half in earnest, that ever since the League of Nations has been established we have all become atrocious busybodies constantly prying
724
into each other's affairs. It is in the rôle of a very conscious busybody that I am asking your Lordships to interest yourselves for a few moments this afternoon in the affairs of the Republic of Liberia. My excuse for doing so is that your Lordships' House has never hesitated to express the strongest disapproval of gross misrule in whatever part of the world it has occurred, and still less when that misrule has had the result of causing unnecessary suffering and misery to friendless and helpless people. Now that is the position in the Republic of Liberia to-day. It is being exposed to the gravest misrule, and the indigenous races are enduring a great deal of perfectly unnecessary misery and almost deliberate injustice.
The language which was used in this House two years ago by the then Lord Privy Seal, Lord Snowden, recalled to some of us the historic denunciation by the late Lord Grey when he was Foreign Secretary of what was known as the red rubber scandals of the Belgian Congo. What Lord Snowden said two years ago is, unfortunately, still perfectly true to-day. There are noble Lords in the House who will be able with far greater personal authority than I can claim to tell the story of the abuses which have characterised Liberian administration in recent years, and all that I need do is to allude in the briefest possible fashion to some of the more outstanding events. It is quite unnecessary to go into ancient history.
As your Lordships know, Liberia was founded over a hundred years ago to be a home for the emancipated negro slaves of the United States who wished to return to their own native Continent. In 1847 it became an independent Republic, and since then it has been under the Government of the descendants of those emancipated negro slaves, a community now of about 15,000 strong, who exercise unquestioned dominion over some two million indigenes of mixed aboriginal tribes. Almost from the very start there has been trouble and no real progress in civilisation has been made. There is a pretentious imitation of American political institutions, but beyond that it hardly goes, and, although we ought to recognise the labours of a few high-minded and patriotic Liberians them

725
selves to improve matters, the position of the country to-day is wholly deplorable.
If a description is required perhaps your Lordships will allow me to quote a few sentences from a message to The Times which was sent by a thoroughly informed correspondent. This is what he said:
"This beautiful country is seen to be in a worse condition than it was 100 years ago. After 100 years of Americo-Liberian government it is; without a mile of railway, with no roads to the interior, without a medical or telephone service. The Treasury is in a bankrupt condition and the volume of trade is rapidly declining. The twin evils of corruption and indolence are too glaring to be denied, while the 2,000,000 natives are suffering oppression and cruelty at the hands of the 15,000 Americo-Liberians."
This charge of oppression and cruelty was not purely haphazard. The Commission of Inquiry upon which Lord Snowden based his denunciation, known as the Christy Commission from the name of its president, Dr. Cuthbert Christy, had reported, after the most careful examination on the spot, that it found slavery rampant in Liberia, and there are in that Report the most alarming and disgusting descriptions of forms of slavery which succeed in evading the law. Small children of five and six years are pawned in perpetuity in order to pay taxes, and there are still worse things. That was one of the findings of the Christy Commission. They also found that natives were being shipped overseas under conditions which are scarcely distinguishable from slave raiding and slave trading. They found that, though it may seem a minor conclusion, there was a great deal of forced labour and corrupt practice. That was in 1930. That Commission was followed by another one presided over by M. Brunot, an eminent French administrator, which dealt with the financial rather than the social scandals. M. Brunot's Commission reported that the finances of the Republic were in a desperate condition and that the state of the public health was a danger to the rest of the Continent of Africa.
Liberia is a Member of the League of Nations, and the attention of the Council of the League has, of course, been drawn, and drawn very forcibly, to these inquiries. Repeated endeavours have been made by the Council to help
726
Liberia to put its house in order, and to endeavour to make it realise how far short it falls of the standard which is expected of civilised nations. That thankless task has been largely carried out by a Speciai Committee of the League, presided over by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil. It culminated in the presentation to the Government of Liberia by the League of a plan for the reform of the whole administration, with the generous financial assistance of a Finance Corporation of America. The plan included, among many other suggestions, primarily the appointment of a Chief Adviser to the Liberian Government. It then recommended the division of the country into proper administrative districts, properly controlled and administered. It recommended the appointment of a Financial Adviser who would be designated by the President of the United States, and of a number of health experts to advise in their particular sphere. It recommended the preparation of a State Budget which, apparently, had been unknown before, and some control of the revenues of the State. Finally, it advised that the League should be allowed to arbitrate in cases of serious difference between the Government and the advisers as appointed.
Your Lordships will readily admit that this is hardly the sort of project that would be presented to a country that had shown the most elementary sense of responsibility for its own ditties of good government and the just treatment of the natives entrusted to its care. The mere fact of the League having delivered—I do not think I am using words that are too strong—such an ultimatum, and having delivered it on the clearest evidence before it, does clearly indicate to your Lordships the extreme gravity of the situation. That was in 1932. So far as we know, nothing has been done by Liberia, but a great deal has been written. In particular, Liberia has handed in at Geneva a long list of reservations to the plan—reservations which, if they are accepted, would go a long way to render the plan wholly nugatory. They talked bombastically about their sovereign rights. They refused to be bound by any advice they might get from the experts appointed. They refused the arbitral decision

727
of the League. They refused to allow their so-called gendarmerie—who incidentally are the worst agency for the oppression of the native tribes—to be brought under any form of external control. They refused any limitation of their pernicious practice of selling concessions in native lands and native rights to outsiders. Finally, they stipulated—and here I quote the very words of their reservation:
"That the Chief Adviser shall not be appointed from any State to whose nationals the Liberian Government has financial obligations, or is under economic commitments, nor from any State having territory contiguous to Liberia."
That reservation, if accepted, definitely seems to limit the scope of selection of the Chief Adviser to Iceland or Manchuria.
In other words, my Lords, they virtually reject with contumely the efforts of their colleagues in the League to help them to achieve the status of a civilised people. What is even worse, they insist in effect on a continuation of the grave scandals which now exist in their treatment of the native races, scandals which are offending the public conscience of the world. Obviously, the matter cannot rest here. Presumably, it will come before one of the approaching meetings of the Council of the League who are bound to consider the whole situation. What I venture to suggest that your Lordships would like to know is how far the British Government are going to throw their great influence into the scale, to induce the Council of the League to take proper arid adequate steps towards the restoration of good government and ordinary humanity in this derelict State. The other request which stands in my name is that the Government will be pleased to publish any Papers connected with this long controversy. We know that there have been Papers. In the annual messages of the President of Liberia there are extracts from Despatches from His Majesty's Government. Whether those extracts are complete or authentic it is impossible to tell. It would help enormously all those who are interested in this difficult subject if the Government would publish the Despatches which have passed, the Consular Reports which undoubtedly have been received as to the state of affairs, and anything else of an official character bearing on the matter. I ask that these should be published in
728
the form of a White Paper so that at least public opinion may be informed as to the actual facts, and, if it is informed, may he in a position to be brigaded in support of the Government and the League in removing an intolerable blot on civilisation.
LORD LUGARD: My Lords, there are two aspects of this Liberian question to which I desire to direct your Lordships' attention—in the first place the great length of time which it has dragged on without any result, and secondly the part which the British Government have taken in it. In order to do so I will recall as briefly as possible the sequence of events. It is just on five years since the United States of America in June, 1929, used these words in a note to the Liberian Government. It called attention to the "reliable evidence" of the existence of
"a system hardly distinguishable from organised slave-trade, in the enforcement of which the services of the Liberian Frontier Force and of certain high Government officials are constantly and systematically used."
There had been a large number of American citizens in Liberia prior to that date—some as Advisers to the Liberian Government, others engaged in educational or mission work—so that the United States Government had reliable sources of information, and it is important to remember that this very grave indictment was made on information which had reached that Government before any Commission was sent by the League of Nations to make inquiries.
In reply the Liberian Government were compelled to demand an inquiry and stipulated that it should be undertaken by the League of Nations. A Commission of three men was despatched, two of them negroes appointed by the United States of America and Liberia respectively; the third, Dr. Christy, the nominee of the League, was a man of sound judgment with exceptionally wide experience in many parts of Africa, including some time with me in Nigeria. The terms of reference were drawn up by the President of Liberia himself. The Commission began its inquiry on the spot in April, 1930, and submitted its Report to the League in December of that year. It more than confirmed the worst allegations. The Liberian Government resigned. His Majesty's Government

729
at once refused to recognise the new Liberian Government until there should be evidence of some sincere reform and in January, 1931, directed the British Chargé d'Affaires to inform the Liberian Government that it regarded the report as a "shocking indictment" and was
"convinced that without assistance from outside … no Liberian Government would be able to carry into effect the full programme of reforms and His Majesty's Government gives the fullest support to the suggestion that the Government of Liberia should be committed for a time to an International Government."
The Liberian Government hastily passed several measures prohibiting slavery, etc., but since it had been the first, I think, to ratify the Slavery and Forced Labour Conventions, while itself exporting labourers as slaves, not much importance could be attached to these Acts. For the rest it pleaded financial inability to carry out the proposed reforms, and appealed to the League for assistance. Thereupon, in March, 1931, the League decided to send a Commission of Experts consisting of M. Brunot, formerly Governor of the French Ivory Coast, with M. Ligthart, a Dutch financial expert, and Dr. Mackenzie, of the Health Section of the League. The Commission was in Liberia in June and July, 1931.
In spite of the despatch of these Commissions reports were received of continued misrule and of reprisals on natives who had given evidence before the Christy Commission. Towards the close of 1931 the Liberian Government sent what they called a "peaceful patrol" to visit the tribes. It was under the command of a negro—not I believe of American extraction—who called himself Colonel Davis. The troops burned many villages and the people were in a state of panic. His Majesty's Government, on receipt of this information, considering the matter to be urgent, approadhed the American and French Governments in March, 1932, without awaiting the Report of the Brunot Commission, with a view to demanding the immediate discontinuance of these practices. In that same month, on a Motion by the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, there was a debate in your Lordships' House on this subject, and the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, who spoke for the Government of the day, informed your Lordships that the reply to that joint protest by the three Governments was not
730
satisfactory. About the same time I am informed that Assistant Consul Ryding was sent by the foreign Government into the interior to report on the condition of affairs. The Liberian Government sent a guard with him on the excuse that his life would be in danger from the tribes, but he escaped at night and went to the villages. His report has not been published.
The League then despatched Dr. Mackenzie to endeavour to restore peace. He arrived in July, 1932, and found that several Kru tribes had risen against the Government, but inter-tribal quarrels involving eighteen or twenty tribes had broken out, and he reports that "four tribes comprising some 12,000 men, women and children had been driven into the bush and were in a state of advanced starvation." The whole Kru coast had become engaged in inter-tribal fighting, which Dr. Mackenzie states had been instigated and supported by the Liberian politicians, and that the unrest had spread to the large settlements of Kru-men in the British Colonies of Sierra Leone and the Gold Coast, who were trying to smuggle arms and ammunition to their fellow tribesmen and were themselves anxious to join them. In the space of two months Dr. Mackenzie achieved the almost incredible feat of inducing these warring tribes to agree to keep the peace for the space of a year—namely, till August, 1933. Recognising the temptation to fight so long as they retained their weapons, he reports that they surrendered them of their own accord, and 500 rifles and guns were handed over to the Liberian Government, which Dr. Mackenzie as an official of the League was bound to recognise as the de facto Government. His action received the full approval of the League Council.
Those who know the African will agree that (as the saying is) it is easier to get butter out of a dog's mouth than to get a tribesman to part with his weapons, or to agree to proposed tribal land boundaries, and it is no wonder that the Liberian Government were anxious that Dr. Mackenzie should extend his peaceful Mission to the other large tribe, the Grebes, who had sent seventeen Paramount Chiefs to meet him. But the time at his disposal did not admit of his undertaking this task. The United States had also sent a distinguished American—General Winship, the Judge

731
Advocate-General of the United States Army, and now, I believe, Governor of Porto Rico—to Liberia to report. He returned to America early in 1933. His report has not been published but is believed to be in the same sense as those already received.
Reverting now to M. Brunot's Expert Commission, towards the end of 1931 they submitted their Report and proposals for a reorganisation of the Liberian Administration with foreign assistance which the noble Lord who preceded me has described. The Report was published in May, 1932, and considered by the League in October, 1932. The Report stated that Liberia was completely bankrupt. Salaries, bills, and interest due on loans were unpaid. The Liberian Government professed to accept the scheme, but made reservations which I need not describe in detail, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has stated the purport of them. It suffices to say that they were wholly incompatible with the fundamental basis of the reforms. The adoption of the proposals depended in any case on the result of the negotiations which had been begun with the Finance Corporation of America, with which Mr. Firestone, the Concessionaire, was closely associated. It had made a large loan to the Liberian Government, on very onerous terms. Mr. Firestone was ready to co-operate with the League Commission and to give generous financial assistance. By June, 1933, the negotiations were successfully concluded, and the League Committee was able to report that a slightly modified plan had been accepted by the United States Government and the Finance Corporation. It was pointed out that the plan safeguarded the political independence, the territorial integrity, and the sovereign rights of the Liberian Government, while affording a means of financial assistance. If it was not accepted in its entirety without reservations by the time the Council met in January, 1934, the League would be compelled to withdraw from any further attempt to deal with Liberia's appeal for assistance. In order that there should be no misunderstanding Dr. Mackenzie was again despatched to Liberia on behalf of the League in order fully to explain the plan.
In December, 1933, the United States addressed another Note to Liberia stating
732
that she expected her to accept the League's recommendations, in which the American Government would co-operate. When the Council assembled in January, 1934, the Liberian Government made practically the same reservations as before, which the Experts Commission of the League had said were quite incompatible with the execution of the plan. The League Committee was therefore dissolved, and the League's activities in the matter ceased, but as a last chance the Liberian Government were told that if before the Council meeting next May they should decide to change their attitude, their representations would receive consideration then. The latest information is that the Chiefs arrested by the negro Colonel Davis are still in prison and some are said to have died, that access to the sea on which this sea-faring and fishing tribe depend has been closed; that President Barclay is on his way to the interior, and troops sent in advance to prepare for him have fired on villages and committed various outrages reported in a recent communication published in The Times from its correspondent in Geneva. The tribes appeal to the League for help now that their arms have been surrendered in reliance upon the intervention of the League. The Chief who sends this appeal says that he is in a dilemma. The President will summon him on arrival. If he refuses to come, it will be regarded as a reason for attack. If he obeys he has reason to fear that he will be arrested as the other Chiefs were, and perhaps share the fate of the 75 Chiefs—I am told the right number was 84—who were executed in 1917.
That, my Lords, is I believe a fairly accurate account of the history of this matter and the present position of affairs. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, will correct me if in any particular I have been in error. Indeed, the principal facts were confirmed by the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, speaking for the Government of the day in the debate in March, 1932. He said that the charges of continued misrule were corroborated by Consular Reports. There had in fact been what be described as "a recrudescence of cruelty and oppression." He informed the House of the decision of the British and United States Governments to withhold recognition of the new Liberian Government pending reform, and he added that His Majesty's Government

733
would "continue to take a very active and prominent part … to put a stop to this grave and cruel maladministration." Liberia had for over a hundred years enjoyed the protection of the American Government, which had on more than one occasion sent warships to support the Monrovian Government against the tribes. These League inquiries have at least had one good result in that the United States Government has withdrawn its recognition and informed Liberia that unless comprehensive reforms are loyally and sincerely put into effect it will result in the final abdication of her friendly feelings.
Following the example of their fathers, who announced their neutrality in the Franco-German War of 1870, Liberia declared herself on the side of the Allies in the Great War, and she thus became an original Member of the League. She claimed sovereignty over 2,000,000 natives in the hinterland, among whom no Liberian dares to show his face unless supported by troops—though by the Berlin Act of 1885 effective occupation alone constituted a claim to sovereignty. It is surely a tragic paradox that the Liberian Government, should now rely on her membership of the League for immunity from intervention. As long as she remains a Member she boasts that her independence is guaranteed, and no one can prevent her from doing as she pleases, for by Article 10 of the Covenant
"the Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression, the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League."
The League itself, as Lord Cecil told us, has "no material means of coercion." All it can do is to say: "No reform, no money," relying on Liberia's financial straits.
But we now have definite information that she is proposing to grant to certain Dutch and Danish syndicates concessions of the land or minerals which belong to the people of the country. I imagine that the prospect of what the Liberian Government can realise by the sale of these concessions is the real explanation of the defiance by the Liberian Government of America and the League. The negro community in the United States appears to be misinformed regarding the true state of affairs in Liberia. We can understand and even sympathise with their
734
desire to prove to the world that the negro race is capable not only of self-government but of governing a subject people; but the fact that Professor Johnson, an American negro, was one of the Christy Commission which exposed the slave-dealing and misrule, should show them that so far from establishing the prestige of the negro race in the eyes of the world by championing the cause of the Liberian oligarchy, they are seriously injuring it. Their assistance in carrying out the League plan would be welcomed.
The tribes, partially disarmed and torn by internal disputes, are powerless to throw off the yoke, and the Monrovian Government will continue to foment intertribal quarrels. The League, having satisfied itself that this grave misrule exists, is compelled to declare that it can do nothing without the willing consent of Liberia, and that its activities must now cease. The American Government, which is unhampered by membership of the League, cannot evade the responsibility of her long connection with and support of the Liberian Government in the past, or the share which men claiming American nationality have had, and I believe still have, in the conduct of Liberian affairs. It would seem that she is in the best position to issue that ultimatum which would at once produce acceptance of the reforms which this costly discussion for five years has failed to secure. All are agreed that nothing short of the fear that worse may befall will induce the Liberian Government to agree, and as His Majesty's Government very truly declared three years ago, they are themselves incapable of putting it into execution.
We know from the statements made in both Houses of Parliament—no less by the late Socialist than by the present National Government—that our Foreign Office is deeply concerned about the state of affairs in Liberia. No appeal is needed to stimulate that interest, and I am sure that if the noble Lord who replies consents to lay Papers it will be found that nothing is wanting in the shape of displomatic protests. The question is whether anything more effective can be done. I venture with diffidence to make the suggestion that His Majesty's Government should in the first place, jointly if possible with France, invite the Council of the League to declare that

735
failing the acceptance without reserve of the League's plan any steps which the United States Government may consider necessary to put an end to present conditions would be welcomed; and in the second place to exert British influence, jointly with France, in pressing the American Government to take the initiative in compelling the Liberian Government to accept the scheme of reform which has been prepared sympathetically and disinterestedly by the League Commission, or failing acceptance to put it into execution herself so far as the interior is concerned, leaving the Government of Monrovia to enjoy autonomy in the coast enclave which they actually occupy, and so avoid bloodshed which may have repercussions beyond Liberia.
If this course is not practicable, I would like to call attention to certain articles in the Covenant of the League, which may be applicable to the case of Liberia. Article 23 (b) binds all Members of the League to "undertake to secure just treatment of the native inhabitants of territories under their control," and paragraph (f) adds that they "will endeavour to take steps in matters of international concern for the prevention and control of disease." Both of the Commissions appointed by the League have definitely and categorically declared that Liberia has violated these pledges for years past and is still violating them Article 16 says:
"Any Member of the League which has violated any Covenant of the League may be declared to be no longer a Member by a vote of the Council concurred in by the representatives of all the other Members represented thereon."
I suggest that it is open to His Majesty's Government to propose such a vote. Alternatively, I would remind your Lordships that His Majesty's Government have since 1931 refused to recognise the Liberian Government, and we now have no accredited representative there. This I presume means a rupture of diplomatic relations. Article 12 of the Treaty of Versailles says:
"The Members of the League agree that if there should arise between them any dispute likely to lead to a rupture, they will submit the matter either to arbitration or to inquiry by the Council…."
It would therefore seem open to His Majesty's Government to submit the cause of the existing rupture with Liberia to an inquiry by the Council.
736
Such an inquiry would put the question on a different basis. Hitherto the inquiries conducted by its Commissions have had their origin in the request by Liberia for financial assistance. But an inquiry based on the Reports of the League's own Commissions would in effect be to decide whether Liberia should remain a Member of the League or not.
Even though Geneva may question whether the clauses quoted are applicable, or even though the suggestion that Liberia should be invited to leave the League may not be accepted—and I am well aware that there is likely to be opposition to that—the fact that it has been made by His Majesty's Government, which has always been a strenuous supporter of the League, will at any rate dissociate Great Britain from participation in a policy which allows membership of the League to be used as an obstacle to reform. It will probably impress the United States Government, and will no doubt have a considerable effect in Liberia. It seems inconceivable that the Council of the League, confronted with the scathing Reports of its own Commissions, and with the fact that the Governments of the United States and of Great Britain had withdrawn their recognition, should not only refuse any redress to tribes who had given up their arms relying on its assistance, but should allow membership of the League to prevent any effective assistance to them from outside.
Suppose that the United States or any other State declined any longer to be flouted by Liberia and resorted to force, is there any Member of the League which would be prepared to champion the cause of misrule and put in force the sanctions prescribed by Article 16 of the Covenant? Would not the critics of the League once again accuse her of delaying to face realities until the situation had passed beyond her control? The matter brooks no delay, in order to prevent the sale of land and minerals to which the vendors have no right, to do away with a focus of yellow-fever which is a danger to the whole West Coast, and to save the tribes who have appealed for help.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I desire on behalf of my noble friends to give our most emphatic support to the noble Lord,

737
Lord Meston, in the Question that he has put to His Majesty's Government. The conditions in Liberia have been fully stated both by Lord Meston and by Lord Lugard, whose authority on African questions is nearly always decisive for my own mind. I do not desire, therefore, to detain your Lordships by going over ground that they have traversed, and I only want to say that, although this problem is one of great difficulty, and that great care has to be taken not to do the wrong thing, something at any rate must be done. It seems incredible that the conditions which now prevail in Liberia can go on with the sanction of the civilised world. I feel that they can no longer be ignored. I am sure that if the conditions were well known they would create alarm throughout the Continent of Europe, and equally sure that if the people of our own country realised what they were there would be an outburst of moral indignation.
I cannot help feeling that His Majesty's Government have some real claim to interfere—if that is the right word to use in regard to this matter. Liberia is stationed very close to Colonies for whose welfare His Majesty's Government are in the main responsible. There was a time when Sierra Leone was regarded as "the white man's grave," but, owing to expert administration and the careful building up of sanitary conditions there, that state of things has been altered. Yet we have contiguous to that Colony Liberia, concerning which we are told by the Brunot Commission that the only hospital in the place has no electric light, that there are no sanitary arrangements, that there is no notification of infectious diseases, and no accommodation for patients suffering from leprosy, tuberculosis, smallpox, yellow fever or scarlet fever. So that, as the Brunot Commission further states, it is clear under these conditions that Liberia constitutes a serious danger on the West Coast of Africa. That is, I suggest, a practical reason why His Majesty's Government should feel increasingly alarmed at the conditions which prevail in Liberia.
I do not feel called upon to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lugard, in the suggestions that he has made as to what might be done. I feel it right, however, to make the suggestion, purely on my own account, that pressure might be brought to bear upon Liberia by European Governments to accept the League's plan.
738
If Liberia persistently and deliberately refuses to accept that plan then her position as a Member of the League should be very seriously questioned, with the understanding that, if she were excluded from membership of the League, the territory would become suitable for rule by a mandatory Power. The noble Lord, Lord Lugard, thought that the United States of America might take steps. Well, so they might; but it is right that as practical politicians we should remember that there are 2,000,000 negro votes in the United States of America, and that therefore it is not easy to assume that that does not present a problem to the United States Government.
I feel that the United States Government has a great responsibility; but there is also this, that an appeal to the negro peoples of the world might be made. This matter very closely touches their honour, as the noble Lord has suggested. We all know who have had contact with the negro peoples that they are a generous-minded race, and I am sure they would be stricken with horror if they realised all that is happening in Liberia at the present time. The condition has got so bad that, according to the Brunot Commission, the native is beginning to leave his village and crops and to take refuge in the forests. It seems to me, facing as carefully as I can the practical difficulties and the seriousness of taking any step at all, that there are limits below which no nation ought to be allowed to fall and at the same time retain her place among the civilised nations of the world. Therefore my noble friends and myself have pleasure in giving our support to the Question which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has asked of His Majesty's Government.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I have very little to add to the very full statement of the facts of this appalling problem which has been laid before your Lordships, especially by Lord Lugard, who has such exceptional knowledge and authority, but for many reasons and in many ways I have such a solicitude for the peoples of West Africa that I cannot on this occasion be altogether silent. I do not propose to detain your Lordships with any further details of the position

739
of affairs in this most unhappy part of the world. I would only say this, that surely it is one of the most lamentable tragedies of history that those who went forth 100 years ago as the liberators of the members of their own race bearing the motto, "Love of liberty has brought us here," should be continuing there in the face of the civilised world as the oppressors of these people—about 15,000 Americo-Liberians tyrannising over 2,000,000 members of inoffensive native tribes.
Though I have many details at my disposal which, if they were widely known in this country, would raise the greatest possible indignation, I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with them. I have risen now in the hope that my noble friend Lord Cecil will follow me and explain exactly what is the position of this matter in reference to the League of Nations, because plainly this is an affair that concerns not only this unhappy country itself but concerns our own responsibilities in West Africa. The disease and disorder are spreading from Liberia into Sierra Leone and elsewhere, and it concerns indeed the credit of the whole of civilisation. Most rightly the League of Nations has interested itself in this matter, and I should like very much to know from the noble Viscount whether we may take it that the League of Nations definitely declines to pay any attention to reservations which were made to its own plan by the Liberian Government, and whether if the Liberian Government persist in these reservations the League of Nations will no longer render them any sort of assistance. I do not dwell upon these reservations. Lord Meston spoke of the main ones, and it is needless to dwell upon them if we may have the assurance of the noble Viscount that the League of Nations is not in the least likely to acquiesce in them.
But the matter goes a little further, and it would be a very great relief to those of us who feel deeply on this matter if the noble Viscount, or the noble Earl who will reply for the Government, could give us some assurance that the resources of the League of Nations in this matter are not exhausted. I have spoken about one lamentable tragedy. Surely it would be a tragedy even more lamentable if the fact that technically Liberia is a Member of the League of Nations should make
740
the whole operation of the League of Nations, as the only guardian we have not only of the peace of the world but of the care of native races, completely inoperative. I should be glad if the noble Viscount would give us some assurance that so far as the League is concerned its resources are not wholly exhausted. I know the difficulties about requesting Liberia to cease to be a Member of the League, but if the facts were really known I almost wonder whether the possibility of such an invitation to leave would be in doubt. Surely there is no question that in more than one respect it has disqualified itself from membership of the League and any reassurance, if it can be given, which the noble Viscount can give will be most welcome to those who care, and care deeply, for the welfare of the peoples of West Africa.
So far as the Government are concerned I know how deeply this matter lies upon their conscience, and I am sure that the noble Earl will be able to reassure us on that matter. There was a time when, if these facts about Liberia had been known to the people of this country, there would have arisen such a storm of indignation as would have compelled the most drastic possible action. But times are different now; men's minds are preoccupied with other things. We cannot rest still, however, while this blot upon the whole of the civilised world remains, and it would be a relief if we could know that His Majesty's Government, possibly in close co-operation with the United States of America, will do all that is possible to terminate a state of things which has become intolerable.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I am much obliged to the most reverend Primate for the reference he has been good enough to make to myself. I think the case has been very fully stated by Lord Meston and Lord Lugard, and I do not propose to go over again what they said, but to my mind the essential facts really lie in a fairly narrow compass. As one of the noble Lords explained, Liberia became automatically a Member of the League of Nations by reason of the fact that she declared herself an ally of the Allied and Associated Powers. She thereby entered into certain covenants; Lord Lugard has referred to some of them.

741
Under Article 23 of the Covenant she undertook that she would endeavour to secure and maintain fair and humane conditions of labour for men, women and children. She further undertook, as my noble friend told your Lordships, to secure the just treatment of the native inhabitants of territories under her control, and she also no doubt undertook to endeavour to take steps for the prevention and control of disease. Therefore, whenever it was that she was charged by the United States Government, acting on the report of certain United States travellers, with having connived at slavery or slave-trading, she was charged with a breach of her solemn covenants under the League, and she was aware no doubt of the other Article to which Lord Lugard referred—Article 16, paragraph 4, which enables the League to eject from membership any Member who has broken any of the covenants into which it has entered.
It was no doubt for that and similar reasons that Liberia warmly denied the truth of the charges made against her and demanded an inquiry. As your Lordships have been told, the result of the inquiry was to show that the charges against her were absolutely true. Accordingly—and this has perhaps not been sufficiently emphasised in the discussion this evening—she expressed her willingness to carry out reforms, but stated she was in this difficulty, that she had no money with which to carry out reforms. She asked the Council—and that is how the Council came into it—to assist her in finding the money necessary to carry out the reforms to put an end to these abuses. That was the starting point of the intervention of the League. A Committee was thereupon formed of which the representative of this country was Chairman, first Mr. Arthur Henderson and, when his other duties compelled him to abandon it, I was asked to take his place. We sat very frequently and for a long time to answer this request of the Liberian Government for means to carry out the reforms. It was for that purpose that we sent out the Brunot Commission, which has been described, and received its very valuable and full Report of what would be necessary in order to carry out the reforms, because there was no question of asking for assistance for Liberia until we knew what
742
reforms it was necessary for her to carry out.
The objects that we had in view, and the Brunot Commission had in view, were first of all, of course, to put an end to this mis-government of the natives and the slave trading and everything of that kind; secondly, to assist in finance; and, thirdly, or as a consequence of that, to be quite sure that the League should not lend its authority or influence in order to obtain finance unless it was quite satisfied that the reforms to be carried out would effectually achieve the main purposes for which they were to be instituted. Therefore the whole discussion took place on the basis that the Committee of the League were prepared to do their best to secure the money necessary for Liberia provided she carried out these reforms. It was, in form, always an offer to Liberia which she could reject if she liked.
When we came to look into it, it was claimed that the only source from which money could be obtained was the American Finance Corporation, which had already invested considerable sums of money in developing Liberia and which, therefore, had an interest in securing some amelioration of the government of Liberia. There was no other source of money. We looked everywhere, and no other source of assistance could be found. It was a time when adverse economic conditions oppressed the world at large. No Government was prepared to advance any money, nor was any private individual prepared to advance any money, in the circumstances. The result was that we had negotiations with the financial interests on one side and the Liberian Government on the other. That had certain great advantages, and the chief of them was that it was one of the reasons—not the only one, but one of the reasons—why the United States Government was continuously represented on the Committee and took an active share in the discussions.
When we came to look into the matter it was plain there were three currents. The Liberians wanted as little interference as possible, and as little cost as possible. The Finance Corporation wanted some security for their money. The League wanted real genuine security for the better government of Liberia and

743
nothing else. They had no other interest in the matter. They wanted sufficient alterations to make the government of Liberia a decent government, which it certainly was not, and some direct supervision by the League to see that the reforms, once instituted, were continuously carried out. It was after very long negotiation and hearing—I think with great patience, or I hope so —the representations made by the Liberian Government and others on the subject, that the plan of assistance, as it was called, was devised. It was not exactly what we should have wanted if we had been free to do anything we liked. It did not go nearly as far as some of us would have liked to have gone. We cut it down more than once in order to prevent it being too costly and in order to meet the difficulties and objections felt by the Liberian representatives. I think we cut it down to what we regarded as the absolutely irreducible minimum. Indeed the financial interests of the United States and the United States Government thought we had gone almost too far; and we made some slight modifications in order to make it more effective and to meet their criticisms.
Broadly speaking, it consisted of what Lord Meston has described. We proposed to set up white administration in the six Provinces—the six Provinces which comprise the whole of the native population—so as to secure for that native population decent government. We proposed, in particular, that no armed force should be used in those Provinces except with the assent of the administrators, and we also proposed certain very minimum reforms. We had gone to the very limit of what was reasonable, to the very minimum of reforms in the direction of health, and we had to abandon several other things which we thought were most desirable, such as educational reforms, and even judicial reforms, leaving them to be worked out by the new Administration when it was set up. We also—and this was the suggestion of the Committee itself—desired the appointment of a Chief Adviser who should be in touch with the provincial administrations on one side and with the League on the other, would report to the League, would be capable of being dismissed by the League, and
744
would be the essential feature of the Government. That was the vital thing. That was the broad outline of the plan we suggested.
I venture to assert to your Lordships that if any criticism could be made of it, it certainly is not that it disregarded the liberties of Liberia too much, but that, if anything, it did not go far enough to make really certain the good government of that country. I am sure that anything less than that would have been futile and dangerous. I agree most fully with what has been said by noble Lords who have preceded me that, in effect, the reservations suggested by Liberia amount to a total rejection of the plan. They really cut at the very root of it, because they propose that the Chief Adviser and the other administrators should be entirely under the control of the Liberian Government, and should have no kind of jurisdiction except that of tendering advice to the Liberian Government. I am sure that any plan of that kind would be utterly futile, and the League would be most ill-advised in my judgment if it consented to he responsible in any way for a new reform on lines of that kind.
Some reference has been made to the Kru incident. That was really a separate matter and had no direct bearing on the discussions about the plan of assistance, but it was felt by the Committee to be of great importance. It was an object lesson on what was happening and what was the condition of the government in Liberia which we were trying to improve. I need not recount again what my noble friend Lord Lugard has so well described as the successful and very self-sacrificing efforts made by Dr. Mackenzie which were crowned with such a very large measure of success. But what is more important is that during the very time when the plan is being offered to Liberia, when Liberia has made these reservations, she has so acted as, apparently, to stir up trouble again in these very Kru territories. Many of us have received very touching appeals from the Chiefs of the Kru country, urging that some measure of protection should be granted to them against the extraordinarily brutal methods of the Liberian soldier.
The most reverend Primate asked me what the position was so far as the League was concerned and what it could do. I have tried to describe the position

745
so far as the League and the plan of assistance are concerned. Liberia is obviously free if she likes to reject the plan. I do not quite agree with one thing which was said by my noble friend Lord Lugard. I doubt whether her intention to reject it in effect is due to the possibility of getting money elsewhere, because I do not believe that she will do that. I think it is due to this. Her financial position is governed largely by the amount of money she owes to the Finance Corporation. For a long time she went on paying some part or the whole of the amount that she owed to that Corporation. But at a given moment she observed that in other countries there was a practice of declaring what is called a moratorium when you do not wish to pay what you owe. She thought that was an excellent plan, and she declared a moratorium on the whole debt to the Corporation. Thereby she greatly relieved her financial situation. I think that since she did that she has cared less for financial assistance. But of course that is only a temporary solution. She will, undoubtedly, get into the gravest financial trouble in the immediate future, and although that may ultimately lead her to adopt a more reasonable attitude, in the meantime it will make the situation for her unhappy subjects even worse than it is now.
I think the present situation is this. Unless at the last minute Liberia alters her attitude the Council will be bound to declare at the next meeting that the plan of assistance has failed, and that as far as the request for assistance presented by the Liberian Government is concerned it cannot he granted, because Liberia has declined to carry out the only conditions on which it would be safe, or decent or proper for the League to assist her to get money—and without the assistance of the League she certainly will not get it. That disposes of that particular point, the point of the plan of assistance, but I agree with the most reverend Primate that that is not the whole thing. There remains the covenant into which Liberia has entered, to give, putting it broadly, fair, decent and healthy government to the native tribes and others under her control.
My noble friend Lord Lugard has suggested that the League might invite the United States to coerce Liberia. That would be a matter for the League to consider,
746
but personally I should have some doubt whether that policy would have any great prospect of success. He also suggested that we might demand a further inquiry under Article 12. I really do not think there is much to be gained by a further inquiry. I think we know the whole of the facts and, though it might have some moral effect, I am afraid that if Liberia is prepared to defy the unanimous opinion of the Committee—for the Committee was absolutely unanimous right through, and so was the Council—a further inquiry would not he very likely to produce much effect on Liberia.
There is a question which the Council will have to consider and which His Majesty's Government will have to consider, and that is whether in the circumstances Liberia has not brought herself within the provisions of the fourth paragraph of Article 16, whether she has not broken her covenant, as she certainly seems to have done, and whether in those circumstances it is right that she should continue a Member of the League any longer. If the Council decided that she was riot entitled to continue as a Member of the League then she would be in the position which any country was in before the League came into existence—at least so I think—and whatever could have been done under those circumstances could be done when that change had taken place. That is a matter which I think the Council will have to consider very carefully, because undoubtedly, this matter having been brought to their attention formally and the Council having considered it deeply and very carefully, it will be a very grave misfortune not only to Liberia and to her subjects, but, as I think, to the civilised world as a whole, if it turns out to be impossible to take any action in order to reform the government of Liberia and bring it somewhere near the standards of government which prevail in other parts of Africa.
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, I do not propose to detain you more than a few minutes, but as I raised this question in a rather different form two years ago I should like to say a few words. I think your Lordships' House is much indebted to my noble friend Lord Meston for bringing forward this Motion if for no other reason than to show that here—and I am sure it will be the same in the other House—there is entire unanimity in

747
regard to the position of Liberia and the way in which the Liberians have behaved. If you will allow me to say so I agree with the most reverend Primate that if the facts which have come out this afternoon, which are familiar to many of us, were known to the country generally, there would be such an outcry that the Government would have to take action in a way which perhaps in present circumstances it is impossible for them to take.
Since I brought forward this matter about two years ago, not only, so far as I can understand, has nothing been done in Liberia to improve the position, but matters have gone from had to worse. I might say they have gone from very bad to very worst. I am sure that noble Lords have listened with the greatest interest to the speech by my noble friend Viscount Cecil, who speaks with authority as Chairman of the Committee. In regard to two things at least I entirely agree with what he said. I agree that any one who has studied the proposals made to the Liberian Government by the League of Nations and who has also studied the reservations which the Liberian Government made to those proposals, must regard the reservations as quite incompatible with the proposals of the League. If they were adopted they would entirely destroy the benefits which would otherwise accrue from the proposals of the League. The League have no alternative but to reject these reservations and to insist on the full proposals that they made themselves. As my noble friend says they are the minimum requirements of good government and proper treatment of the natives in Liberia.
I was a little disappointed that he was unable to answer fully the questions put by the most reverend Primate. He did say—and I think the House listened with interest and appreciation and agreement —that if, as appears possible, these negotiations break down and Liberia will not accept the scheme of the League without reservation, then it will have to be considered whether Liberia ought to remain a Member of the League of Nations. I should have thought, speaking as a layman, that the extracts read from the Covenant by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, make it quite clear that Liberia has in every possible way shown
748
her unfitness to be a Member of the League, and that she certainly ought to be "struck off the rolls." But the question is, what can be done after that? The difficulty appears to most of us to lie in giving a proper answer and a conclusive answer, or even any answer at all, to the question: What will happen if that position arises? I do not know whether it is fair to ask the Government to make some suggestion in regard to that matter; but after all they, with France and America, will be responsible for the future of Liberia.
I think it is clear that in the circumstances indicated Liberia ought to be struck off the League. She then becomes an independent country entirely apart from the League. The League ceases to have any jurisdiction over her; and who is then to undertake her protection and her suzerainty? Really the only country which is in a position to undertake that is the United States. She was responsible for Liberia's creation, and from the very inception of Liberia she has been responsible, both politically and financially, for her existence. I do not know, of course, what may be the views of the American Government, but I understand that they take a very serious view of the position, that they are very anxious to co-operate with England and France and other countries concerned, and that if they were pressed and if it were understood that they would have a free hand, they would be prepared to undertake the protectorate of Liberia. So far as I can judge the United States appears to be the only nation who can undertake it.
I think that it was my noble friend Lord Snell who suggested that in these circumstances Liberia, under the League, might be made one of the mandated territories. How far the League now has power, under its present conditions, to declare that a certain territory shall be a mandated territory, and to hand it over to a certain Power, I am unable to say. If that were possible, however, that would be a fairly simple solution. Liberia then would become a mandated territory and could be handed over to sonic possibly rather unwilling protector. But that is to my mind the difficulty at the present moment. I quite agree that the steps taken were the right steps and had to be taken; but what are we

749
going to do afterwards? So far as I am concerned, except for the suggestion which I have made, I am afraid I am not able to throw any light upon it. I am glad that we have had another opportunity of discussing this Liberian question and of giving it the consideration which this House does give to these matters. I hope, and indeed I am sure, that this debate will be of value from the point of view not only of Liberia itself with its 15,000 Americo-Liberians but, still more important, of the 2,000,000 people under their care.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY or STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, you have had the advantage of listening to speeches from several noble Lords who have a very wide and deep knowledge of this subject, and therefore I hope that I shall not have to weary your Lordships by speaking at any great length. Much that I had intended to say has already been said both by my noble friend Lord Lugard and by the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches, Lord Cecil, and your Lordships will not wish to hear it again. But I can say on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that the very serious reports to which your Lordships have listened this evening from all the noble Lords who have spoken are not in the least exaggerated. I can conceive of no country where a tale of such misery and illness and of such misgovernment can be told as is told by every noble Lord, and rightly and faithfully told, of Liberia.
Your Lordships have not discussed this question since the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, raised it a little over two years ago, and, as he said, things have gone from bad to worse since that time. I may remind your Lordships that the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches, speaking in 1932, said that the Government of the Americo-Liberian minority had been a complete failure and the administration had been completely bad; and that is equally true to-day. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Snell, who made a comparison with the neighbouring country of Sierra Leone. That is a Colony and Protectorate under the British flag; and I can imagine no comparison which shows the effects of good and bad government so clearly as that comparison. You have Liberia, of an area of some 43,000
750
square miles, I think about one-and-a-half times larger than Sierra Leone, with its population also somewhat larger. Its import and export trade, however, is barely one-eighth that of Sierra Leone. The natural products and the development which might be expected from either country appear to be very much the same; and yet when you come to compare the two you find, as one noble Lord said, that there is not one inch of railway in Liberia; that there is in fact one road of fifty-five miles throughout a territory which extends for 350 miles along the coast and 120 miles inland, and that all the rest of the country can be traversed only along the coast by surf boats or by following native tracks with everything carried by head porterage along those tracks.
But that is not the end of the story. Several noble Lords have referred to the question of disease in Liberia. If your Lordships would allow me I should like to go somewhat further, and to tell your Lordships a little more about it. The country is riddled with malaria; in fact, it is definitely stated by the committee of experts that in Monrovia, the capital, malaria is practically universal. Dysentery occurs widely; tuberculosis exists; elephantiasis and hernia are common in the interior; yellow fever is practically endemic throughout the coastal area; and if plague ever starts in Monrovia there is no question but that it will spread with appalling rapidity. Not only is Liberia a danger to herself and to the West Coast of Africa, but she is a danger to the health of the world. So far, fortunately, ships are unable to lie alongside, and therefore the whole of the connection with the outside world has to be effected by surf boats out to ships at anchor in the bay. To that extent there is some protection against the spread of yellow fever and the introduction of plague into that country; but if any package arrives with a plague-infected article in it, and one of the innumerable rats in Monrovia becomes infected, then the plague may spread with great rapidity throughout the whole of the West Coast of Africa. As several noble Lords have said, there is no attempt at any sort of medical service. There are a few medical officers in the country, working in a private capacity with the most magnificent self-sacrifice and enthusiasm, but of service organised by

751
the State, which is the only way, of course, in which such a service can be made to be effective, there is no sign whatever.
The noble Viscount on the Cross Benches said, and of course quite truly, that the Government of Liberia had stated that they would like to make some of these reforms but that there was no money. That is still the case to-day. In spite of their having declared their moratorium, I think the situation there financially is just as bad as it could possibly be, and that that, therefore, is the foundation of the reason, as my noble friend has said, for their appeal to the League. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to read (it is quite short) the actual terms of the plan which was agreed by the Committee of the League of Nations of which my noble friend on the Cross Benches has been so long the Chairman. And may I take this opportunity on behalf of the Government of thanking him for his services as the Chairman of that Committee? I think that we all agree that the appeals to which he has had to listen over a long period must have taxed the whole of his patience and the whole of his forbearance. I can imagine many of us in that position having lost our tempers and our self-control when faced with the situation that he was faced with for a long period of months. We are most grateful to him for what he has done.
This is the plan that was made, and, as my noble friend has said, it was the minimum which the Committee felt would be effective to get a proper government instituted for the first time in Liberia. Your Lordships will recognise that it gives power to the foreign advisers to have executive control. It is quite useless, as I am sure your Lordships will agree, to have foreign advisers attached to a Government if that Government is able to take no notice of the advice given, and to go on in its own sweet way as before. It was, therefore, advisable that these advisers should be given executive power. The main characteristics are these: (1) The appointment of a foreign Chief Adviser, three foreign Provincial Commissioners and three Assistant Commissioners, to reorganise the administration of the country: the Provincial Commissioners to be responsible to the Chief Adviser and to
752
the Secretary of the Interior, who would, however, only issue instructions after consulting and obtaining the approval of the Chief Adviser: the Chief Adviser himself to be responsible to the League Council, who would appoint him with the agreement of the Liberian President. (2) The appointment of two medical officers for hospital and health work, responsible to the Chief Adviser and the President of Liberia. (3) The continued appointment of a Financial Adviser, together with assistants as provided for in the loan agreement with the Finance Corporation of the United States. (4) The negotiation with the Finance Corporation of an agreement supplementary to the 1926 agreement, under which the Corporation would make very considerable concessions.
Now the Liberian Government, as several noble Lords have said, made all sorts of reservations with regard to that plan, and in particular with regard to the financial proposals. They proposed also to cut down the powers of these advisers until they ceased to have executive power, and therefore would not be able to effect any real changes. The whole plan in the eyes of the Finance Corporation of the United States depended upon these advisers not being in this position, and therefore unless they were satisfied that these advisers had executive authority they themselves were not prepared to go into the plan at all. The matter was brought before the League by my noble friend's Committee and, of course, they entirely agreed that the plan was reasonable and sound and should be carried through without amendment. They so reported to the Council. When the Council met in 1934 it was clear that the Liberian Government intended to reinstate reservations similar to those previously rejected by the Council. The actual representative from Liberia said he had not received instructions, but he anticipated that the reservations would be very much the same as before.
The result was that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, speaking at this meeting of the Council, made it quite clear that the Liberian Government had had the full measure of consideration and help which the Council were willing to give, and that the plan was their final and definite offer.

753
He hoped that the Liberian delegate would telegraph to his Government making this plain to them. The Council of the League then decided that they would be prepared to consider any new factors, but that the whole question would have to be closed in the May session—that is to say, a month from now. When these reservations were received they were found quite definitely to be such as had been refused before, and His Majesty's Government have no hesitation whatever in saying that unless the Liberian Government produce some new plan before the Council meet in May next, this country will definitely refuse to assist in giving any further financial assistance to Liberia, and will recommend that the plan be withdrawn.
Your Lordships may perhaps like to hear something also of the other side of the question, which was that referred to by several noble Lords—namely, the oppression of the native races. It was referred to on several occasions in the debate in this House two years ago by several noble Lords, and Lord Lugard particularly referred to it again to-day. Lord Snowden, on the last occasion, told your Lordships that His Majesty's Government had made representations to the Liberian Government through our Chargé d'Affaires, that the United States Government and the French Government had also protested, and that the German Government had subsequently associated themselves with us. The Liberians again sent a quibbling reply, saying that they saw no reason why we should have made those representations, but they gave an explicit assurance that no definite action would be taken against the Krus so long as the Krus maintained a peaceful attitude.
His Majesty's Government, as your Lordships may imagine, were not satisfied, and so we asked our Vice-Consul at Monrovia to go and make an investigation himself, in April, 1932. He made the journey mostly by surf boat and on foot through the bush. He got no assistance from the Liberian Government, who, indeed, put as many obstacles in his way as I think they dared. He went out at the charge of the four Governments interested in this question: the United States Government, the French and German Governments, and ourselves. He found that the Liberian Frontier Force had in fact ravaged the Kru country, burned
754
forty-one villages, and definitely killed sixty-nine men, forty-five women and twenty-seven children. The Liberia Committee considered this Report of Investigation and decided to send out a League Commissioner to negotiate a truce. The League Commissioner was Dr. Mackenzie. I am sure my noble friend has studied this Report of our Vice-Consul. If it had the same effect upon him as it had upon me, I think he agree that it is a terrible Report. In my view it proves conclusively that the Report is founded on careful investigation, and, in spite of all the denials which the Liberians may make, it is absolutely correct.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Further inquiry was made, and proved that it was correct in every particular.
EARL STANHOPE: I only drew my noble friend with regard to that Report because the Liberians have again stated that there is no foundation for the Report. Quite definitely, in my view, that is untrue, and I am glad to get his confirmation of it. Dr. Mackenzie went out and found the tribes fighting amongst themselves and also against the Liberian Government itself. He went out with the assistance of His Majesty's Government. We provided a sloop for him, and also a native police force as an escort, with the result that he was able to get through his work there at a most amazing speed and to make a truce in a very short period. Your Lordships will, I think, realise the advantages of his action. These native tribes were fighting each other. There was a good deal of killing and burning and destruction going on, and I think you will agree that Dr. Mackenzie was justified in persuading these natives to hand in their rifles. But the result has been quite deplorable.
Dr. Mackenzie impressed on the Council when he returned to Geneva that this truce was only for a short period, and that action should be taken before that period lapsed. Thanks to the opposition and the obstinacy of the Liberian Government action, in fact, has not been taken; with the result that the Liberian Frontier Force has again crossed the boundary, and the Kru tribes are now entirely at the mercy of that Frontier Force. The sinister significance of this fact is made clear by Reports which have recently been received from His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires, and confirmed

755
by appeals from the Kru chiefs to the League of Nations, showing that Liberian forces have arrested a number of Krus and destroyed their property with a view to enforcing submission to the President of Liberia, who is making a tour of the provinces at this moment.
In the light of this information, and although His Majesty's Government are not in full diplomatic relations with the Liberian Government, His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Monrovia was instructed on March 16 last to draw the President's attention to the assurances given by the Liberian Government in March, 1932, which I have read out to your Lordships, that the tribes on the Kru coast should be secure from molestation by agents or forces of the Liberian Government. His Majesty's Government were seriously concerned at the reports received, and in requesting a categorical assurance that the measures would be discontinued, desired to remind the President that the reports of barbarous treatment of the tribes in 1931 and 1932, which the Liberian Government had previously denied, were entirely confirmed by the Mission of Investigation which was subsequently sent to the Kin coast. His Majesty's Government trusted that on this occasion the Liberian Government would not content themselves with an empty denial. The moment at which the Liberian Government had laid themselves open to a renewal of these charges was singularly inopportune, since the May meeting of the Council was to afford them what could scarcely fail to be the last opportunity of accepting assistance in the reform of their administration. The text of the Liberian reply to the League proposals seemed to His Majesty's Government to indicate their intention to reject the League's offer, and, if such were indeed the case, they could not hope or believe that civilised opinion would countenance unchecked the continuance of those abuses which the past few years had brought to light.
His Majesty's representative reported March 27 that he had presented this Note to the Liberian Secretary of State in the absence of the President on his tour through the Kru district. In his reply the Liberian Secretary of State stated that he had no knowledge that any such events were happening, and he denied that the assurances given in the
756
Liberian Note had been disregarded. He made rather impudent suggestions that the protest was made in regard to Liberian subjects and not in regard to British subjects, and therefore he did not quite see what cause we had for interference. I think your Lordships will agree that the efforts of the League have been a complete failure. That is obviously not due to any lack of action on the part of the League, but solely to the continued obstinacy of the Liberian Government. I think you will also agree that His Majesty's Government have done their very utmost, both as a Member of the League and independently, in regard to this matter. But that is where the situation rests at this moment.
Noble Lords have asked me: What about the future? The position is that the Council of the League meets to discuss this question in May. We are only one Member of that Council, and do not constitute the Council as a whole. Therefore it is impossible for me to lay down what action the League Council will take. I think it is quite obvious that the fact that Liberia is a foundation Member of the League will not protect her from the very grave view that I anticipate the Members of the League Council will take, as does His Majesty's Government, in regard to this situation. This much, however, I can say, that His Majesty's Government will be fully prepared to co-operate with other interested Governments in seeking by other means to ensure a more efficient and more humane administration in that unhappy land than exists at present. I am afraid I cannot be more definite at the moment than that, because, as I have reminded your Lordships, we are only one Member of the League Council. But we are anxious that the whole of the Members of the League should realise what is happening in Liberia, and that those clauses of the Covenant which were read out by my noble friend Lord Lugard have in fact been broken by Liberia, and that therefore drastic action should be taken. We hope that other Members of the League may take the same view of the seriousness of the situation as we do, but of course I cannot say whether that will be the case or not.
As regards the question of Papers, my noble friend the Secretary of State will be very glad to lay Papers. We suggest that we should wait until after the

757
meeting of the League Council, so that we can lay the Papers in a complete form. The reply of the Liberian Government was made to the League, and not to His Majesty's Government. Therefore, until that has been placed before the League Council we are not in a position to publish it. After that I imagine it could appear in the White Paper. Similarly, the Despatch which was sent to our Chargé d'Affaires in Monrovia and the reply which has since been received could appear. Therefore, if I might suggest it to my noble friend, I should like him to agree that, while we will lay Papers, we should not lay them forthwith, but wait until after the meeting of the League Council in a month's time.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, we recognise the difficulties of the situation, but we hope that in the event of the League of Nations finding it necessary to exclude Liberia from the League the Government will take steps with other Powers to see that an end is put to this abominable cruelty which has been going on in Liberia. I feel that the whole of this country and the whole of America and the civilised world would rise against the continuation of these horrors if they knew what was taking place. It is important that the Government should themselves be prepared to take definite action with other Powers to stop these things in the event of the League having no longer the power to exercise the authority, which they are prepared to exercise if Liberia is reasonable, as we believe that it is not at the present time.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I am sure that all who are interested in this matter will be sincerely grateful to the noble Earl for the very full and sympathetic consideration which he has given to it, and more especially for his promise to publish Papers. If I may venture to say so, it seems a very reasonable thing that publication should be delayed until after the League Council has met next month. We are all extremely grateful to the noble Earl and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

FIREARMS ACT (1920) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, I respectfully crave the indulgence of the House for a few minutes while I move the Second Reading of the Firearms Act (1920) Amendment Bill. The purpose of this measure is to amend the Firearms Act of 1920, in regard to the age of persons who may purchase firearms and in respect of those to whom firearms may be sold. The object of this short Bill is primarily to raise the age at which young persons may purchase or hire firearms, to raise the age from fourteen years, at which it now stands, to seventeen years. Seventeen years has been selected as the age for the purpose of this Bill because under the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, a person ceases to be a young person at the age of seventeen. The Bill comes to your Lordships from another place, where it has passed with general consent rapidly through all its stages. Indeed it was supported and I think welcomed by the Home Secretary when introduced into that House.
The Bill, being an Amending Bill, is a somewhat technical measure, and it may be considered confusing by reason of its cross references, because its provisions must be read in conjunction with the Firearms Act, 1924). The Bill is also somewhat difficult to follow because the definition of "firearm" given in subsection (1A) of Clause 1 is not the same as it is in subsection (1B). In order to clarify the position I would point out to the House that in subsection (1A) a firearm is held to be a large bore rifle and also includes shot gun, air rifle, small bore rifle, and, in short, any lethal weapon; but in subsection (1B), immediately following, a firearm has a different meaning. It is only held to be a large bore rifle or other specially dangerous weapon. It does not include a small bore rifle, shot gun, air rifle, or air gun. I shall not attempt to explain to your Lordships why the same word has two different meanings in two immediately adjacent subsections. I have long given up endeavouring to understand the ways of the draftsman who refuses to use stops and says things which, generally speaking,

759
I have great difficulty in understanding and which frequently have subsequently to be interpreted in the Law Courts.
This Bill is certainly confusing. It consists, as your Lordships will see, of merely two clauses, and, as I pointed out, its purpose is to amend the Firearms Act of 1920. After the War it was found desirable to take steps to regulate traffic in and use of firearms, and therefore the Firearms Act, 1920, was passed, one of its objects being to control the irresponsible use and ownership of firearms by young persons. The Act has proved satisfactory. It has stood the test of time fairly well, but it is now found as a result of the working of the Act that young persons under seventeen years have dangerous facilities for acquiring firearms. There have been several distressing cases of young persons shooting people on which severe magisterial and other comments have very properly been passed. As the law now stands, a young person between the ages of fourteen and seventeen can acquire a rifle or other lethal weapon quite easily provided he has got a firearms certificate. In future under the provisions of this Bill a young person will be prohibited from purchasing any firearm defined in this Bill, if he is under the age of seventeen.
Under Clause 1, subsection (1A), a young person under seventeen may not purchase or hire such a weapon, and no person shall sell or let for hire to him any firearm. The definition in subsection (IA) reads that a firearm is a rifle, shot gun, air rifle, small bore rifle, or dangerous lethal weapon. A young person between the ages of fourteen and seventeen, while he cannot purchase, can, however, use a shot gun, air rifle, or small More rifle, and he can use an ordinary smooth bore rifle. He can be given a shot gun or rifle, but the responsibility for the proper use of those weapons will rest with his parents or whoever he is out with. He is not permitted under any circumstances to buy any of these weapons for himself until he is over the age of seventeen. Under subsection (1B) a young person under the age of fourteen shall not use or carry a firearm or ammunition and a person shall not give, lend, or transfer a firearm or ammunition to such a young person. I must admit that at first sight this appeared to me, as no doubt it will
760
appear to your Lordships, that a young person could not go out shooting game unless he was over the age of fourteen because in terms of the Bill he might not carry or use a firearm, but in this case a firearm, as I have already pointed out, does not mean a shot gun and does not prohibit a young person shooting game with the ordinary small-bore gun. In short, a young person under the Bill can carry and use a shot-gun and the ammunition for it. He can also use an air-gun or small bore rifle, but he cannot buy a shot gun or rifle or any other weapon.
This Bill does not change the law in respect of the use of ordinary rifles. The main Act enacts that no person under the age of fourteen is allowed to use a rifle. I think this restriction under the Firearms Act, 1920, already on our Statute Book, is not so widely and generally known as it ought to be. In respect of the use of a rifle this Bill contemplates no change whatever, and its use remains prohibited to the young persons under fourteen. The Bill is not retrospective in its provisions, but in future it will not be open to any young person under seventeen to purchase a small-bore shotgun. He can use it, he can own it, if one is given to him, but he must use it under parental control or under control as far as possible of some other responsible nature. I would stress the fact, because such oppostion as there has been to the Bill has been due to this, that the Bill does not prevent a parent or guardian taking out a lad before the age of fourteen and teaching him how to shoot. In fact, in the view of the promoters of this Bill, the earlier a lad is taught the dangerous nature of a gun the better it is, and the more likely he is to have respect for it and to use it safely and properly in after life. The Bill does not in any way interfere with the use of rifles by cadet corps, rifle clubs and miniature rifle clubs. They will be continued in exactly the same way in the future, if this Bill is carried, as they have been allowed in the past. I have briefly indicated the main objects of this measure, and I would respectfully submit it to your Lordships' consideration and ask for the indulgence of a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Eltisley.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friends have asked me to offer our general support to the Bill. In doing so, may I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, on a very clear exposition of what I venture to say is a very badly drafted Bill? May I also say, having heard his speech, that I agree with everything he said about young people and firearms. With many other noble Lords I agree that the time for a person to learn to shoot is when he is quite a young boy. My own youngest son before he was fourteen was an exceptionally good shot and a very safe one indeed. He has been out shooting with some of the best shots in the North of Scotland, and all of them congratulated him both on his marksmanship and the general confidence he showed and inspired; but the idea of his being able to go to a gunmaker's before he was fourteen just because an indulgent relation had given him money and buy a rifle or pistol or anything else is horrifying. There is all the difference in the world between a boy being taught to shoot early and going out with teachers or parents or elder brothers and having a free run of the market to buy any lethal weapon. It seems to me the Bill is in every way admirable and on behalf of my noble friends I desire to support it.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill in your Lordships' House has very clearly and concisely dealt with its provisions. As he has given so clear an exposition of the measure it is unnecessary for me to refer to any detail contained in the Bill. I would, however, say that His Majesty's Government regard the Bill as a useful measure to deal with the particular problem of safeguarding young persons from purchasing firearms and thereby running the risk of
762
doing serious bodily injury to themselves or other persons. It has already been said on behalf of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, in another place, that the Government hope that this Bill will reach the Statute Book in the very near future. I think it is unanimously agreed that since the Act of 1920 some provision was necessary to safeguard young persons between the ages of fourteen and seventeen from being able to go, without the knowledge of their parents, into the premises of a gunsmith to procure a weapon that is dangerous to themselves. I can assure the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill that it has the full support and sympathy of His Majesty's Government.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

OVERSEAS TRADE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, before we adjourn I think I ought to acquaint your Lordships with the fact that there is a, long list of noble Lords who desire to take part in the debate on the Betting and Lotteries Bill which is down for Second Reading to-morrow, and that it is highly probable it will be impossible to bring the discussion to a close to-morrow. That means that the debate will be adjourned until the next day on which it is possible to resume it in your Lordships' House, and that will be on Tuesday in next week.
House adjourned at four minutes before seven o'clock.