Sitting of 30 April 1934

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Walthamstow Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Taunton Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 15th May.

EAST INDIA (SUBORDINATE JUDGES).
Address for
"Return of Copy of Rules governing the appointment of Subordinate Judges in India."—[Mr. Butler.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    INDIA, WEST INDIES, AND CEYLON (JAPANESE IMPORTS).
    Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the Secretary of State for India whether the quantitative restriction of imports into India arranged by the Indo-Japanese
    2
    trading agreement is inclusive of all Japanese imports, whether through Native States or British-India?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): The quantitative restriction referred to is inclusive of Japanese imports into all Indian States except Cutch. The reason for this exception is that the State of Cutch alone among Indian maritime States has retained its own Customs Tariff and has not accepted the British Indian Customs Tariff. The Government of India are, however, taking active steps to ensure by the establishment of a preventive cordon against Cutch that the quota is not exceeded.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: In view of the fact that the importations into Cutch in the first three months of this year already amount approximately to 20 per cent. of the total importations into India under the Treaty, will my hon. Friend treat this matter as one of urgency; and, secondly, will my hon. Friend say whether he has obtained assurances from the Government of India in respect of the Treaty rights of Kathiawar?
    Mr. BUTLER: Dealing with the first part of the question of my hon. Friend, I refer in my original answer to the fact that the Government of India have already taken steps. In regard to the second part of the question, I should like to have notice.
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he

    3
    will shortly be able to announce the steps to be taken or that are in contemplation in Jamaica and/or other parts of the British West Indies to counteract the excess imports into those parts from Japan?
    Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the importation of piece goods into Ceylon from Japan in the first two months of this year is more than double the quantity imported for the corresponding period last year; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take to prevent the vertual extinction of the Lancashire piece-goods trade in this colony?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I am aware of the further increase in Japanese cotton imports into Ceylon. As my hon. Friends are aware, the whole question of Japanese imports is receiving the close consideration of the Government. I cannot at this stage usefully make a statement.
    Mr. CHORLTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman nothing to say about Jamaica and the West Indies? Are no steps being taken to meet the request of Jamaica?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think it would be very unfortunate to make a statement at this moment. My hon. Friend may rest assured that action is being considered, and I think he will agree that it would be unfortunate to make a statement until we can make a comprehensive statement on the whole matter.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication when the statement will be made?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, but it will be as soon as possible.

    MANCHURIA.
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can say from the last consular reports from Manchukuo if there are indications that British trade may be expected to materially increase in the near future?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): I am informed that the consular reports do not give such definite indications as would justify a useful prophecy.
    Mr. CHORLTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman not obtain some information relative to these trade problems?
    Sir J. SIMON: There is information of a statistical character in the Consular reports which we receive from time to time. If my hon. Friend cares to put himself into communication with me, I will give him any information that I can.

    INTER-IMPERIAL TRADE.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, in the forthcoming negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the Netherlands, careful consideration will be given to the vital importance of inter-Imperial trade, and that no obligation will be undertaken prejudicial to the full development of reciprocal trade arrangements between Great Britain and our Dominions and Colonies?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I can assure my hon. Friend that all relevant matters including that of inter-Imperial trade, are and will continue to be fully considered by His Majesty's Government in negotiating trade agreements with foreign countries.
    Mr. HANNON: Before these agreements are effected are any consultations held with the representatives of the Dominions or Colonies in order to be certain that none of our arrangements with them will be interfered with?
    Dr. BURGIN: As this is a rather important matter, it had better be asked in a subsequent question. With regard to the negotiations with the Netherlands which are now proceeding, the position of the Dominions and the Home Government is perfectly well known by those negotiating.
    Mr. HANNON: In the case of the Netherlands and other countries, is it not vital that our Imperial relations in these matters should be taken into consideration?
    Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Member may rest assured that that can be safely left in the hands of those negotiating.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Having regard to the fact that they were not safe in the case of Denmark, does the hon. Gentleman not realise that anxiety is felt?

    DUTCH AND DANISH BUTTER (IMPORTS).
    Sir PERCY HURDasked the President of the Board of Trade the prices for Dutch butter in this country and Holland, respectively; and, if these figures indicate dumping at the expense of British and British Empire producers, whether he will insert a clause in the pending trade agreement with that country to prevent a continuance of this practice of dumping?
    Dr. BURGIN: The wholesale price of Dutch butter was quoted on 21st April in the United Kingdom at from 69s. to 77s. a cwt., and on 20th April in Holland at a price equivalent to 190s. 6d. a cwt. I cannot forecast what provisions will be included in any commercial agreement which may result from the forthcoming negotiations with Holland.
    Sir P. HURD: Is this remarkable discrepancy and evidence of a case of dumping being brought to the attention of the Dutch Government?
    Dr. BURGIN: The House will appreciate that the price at which Dutch butter is sold here is the world price. For reasons best known to Holland, she appears to charge an internal price very much in excess. The inference that that is dumping does not arise. My hon. Friend will also appreciate that the imports of Dutch butter are a very small proportion of the total imports of butter into this country.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether in any trade agreement this action of a foreign Government in sending here goods at less than her own costs, will be prohibited at all costs?
    Mr. D. GRENFELL: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether Dutch butter is cheaper than New Zealand butter?
    Dr. BURGIN: Not without notice. The matter can certainly be borne in mind in any trade negotiations, and I will make a special note of the point.
    Mr. LAMBERT: But will His Majesty's Government make up their own mind on the matter?
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Will the hon. Member take note of the fact that the average price of Russian butter imported during the first three months of the present year was not more than 41s. per cwt.
    HON. MEMBERS: Order, order.
    Mr. SPEAKER: We are dealing with Dutch butter.
    Sir P. HURDasked the President of the Board of Trade the prices for Danish butter in this country and Den mark, respectively; and, if these figures indicate dumping at the expense of British and British Empire producers, whether he will bring the matter to the attention of the Danish Government with a view to the discontinuance of this practice of dumping?
    Dr. BURGIN: The price of Danish butter in the United Kingdom on 21st April was 82s. a cwt.; the price in Denmark on 19th April was 54s. 6d. a cwt. In view of these figures, my hon. Friend will no doubt agree that the second part of his question does not arise.

    EXPORTS (NEW ZEALAND).
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the President of the Board of Trade the value of our exports to New Zealand during the year 1933, and the approximate amount of duty payable thereon to The New Zealand Government?
    Dr. BURGIN: The value of merchandise exported from the United Kingdom to New Zealand during 1933 amounted to £9,802,422. No precise information is available as to the amount of Customs duty leviable thereon in New Zealand, but on the basis of the figures for the previous year, it may be estimated that the duty was of the order of £2,000,000.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: Do not these figures indicate that £2,000,000 duty on British exports to New Zealand was withdrawn, with a corresponding increase in our exports to New Zealand?
    Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Member should analyse the figures a little more. More than half the exports to New Zealand were free goods, and about half the £2,000,000 was paid on a relatively small value of spirits and tobacco.
    Mr. HANNON: Does not this indicate a conversion of the Liberal party to Empire Free Trade?

    RUBBER INDUSTRY (RESTRICTION SCHEME).
    Earl WINTERTON (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for the

    7
    Colonies what action His Majesty's Government propose to take with regard to the agreement made between the rubber growers of various countries for the regulation of rubber supplies?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have received a request from the Rubber Growers' Association to give effect to the agreement, in so far as it relates to the Colonial Empire, and they have decided, after consultation with the Colonial Governments, to take the necessary measures for this purpose, subject to similar undertakings being given by the other Governments concerned.
    Sir EDWARD CAMPBELL: Is my right hon. Friend assured in his own mind that the proposed scheme is practicable, and can he say when he or any of the Governments concerned propose taking the necessary action to put it into force?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: With regard to the second part of the question, as far as our territories are concerned, we hope to put it into force as from 1st June. I have every reason to hope and believe that that will be equally possible in other territories. Speed in this matter, as I am sure the House will agree, is very important. With regard to the first part of the question, I have made it very plain to the House on many occasions that His Majesty's Government would not enter into an agreement unless they were satisfied that it was comprehensive, fair, and practicable, and I should like to add that on this matter I have been at great pains to get the considered judgment of those who are fully acquainted with the industry and best able to judge. In a letter addressed to me by the chairman of the Rubber Growers' Association of the United Kingdom he writes this :
    "My council, who have been in touch with all the negotiations, consider that the agreement is sound, administratively practicable in all the territories concerned, and advisable in the interests of the industry."
    Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Can my right hon. Friend say how the interests of the native rubber growers are dealt with?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Certainly, I can speak for the territories for
    8
    which I am responsible. The native rubber grower in Malaya will be dealt with in exactly the same manner as the large plantation.
    Earl WINTERTON: I was not quite clear from my right hon. Friend's answer whether there had also been discussion of this matter with the Dominion Governments, who are to a certain extent affected.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I do not think the Dominion Governments are affected at all. I do not think there is any production of rubber in any of the Dominions.
    Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Are the interests of the consumers also considered?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Oh, yes. I am very glad my right hon. Friend ha" raised that point, because this proposal contains a feature which I think is unique in any regulation scheme hitherto proposed or introduced, namely, that representatives of consumers shall be associated with the council administering the scheme.

  INDIA.

    TERRORISM.
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Secretary of State for India if he will provide for the House of Commons Library copies of the original reports, prepared last year, on the terrorist movement by the Inspector-General of Police of Bengal and the Commissioner of Police of Calcutta?
    Mr. BUTLER: I do not know to what reports my hon. and gallant Friend is referring, but if he will give me further particulars I will inquire of the Government of India whether copies could suitably be placed in the Library.
    Sir A. KNOX: Is it not a fact that the Joint Select Committee asked for reports from these officials regarding terrorism in Bengal, and that the reports, as originally produced, were not laid before the Committee, but that an expurgated edition, prepared by one of the Secretaries of the Governor of Bengal, was put before the Committee?
    Mr. BUTLER: I cannot accept the version of affairs referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend. As regards matters

    9
    which have been considered by the Joint Select Committee, he must realise better than anybody that they are sub judice at the present moment.

    SIKH NATIONAL CONFERENCE (COMMUNAL AWARD).
    Sir A. KNOXasked the Secretary of State for India what action he proposes to take with regard to the proposal of The Sikh national leaders to enrol an army of 100,000 volunteers to force the Government to increase the allotment of seats to the Sikh community in the Punjab Legislative Council from 20 per cent. to 35 per cent.; and whether he has received any reports on this matter?
    Mr. BUTLER: My right hon. Friend has received a report that at the Sikh National Conference held at Lahore last month a resolution was passed condemning the Communal Award and authorising the Central Akali Dal to enlist 100,000 volunteers to get it cancelled. The local authorities will no doubt keep in view the question whether any special action is necessary or desirable in this connection.

    IMPERIAL BANK OF INDIA (EUROPEAN EMPLOYÉS).
    Sir A. KNOXasked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that 50 Europeans are to be dismissed from the services of the Imperial Bank of India; and whether, in the interests of employment in Great Britain, he will inquire into the extent of Indianisation among prominent British firms in India with a view to checking its too rapid progress?
    Mr. BUTLER: My right hon. Friend has seen a Press report to the effect stated in the first part of the question, though he has no information as to its accuracy. The practice of commercial concerns in regard to the employment of particular classes of British subjects is not a matter within the control of Government.
    Sir A. KNOX: Is it not a fact that this sort of action is directly resulting from the apprehensions of British firms as to what the legislation will be if the White Paper is implemented; and would it not be possible for the Secretary of State to use his influence to prevent this increase in unemployment among British subjects in India?
    Mr. MOLSON: Is it not the fact that it has been the accepted policy of the Imperial Bank of India for the last five or six years to Indianise as much as possible?
    Mr. BUTLER: I must repeat, in answer to the supplementary questions, that it is impossible for His Majesty's Government to influence the personnel of a commercial company.

    NORTH-WEST FRONTIER PROVINCE MUSLIM PERSONAL LAW BILL.
    Sir PATRICK FORDasked the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that a Bill to set up courts for the sole purpose of administering Islamic law was recently introduced into the North-West Frontier Provincial Legislature, and was not further dealt with only because the requisite notice had not been given; and will he state what safeguard exists to prevent the passing of such a Bill by a Provincial Legislature, having regard to its effect on the general administration of justice and the interests of other communities?
    Mr. BUTLER: I understand that my hon. Friend's inquiry relates to the North-West Frontier Province Muslim Personal Law Bill, and I would refer him to Sections 72 (D) 4, 81 and 82 of the Government of India Act.

    TEXTILE WORKERS, BOMBAY (STRIKE).
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELLasked the Secretary of State for India whether he will make a statement regarding the strikes among the textile workers in Bombay; and whether it is the policy of the Government in India to coerce the workers in Bombay and elsewhere to accept reductions in wages and to deny Them the right of organising demonstrations of protest against the attempts that are being made to lower the standard of living for workers in the textile industry of India?
    Mr. BUTLER: My right hon. Friend has received a report from the Bombay Government on the progress of the strike, but as it is somewhat long I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. There is no foundation whatever for the suggestion contained in the second part of the hon. Member's question that workers are being coerced by Government to accept reduced wages. The

    11
    police orders regulating places of meetings and routes of processions have been issued to avoid disorder, and ordinary places of meeting are open to strikers under these orders.
    Mr. GRENFELL: Is it not the case that the facilities for holding meetings and demonstrations have come to an end through police action?
    Mr. BUTLER: If the hon. Member refers to the last part of my answer he will see that that is not the case, and if he reads the report which I am circulating, he will get a full account of the whole situation as it is at present.
    Following is the Report :
    The following telegraphic report, dated 29th April, has been received from the Bombay Government :
    "All-India Textile Workers Conference at Bombay on 28th January resolved on general strike of textile workers to protest against wage cut and introduction of systems of 4–6 loom and 2–3 sides, and appointed Council of Action which fixed 23rd April as date of commencement of strike. On 23rd instant, four mills employing 5,391 operatives were closed and some others partly affected. On the 24th instant, 15 mills closed and 13 affected. On 25th instant, nine mills closed on account of Muharram holiday and 30 closed on account of the strike leaving only 12 working. From 26th instant to 28th instant, number working has been 14 or 15, including only two important mills working with full complement, the rest being unimportant or with low attendance. To-day being Sunday only five mills open. Number of mill hands affected by closure of the mills during the present strike is about 65,000.
    Orders under Section 144 C.P.C. issued on 25th instant, regulating places and routes for meetings and processions as strikers had, in some cases, refused to obey police directions and had attacked police with stones. Ordinary places of meeting are open to strikers under these orders. Since then conduct of strikers has, on the whole, been orderly but some cases have occurred of stoning working mills and on 27th evening, workers leaving textile mill were ambushed by strikers after a meeting held in the vicinity and police were obliged to fire to protect themselves and workers. Few casualties were caused by fire but a number of workers and police injured by stones. City police reinforced from districts and arrangements adequate. Full precautions maintained in mills area in order to maintain confidence among those wishing to work, but strike is mainly enforced by secret intimidation at workers' chawls, which police find difficult to control, although further efforts are now being made in this direction. Leaflets distributed on
    12
    28th and speeches delivered at big meeting on the same evening indicate intention of putting strong pressure on the workers in remaining working mills to make strike complete before May day, and, as experience shows that this advice will be interpreted to mean forcible closing of these mills with consequent probability of disorder, it is proposed to arrest and detain principal Communist ringleaders under Section 3, Bombay Special (Emergency) Powers Act. There is no doubt that workers of these mills, and many of those who have already gone out, have no desire to strike.
    Labour Department of the Bombay Government have already instituted an inquiry into the economic condition of the textile workers as compared with 1926 when the cost of living index was prepared. This inquiry has been in progress about a month and report is expected about June. No formal demands have yet been put forward by the general strike committee on behalf of strikers, but it is understood that their main demands are :—

    (1) wage cuts to be on a uniform scale;

    (2) no rationalisation involving the displacement of labour;

    (3) recognition of unions, including Communist bodies; and

    (4) union subscriptions to be collected by managers of the mills."

    CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM (SIR G. SCHUSTER'S STATEMENT).
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir ARNOLD WILSONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statement made by Sir George Schuster on 20th April in which he treated the question of federation in the new constitution as res judicata; and whether, in view of the pledge given by the Lord President of the Council that the future constitution of India is to be regarded as sub judice until after the Report of the Joint Select Committee of Parliament, Sir George Schuster's statement has the approval of His Majesty's Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I have only a telegraphic press summary of Sir George Schuster's speech on the 20th April. It is well known both in India and here that the nature of the reforms depends upon the decision of Parliament, and I can see nothing in the Finance Member's speech which could be taken as pre-judging that decision.
    Sir A. WILSON: While thanking the Prime Minister for that reply, I would ask whether he realises and sympathises with the embarrassment caused to men

    13
    in this country and in India who have been at pains to suspend judgment on matters now before the Joint Select Committee by provocative statements made towards the end of their term of office by high officials, who are of necessity in the closest touch with the Viceroy?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I say, I have only had a telegraphic summary of the speech, and in that I do not see anything that would really justify the words and the implied censure of my hon. and gallant Friend.

  CHINA.

    JAPANESE STATEMENT (BRITISH COMMUNICATION).
    Sir CHARLES CAYZERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the nature of the communication which he has made to the Japanese Government with the object of clarifying the position of His Majesty's Government with regard to the statement made to the Japanese press by a spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the question of Japanese interests in China; and whether he has received any reply from the Japanese Government?
    Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a statement on the reply of the Japanese Government to the inquiries addressed to them by His Majesty's Government on Tuesday last?
    Sir J. SIMON: The communication of His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo to the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs on 25th April, which, as I informed the House the other day, was a friendly inquiry, was to the effect that the principle of equal rights in China was guaranteed very explicitly by the Nine Power Treaty of 1922, to which Japan is a party, and that His Majesty's Government must, of course, continue to enjoy all rights in China which are common to all signatories or are otherwise proper, except in so far as their rights were restricted by agreements such as the consortium agreement, or in so far as Japan had special rights recognised by other Powers and not shared by them.
    Sir Francis Lindley added that the anxieties regarding China expressed in the Japanese statement could not apply to the United Kingdom, since it was the
    14
    aim of British policy to avoid the dangers to peace and the integrity of China to which the statement referred. His Majesty's Government naturally could not admit the right of Japan alone to decide whether any particular action, such as the provision of technical or financial assistance, promoted such a danger, if that had indeed been the implication of the statement, which they did not believe. Under Articles 1 and 7 of the Nine Power Treaty, Japan had the right to call the attention of the other signatories to any action in China inimical to her security. This right provided Japan with safeguards and His Majesty's Government therefore assumed that the statement was not intended in any way to infringe the common rights of other Powers in China nor to infringe Japan's own treaty obligations.
    In reply Mr. Hirota, the Japanese Foreign Minister, indicated that His Majesty's Government were correct in this assumption. He assured His Majesty's Ambassador that Japan would observe the provisions of the Nine Power Treaty and that the policy of the Japanese Government and of His Majesty's Government in regard to the treaty coincided. His Excellency stated, in conclusion, that Japan continued to attach the greatest importance to the maintenance of the open door in China and re-affirmed her acceptance of that policy.
    Mr. JOHNSTONE: Has our Ambassador at Tokio asked for, or obtained, any kind of explanation of the numerous statements issued by the Press Officer of the Japanese Foreign Office or by the Ambassadors of Japan at Washington and Berlin, and the representative also at Geneva, which seem to conflict with the statement of Mr. Hirota?
    Sir J. SIMON: One must not assume that the information which reaches readers of the Press and every Press statement are authorised. I think that the statement made by the Japanese Foreign Minister is reasonably clear, and His Majesty's Government are content to leave this particular question where it is. I would only add that His Majesty's Government are resolved to assist to the utmost possible extent the spirit of international co-operation in the progress of China towards peace and prosperity, and the maintenance of the spirit of harmony and good will in the Far East.

    EXTRA-TERRITORIAL PRIVILEGES.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any representations have been received recently from the Chinese Government as to the extra-territorial privileges possessed by Great Britain in China; and to what effect?
    Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir.

    INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION.
    Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government regard themselves as still bound by the findings and recommendations of the Assembly Report of 24th February, 1933, which recommends that the League of Nations should continue to afford China the technical assistance in modernising her in stitutions which the Government may re quest, with a view to enabling the Chinese people to reorganise and con solidate the Chinese State and to set up a strong central Government?
    Sir J. SIMON: The recommendation of the report to which the hon. Member refers was that the League should afford technical assistance to China as one of the methods of the policy of international co-operation initiated at the Washington Conference. International co-operation in China is governed by the terms of the Nine Power Treaty signed at Washington in 1922, which expressly safeguards the principal of equality of opportunity for all nations. The Council of the League have laid down that the functions of their agent in China are of a purely technical and entirely non-political character.

    NINE-POWER TREATY.
    Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which are the Powers which have accepted the obligations of Article 1 of the Nine-Power Treaty concluded at Washington in 1922; what are the specific obligations contained in this article; and whether the Nine-Power Treaty is still valid?
    Sir J. SIMON: The obligations of the Nine-Power Treaty were accepted by the United States, Belgium, China, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands and Portugal in addition to the British Empire. I will circulate the text of Article 1 in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The Treaty is still in force.
    Following is the text :
    Article 1.—The Contracting Powers (other than China) agree :

    1. To respect the sovereignty, the independence, and the territorial and administrative integrity of China.

    2. To provide the fullest and most unembarrassed opportunity to China to develop and maintain for herself an effective and stable Government.

    3. To use their influence for the purpose of effectually establishing and maintaining the principle of equal opportunity for the commerce and industry of all nations throughout the territory of China.

    4. To refrain from taking advantage of conditions in China in order to seek special rights or privileges which would abridge the rights of subjects or citizens of friendly States, and from countenancing action inimical to the security of such States.

    FOREIGN ADVISERS.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his latest information from Tokyo indicates that the new Japanese pronouncement will prohibit the employment by China of foreign advisers to whom Japan may object?
    Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    MANCHURIA.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the consolidation of Manchukuo as an independent State under the Emperor Pu-Yi and the proposed early withdrawal of armed Japanese forces, the Government will take steps to secure the reconsideration of the present position by the League of Nations with a view to diplomatic recognition being granted to the new State under the altered circumstances which have now arisen?
    Sir J. SIMON: I am not in a position to add anything to the reply which was returned to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, West (Mr. Donner), on the 6th March.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how prejudicial to British trade is the present state of affairs in Manchukuo?

    SAAR TERRITORY (PLEBISCITE).
    Sir C. CAYZERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether

    17
    the terms of reference of the committee of three appointed by the League Council in January to report on problems likely to arise in connection with the Saar plebiscite next year, include the consideration by the committee of measures to prevent the possible victimisation of any inhabitants of the Saar territory for a suitable period after the plebiscite has been held; and, if not, whether he will represent to the League Council at its forthcoming session that it should instruct its committee of three to consider this matter also before submitting its report for the consideration of the council?
    Sir J. SIMON: Under a resolution adopted by the council of the League on the 20th January last, the council invited the committee of three, with a view to the report which that committee is to submit to it, to take particularly into consideration the study of the appropriate means of safeguarding the population against pressure of any kind and the execution of any threats likely to affect the trustworthiness of the voting. I think that in these circumstances it will be best to await the committee's report.

    BALKAN PACT (PROTOCOL).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Minister at Athens advised the Government of Greece of the desirability of communicating to the League of Nations the text of the protocol attached to the Balkanpact; and whether this advice was acted upon?
    Sir J. SIMON: His Majesty's Government, on being informed of the signature of this protocol, reminded the signatory Governments of their obligation under Article 18 of the Covenant to register all treaties or international engagements with the League of Nations. I would add that the Balkan Pact, to which the protocol is attached, has not yet been ratified by all the signatories nor registered under Article 18, and the proctocol would naturally be registered with the pact of which it appears to form part.

    SAARBRUCKEN, STERLING BONDS.
    Sir ARTHUR SHIRLEY BENNasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken to
    18
    safeguard the interests of the holders of 6 per cent. sterling bonds of 1928 issued by the city of Saarbrucken and sanctioned by the League of Nations governing commission after the forthcoming plebiscite on the Saar Basin territory?
    Sir J. SIMON: I can assure my hon. Friend that His Majesty's Government will not lose sight of this matter.

    MEXICO AND TURKEY.
    Mr. McENTEE (for Mr. COCKS)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Mexico and Turkey joined the League of Nations on the invitation of the assembly, and that the invitations were preceded by conversations between certain Governments and the two States in question in order to make certain that the invitations would be accepted; and whether His Majesty's Government took part in or signified approval of such conversations?
    Sir J. SIMON: I am aware that Mexico and Turkey joined the League of Nations on the invitation of the Assembly. As regards the conversations which led up to the issue of these invitations, I can only speak, of course, for His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. Conversations took place, largely through the medium of the League Secretariat in 1931 and 1932 as regards the entry into the League of these two countries, in which it was made clear that they desired to join the League, and that His Majesty's Government for their part would welcome their adhesion. The initiative in starting these conversations was not however taken by His Majesty's Government, but, as I understand and as was proper, by the intending members.

    GERMANY.
    Mr. McENTEE (for Mr. COCKS)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as the application of Germany for admission to the League of Nations was preceded by certain negotiations with the object of assuring Germany that she would be given a permanent seat on the council, he can say whether His Majesty's Government took part in giving these assurances?
    Sir J. SIMON: On 28th September, 1924, the German Government addressed identic memoranda to all States represented

    19
    on the Council of the League expressing the desire to enter the League without delay, but making it clear that Germany wished to obtain a permanent seat on the Council. While the question of Germany's nomination as a State permanently represented on the Council was necessarily governed by paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the League Covenant, the Governments addressed by Germany, including His Majestys' Government in the United Kingdom, replied on more or less similar lines to the effect that they would raise no objection to Germany receiving a permanent seat on the Council.

    RUSSIA.
    Mr. McENTEE (for Mr. COCKS)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the willingness of the Soviet Union to join the League of Nations, provided she receives an invitation and is assured of election to a permanent seat on the Council?
    Sir J. SIMON: So far as I am aware, the Soviet Government have given no indication that the Soviet Union would be prepared to join the League of Nations.
    Mr. McENTEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any representation has been made to the Soviet government to find out their desire in this matter?
    Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt observe from the Answers given to Questions 18 and 19 that there is no precedent for such a course and that the instances which the previous Questions sought to raise are, in fact, all the other way.
    Mr. McENTEE: In the interests of peace generally would it not be well to create a precedent?

  AGRICULTURE.

    MILK MAEKETING BOARD (BUTTER FACTORY).
    Colonel GOODMANasked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is proposed that any contribution should be made out of public funds or any guarantee given involving public funds in respect of the butter factory proposed to be erected by the Milk Marketing Board.
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I have been asked to reply. No application for financial assistance out of public funds in respect of any factory has been made by the Milk Marketing Board.
    Sir P. HARRIS: In the case of any loss in experiments, on whom will the loss fall?
    Mr. ORSMBY-GORE: On the funds at The disposal of the Milk Board.

    EGG AND POULTRY INDUSTRY (REORGANISATION).
    Sir P. HURDasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the unprofitableness of egg production in this country, he will request the Re-organisation Commission to consider in their scheme of reorganisation of the industry proposals for a levy on imports and a deficiency payment on the lines of the Wheat Act.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: My hon. Friend may be assured that the Reorganisation Commission will gladly consider any proposals within the scope of their wide terms of reference which are put to them or which seem to them likely to prove, beneficial to the egg and poultry industry.
    Sir P. HURD: Is this definite proposal now before them?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Obviously, the Government do not know from day to day what is before the Commission : the Commission regulates its own procedure and takes up what attitude it likes without the Government interfering.

  POST OFFICE.

    TELEVISION DEVELOPMENT (COMMITTEE).
    Captain CUNNINGHAM - REIDasked the Postmaster-General if he proposes to set up a committee to report on television developments; and, if so, what the composition of such committee will be?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): I propose to set up a committee to consider the development of television and to advise on the conditions under which any public television service should be provided. I hope to be able to announce at an early date the composition of the committee and its terms of reference.

    TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CHARGES.
    Brigadier-General NATIONasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the increase in the revenue obtained by the Post Office in the past year, he will consider the possibility first of making a reduction in the minimum cost of a telegram to ninepence and then of extending the night-call rates for telephones to 8 a.m.?
    Sir K. WOOD: The question raised by my hon. and gallant Friend was brought to my notice by a recent deputation from the Federation of British Wholesale Fish Merchants' Associations. While I am afraid that there will be considerable difficulties in the way of adopting the proposals, I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the matter is receiving careful consideration.

  SOUTH AFRICAN PROTECTORATES.
  Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, in view of the fact that the South African Government is considering sending a note to the British Government concerning the transfer of the Protectorates to the Union of South Africa, whether he will communicate to General Hertzog the recent declarations of His Majesty's Government that no such transfer could be contemplated without the consent of this House and of the native populations concerned?
  The SECRETARY OF STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I have received no communication from His Majesty's Government in the Union containing General Hertzog's statement in the Union Parliament, but, in view of the Press reports, it may be convenient to state the position of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. When the South Africa Bill was before the House of Commons in 1908, the then Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies stated, on behalf of the Government, that
  "the House will have the fullest opportunity of considering the matter before the transfer of the Protectorates,"
  and, at a later stage in the Debate, he stated that
  "the wishes of the natives in these territories will be most carefully considered before any transfer takes place."
  These assurances were repeated in this House in November, 1919. In February,
  22
  1925, the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, in reply to a question in the House, stated :
  "In accordance with the pledges given when the South Africa Bill was before Parliament, the House will have the fullest opportunity of discussing, and, if they wish, of disapproving, any proposed transfer of these territories to the Union ";
  And at the same time, it was stated in another place on behalf of the Government that the Government
  "will not make any decision until the native population and the white population have had full opportunity of expressing their views, and any representations which either the native population or the white population may make to His Majesty's Government will receive the most careful consideration before the Government come to any final decision in regard to the matter."
  These pledges were repeated on behalf of the present Government both by myself in this House, and also in another place, in July last. Copies of them were communicated, to General Smuts whilst he was in this country last year.
  Mr. LUNN: While appreciating the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made, may I ask whether it is not the fact that up to now the natives in these - Protectorates have been unanimously against being brought within the Union of South Africa?
  Mr. THOMAS: I have not received the communication of General Hertzog—it is on its way—and it would be unwise for me to comment in advance having regard to the grave importance of this question. I thought it my duty to the House to leave them in no doubt as to the Government's views.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: But there is a doubt. The right hon. Gentleman says that the views of the natives will receive the fullest consideration from His Majesty's Government. Can we be sure that that means that if the natives to a large degree are against transfer to the Union their view will prevail?
  Mr. THOMAS: It means that His Majesty's Government will be bound to take into consideration the native view and the white view, and, in doing so, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman must trust His Majesty's Government to do, as it always does, the right thing.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by white

  23
  opinion? There is no white opinion in Swaziland or Basutoland. Does he mean white opinion in the Protectorates or white opinion outside the Protectorates?
  Mr. THOMAS: Both.
  Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: May I ask how the native opinion in Swaziland will be made known to the Government?
  Mr. THOMAS: That will depend on those making the representation. It is not for me to make suggestions.

  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  Lieut.-Colonel GAULTasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in view of the improving conditions overseas warranting attention being focussed upon the need of a redistribution of the British people within the Empire, he will approach the Prime Ministers of His Majesty's Dominions with a view to having the question of migration reopened and for the purposes of considering the recommendations of the Joint Parliamentary Committee's Report (1932), advocating Imperial co-operation and the creation of inter-governmental machinery for the purpose of promoting Empire settlement and development; and if he will be prepared to further any plan submitted with the concurrence of the Dominion Governments in order that no time may be lost in putting approved migration schemes into operation at the first possible moment?
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The position of the Government was fully explained by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs in the course of a Debate on the 28th February last on a Motion by the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy). I am not at present in a position to add anything to that statement.
  Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman regards the solution of the problem as economically and politically vital, and will it be discussed at the next Imperial Conference?
  Mr. THOMAS: I not only consider it important and vital, but I am certain that no scheme of migration can be
  24
  successful until the economic conditions in the Dominions improve on what they are at the moment.

  ROYAL NAVY (SINGAPORE BASE).
  Mr. CHORLTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the recent announcement of Japanese policy, he will give an assurance that the measures taken for the defence of Singapore shall not be relaxed?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made on page 15 of the White Paper (Cmd. 4523) explanatory of the Navy Estimates 1934. The policy indicated in this statement remains unaltered.

  AVIATION (GLIDING).
  Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Under- Secretary of State for Air (1) whether he will make arrangements to subsidise a national gliding week in this country this summer under the proper authorities;
  (2) whether His Majesty's Government will assist the gliding authorities to open camps this summer on the Brighton Downs, where instruction can be given in gliding for several weeks on end, not at week-ends only as hitherto?
  Sir VICTOR WARRENDER (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply. The inauguration of a national gliding week and of gliding camps are matters for the Royal Aero Club and the National Gliding Association in the first instance. While my Noble Friend would welcome any measures which these authorities may be able to take for the furtherance of the gliding movement, he regrets that he is not in a position to give any undertaking to afford financial assistance.
  Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to give notice that, owing to the inadequacy of the answer, I shall raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.
  Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Are there not more satisfactory ways of doing this?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The matter is to be raised on the Adjournment of the House.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    EGG PURCHASES.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, if, in view of the very low price at present obtainable for English eggs, steps can be taken to substitute them for foreign eggs in Army food contracts?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The only eggs purchased by the War Office are for hospitals and schools. Almost the entire requirements are for new laid eggs, the specification for which prohibits the supply of imported eggs.

    ROYAL DEFENCE CORPS.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why the War Office does not intend to raise any branch of the Royal Defence Force in Sussex?
    Mr. COOPER: Adequate provision has been made without the necessity of asking the Sussex Territorial Army Association to enrol any personnel for this corps.
    Mr. LUNN: Is it the intention of the Government to enrol the Royal Defence Corps only in the industrial areas, and particularly the mining areas, and, if so, may I ask him to remember Feather-stone?
    Mr. COOPER: The answer to the first part of the question——
    Mr. SPEAKER: The question on the Paper deals only with Sussex.

    RETIRED OFFICERS (CIVILIAN APPOINTMENTS).
    Mr. WEST (for Mr. LEONARD)asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that in 1931 a British firm interested in the manufacture of munitions endeavoured to enlist the help of the commanding officer, Royal Artillery, Northern Command, York, in recommending an officer suitable to foster the sale of arms to the Chinese Government, and willing to accept employment in that country; that the commanding officer referred to communicated with the War Office, and from that office received the name of an officer deemed suitable; and whether this is an accepted part of the duties of that Department and if the practice continues?
    Mr. DUFF COOPER: I have no knowledge of the matter referred to in the first part of the question. With regard to the last part, if the War Office is asked to recommend a suitable retired officer for a civilian post, I can see no objection to this being done.
    Mr. WEST: Can the hon. Gentleman find out the answer to the first part of the question?
    Mr. COOPER: I do not think so.
    Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: This is surely a proper question to put to the bon. Gentleman? If the facts be as suggested in the question clearly the House is entitled to know.
    Mr. COOPER: I have made inquiries from everybody concerned who might have been asked that question, and they deny any knowledge of it. As I have said already, if they had been cognisant of such events having taken place, I cannot see that any blame could possibly attach to them.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Has the hon. Gentleman asked the Commanding Officer of the Royal Artillery in the Northern Command?
    Mr. COOPER: Every inquiry has been made.

  STREET COLLECTIONS.
  Captain CUNNINGHAM - REIDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is the practice of the Metropolitan Police to grant permission for flag days or street collections in aid of any other than purely British charitable causes?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that his general practice is not to grant permission for street collections in London where the beneficiaries are abroad but exceptions to the rule have been made in one or two instances in which the advisory committee, to whom all applications are referred, considered that special circumstances justified the grant of permission.
  Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: Will my right hon. Friend consider restricting such collections while deserving British charities remain in need of support?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I think that the advisory committee are very careful and make all the necessary inquiries.

  TRANSPORT.

    MOTOR VEHICLES (BRAKE TESTS).
    Sir W. BRASSasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the large number of motor accidents due to inefficient and badly adjusted brakes, he will consider having some of the mobile police especially trained as experts in the testing of motor-car brakes on the road in order to make sure that all vehicles are equipped with properly adjusted and efficient brakes?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Generally speaking, I think that the mobile police possess a good working knowledge of the subject, but the whole question is receiving my consideration in consultation with the Minister of Transport.
    Sir W. BRASS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a brake test is applied in the United States of America, and that there is a very simple machine for testing brakes, which could be adopted by the police of this country?

    TRAFFIC SIGNALS, LONDON (PEDESTRIANS).
    Sir W. BRASSasked the Minister of Transport whether, in order to avoid the confusion which exists in the minds of certain pedestrians when attempting to cross some of the streets at points where traffic lights are in operation in the metropolis, he will consider the possibility of adding small green and red pedestrian lights on the columns of the signal standards facing the pavements with "Cross" and "Do not Cross" written on them and synchronised with the traffic lights?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): This question was carefully considered in detail by the recent Departmental Committee on Traffic Signs, and their views and the reasons for them are set out in paragraph 146 of their report. Their conclusion is that, in general, pedestrians should watch the movement of traffic and not rely entirely on signals. If pedestrian signals were provided in connection with traffic lights at road intersections, all the streams of traffic would have to be stopped to ensure
    28
    to the pedestrian the complete safety implied by a signal instruction to cross the road, and considerable dislocation of traffic would be inevitable.
    Sir W. BRASS: Is my hon. and gallant Friend not aware that the pedestrians do not actually look at the traffic signals and that a very large number of accidents would be prevented if there were lights positively for pedestrians showing when they could cross and when they could not?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: That is a matter of opinion. I can only speak for one pedestrian; I keep a very close look out for all signals.
    Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Is it not the case that at these crossing-places pedestrians can see the red and green traffic lights?

  DUKE OF ATHOLL FUND (POLICE INQUIRIES).
  Mr. McENTEEasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that two police officers suggested to an individual, from whom they were making inquiries in connection with the organisation of a lottery, that if he would plead guilty to a technical offence they would arrange for the case to be heard quietly by a particular magistrate and for the imposition of a specified fine; whether this inducement was held out before any formal charge had been made; and what action it is proposed to take?
  Sir W. DAVISONasked the Home Secretary whether he has any statement to make regarding the action of two police officers who introduced themselves to the Duke of Atholl as a deputation from the Home Office, saying they were acting under the instructions of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and requested him to plead guilty to a technical offence under the Lotteries Act, which he was advised he had not committed, in which case arrangements would be made to frame a charge before a particular magistrate so that only a nominal fine would be inflicted upon him, that the proceedings would be put through quietly, and that no reflection would be made on his personal character?
  Mr. MORGAN JONESasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that two police officers, acting as emissaries

  29
  of the Director of Public Prosecutions, interviewed His Grace the Duke of Atholl in connection with a fund which he was organising; whether they had any authority to appear as a deputation from the Home Office; and, if so, what were the instructions given to them in connection with that interview?
  The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I have been asked to reply, as the police officers in the case referred to were acting under the instructions of the Director of Public Prosecutions, subject to my directions.
  It is a common practice where it is intended to take proceedings under the Lotteries Acts in respect of an illegal lottery that the promoter, if known, should be interviewed by the police in the first instance in order to ascertain whether he accepts responsibility for the alleged lottery. At this stage no question of guilt or innocence is at issue and the sole purpose of this preliminary inquiry is to effect a considerable saving of expense with regard to matters of formal proof.
  In pursuance of this practice the director instructed the police officers concerned to inform the Duke of Atholl that they were visiting him on the director's instructions, and, after cautioning him, to ascertain whether he accepted responsibility for the scheme and for certain advertisements which had been issued in connection therewith. These were the sole instructions given by the director. I desire to repudiate categorically and in the most emphatic terms the suggestions that the police officers were instructed to inform the Duke that it was desired that he should plead guilty to a technical offence in order to avoid public mischief notwithstanding that he might not have committed any technical offence, or that arrangements would be made for the case to be heard quietly by a particular magistrate and for the imposition of a specified fine.
  As regards the conduct of the police officers, I am informed that they emphatically deny that they obtained any statement from the Duke of Atholl in an improper manner or that they held out any inducements to him to plead guilty. According to their statements they informed him of the object of their visit and asked him whether he accepted responsibility
  30
  for the publication of certain documents and statements attributed to him or whether they had been published without his authority. On two occasions the police attempted to caution the Duke in the usual form, but on both occasions they were interrupted by the Duke who said that he understood the caution. In reply to friendly questions by the Duke in the course of conversation the police-informed him that if proceedings were taken they would probably be taken at Bow Street, that they would be under Section 41 of the Lotteries Act, 1823, and that the maximum penalty under that Section was £25. At no time was the name of any magistrate mentioned,
  Mr. McENTEE: In view of the very grave misgiving in the public mind with regard to the administration of justice caused by this statement of the Duke, is it proposed by the Public Prosecutor to take any action against the Duke?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No, Sir.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Is the learned Attorney-General aware that the Duke was not cautioned when the police officers, alleging that they came as a deputation from the Home Office, first saw him, and is he aware that the Duke was asked to plead guilty to a nominal offence in order that in the interests, pro bono publico, the public should be deceived in the matter?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question has already been answered.
  Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Is the learned Attorney-General aware of the impression upon the House that the explanation he now gives is tantamount to a charge of perjury against the Duke?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have stated the facts as I have been informed they are, and as I partly know them within my own knowledge.
  Sir W. DAVISON: As the statements show a great discrepancy, will a public inquiry be held? The public are entitled to know what the real facts of the case are.
  Mr. McENTEE: In view of the fact that there is a very great difference between the statement of the Duke and that just made, and as, if the Attorney-General's statement is true, it really implies perjury on the part of the Duke,

  31
  does the right hon. and learned Gentleman propose to consider the matter with a view to prosecution?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member is well aware that statements made in another place cannot be made the subject of prosecution.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Will an inquiry be held? That is what the public are interested in. The public are not interested in the Duke of Atholl, but are interested in the administration of justice and want an inquiry.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: As at present advised, I see no necessity for an inquiry.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    INSURANCE FUND.
    Sir ROBERT HORNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is the creditor and who is the debtor in the obligations which constitute the existing debt on the Unemployment Insurance Fund; in what form the documents of debt are expressed; what is the average rate of interest at present payable on the debt as now existing; to whom is paid any portion of the debt which the debtor is able to repay; and what is done with the sums which the debtor repays?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The money was advanced to the Unemployment Fund by the Treasury, who borrowed it for the purpose from the National Debt Commissioners out of moneys which the latter had available for investment on behalf of the funds for the Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks. The debt due by the Unemployment Fund to the Treasury is recorded in an exchange of official letters. The securities for the debt due by the Treasury to the National Debt Commissioners are in the form of five-year certificates signed on behalf of the Treasury, the principal of and interest on which are guaranteed by the Consolidated Fund. The interest on the advances is paid direct by the Unemployment Fund to the National Debt Commissioners. The average rate of interest on the debt now outstanding is for the time being 4⅝ per cent. Principal
    32
    sums repaid by the Unemployment Fund to the Treasury are paid into the Exchequer, and are thence issued to the National Debt Commissioners in repayment of the sums borrowed from them. Such repayments of principal are available for re-investment by those Commissioners in any of the securities in which they are authorised by law to invest on behalf of the Savings Banks Funds, including advances under the Telegraphs Acts or to the Local Loans Fund.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Could not that rate of interest of 4⅝ per cent. be reduced, in view of the present price of money, which is about 3½ per cent.?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend will be aware of the proposals in the Bill, which are to be discussed to-morrow.

    TEST WORK (ACCIDENTS).
    Sir ROBERT GOWERasked the Minister of Health how many unemployed men engaged in test work have, during the past 12 months, met with fatal and other accidents, respectively, whilst so engaged; and whether compensation, and, if so, what, has been paid in any such cases to the dependents of or to the men, respectively, and by whom?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend is not aware of any fatal accident occurring in the circumstances suggested. Two instances in which non-fatal accidents have occurred have recently been brought to his notice and are receiving the consideration of the local authorities concerned.
    Sir R. GOWERasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the case of an unemployed workman who recently, while engaged on test work at Gillingham, Kent, sustained an accident resulting in a broken leg, and whose relief was stopped before he was able to resume work; and whether, seeing that the premiums payable for insurance under the Workmen's Compensation Acts are relatively small, he will consider the desirability of providing, by legislation or otherwise, that men injured in accidents whilst engaged in test work shall be entitled to receive the benefits provided by the Workmen's Compensation Acts?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend's attention has not previously been called to the case to which my hon. Friend refers, but he is making inquiries about it. Any question as to the amendment of the Workmen's Compensation Acts should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

    UNEMPLOYMENT BILL (APPOINTED DAY).
    Mr. THORNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has considered the resolution from the conference of distressed areas convened by the town clerk of Liverpool; and whether the Government will now fix 1st July, 1934, as the appointed day for the operation of Part II of the Unemployment Bill?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I cannot add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 23rd April.
    Mr. LOGAN: In view of the distress which is being caused in these areas, is it not possible for an answer to be given, as this decision was practically unanimous?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am sorry I cannot add to the answer which I have given.
    Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITE: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of those who attended this conference and supported this resolution are engaged in their own towns in propaganda to the effect that the passage of the Unemployment Bill represents an attack upon working-class standards?
    Mr. BATEY: So it does.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    INCOME TAX AND SURTAX.
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the estimated national revenue and the numbers of Income Tax and Surtax payers for the years 1929, 1931, 1932, 1933, and 1934, respectively?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. and gallant Friend will find the latest available information for past years of the receipt of Income Tax and Surtax and the numbers of persons assessed to the tax in Tables 36, 43, 52 and 56 of the
    34
    recently published 76th Annual Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Command Paper No. 4456).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman give an answer to the first part of the question?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have done so by saying that the latest available information is contained in the documents to which I have referred the hon. Member.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: As there is no information whatever in those documents as to the estimated national income, will the hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the question?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If that information is lacking, or is not accessible, I shall be only too happy to supply it.

    ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether steps are taken to collect additional entertainments duty on tickets resold at enhanced prices for cup finals and other similar types of entertainment; and whether he is satisfied that the revenue is adequately protected in this respect?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As I explained in the answer given to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) on 25th April, the question of liability to Entertainments Duty in cases such as those referred to depends on the particular circumstances of individual transactions. If my hon. Friend will give me details of any particular cases he has in mind, I will have them looked into.

  GERMANY (DEBT PAYMENTS).
  Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. THORNE)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information in connection with the German Government's decision to end all debt payments; and what action the Government intends taking in the matter?
  Sir J. SIMON: So far as I am aware, no such decision has been taken by the German Government. The question of Germany's foreign indebtedness in respect of medium and long-term loans is at present the subject of discussions between the German authorities and the

  35
  creditors, and pending the outcome of these discussions I am unable to make any further statement on the subject.

  RATING ASSESSMENTS, ILFORD.
  Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. THORNE)asked the Minister of Health if he has considered the report from the Ilford Chamber of Commerce complaining about the assessment in the borough, more especially in regard to shops; if he is aware that some of the assessments have increased from 70 up to 100 per cent.; and whether any instructions have been sent by his Department to the assessment committees of the local authorities about unfair methods of assessment?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend does not appear to have received the report to which the hon. Member refers, but the determination of assessments for rating purposes is entirely a matter for the local assessment committee, subject to the right of appeal to the courts. It is open to any ratepayer who is aggrieved by his assessment to make a proposal at any time for the amendment of the valuation list, but my right hon. Friend is not empowered to interfere in any way with the discretion of the assessment committee and he has not issued any instructions about methods of assessment.

  COLLIERY EXPLOSION, LEIGH.
  Mr. TINKER (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will state the latest information that he has of the mine explosion at the Plank Lane Collieries, Leigh, Lancashire, which happened this morning?
  The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I regret to inform the House that an explosion occurred about 6.30 a.m. this morning in the Trencher-bone seam at Bickershaw Colliery in Lancashire. The divisional inspector of mines reported this by telephone just as he was about to proceed underground to give help and make investigations. The casualties then reported were five lives lost. He is to make a further report by telephone as soon as he returns to the surface. I am sure the House will join with me in expressing our deep sympathy to the relatives of the deceased.

  PRIVILEGES.
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to give leave to the Clerk attending the Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform to attend to be examined as a Witness before the Committee of Privileges.—[The Prime Minister.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Amendments to—
Arbitration Bill [Lords],
Supply of Water in Bulk (No. 2) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend to certain other minerals the provisions of Part II of the Mining Industry Act, 1926, relating to the grant of facilities for searching for and working coal." [Mines (Working Facilities) Bill [Lords.] ].
Privileges,—That they give leave to the Clerk attending the Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform to attend in order to his being examined as a Witness before the Committee of Privileges appointed by this House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  WATER SUPPLIES (EXCEPTIONAL SHORTAGE ORDERS) BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  WATER SUPPLIES (EXCEPTIONAL SHORTAGE ORDERS) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Power to make orders, and duration, variation and revocation of orders.")
    3.45 p.m.
    Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 38, at the end, to insert :
    "(f) for requiring persons having the control of sluices or other works for drawing down or keeping back water in a source to operate them in accordance with the provisions of the order or of any direction given thereunder."
    This Amendment is moved in accordance with an understanding arrived at with the Minister during the Committee stage of the Bill.
    3.46 p.m.
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): My hon. Friend is quite right in saying that this Amendment is proposed on the basis of an arrangement which was arrived at in Committee upstairs. I have given very careful consideration to the wording of the Amendment in order to make sure that it carries out the understanding that was then arrived at. It does fully carry out that arrangement, and I hope, therefore, that it will be accepted by the House.
    Amendment agreed to.
    3.47 p.m.
    Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move, in page 2, line 39, to leave out "suspending or modifying," and to insert :
    "the suspension or modification of a restriction as respects the taking of water from a source from which water is supplied to an inland navigation or of."
    This is an Amendment in order to carry out another arrangement which was arrived at as a result of discussion in Committee. The substance of the Amendment is this : It often happens that water undertakers have power to impound waters from a stream that supplies water to or forms part of an inland navigation, and the navigation authority on their part are under obligation to supply water to various other interests who draw supplies
    42
    from the same source. If the water available for the navigation authority is limited, it is quite fair that there should be a reciprocal release from the navigation authority's obligations, and it is in response to representations made on behalf of navigation authorities that I propose this Amendment, which should be taken with the two following Amendments on the Paper. If these three Amendments are incorporated, the Clause will read :
    "In any order made for the suspension or modification of a restriction as respects the taking of water from a source from which water is supplied to an inland navigation or of an obligation to discharge compensation water into any river or stream which forms part of, or from which water is supplied to, an inland navigation, the Minister may include provisions for prohibiting or imposing limitations on the taking of water from the navigation, or for the suspension or modification of any obligation to which the navigation authority are subject as respects the discharge of water from the navigation."
    Amendment agreed to.
    3.49 p.m.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): I beg to move, in page 2, line 43, to leave out from "for" to "water," in line 44, and to insert :
    "prohibiting or imposing limitations on the taking of."
    This is a drafting Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made : In page 2, line 44, at the end, insert :
    "or for the suspension or modification of any obligation to which the navigation authority are subject as respects the discharge of water from the navigation."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]
    3.50 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 44, after the words last inserted, to insert :
    "(3) An order which confers on water undertakers power to prohibit, or to impose limitations on, the use of water supplied by them, may provide that, in exercising the power as respects the use of water for other than domestic purposes, the undertakers shall observe such conditions as to the reduction or suspension of charges regulated otherwise than by reference to quantities of water consumed as may be specified."
    This Amendment arises out of a discussion on the Committee stage. We

    43
    thought it was very unfair that if a water company supplies water for a specific purpose, such as watering a garden or washing a car, and charges extra for that purpose and then refuses to allow the water to be so used, that the consumer should have to pay the special charge.
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    3.51 p.m.
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: It was generally agreed in Committee that it would be inequitable to make a man pay in advance for a supply of water for other than domestic purposes which, owing to drought, he never receives. The Amendment carries out the spirit of what seemed good to the Committee, and the Government accept it.
    Mr. CAPORN: Will this apply to restrictions imposed by the Metropolitan Water Board when they send out notices asking people to economise in the use of water?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: If an Order is made the Amendment will operate, but not otherwise.
    Amendment agreed to.
    3.52 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 44, after the words last inserted, to insert :
    "(3) In the exercise of his power to make orders the Minister shall have regard to the interests of all persons concerned in the use of the water to which the order relates, whether for the purposes of agriculture, fisheries, industry, or navigation, or for other purposes."
    This Amendment also arises out of a Committee stage discussion. We felt there was a great risk that the interests of the rural areas would be overlooked, and we thought it necessary that words should be put in to ensure that the Minister should take into consideration the interests of all those who might be affected by his Orders and not merely those who live in the towns.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    There might be other interests affected by an Order apart from the persons whom it immediately concerns, and the Amendment
    44
    is moved in order to ensure that those interests are safeguarded.
    3.53 p.m.
    Sir H. YOUNG: My hon. and gallant Friend is right in saying that this Amendment arises from a discussion in the Committee upstairs. I pointed out then the manner in which such a Measure as this would have to be administered, and the question was to find some form of words which would incorporate in the Bill the right phrases as regards what fair and equitable administration of the Measure would be. The words in the Amendment, I think, are adequate and suitable for the purpose, and I propose to recommend the acceptance of it.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Power to authorise the taking of water for an indefinite period and the purchase of land.)
    3.54 p.m.
    Sir CHRISTOPHER CLAYTON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 33, after "commencement," to insert :
    "and that having regard to all relevant matters (including the interests of persons who may sustain damage by reason of the taking of water under the authority of the Order) the powers to be conferred on the undertakers under this Section are such as might properly have been conferred on them, if apart from any exceptional shortage of rain the taking of water from a new source had become necessary for the purposes of the undertaking."
    This Clause deals with the granting of Orders of a permanent nature, and it is necessary that where an Order has been made under it no hardship should be imposed upon industrial firms which require water as a necessity. We have to bear in mind that in choosing a site for a new works a firm has to take into consideration the supply of an adequate quantity of water. They may put down a well to supply the amount of water required for the factory as it stands; later, the firm may want to expand the factory and to require more water. They may have ample water from their well, and I want to make certain that that should not be interfered with by the operation of this Emergency Bill. I think the words in the Amendment meet that case, and I hope the Minister will be able to accept it.
    Sir FRANK SANDERSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    3.56 p.m.
    Sir H. YOUNG: This Amendment is similar in its character, though not in its content, to the last Amendment. It arises as the result of a discussion in Committee, and there is no difference of opinion with regard to it. The purpose of Clause 3, as I pointed out then, was that there should be action of a permanent character only when such action was justified by the general demand of the locality to which it applied. I have given careful consideration to the wording of this Amendment, and I find it accurately expresses the results of our discussion in Committee.
    Amendment agreed to.
    3.57 p.m.
    Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move, in page 4, line 4, to leave out from the beginning to "incorporate" in line 12.
    This Amendment is of a technical character and is to be read in conjunction with a subsequent Amendment in my name—in page 4, line 17, at the end, to insert :
    "For the purposes of an order under this section the word" stream "in the Waterworks Clauses Acts, 1847 and 1863, shall be deemed to include canals, reservoirs, lakes, and ponds."
    The two Amendments together are for the purpose of removing difficulties of a technically legal nature which were raised in Committee as to compensation which could be claimed by a navigation authority under the Bill. There were some doubts as regards the Waterworks Clauses Act, which does not provide for the case where water is taken from a canal or reservoir which feeds a canal. It is made clear in the Amendment that compensation can be claimed in such cases in accordance with the general intention of the Bill by providing that the word "stream" in the Waterworks Clauses Act is taken to include canals, reservoirs, lakes and ponds. Owing to the ingenuity of the draftsmen, it is possible to simplify the Measure by this definition.
    3.59 p.m.
    Mr. CAPORN: Would not the Minister achieve his purpose better by providing that simple English words like "stream" should not cover what it does not ordinarily include? It is this sort of legislation which gives rise to such a lot of
    46
    complicated cases in the Law Courts, and I venture to hope that the draftsmen will get away from this kind of draftsmanship and put into Acts of Parliament what they are intended to do.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made : In page 4, line 17, at the end, insert :
    "For the purposes of an order under this section the word" stream "in the Waterworks Clauses Acts, 1847 and 1863, shall be deemed to include canals, reservoirs, lakes, and ponds."—[Sir H. Young.]

    CLAUSE 5.—(Penalties.)
    Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: I beg to move, in page 6, line 8, at the end, to insert :
    "(3) If any person contravenes any provision contained in, or direction given under, an order with respect to the operation of a sluice or other works for drawing down or keeping back water, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds and to a further fine not exceeding forty shillings for each day on which the contravention continues after conviction therefor."
    This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment made at the beginning of the proceedings, and lays down the penalties in respect to contravention of that provision.
    Sir JOSEPH LAMB: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Making and determination of claims for compensation.)
    4.0 p.m.
    Admiral Sir ROGER KEYES: I beg to move, in page 8, line 23, to leave out from "assessor," to the end of the Clause, and to insert :
    "there shall be payable by such of the parties and in such proportions as may be determined by the arbitrator such sum in respect of the remuneration and expenses of the assessor as may be so determined."
    The fee of the assessor is probably covered, but I have put down this Amendment to make it clear.
    4.1 p.m.
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: This Clause deals with claims for compensation. It provides that if there is no agreement, and an arbitrator is appointed, the arbitrator may call in an assessor on the panel, in which case the Amendment makes it perfectly clear what is not quite clear in the Bill, namely, that the fee

    47
    and expenses of the assessor shall be part of the costs of the arbitration. We accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Application to Scotland.)
    4.2 p.m.
    Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move, in page 11, line 22, to leave out :
    "' High Court' means either division of the Court of Session, and."
    Earl WINTERTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an explanation of the Amendment?
    Sir H. YOUNG: If the House will turn to page 11, line 22, it will find that the Clause runs as follows :
    "'High Court' means either division of the Court of Session, and 'easement' means servitude."
    Obviously, this Clause is of very great importance to our Scottish brethren, and requires the most careful consideration. I am sure the House will realise that it requires most careful study to deal with matters of Scottish law. With this Amendment, and the subsequent Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Clause will read :
    "(3) 'Easement' means servitude.
    (4) A reference to the Court of Session shall be substituted for any reference to the High Court or to the Court of Appeal and references to reduction or interdict shall be substituted for references to prohibition or certiorari;
    (5) A reference to the Edinburgh Gazette shall be substituted for any reference to the London Gazette."
    Earl WINTERTON: Is my right hon. Friend dealing with the first Amendment or the second Amendment, or both at the same time?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I am sure my Noble Friend thoroughly appreciates that a matter like this requires a conspectus of the several Amendments in order to obtain a clear idea of what is proposed.
    4.4 p.m.
    Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has convinced the House that "easement" means "servitude," but I am not at all satisfied that he has convinced the House as to the meaning of the Amendment standing in the name of the Secretary of
    48
    State for Scotland, whose absence we deplore at this critical moment for Scotland. We welcome the right hon. Gentleman's arrival, and I hope we shall have a more intelligent statement from him than we have had from the Minister of Health.
    4.5 p.m.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I must apologise to the House for having been absent at a most "critical moment," when these most important Amendents are being moved. I feel sure that the explanation given by my right hon. Friend must (have been satisfactory to all quarters of the House, except perhaps one or two. I think that the wording of the Amendment makes it clear what we are anxious to secure. It makes it a little more specific than it otherwise would be.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I beg to move, in page 11, line 24, at the end, to insert :
    "(4) A reference to the Court of Session shall be substituted for any reference to the High Court or to the Court of Appeal and references to reduction or interdict shall be substituted for references to prohibition or certiorari;
    (5) A reference to the Edinburgh Gazette shall be substituted for any reference to the London Gazette."
    This is a purely drafting Amendment, which is consequential upon the introduction in Committee of Clause 9.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 12, line 16, to leave out from "paragraph," to the end of line 21, and to insert :
    "5 of the Schedule.
    5. The person appointed by the Department of Health for Scotland to hold any local inquiry under the last foregoing paragraph."
    This also is a purely drafting Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Short title, duration and extent.)
    4.7 p.m.
    Mr. CHARLES BROWN: I beg to move, in page 12, to leave out lines 39 to 41.

    49
    So far the Minister has accepted all the Amendments on the Order Paper, and I think that I might begin by expressing the hope that he will accept this one, which would make this temporary Measure permanent. It seems to be the misfortune of the present Government that when they do things which are bad, they are thoroughly bad and permanent, but when they attempt things which are good they only do them in a half-hearted sort of fashion. On occasions like this they introduce Measures which are of a purely temporary character. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), on the Second Reading of the Bill, said that we on these benches did not take any exception to its provisions, but he stated that he would much have prefererd a Bill even at that stage to be of a permanent character. He did not object at all to the powers which the Minister sought to take in this Measure. Having gone through Committee, I think that the argument in favour of making the Bill permanent rather than temporary is very much stronger than it was when the Bill was introduced, because those of us who have been in Committee upstairs found the Minister quite willing to accept all kinds of restrictive Amendments, and the powers which are conferred upon him by the Bill are now restricted in all kinds of ways. He has listened with a ready ear to all those Members representing rural and agricultural areas. He has paid heed to everything they have had to say, and more or less he has incorporated in the Bill the various ideas they have put before him in regard to safeguarding their rights and privileges, and I cannot, therefore, see any reason at all why the Bill should not be made a permanent Measure.
    May I recall to the House the powers which the Minister, as stated in his Second Reading speech, takes in this Measure? He has to proceed by Orders, which are to be made for six months, and if at the end of that time it is necessary to renew the Orders, he will renew them; but the Bill comes to an end on 31st December, 1935. Then he told us what he can do under those Orders. He said that he might take steps to tap new sources of supply to deal with the water position and to redistribute available supplies. I want to ask if there is any
    50
    real reason why the Minister should not have these powers permanently? There seems to be no reason at all why the really slight powers he is given by this Bill, surrounded by all these restrictions, should not be his permanent possession. After all, the Minister of Health for the time being is, to a very large degree, the Member of the Government who has to safeguard the health and life of the community in all sorts of ways, and we all know how important a factor is the question of water.
    The right hon. Gentleman reminded us in the Second Reading Debate of our developing civilisation, and the greater calls which are made on the water resources of the country, and he admitted that his difficulties are not only due to the drought which has occurred, but are due, in part, to the increasing calls of our developing civilisation. Providence, for some unknown reason, seems to smile on the present Government. World conditions get better, and they take advantage of them in the economic sphere. They introduce a Bill to deal with the water emergency, and it begins to rain. Consequently, from that aspect, at any rate, things seem to be on their side. But the Minister knows as well as anybody that every area in the world is liable to climatic changes, and we have been experiencing a variety of climatic changes. He said that we had not had a drought on the same scale since 1887, and, looking to the immediate future, he does not expect that aspect of the matter to be repeated, but the other side of the matter is bound to call for more and more attention, namely, the increasing demand of our developing civilisation on the available water supplies. Consequently, why should we not give the Minister of Health the powers he takes in this Bill permanently?
    I see the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) looking across at me, and I remember the speech he made on the Second Reading of the Bill. He called it a Communistic Measure, and I imagine he would like to see it removed at the earliest available opportunity. As a matter of fact, after hearing him in Committee, I am surprised that he has not an Amendment on the Order Paper to limit its operation to six months or

    51
    less. But we do not share the hon. Baronet's views. We think that the Minister might very well have these powers permanently, and then, without wasting the time of Parliament again should the demands of advancing civilisation rapidly increase, or should there be a fresh drought, he would have the power already to deal with the situation.
    4.14 p.m.
    Mr. TINKER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I do not think that I can do better than refer to the Amendment moved by the Secretary of State for Scotland which, he stated, was very important, and meant much to Scotland. If we are dealing with such very important matters why cannot we make them permanent? Regard, therefore, ought to be given to our Amendment. When the Bill was introduced, I welcomed something being done to deal with the scarcity of water, and I drew attention to several sources of supply. I mentioned pits, but the Parliamentary Secretary said that some might not like soup. I want to correct that view. The water that percolates into the mines at a certain point is absolutely clear, and from that point it could be drawn off for use. Since this Bill was introduced I have learned of one place in East Lancashire where arrangements were made with a colliery for a supply of water from it, and I have also had letters from other colliery companies telling me that they have supplies of water which are going to waste. If this Bill is to be only temporary it will be difficult to make arrangements to obtain water from collieries.
    If this Bill is to be applied only in times of drought, and when we have a thunderstorm or a few showers of rain the view is taken that there is no need to bother about water supply, we shall make ourselves a laughing stock in the eyes of the community. What has happened in the past 12 months is likely to happen again. Civilisation appears to move in the direction of making greater use of clean water. Anyone who has been in the East knows the difference between our standard of life and theirs. There they have no regard for conditions to which we pay so much attention. In our civilisation there is likely to be an ever-growing
    52
    need for water, and I say this Bill is taking us a step in the right direction, and it ought to be made permanent. If it is on the Statute Book and there is no need to put it in force, what difference will that make? But if it is law, then the Minister will at least have some backing for any steps which he may find it necessary to take. If it is allowed to pass off the Statute Book the time of Parliament will have to be taken up again when there is another drought, because we shall have to go through the whole rigmarole of Parliamentary procedure in passing legislation once more.
    4.18 p.m.
    Sir H. YOUNG: I am happy to find myself on much firmer ground on this Amendment than on the last occasion when I addressed the House. Let me say, first of all, in reply to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), that we are by no means neglecting the possibility of getting water supplies from mines. There are cases, which will be known to him, as they are known to me, where actual use is made of such supplies at the present time, but in other cases, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, the character of the water is not suitable for the purpose we have in mind. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) suggested that the Bill had been weakened in Committee. But I can say with absolute confidence that in Committee the Bill was very much strengthened as a machine for the purposes for which it is intended. I would ask the hon. Member this question : If the Amendments moved in Committee were so fatal to the Bill, why did the Opposition not trouble to divide against any of them? There was only one division, and that was on the Amendment now proposed by the hon. Member himself. Some of the Amendments, particularly that which related to penalties, were, if I remember rightly, warmly supported by the hon. Members now sitting opposite to me. They cannot have it both ways. I will give two instances of Amendments which I say specifically strengthen the Bill. One was the Amendment which enables us to deal with the drain upon the water supply by the opening and closing of sluices, and the other the Amendment which enables us to control things better through the navigation companies.

    53
    The real reason why the Amendment now before us should not be accepted is because the present Bill, in character and scope, is, from first to last, purely a temporary Measure. It was proposed to the House on those grounds, it has been dealt with both in Committee and in the House on those grounds, and nothing could be more absolutely improper than to give the least countenance to any proposal to put it on the Statute Book as a permanent law. What conditions the whole matter, and has made the House willing to grant these strong powers, is that it is a matter of notoriety to all of us that the drought is so serious as to require them; but if we were to put this forward as a permanent Measure it would simply need the length of the Minister's foot to bring these powers into force at any time, whether a drought were serious or not, and that is a proceeding to which the House would not consent. Before this could be accepted as a permanent Measure it would require to be drafted and framed in the appropriate manner, and various safeguards which are appropropriate to a permanent part of the machinery of the law would be needed, and it is impossible, when dealing with an emergency, to undertake such a prolonged business. Under these circumstances I think the House would be most reluctant to give any support to this Amendment.
    4.21 p.m.
    Earl WINTERTON: I rather regret the modern habit of Ministers rising immediately after an Amendment has been moved, because it does not give an opportunity to their supporters to put points to them. I say this in no spirit of discourtesy, but as an old Member of the House I recall that it was usual in past days for Ministers to rise at the end of a Debate, after ascertaining, by looking round the House, if anyone wished to put any points. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to allow the Parliamentary Secretary to answer me on one question. I am in full agreement with the Minister in what he says about the temporary nature of this Bill. Because of its temporary nature I have not spoken on it at any previous stage, although I am interested in the whole question of water supply and have studied it for many years. I think that, sooner or later, a permanent Bill to deal with the question of water supply in the
    54
    South of England will be absolutely essential. Things are getting into a chaotic state. I am sure that hon. Members representing agricultural constituencies will sympathise with me when I say that in some parts of the South of England, certainly in my constituency, farmers are finding that the water available in their wells and ponds is becoming less every year in consequence of water being taken for consumption by urban communities 20 or 30 miles away. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend, either in answer to this Amendment or on Third Beading of the Bill, will give the House an assurance that before the life time of this Parliament comes to an end we shall have a permanent Bill to deal with this most important question of water supply, especially in regard to the respective needs of urban and rural areas.
    4.23 p.m.
    Mr. LEVY: It is rather difficult for me to understand the mentality of hon. Members opposite. I had the honour to be a member of the Committee before which this Bill was discussed, and it was there described as being a weak Measure and a camouflage Measure. After having described it in such terms hon. Members opposite now come forward to say, "Let us make it permanent." In Committee I strongly opposed the proposal to make this Bill permanent, because it is only a temporary Measure to deal with an emergency. I agree with my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winter-ton) that it is essential before long to bring forward a comprehensive and permanent Measure to deal with water supplies both from the point of view of distribution and conservation. I also hope that such a Bill will deal with our undeveloped underground resources. An hon. Member opposite said there is a tremendous quantity of water in the coal mines. I think I am right in saying that, in spite of the drought, much the same volume of water as ever is being pumped to waste out of the mines to-day. Waste is going on there, and that water ought to be made available for the population. I think I am also right in saying that there is ample water in the country today, and that there would be no shortage, in spite of the lack of rainfall, if our underground resources were developed and utilised. I agree that the Minister ought not to accept this Amendment, but I join with the Noble Lord in the hope

    55
    that before long we shall have a comprehensive Measure before us.
    4.26 p.m.
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winter-ton) has asked a specific question whether, if this Amendment were rejected and this Bill were passed, another and a permanent Bill would later be brought forward, particularly with reference to conditions in the South of England. The Noble Lord will recollect that quite recently we have passed a Bill which puts a substantial sum of money at the disposal of parishes in rural districts, and it is hoped that, as a result, something like £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 of capital works will be stimulated——
    Earl WINTERTON: I am sorry to interrupt, but my question referred to much greater matters than that. I was not dealing with the question of money being spent, but asking whether there is to be
    a Bill to deal comprehensively with the whole question of water supplies throughout England. In the opinion of a great many of us in all parts of the House, the present state of the law is very unsatisfactory, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able at least to give us an undertaking that he will give favourable consideration to this matter.
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I am sorry that I misunderstood the Noble Lord. As the Noble Lord knows, we are working on the advice of Advisory Committees set up in various parts of the country, and the time must come when the effort of those Committees must be co-ordinated and some action taken, but further than that the Noble Lord will not expect me to go.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided : Ayes, 251; Noes, 26.

    Division No. 225.]

    AYES.

    [4.29 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Adam", Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hales, Harold K.

    Alnsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

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

    Allan, Sir J. Sandeman (Llvarp'l, W.)

    Colman. N. C. D.

    Hamilton, Sir George (llford)

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Conant, R. J. E.

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

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Hammersley, Samuel S.

    Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

    Copeland, Ida

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Apsley, Lord

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

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

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

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

    Balnlel, Lord

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

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Crate, R. H.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

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

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cnolmsford)

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

    Dawson, Sir Phllip

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

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Denman, Hon. R D.

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

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Bernays, Robert

    Dickie, John P.

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Dower, Captain A. V. G.

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Drewe, Cedric

    Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)

    Boulton, W. W.

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart

    Duggan, Hubert John

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

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

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

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Braithwaite. J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Eimley, Viscount

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Brace, Captain Sir William

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Knight, Holford

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

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Buchan, John

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

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Lambert. Rt. Hon. George

    Burnett, John George

    Fox, Sir Gilford

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

    Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Levy, Thomas

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

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

    Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

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

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

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

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Blrm., W.)

    Goldie, Noel B.

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw' th)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)

    Goodman, Colonel Albert w.

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Gower, sir Robert

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Granville, Edgar

    Lovat Fraser, James Alexander

    Christie, James Archibald

    Grattan-Doyle. Sir Nicholas

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Clarke, Frank

    Grimston, R. V.

    Mabane, William

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Gulnness, Thomas L. E. B.

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    McKeag, William

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exetar)

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

    McKle, John Hamilton

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Held, William Allan (Derby)

    Stones, James

    Macmillan. Maurice Harold

    Remer, John R.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur u.

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton

    Maitland, Adam

    Rickards, George William

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

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

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Sugdan, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Meller, Sir Richard James

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Mille, Sir Frederick (Leyton. E.)

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)

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

    Rothschild, James A. de

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

    Motion, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Thorp, Linton Theodora

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

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

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

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Morrison, William Shephard

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Mulrhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Munro, Patrick

    Samuel, Rt Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Wardlaw-Mllne, Sir John S.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Nicholson. Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

    North, Edward T.

    Savory, Samuel Sarvington

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Nunn, William

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    White, Henry Graham

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

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwall)

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Peat, Charles U.

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)

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

    Penny, Sir George

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

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

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Peto, Sir Basil E- (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

    Wise, Alfred R.

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

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

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

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

    Smithers, Waldron

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

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

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Soper, Richard

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

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

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Sir Victor Warrender and Lieut.-

    Rankin, Robert

    Spent, William Patrick

    Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Edwards, Charles

    Maxton, James

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    George, Major 8. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Batey, Joseph

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

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

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    West, F. R.

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Wilmot, John

    Daggar, George

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Davies. David L. (Pontypridd)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lunn, William

    Mr. Groves and Mr. G. Macdonald.

    Dobbie, William

    McEntee, Valentine L.

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

    SCHEDULE.—(Procedure for making Orders.)
    4.40 p.m.
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I beg to move, in page 13, line 26, at the end, to insert :
    "and, where the applicants are a local authority empowered by a local Act or an order Confirmed by Parliament to supply water, or a company, board, or persons so empowered, and the application is for an order authorising the taking of water from a source, or for the suspension or modification of a restriction or obligation as respects the taking of water from a source or the discharge of compensation water, the applicants shall, in addition, cause a notice of the application to be published in the 'London Gazette'."
    The object of this Amendment is to remedy what was felt during the Committee stage to be a weakness of the Bill, namely, that, although provision was made in the Schedule of the Bill for notifying other water undertakers when a
    58
    water undertaker applies to the Minister for an Order and for publishing a notice of the application in the newspaper circulating within the area of supply of the applicant, it might well happen that certain big interests, such as some of the large navigation authorities or catchment boards, might neither receive direct notice in writing nor read the local newspaper, covering the area concerned. It was pointed out that it would be advisable to put in a provision whereby, in certain circumstances, publication in the "London Gazette" should be essential. There are two conditions in this Amendment. The first says—paraphrasing it—that all big undertakers, that is to say undertakers that have powers from an Act of Parliament, should publish in the "London Gazette" when applying for Orders; secondly, that they should do so only in respect of certain applications—

    59
    "the taking of water from a source, or for the suspension or modification of a restriction or obligation as respects the taking of water from a source or the discharge of compensation water."
    The three kinds of application in respect of which the amendment is proposed are those that might most likely escape their notice, and therefore it was considered necessary to put this in, and not to put in those other categories of restriction of user upon a limited class of consumers, who of course get notice in the local Press in addition to the notice they receive direct in writing from the water undertakers.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made : In page 15, line 7, leave out "this," and insert "the last foregoing."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]
    4.42 p.m.
    Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    The House will be interested to receive information of the position to date of the water supplies of the country in relation to the recent rainfall. It might be supposed that there had been a substantial change in the situation since the Measure was introduced, but I am sorry to say that, although there has been a welcome change, it has not been so substantial as to make the Measure unnecessary. The rainfall in the course of the last few weeks has been good, but it has not been enough to remove the necessity for such Measures as are contemplated in the Bill. The House will remember that I claimed on Second Reading that what fixed the time for the introduction of the Bill was that we had arrived at the point at which if we had no more than normal rains they would not relieve us from the emergency measures. We have since then had rains, but certainly no more than normal rains, and we should have to have abnormal rains in order to relieve us from the necessity for the emergency measures.
    I have asked for returns from a number of the worst places in order that I might inform the House how matters stand there at the present time. I have received returns from nine of the places where the difficulties were greatest, and in only one place has there been such a large increase as to put a new face upon the situation. In another there has been
    60
    a substantial improvement; in six places there has been only a slight improvement or a mere maintenance of the original position when the Bill was introduced, and in one place the situation, in spite of the rain, has become worse. That shows how far-reaching the problem is. Hon. Members will have observed some very well-informed and interesting reports from various areas published in the "Times" this morning, from which it appears that there is the assurance of relief from only one area, Northumberland and Durham. The position in other parts of the country is less satisfactory. We get such reports as, from Manchester, "little material change; position still regarded with some anxiety;" from Liverpool, "Rains, while very welcome, have done little or nothing to lighten the anxiety;" and so on, from other places. The general situation is that, as I have said, although there is a welcome return to normal rains, the arrears in the water reserves are not yet made good sufficiently to give us any assurance that we shall be able to do without the emergency measures contained in this Bill.
    It is interesting to observe what kind of opposition it has received. It has received only, what I might call very halfhearted opposition from the official Opposition. They appear to me to have been in the difficulty that they have not been able to make up their minds between two quite incompatible arguments—the one, that the Bill was such a useless Measure that it ought to be rejected altogether, and the other, that it was such a useful Measure that it ought to be made permanent. Either of those lines of argument would have been intelligible, but what was completely unintelligible was that the conclusion at which they arrived was that it was such a useless Measure that it ought to be made permanent That line of criticism is one which I find it very difficult to meet. I prefer their conclusion to their premiss. Their conclusion is that it is a useful Measure. It is a useful Measure, and it has been very much improved by the consideration which it has received, and for which I should like to express my gratitude, from those with the most knowledge of the working of the water undertakings of the country.

    61
    I have awaited with impatience the fulfilment of the promises of practical suggestions for improvements in the Measure which were contained in the vote of censure which was moved against the Government on the Second Reading of the Bill. I hung upon the words of the Opposition in Committee for any practical suggestion for the strengthening of the Measure, but nothing at all of that kind was forthcoming. All that we have received is vague generalisation as to national schemes. Every possible measure for improving the permanent water supply of the country on the largest possible scale will deserve close attention, and will receive close attention, in order that such improvement may be secured, but all that is absolutely without bearing upon the emergency measures for dealing with the present crisis, and I think that the practical conclusion of all those who are best qualified to form a judgment, both in this House and outside, is that the measures included in this Bill represent what can be done, all that can be done, and nothing more than can be done, to relieve the country from the unfortunate effects of the exceptional shortage of water. We must still look to the country as a whole for its co-operation in protecting itself against the evil consequences of the drought.
    That question has two aspects. In the first place, we look to the water undertakers of the country to take time by the forelock—to consider their position well in advance, to consider well in advance what alleviating measures can be taken with the assistance of the Bill, and to put those measures into force well in advance, with the assistance of the Ministry, if necessary, by Orders under the Bill, with a view to protecting the public against the consequences of the drought. The second aspect is with regard to the general public, and I think it should be said on this occasion that nothing has occurred to weaken the gravity of the appeal which was made to the general public on the Second Reading of the Bill to assist in their own protection against the consequences of the drought, by exercising care and moderation in their use of water. All that can be done will be done under the powers of the Bill to make the water supply of the country go as far as it can be made to go, but as much can be done by the
    62
    voluntary assistance of the public, in regard to moderation of use and the prevention of waste, as can be done by the exercise of legal powers. We sincerely hope that some change in the weather situation may occur which will make it unnecessary to exercise the stronger powers of the Bill. A plentiful rainfall may yet avoid that necessity, but, if no plentiful and abnormal rainfall comes, it may be necessary to exercise those powers in sufficient time and with sufficient foresight to make sure that there shall be no hardship owing to lack of prevision. I think we can congratulate ourselves, as the Measure now leaves us, that the House of Commons, both here and in Committee, has vindicated its own efficiency and power to deal in a prompt and businesslike manner with a national emergency.
    4.53 p.m.
    Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: Before I follow the details of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I ought to remind the House about a serious step which has been taken this afternoon, and of what is now in Clause 11 of the Bill. It is a little unfortunate that all our Scottish colleagues are not here, but this afternoon we have passed a Clause which will go from here to another place, which probably will not be amended in another place, which will become the law of the land, and of which we have not had an intelligible explanation from Members of the Government. When I think of the implications of Clause 11 and its application to Scotland, I tremble to think of what may be the fate of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary, who were both absent, and had to rely upon a much more feeble reed than themselves, namely, the Minister of Health, to explain what the Clause was all about. We are passing from the Bill without any adequate explanation of its application to the Northern part of Great Britain, and I feel sure that Scottish Members in all quarters of the House will deplore the fact that they have not had the kind of explanation that they ought to have had so far as the Bill affects them.
    The right hon. Gentleman has complained that Providence has not yet been kind enough to him—that the recent rainfall is only about the average rainfall for this time of the year. During the past

    63
    12 months or so, we have had only two-thirds of the average annual rainfall of the last generation, and it was not to be expected, unless the whole of this country were washed below the waters of the North Sea, that sufficient rain could possibly have fallen since the time when the right hon. Gentleman brought forward a Bill to deal with the problem which now confronts us. I am glad to think that he is now sharing my view as to the gravity of the situation. Just before Christmas, in answer to a question put by the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy), the right hon. Gentleman said that he was keeping a close watch on the position, and that, though there was need for economy in the use of water because of the very exceptional shortage of rain, there was no ground for general alarm; and, much later than that, the Parliamentary Secretary, speaking in the House, tried to calm all the fears of hon. Members in the Chamber by saying that the situation really was not very bad at all. Since this Bill was introduced it has been clear from the speeches of the Minister that the Government are in a panic because the situation is a serious situation, and now, after the time that has elapsed since the Second Reading of the Bill—an unnecessarily long time, perhaps—the right hon. Gentleman is still warning us to-day about the seriousness of the situation.
    He now says that our opposition has been half-hearted. Our opposition has not been half-hearted at all. I made it perfectly clear in my speech on the Second Reading, and other speeches in the House and in Committee made it clear, that we had no objection to the proposals of the Bill. Indeed, we have said that we think these proposals are essential, and that these powers ought to be given to the Minister, not temporarily, but permanently. Our objection to the Bill was not that it did not do something, but was that it was the result of a false diagnosis of the situation. This is a much larger problem than the right hon. Gentleman had visualised. He tries now, on the Third Reading, to put us on the horns of a dilemma, and to make us look absurd. He says that we think the Bill is useless, but do not like to reject it; he says that we think the Bill is useful, and therefore we want to render it permanent; and then, by
    64
    some strange process of logic, he arrives at the position that our real view is that the Bill is useless, but that it should be made permanent. It has been suggested to me—it is not a thought of my own—that that perhaps is the best justification for the National Government—that it is useless, but wishes to make itself permanent. We have never said that the Government is useless; far from it; we have said that this Bill, within its limited range of vision, is useful, and, in so far as it confers powers which past experience has shown to be necessary to the Minister and to water undertakers those powers ought to be made permanent.
    The position of the Minister is that he is prepared to go on living from crisis to crisis. Apparently he has not yet appreciated that the nation is faced with a serious water problem, of which this drought is but the most recent example. The problem has been emphasised from these benches more than once. Because of the building of new houses, and the enlarging and expanding consumption of water by people, the problem will become more and more severe every time there is a drought, and it seems to me to be illogical that the Minister should have taken powers in Clause 3 of the Bill to authorise the taking of water for an indefinite period and the purchase of land, and yet, while taking those more or less permanent powers in one Clause, should have confined the operation of the Bill to a very limited period.
    The Bill is really a very shabby attempt, and a second attempt, to deal with the water problem during the present Session. I said on the Second Reading of the second Bill that this was the second bite at the cherry, and that the right hon. Gentleman had still not eaten the whole of the cherry, because he had left the larger part of the problem still unsettled. He admits now that the crisis will continue during the coming year unless there are abnormal rains. I say, with some knowledge of the problem, that, if you have abnormal rains, the crisis will still be with you in certain areas. Moreover, the crisis has been with us for almost a year. The Bill is too late to prevent the worst results which have come from the drought of the last 12 months, however soon it gets on the Statute Book. If that be so, and if we cannot rely on the kindliness of Providence

    65
    to supply us regularly with water, surely the Bill ought to have been of a more permanent nature.
    The right hon. Gentleman is still hoping for rain. His hopes so far have not been realised, but, while he is hoping for rain, the situation is not getting better, and he (must know that he is left, when the Bill is on the Statute Book, with what is really the major problem to-day, the problem that I have put to the House on more occasions than one. The Bill, as we have it now, with all the Amendments, which the right hon. Gentleman has so willingly accepted from his side of the House, does nothing whatever to deal with the root problem of water supply, which is the fact that the present areas of collection and supply are too small. The right hon. Gentleman ignores that. He has taken important powers—I am glad that he has them, and I should like him to keep them—but still he has not touched—Hon. Members may bring my words up against me if I am wrong—what in the next five years is going to be a grave national problem, the problem of the co-ordination of our national water resources under larger authorities than we possess to-day, authorities which shall have executive power with a sufficiently large administrative skilled staff to cope with the problem, so that they can come to the help of the poorer rural areas without financial resources or skilled assistance. There is no solution of the problem, especially in the rural areas, apart from executive regional authorities. The right hon. Gentleman, with his majority, and with the time that he has had at his disposal, has missed a magnificent opportunity to organise our water supplies on a national basis. If we criticise the Bill, it is not because of the actual provisions that it contains. We criticise it because of the big opportunity that he has missed to prevent ever again the effects of the kind of drought from which rural and many urban areas have suffered in the last 12 months.
    5.4 p.m.
    Mr. CHORLTON: I am glad to have an opportunity of joining in, though it is a little difficult to follow the right hon. Gentleman, because he began to talk about a subect which is of great importance, and then ceased just as we were waiting to hear in detail what his proposals were. I congratulate the Minister
    66
    on the successful way in which this important Bill has been carried through with so little real obstruction, by argument at any rate. It must be due to the way in which he has met all the points that have been raised so successfully and so quietly before and during Committee and Report. I admire that, because in the end he has succeeded in getting an improved Bill in a remarkably short space of time. It will meet the conditions of emergency very well indeed.
    Something was said on the last Amendment but one on the wider aspect of the question, and I am rather disappointed that the Minister did not give in little more detail what is actually going to happen when these powers are in his hands. I hope we may hear some better description of what it is proposed to carry out. After all, what is the use of emergency powers unless you are going to find more water, at any rate on the average? Where is this water to come from? What is the proposal? If it is that there is not any more in toto but that it is going to be better averaged, what are the connections that are going to be made between certain undertakings in order to bring that about? It underground supplies are going to be tapped, we should be very interested to have some indication of the class of development. The whole subject raised a little earlier by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) is very important. It is to be regretted that it was raised then and not now, because we might possibly have had a reply in some greater detail.
    We should like to know if, when the Minister possesses these powers, he will carry out a more extended and properly co-ordinated policy with regard to water supplies generally. He ought to be able to do that within the time. It is a matter which has been recommended so often and so strongly by various committees, and these powers will enable him to do it thoroughly and in detail whereas, if the Bill were permanent, they would not. This is the great objection to making it permament. If we could hear a little more as to what it is proposed to do, not only would it be a satisfaction here but the country at large would feel that the problem was Being tackled in the sense that an emergency measure was dealing with the present

    67
    and that the future was being dealt with by planning. In regard to the working side—the applied side—of the proposal, it is not unfair to ask how these emergency powers are to be exercised. I am not speaking now of the works to be done, but by whom they are to be carried out by. The Minister says that the undertakers would now have a chance to undertake them. Are we, then, to await action? Are we to await a combination of water undertakers? Or when, if ever, is the Minister going to step in and force them to act? That is one of the difficult things that we have never heard about. Are any means provided for accelerating the pace? The power is there. Are you going to exercise it, and who is going to be responsible, and, if the water supplies are not increased by the late summer or autumn, who is going to be blamed?
    The other point is in connection with rural areas. The Bill deals with urban areas very largely, and it would be of interest if we could hear something of the way in which the difficulty is to be met in rural areas. All that has been said so far is that £1,000,000 will produce by its help so many schemes that many times that amount will be spent in toto. Are these all to be run separately or will they be connected up one with the other, as the Bill would seem to indicate? It is on the broad aspect of the whole question that one would like to hear a little more. People generally would feel that the subject was receiving the attention that it deserves. The Minister says he is well advised. I do not doubt that he is. He certainly has an advisory committee of skilled engineers, and he could not do better, but is the advisory committee based sufficiently broadly? Does it contain on it the interests that are concerned in water supply and water use? That is one very important side of the question. It seems that it may possibly be on too narrow a basis. The right hon. Gentleman ought to draw in all those who are really concerned, and he would then have an advisory council which would adequately meet the situation.
    5.11 p.m.
    Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: The right hon. Gentleman opposite resented the suggestion that he and his party were on the horns of a dilemma, but he made very little attempt to remove himself and his
    68
    party from that dilemma. He talked about some hypothetical future comprehensive Bill dealing with the whole water supplies of the country. That Bill will probably eventuate, but this is essentially a temporary Measure, to which the great majority of his remarks did not in the least apply. My object in rising is to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the speedy and happy passage of the Bill. That success is mainly due to the considerate way in which he has met the considerations placed before him by navigation and rural authorities. He is about to succeed in obtaining an instrument which I believe will be of great use and which I am sure he will use with wisdom and effect.
    5.13 p.m.
    Mr. McKIE: Perhaps, in view of the prominence that was given to Scotland by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), a Member from Scotland may be allowed a few words. I am sure the overwhelming majority of Members have received the Bill on the Third Reading with the same readiness that they accorded to the Second Reading three weeks ago. The right hon. Gentleman made an amplification of his remarks upon the Second Reading, but I agree with the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) that it is very difficult indeed to make out just exactly what he does want. As the Minister said, he and his friends have come to the conclusion that it is so useless that it is necessary to make it permanent. It has been stressed over and over again that it is not intended to initiate anything in the nature of permanent legislation. If it were I am sure there are many who would not be content to give the Bill that hearty God speed which it is sure to receive.
    The right hon. Gentleman thanked hon. Members for the speediness with which the House had acted on this occasion. I am certain that he realises, as we all realise, that this is the open forum of discussion. While we are perfectly glad to assent to what is contained in this Bill, we realise that this is an appropriate moment for voicing what we feel to be grievances against local authorities, some in rural areas, but more particularly—and this is the point—in the urban areas, for having neglected in the past to make due

    69
    provision not only with regard to shortages which might arise from the abnormal conditions which this Bill seeks to remedy owing to the drought of last summer and all through this winter, but also with regard to the increasing consumption of water which is taking place in all parts of great Britain.
    I said on Second Reading that in Scotland we had had for many years a higher consumption of water per head than what had been the case in England and Wales, and now England and Wales is following Scotland's lead. When I alluded to this fact, I was interrupted by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers), whom I am glad to see in his place. He suggested that the reason why Scotland had this much larger consumption of water per head than England was due to certain propensities which are summed up in the historical ballad known as "'Phairson swore a feud." While there may be something in what my hon. Friend says about certain propensities which are not by any means confined to Scotland, I do not think that he can seriously mean that that is the reason why the Scottish nation have consumed more water for all these years than has been the case in England and Wales.
    But putting Scotland quite out of it, the whole Kingdom to-day is daily consuming more water. We are told during the present emergency to keep our use of water down to the minimum, and I am certain that all right-minded citizens will do so. Still as time goes on we cannot get away from the fact, although we may look for a continually decreasing population for the next decade or so, that the use of water is continually on the increase, and that is why I hope that, although this Bill is of an emergency kind, local authorities, especially in the urban areas, will take note of what has been said by many hon. Members in all parts of the House at all stages of this Bill with regard to their taking time by the forelock. They cannot really do that now, but they can make repentance at the eleventh hour by making due provision which, in many cases, they ought to have done many years ago. City fathers in certain cases—and I am thinking of one particular case—40 or 50 years ago made aqueducts of a greater size than was necessary for the amount of water which they were using at that time. It was
    70
    simply because they had in view another and a greater scheme which would be brought into operation when the right moment arrived. For various reasons, in many cases, that has not been done, and citizens all over the country are faced with this menace not only on account of the drought conditions which are still prevailing, but on account of those responsible for directing local affairs not having acted in the way that they should.
    The hon. Member who spoke on the Report stage—he was supported by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood)—and advocated that the Measure should be made permanent, missed the point. The making of the Measure permanent would not bring about the conditions which he desires. He and his colleagues must initiate some far larger scheme. While I for one always turn down any proposals put forward, grandiose scheme, without taking the financial considerations into reckoning, for launching out in all directions, in many cases into unproductive channels, I would pay very special attention to any scheme that they put forward with regard to making due and adequate provision for supplies of water. I think that that would be a way in which we might very judiciously expend public money, and we should also get, what we all wish to see, at all events, a slight draining off of the numbers of unemployed. If there is to be a Division, I shall most certainly whole-heartedly go into the Lobby with the Government. I would merely say that I hope that, while we cannot all agree on all the ingredients in this Bill, we do realise the necessity which has arisen for undertaking this legislation, and I earnestly hope that the local authorities will profit by what has been said in the course of these Debates.
    5.22 p.m.
    Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: I only want to make one remark in reservation of my most cordial support of this Bill and congratulations to the Minister on the pace with which it has been carried through. But it is necessary to state that I feel, as a good many other hon. Members do, the very grave danger of emergency measures which are taken out of the hands of Parliament and made subject simply to Ministerial Order. Upstairs I suggested that it might be advisable, and that possibly it was necessary,

    71
    that such Orders should be laid on the Table of the House so as to give Parliament an opportunity of reviewing them or approving them. I believe that to be the right principle to adopt. The reply I received was that it would delay matters. I do not think that it would delay matters at all, because this is the practice followed in regard to the Tariff Orders. Because this is creating such a precedent, I have some qualms in giving to the Minister the duty and responsibility of making these Orders without Parliament having an opportunity of reviewing them. I hope that the matter may be taken into consideration in another place because I feel uneasy in regard to it, but in every other respect I congratulate the Government on what seems to be very useful and prompt action.
    5.24 p.m.
    Mr. MITCHESON: I should like to offer my congratulations to the Government upon introducing this Bill, which must meet with the sympathy of every Member of the House in whatever party. We are all interested in, and sympathise with, the desire to improve the position of young peoplee in work. I am glad to congratulate the Government, because last year I had to oppose a Labour party Bill dealing with adults in shops.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member cannot be aware of what is going on. This is not at all applicable to the Third Reading of a Water Bill.
    Mr. MITCHESON: I beg your pardon.

SHOPS BILL [Lords].
Order for Second Reading read.
5.26 p.m.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I have the privilege of moving the Second Reading of the Shops Bill which comes from another place, and I feel sure that, in so far as its general principles are concerned, it will command the general support of all parties in this
72
House. I think it is true to say that for some time there has been a growing feeling throughout the country that there is a need for the further protection of young people. What is described as the new charter for children and young persons, as the House is aware, has been brought into operation and embodied in the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933. But, so far as young persons are concerned, much remains to be done to prevent employment putting an undue strain upon their health, and it is the purpose of the present Bill to tackle this problem. The objects of the Bill are two-fold. In the first place, it contains provisions for regulating the hours of young persons, that is, of young persons between 14 and 18 years of age employed in the distributive trades. The scope is wide, as the provisions apply, generally speaking, to all young persons employed indoors, in retail and wholesale shops and warehouses, and also to those employed out of doors about the business of these establishments, such as van boys, errand boys, etc. Secondly, the Bill provides for improvement, in various directions, of conditions affecting the health and comfort of all shopworkers, that is to say, all persons, of whatever age, employed in retail and wholesale shops and warehouses.
The House, I am sure, is also aware that there was a Select Committee on Shop Assistants which reported in 1931, and it is upon the unanimous recommendations of that committee that this Bill is based. The House will recollect that the committee was not in agreement on questions of the limitations of hours of shop assistants as a whole, but they unanimously recommended the limitation of hours for young persons in shops to 48 hours a week exclusive of meals. The committee took a wide range of evidence in coming to their conclusions, and they were assisted by inquiries carried out by the Home Office and by the Ministry of Labour. The committee found that, while in certain cases a 48-hour week was being worked by shop assistants, in a great number of cases, I am afraid, it was clear, that the majority of the assistants were working longer hours. It appeared that the figures lay somewhere between 54 and 58 hours a week, while there were some who were really working the same number of hours as adults,

73
and in some cases, I am afraid, they were working hours very much in excess of those which I have mentioned.
I do not think that I need trouble the House with details of these cases, which were fully set out in pages 40 and 41 of the Select Committee's Report. It is, I think, quite clear that grossly excessive hours were being worked by young persons, both up to the present legal limit of 74 hours, inclusive of meal-times, and, in some instances, even beyond that period. One can see from the report that that state of affairs applied more particularly to the class of boys employed as van boys and messengers. It is quite true that the young persons may not be actually at work for the whole time, but, as the Committee pointed out, they were in the intervening hours at the beck and call of the employer, and were not free to obtain reasonable recreation or to try to improve theft knowledge by attending educational classes. I think it is Very desirable that a problem of that kind should be dealt with.
Before proceeding to describe the proposals in the Bill, it may be well to remind the House briefly of the existing legislative provisions which affect the hours of young persons employed in shops. There are only two provisions which directly limit the number of hours to be worked. The first is contained in Section 2 of the Shops Act, 1912, and provides that no person under the age of 18 years may be employed in or about a retail or wholesale shop or warehouse for a longer period than 74 hours a week, inclusive of meal-times. This provision dates from 1886 and is, of course, quite out of keeping with modern ideas of what is correct. The second is the limitation to 65 hours a week, exclusive of mealtimes, applicable to adults as well as young persons under the Shops Act, 1913. This is an adoptive Act applicable to catering establishments, and the limit imposed by the Act applies, therefore, only in cases where the occupier of the establishment has elected to come under the provisions of the Act.
There are certain other provisions which affect the hours of retail shop workers, namely, those relating to general evening closing hours of shops, under the Shops Act, 1928, local evening closing orders under Section 5 of the Shops Act, 1912, and half-holiday closing orders under Section 4 of the Act of 1912, also the provision
74
in Section 1 of the latter Act, under which the shop assistant must be given a half-holiday in every week. These provisions have proved to be of the greatest benefit to the employé, but it is well to point out that, so far as the closing hour is concerned, employés do not necessarily cease to work when the shop actually closes down. There is another provision to which it is necessary that I should refer, Section 19 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, which empowers local authorities to make by-laws regulating the employment of persons under 18 engaged in certain occupations. It has been explained that we do not propose to utilise that power, and I think there has been general support for that decision. Our view is that the machinery for the regulation of hours by means of by-laws under Section 19 would not be a satisfactory method of dealing with this very important problem.
This brings me to the general question of the employment of young persons in what is generally described as "unregulated" occupations, a certain proportion of which come within the scope of Section 19 of the Children and Young Persons Act, to which I have just referred. This field is understood to include young persons other than those employed in agriculture or domestic service, whose hours are not subject to any, or to any sufficient, legislative regulation. The Government have promised that they will take steps to deal with these young persons when the industrial situation permits, but I think it will be admitted that the present Bill represents a very considerable step along the road. So far as we can estimate, the number of young persons in these unregulated employments amounts to 700,000 and the Bill will cover at least 400,000. Therefore, the Bill deals with by far the largest part of this problem.
The fact that the provisions of the present Bill are confined to young persons employed in the distributive trades must not be taken to imply that the Government will not at some future time consider the cases of all others in unregulated employment, but it is right that I should warn the House that the extension of legislative control to these other spheres is not going to be a purely automatic proceeding. There are considerable difficulties. It must be remembered that in the case of the distributive trades

75
we are, in the first place, working on the basis of exhaustive inquiries into these subjects, and we are dealing with workers already subject to existing Acts, whereas neither of these conditions obtains in the case of unregulated occupations generally. Nevertheless, the Government do not intend to lose sight of the wider problem.
Before deciding on the proposals to be included in the Bill the Government took steps to consult with all the interested parties, and those consultations went on over a considerable period. Those consulted included the employers, the employés, the representatives of the distributive trades, the co-operative societies and other bodies. We have done what we could in a reasonable spirit to try to meet a great many of the objections and difficulties brought to our notice. As anyone who has had any experience of this problem realises, the greatest controversy arose over the fixing of the number of hours. Clause 1 (1) fixes the normal maximum working hours at 48 in any week, exclusive of meal intervals. I am, however, well aware that it is the opinion of some of the retail traders' organisations that that limit is too low. They argue that the fixing of the limit is below the normal hours for which the shop must be open to meet the demands of the public and will bear very hardly on the trade, and that it is going to interfere very much with the practical conduct of their business. They suggest, further, that work in shops is not, comparatively speaking, of an arduous character, and that while they fully recognise the inadequacy of the existing antiquated limit, nothing so drastic as a 48-hour week is called for.
On the other hand, our proposal accords with the recommendation of the Select Committee, who found that a 48-hour week was already the practice in certain classes of shops, and the Government have come to the conclusion that it would not be defensible to provide, as a permanent arrangement, for a working week in excess of 48 hours for young persons. At the same time, we recognise the force of the representations made as to the need of elasticity in the application of a provision which represents a very big advance on previous restrictions, and which, if applied rigidly and at once, would lead to a great deal of inconvenience
76
and dislocation of the ordinary conduct of business. In the case of the small shopkeeper with a very limited staff, it would be particularly difficult. The necessary elasticity is achieved in the Bill in three ways, first, by providing for a limited amount of overtime, secondly, by providing that in the case of certain special trades the hours may be averaged over a period of two or three weeks, and, thirdly, by providing for the general operation during a transitional period of a rather higher normal weekly maximum of hours.
I should like to deal first with the last provision, which is contained in Clause 2. That Clause provides that until the end of 1936 the normal weekly maximum hours shall be 52 instead of 48, with corresponding reduction in the amount of overtime. I would ask the House to note that provision particularly. It is a provision which has been criticised in some quarters, but I do not think it can be said that it is unreasonable. The distributive trades are, under the employment provisions of the Bill, having considerable restrictions imposed upon them and those restrictions will demand certain adjustments, and it is reasonable that they should be given time in order to deal with them. It would be unfortunate if, as might well happen, the result of a sudden application of the full measure of new restriction should be to affect prejudicially the numbers of young people employed. The provision which we have made is supported by the Select Committee who, in paragraph 225 of their report, say :
"It is obvious that no sudden and immediate application of the new regulations would be demanded, and that a period would be allowed for adjustment."
That is really the reason why the Government have taken that course. We had to make our decision, and we thought that that was a reasonable period.
Now I turn to the question of overtime, which is dealt with in Clause 1 (2). That Sub-section provides that on occasions of seasonal or exceptional pressure young persons may be employed overtime, that is, in excess of a 48-hour week, subject to the limitation that overtime must not be worked in a shop for more than six weeks in any year, or by any individual young person for more than 50 hours in any year or for more than 12 hours in any week. The House is well

77
aware that there is pressure on certain classes of shops at certain seasons of the year, such as Christmas and holiday seasons, and the purpose of this provision is to enable the shopkeeper to have the assistance, within reason, of the younger members of his staff during these special periods. A 60-hour week will be possible in the case of any one young person only on four occasions in the year, as it will involve on each occasion the use of nearly one-quarter of the total of overtime allowed for the whole year. It will be seen from Clause 2 that during the transitional period, when the system of 52 hours, not the 48 hours, is in operation, the annual allowance of overtime is reduced to 24 hours and the weekly allowance to eight. There are, therefore, fairly strict provisions dealing with that problem.
Among other difficulties we have to face the special arrangements which we propose to make dealing with special branches of trade, such as catering and garages. These will be found, in the case of the catering trades, in Clause 5, and the classes of establishments which may be conveniently grouped under the title of "garages," in Clause 6. The main feature of these special provisions is that they permit the averaging of the 48-hour week over a period of two weeks in the case of catering establishments and three weeks in the case of garages. I want to emphasise, in relation to these provisions, that they do not involve any increase in the total number of hours which may be worked either generally or in any particular week. The general purpose of the provisions is to meet what, I think, the House will regard as a reasonable demand for greater elasticity in the case of two classes of business which are called upon to meet the demands of the public at all sorts of hours.
The method of application, however, is not quite the same in each case. In the case of the catering establishments we had representations made to us by the association that they were continually faced with heavy pressure during particular weeks, such as Easter and Whitsuntide, and on occasions of local festivities, and that these periods of high pressure were followed by periods of comparatively very little pressure at all. Accordingly, it is provided in Clause 5 (1), that in such establishments the normal 48-hour week—52 during the transitional
78
period—may on 12 occasions in the year be averaged over periods of a fortnight, provided that the hours of employment in any one week do not exceed 60, and provided also that no overtime may be worked while the arrangement is in force. The House will appreciate that under this arrangement, if so long a period as 60 hours were worked in one of the weeks, employment in the second week could not exceed 36 hours. In the case of garages, which as is well known are expected by the motoring public to provide them with services often at almost any hour, Clause 6 provides that the 48-hour week—52 during the transitional period—may be averaged over a period of three weeks, provided that the hours of employment in any one week do not exceed 54, or 58 during the transitional period, with or without overtime.
I now turn to night employment. The provisions of the Bill relating to the employment of young persons in Clause 3 are designed to secure a proper night's rest to all young persons, and are based on certain existing provisions in other Acts applicable to young persons in industry. Certain relaxations of the provisions are contained in the proviso to the Clause and elsewhere; none of which, however, interferes with the staple requirement of at least 11 hours' consecutive rest. I should mention particularly the provision in Sub-section (4) of Clause 5, where it is proposed that it shall be permissible to employ male young persons of 16 to 18 in connection with the service of meals up to one a.m. That provision is inserted to meet strong representations which were made to us by the hotel and restaurant interests, who informed us that if we are to encourage the employment of British waiters and cooks—a large part of this work has been in the hands of foreign waiters and cooks—it is necessary to have some relaxation in this direction.
Under Clause 4 the provisions of the Bill relating to the maximum hours of employment, restriction of night work and the keeping of records, are applied to the case of young persons employed in retail trade elsewhere than in shops, such as in street trading. Young persons employed as street traders will be subject, in addition, to the requirements of any local by-laws which may be made under Section 20 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933. There is

79
another important provision in Clause 9 which secures to these young people the privilege of the weekly half-holiday and the statutory meal interval. At present this is restricted to persons who are technically shop assistants, but this privilege will now be enjoyed by all young persons employed about the business of the retail and wholesale establishments covered by the Bill, and the Clause also contains, in Sub-section (2), a reduction of the number of hours for which a young person may be employed without an interval. The remaining provisions relating to employment need not, I think, be mentioned in detail, and I propose to pass to the provisions (relating to the health and comfort of shop workers.
The Select Committee, as a result of their investigations into the question of health and welfare conditions in shops, reported that while such conditions had, from a variety of causes, changed substantially for the better during recent years, evidence had been obtained, and corroborated from many sources, that conditions still exist in shops calling for very considerable improvement. The matters which they consider call particularly for improvement are heating arrangements and ventilation, lighting, the provision of suitable and adequate sanitary conveniences, and washing facilities. The Committee's recommendations on these points were unanimous, and I think the House will agree that it is a problem to which we should pay careful attention. It is provided for in Clause 10. I would draw special attention to the definition in Clause 14 of the expression "suitable and sufficient," which is to mean
"in relation to any shop or part of a shop, suitable and sufficient having regard to the circumstances and conditions affecting that shop or part."
That makes it perfectly clear that there is no question of a rigid application of the requirements by a local authority regardless of the practical possibilities in each case. If you laid down a rigid law, it would be difficult to apply. The House will see that in Sub-section (6) of Clause 10 we have followed the procedure of the Public Health Acts, under which the local authority have discretion to serve the statutory notice requiring a remedy of any contravention of the
80
requirements on either owner or occupier. The local authority are, no doubt, as a rule in a position to decide which of the two parties ought to bear the cost of these alterations, but there is a safeguard provided in Clause 11, to which I desire to call attention, under which application may be made to the county court for an apportionment of the expenses in cases where either the owner or the occupier feels aggrieved, or considers that the other party in the occupancy of the buildings should bear more of the cost.
It has been suggested by some critics that the requirements in Clause 10 are unnecessary in view of existing provisions in the Public Health Acts. The answer to that is that of the matters dealt with in Clause 10 only sanitary conveniences, and to a limited extent ventilation, are covered by those Acts. That is why we have dealt with it in this manner. I should, perhaps, explain briefly the arrangements for enforcement provided in Clause 12. The Select Committee, in paragraph 235 of their Report, thought that all the provisions in question should be administered by the Shops Acts authorities, through the shops' inspectors. This is clearly quite appropriate in the case of hours of employment provisions, but we have thought it better to provide that health and comfort provisions, which touch more closely on the public health field, that is, the provisions relating to sanitary conveniences, ventilation and heating, should be administered by the local sanitary authority. Further, the enforcement of the provisions relating to street traders is placed in the hands of the authorities responsible for the administration of the provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, relating to street trading. With these exceptions, the enforcement of all the provisions of the Bill will be the duty of the Shops Acts authorities.
I hope that in this general review I have succeeded in explaining clearly the principal provisions of the Bill and the reasons for their adoption. I am aware that in places the language of some of the Clauses is difficult to follow and possibly to understand, but I think it will be realised that this Measure is largely based upon the unanimous findings of the Select Committee, it deals with many technical problems, and it

81
breaks new ground. In commending it to the House, I feel confident that on its main lines and objects it will receive the approval of the House, and that in Committee we shall all try to improve the Measure so that it may effect the objects which we all have at heart.
5.59 p.m.
Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The Labour Opposition in the House welcome the introduction of this Measure, though the Bill is long overdue. In fact, it just implements the many promises which have been made by various previous Governments to deal with this urgent problem. I am glad, indeed, to think that the issues involved here have long ago passed beyond party politics. Members of all parties have interested themselves in these issues on purely humanitarian grounds. I welcome that sign of a desire to reform the lot of these young people. It would not, however, be unique if I said right away that in welcoming the Bill we reserve the right to table Amendments when it reaches the Committee stage. However noble the provisions of the Measure may be, they fall short in many respects of what was expected by those most interested in the subject, and certainly by the trade unions which for the last 25 years have agitated for these reforms.
It is said that there are in this country about 700,000 young persons between the ages of 14 and 18 employed for wages without any legal protection whatever affecting their conditions of work, except a maximum 74-hour week under the Shops Act. This Bill does not deal with the whole of those 750,000 young people. I imagine that it will cover a little over 50 per cent. of that number, and of course the Bill falls short of the objects it ought to achieve by leaving out about 300,000 of these young people. The 400,000 young persons affected by the Bill are confined mainly to those employed about the business of a shop, although its provisions extend to retail trading elsewhere than in shops.
The first question I put to the Under-Secretary of State, who presumably will reply, is what classes of persons outside wholesale and retail shops is the Bill intended to cover? There is a great deal of misunderstanding already as to what are the categories of young persons to be affected by the Bill? I think I
82
am right in saying that the groups of boys and girls in unregulated occupations that are left untouched are those of young domestic workers, office workers, agricultural workers, and boys in transport undertakings that are not connected with the wholesale or retail trade. There is a small group of boys in particular that I would like to see brought within the scope of the Measure, namely, messengers and errand boys and girls engaged in carrying parcels of goods for producers and manufacturers who are neither wholesale or retail traders. I feel sure that there is a goodly number of boys and girls employed in that sort of work.
It is presumed, of course, that any or all of these categories might be included if the boys and girls are employed even in those occupations, provided that their work is ancillary to shopkeeping; otherwise they appear to be excluded from the Bill as it stands. It is to be regretted, in particular, that boys and girls employed as domestic workers in hotels are also apparently excluded from the Bill. In a recent report of the Ministry of Labour on conditions of employment in the catering trade it was found that 70 per cent. of the domestic workers at hotels were employed for more than 54 hours a week on the average. When the Home Secretary spoke of 54 to 58 hours per week just now, those figures were the average. There are some shameful cases of sheer exploitation of boy and girl labour in these trades, as I will show later.
While the Bill lays down 48 hours as the maximum working week for about 400,000 young persons up to 18 years of age, it will not come into operation until the end of December, 1936. Really, I ask the Government what reason can there be for postponing the operation of the Bill until such a date? I do not remember any Bill, during the 13 years that I have been a Member of the House, introduced in such a way that its operation would not be effective for two and a-half years after its introduction. I know what the reply will be, that the employers will not be ready for it until 1936. Let me say at once that employers in the distributive trades have known for some time past that these reforms were imminent; and there is no reason why they should not be able to adjust their business to meet the requirements of this new law before Christmas of 1934. What is there in the

83
distributive trade that should prevent the operation of a 48-hour week for young persons, with certain exceptions, by the beginning of 1935? I shall show later how it is already done very effectively in one section of distribution. Let me here pay a compliment to the best employers. Some of the largest firms in the distributive trades, both co-operative and private, are already well within the limit of the provisions of the Bill. In fact what this Bill will do is to bring the worst employers up to the standard of the best. That, I take it, is the intention of the Government.
Let me make another criticism against the Bill. Whilst it lays down a 48-hour week the exceptions for certain periods of the year would make it possible for a 60-hour week to prevail. I do not think it is necessary in the year of grace 1934 to speak of even certain periods of the year when we should call upon boys and girls to work 60 hours in the week, exclusive of meal-times. As I read the Bill, that is what it means. Here is another criticism, and I hope I am not offending the Home Secretary in the way I am putting it. The long hours permitted under the spread-over system for the catering trade and garages should be reduced.
Let me also protest against a provision in the Bill permitting the employment of boys between 16 and 18 years of age until one o'clock in the morning in the catering trade. Can anyone stand up in the House and tell me if there is anything in the society in which we live that calls for the labour of a boy until one o'clock in the morning in the catering trade? That question too requires a very definite answer. I see no reason whatever for such a provision. We consider that it is a very bad blot on a very good Measure, and we shall try to erase it during the Committee stage.
Let me now turn to something a little more pleasing. I welcome sincerely the arrangements for the health and comfort of all shop-workers. This is indeed a great step forward, almost more so than the 48-hour week for young persons. Strange as it may seem, it is an anomaly in the laws of the country that the requirements in the matters of sanitation, ventilation and heating in factories have always been higher than the
84
requirement for shops. You can find large shops in the city of London and in the very centre of the building there are rooms supervised under the Factory Acts, where the sanitation and ventilation are far superior to anything relating to shop assistants in exactly the same building. This Bill will go a long way to remedy that state of affairs.
That leads me to call attention to another point. If hon. Members saw the ugly scenes far behind some of the beautiful shop-windows that they look at, they would be amazed. I was a member of the Select Committee to which the Home Secretary has referred, and we were astonished at the lack of sanitary convenience, heating and mess-room accommodation for the staff in some of the most swagger shops in the land. All that the people who ran some of these shops have done is to have beautiful windows to exhibit their goods to customers, they provide little accommodation for the assistants behind the scenes.
The Home Secretary to-day is introducing a very much more important Measure than either the House or the country comprehends. This Bill is going to affect directly and indirectly the working lives of at least 2,000,000 assistants. We are indeed a nation of shopkeepers. I have tried to compute the number of persons employed in and about shops. If distribution can be regarded as an industry, this is by far the largest industry in the land. There are three times as many persons employed in the shops of this country as in the coal mines. There are twice as many persons employed in distribution as in agriculture. We are therefore dealing to-day with a mighty problem. To show its extent it is worth noting that in the county of London alone there are 84,647 shops, employing 174,147 assistants and 23,495 young persons. In addition to that, within the same area there are 13,653 stalls not of the nature of shops, and there are 10,000 persons employed in the London wholesale markets as distributors of commodities. That is to say that there are in London alone, apart from those who keep shops on their own account, approximately 200,000 persons, working for wages, within about 20 miles radius of this House. It will be seen, therefore, that this Bill is a very important one and that

85
it covers a very large number of assistants.
I want now to touch upon a very small but important point. It will be remembered that the House passed a Bill many years ago to provide seats for shop assistants behind the counters. Those seats were provided by law because of the terrible results, to the women assistants in particular, caused by varicose veins. I happen to be Secretary of a society with 45,000 members, most of whom are employed in shops, warehouses and offices. I can therefore speak with some little authority when I say that shop assistants suffer a great deal from the evil effects of continuous standing. Most of the time they have to stand in the same place.
I notice that the right hon. Gentleman quoted some of the arguments used by employers against this Bill. There is the argument that shop work is not of an arduous character. I hope the House will permit me to introduce a personal note in saying that I have been a shop assistant and a coalminer and, frankly, I was much happier as a miner than as a shop assistant.
The right hon. Gentleman also informed us that the shop-keeping interests had told him that the public require long hours for shopping purposes. The obvious answer to that argument is that nobody can tell what the public is or what the public wants in this connection. I say that if the shops in London, Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham were open all day and all night, Sunday included, there are some people who would do their shopping at all hours of the day and night. If you close the shop door at seven o'clock there will always be somebody there who arrives at one minute to seven. If you closed the shop door at six o'clock, the same people would be there at one minute to six. That is the type of person who will probably reach heaven—or the other place—just one minute before the time of closing. There are people like that. Late shopping is nothing but a bad habit, and the shopkeepers know it.
Then we shall probably be told later on when we come to the details of the Measure that shopkeepers cannot afford this change. But colossal profits are still being made in the distributive trade in this country. Few of the large shopkeepers have suffered from the effects of
86
the economic depression which has fallen so heavily on almost every other industry. When some shopkeepers protest that they cannot conduct their businesses profitably and provide a 48-hour week for young persons under 18, the answer is an obvious and a good one. The co-operative movement, employing 200,000 adult and juvenile shop assistants, is able to carry on its multifarious businesses with a 48-hour week, and, in some cases, the co-operative store is defeating the private trader in gaining trade, even where the private trader works his assistants for 60 hours a week. It is worth while noting that as regards the hours of labour of shop assistants in the main—there may be certain exceptions—the cooperative movement is within the ambit of the first part of the Bill already, and that is to its credit.
The argument about not being able to afford it has been used on so many occasions that it is worth while combating it in advance on this occasion. I looked at the newspapers last Saturday to see how the distributive trade in this country is faring. In my Parliamentary Division engineering, the textile industry and coal mining, are going down and down as the years pass by. Only 13 years ago in my Division there were 10,000 coal miners; to-day there are only 1,700. Everybody knows the condition of the Lancashire textile industry. But look at the distributive trades. The shares of Great Universal Stores, which stood at 48s, 4½d., rose in price last Thursday by Is. 9d. in a day. The report of Marks and Spencers last week showed a cash dividend of 35 per cent., as for the two preceding years. Messrs. Hope Brothers—I think they are outfitters—have issued a report which shows that they are doing remarkably well also, and when we turn to reports on the operations of Messrs. Woolworths in this country we find that their trading profits are, indeed, colossal. There is no reason to show that the retail trade of this country cannot afford a maximum of a 48-hour week for young persons up to 18.
The argument as to foreign competition will not avail in this case. If a lady finds that she is unable to purchase her requirements in Bond Street or Regent Street it is unlikely that she will fly to Paris for a new bonnet. The fare would cost her more than the bonnet. [HON. MEMBEES : "Question."] At any

87
rate that applies to the bonnets of the ladies whom I know among the workers. The only competition known to the distributive trade in this country is that which prevails between one shopkeeper and another. The small shopkeeper, I agree, is finding it difficult to maintain himself against the competition of the large stores and the co-operative movement; but I venture the assertion that, even if the small shopkeeper were allowed to work his assistants for 70 hours a week the mere fact that he is a small shopkeeper places him at a disadvantage on an economic basis by comparison with the large stores. Actually, he is crushed between two great forces, the big Emporia and the chain stores on the one band, and the co-operative movement on the other.
The right hon. Gentleman was right in referring to the report of the Select Committee. That committee, as I have said, did find out some serious cases of the exploitation of young people, and I pay a tribute to the Home Office and Ministry of Labour staffs for their excellent work in producing the information provided for the committee. I quote only one example. They showed that in London the case of the longest hours worked was at a fruit shop where two assistants each worked for 70 hours per week. The next longest hours were 653/4 per week worked by a tobacconist's assistant.
Mr. CADOGAN: Were they under 18?
Mr. DAVIES: I cannot say. It does not say so in the report. But I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, if necessary, I, personally, can find him cases of young persons working quite as long hours.
Mr. CADOGAN: So can I.
Mr. DAVIES: Of course, they were only inquiring into a number of given cases. It ought to be stated in a Debate of this kind that a great deal of improvement has already taken place as regards the working hours of shop assistants generally, consequent upon the earlier closing of shops during and since the Great War. Most hon. Members will recall that prior to the War it was a common thing to close the shop door on Saturday night at 11 or even 12 o'clock, and in some
88
cases shopping was done in the early hours of Sunday morning. Here I would emphasise the point made by the right hon. Gentleman that the closing of the shop door is no indication that the assistant has finished his task. Cases were brought to the notice of the Select Committee in which assistants were employed before the shop opened, after it closed and even on Sundays. In spite of the improvement brought about by the earlier closing of shops in this country since the War, it is noteworthy that Sunday trading is increasing alarmingly in some towns. This Bill, therefore, is more necessary than ever.
Another point which the House ought to bear in mind is that there is a greater proportion of young persons employed in shops in this country than in almost any other occupation. It is common for employers in some of these emporia to engage boys and girls straight from school and dismiss them at the age of 16, simply because of the cost of the social services. The Unemployment Bill will get rid of one of the employer's arguments in that connection and I hope the day will come when the National Health Insurance scheme will apply from the school-leaving age upwards, as is now proposed in the Unemployment Bill. I do not know whether anybody has made the computation, but I am under the impression that about 50 per cent. of the shop assistants of this country are women and girls. There is no other industry, if distribution can be termed an industry, which absorbs a greater number of young people. A census taken two years ago showed that 57 per cent. of the shop assistants in Leeds were females. It is now a commonplace experience that girls leaving some of the elementary schools have no difficulty in finding work, whereas very few of the boys can find occupations. Girls are drifting into the distributive trades in much greater numbers than ever before.
This Bill, of course—do not let us disguise the fact—does nothing to deal with the question of the terribly low wages paid to boys and girls in the distributive trades. I hope the day is not far distant when we shall have a Measure to deal with the problem of low wages which is just as urgent as the problem of hours. In this connection, may I make one comment? The curse of our modern age is that those who are in employment to-day

89
work harder and put in more overtime than ever before. That applies in particular to the distributive trades. I have never been able to understand how it is that, as we have reduced the number of hours worked, so we have, almost in the same proportion, increased the output of the individual. It is possible in the distributive trades to-day to see a group of shop assistants turning out more work in 8 than they used to do in 11 hours. That is the case in several other industries as well.
As I have said we welcome this Measure. The right hon. Gentleman said something about its importance. I have been long enough in politics and in this House to understand one thing. It has been impressed upon me that while you may pass Acts of Parliament, the real problem is to secure their enforcement. I have come to the conclusion that a law is of no avail unless there is some organisation to enforce it upon the delinquents. A real 48-hour week will sound like music to tens of thousands of youngsters in distribution. If hon. Gentleman will pardon another set of figures, I am sure I shall be able to show the colossal nature of distribution and of the problem with which we are dealing in this Measure. The Ministry of Labour Report for 1933 makes the astonishing statement that the proportion of insured juveniles employed in the distributive trades continued to increase during 1933. Of the total juvenile insured population, 240,000 were employed in one form or other of distributive trading. That is to say, the distributive trade has within its ambit 27 per cent. of all the boys and 26.4 per cent. of all the girls in the insurable occupations of this country. The report proceeds to make this interesting statement, that in the case of both boys and girls the distributive trades employed more insured juveniles than the sum total of any other five industries. There are more juveniles employed in distribution in this country than there are in textiles, coal-mining agriculture, shipbuilding and any additional industry you might select.
I should be very pleased to see the day coming when we should not be talking of a 48-hour week for juveniles. In this age of plenty, when science and engineering have provided mankind with all our requirements, and rationalisation has come to our aid, I have often
90
wondered why Governments and nations do not rise to the occasion and say to themselves, "Why should a child leaving school for work not be employed, to commence with, for 20 hours a week for the first year, 30 hours a week for the second year, and 40 hours a week for the third year?" Let the youngster acclimatise himself to the occupation before he enters fully into the turmoil of industry.
This, as I say, is a very important Bill, and from the days of Sir Charles Dilke to the present time the Home Office, as a Department, apart from the political colour of the Government in power for the time being—I do not think I am treading on dangerous ground when I say this—has always taken a kindly interest in the welfare of shop assistants. I conclude by saying that we hope and pray that the good work done by the Department may continue until every warehouseman, cashier, counter hand, window dresser, cash girl, shop walker, branch manager, errand boy, and everybody connected with distribution will be emancipated by legal enactment from the slavery of modern shopdom.
6.35 p.m.
Mr. DENMAN: I would join in the sincere thanks and congratulations that have been offered to my right bon. Friend the Home Secretary on the introduction of this Bill. The Children's Wage Earning Committee, on whose behalf I am speaking this afternoon, has pressed successive Governments throughout this century to regulate the hours of juvenile workers. We have never asked for more than that for which we have had ample evidence from expert committees and commissions, and we have always had the sympathetic assistance of Home Secretaries and Under-Secretaries of State in successive Governments, yet the process of legislation on the subject is singularly slow. The last time that I remember the Home Office tackling it was in March, 1913, when, in the Gracious Speech from the Throne, we were assured that we should be invited to consider proposals for the further restriction of the industrial employment of children. The Under-Secretary of State of the day within a month produced for us a Bill which represented a very substantial advance, which provided for the making of by-laws for the regulation of the employment of children up to 18 years of age, and had

91
an extremely interesting Clause permitting those by-laws to compel attendance at continuation schools. That Bill, 21 years ago, got no further than its introduction, and we have had to wait that time for my right hon. Friend to produce this Measure.
May I, in thanking Members, also thank the hon. and genial Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) for his speech, because he has shown how easy it is for this House to accept the reality of National Government when it chooses, and he has shown that he is at one with us, with his fellow Members in all quarters of the House, in approving this Bill; and the fact that he desires to see Amendments in Committee does not separate him from many other Members in other parts of the House. There are two lines on which, in Committee, I hope we shall be able to improve the Measure. We want it, as it is a good Bill, to go both further and faster. We want it to go further especially in including various persons who at present do not come within the ambit of its Clauses. We want it to include more boys and girls, and we want it to come into full operation at an earlier date. The hon. Member who spoke last referred to classes, and enumerated them, who were excluded from the provisions of the Bill. I need not re-enumerate them, but boys working in analogous, or in almost identical, occupations will be in this peculiar position, that one will be subject to a 48-hour week and another will be subject to no restriction whatever.
Take the simple case of van-boys. Those who are employed by shops come within the Bill, but those who are employed by carriers delivering goods from those shops are not within the Bill. A boy's inclusion will be a matter almost of accident. Upon whether he happens to be delivering parcels on behalf of a shop itself or on behalf of a carrier contracting for a shop, will depend whether his hours will or will not be subject to regulation. Clearly, that is not wholly satisfactory, and if we can, in the course of the Committee stage, bring within the framework of the Bill those who are doing practically identical work, it will be to the advantage of all. Take another case. Boys and girls employed in restaurants are within the Bill; boys and girls employed in hotels are not. The hon. Member
92
who spoke last referred to some figures given to a Board of Trade inquiry relating to boys and girls in hotels, and he mentioned the very disquieting information there revealed that over 70 per cent. of girls in licensed hotels with over 10 bedrooms work 54 hours and over, exclusive of meal-times—a shockingly long time. Including meal-times is one thing, but excluding meal-times, 54 hours of work makes an intolerably long week.
When you take the standard of the Bill, the 48-hour standard, you find that the figures are very much worse. You find that of boys and girls in hotels, roughly only one in five was working 48 hours or less; four out of every five in those occupations were working more than the standard maximum laid down in this Bill. As for girls, nine in 10 were working over the 48-hour standard. That is a figure that will really shock this House, I am sure, and I think we should all agree that if this Bill can be so widened as to include that class of case, it will be a considerable advantage. Then, of course, it omits entirely employment in offices not associated with shops. I have had brought to me particularly distressing cases of boys who dare not throw up their job in offices in London, who live a long way from the City, who, from early morning till late at night, are engaged in their occupation and have no reasonable chance of leisure and, of course, none whatever of outside education. So much for widening the scope and including more persons. We shall do our best in Committee to assist the right hon. Gentleman to improve his Bill in that respect.
On the question of getting the Bill into operation faster, one quite understands that in framing and introducing a Bill, one likes to get the maximum amount of agreement with people affected, and one quite sees the pleasantness of conceding to people a certain amount of time in which to set their house in order, but I seriously suggest that to take this process of standardising hours in two steps is not really for the convenience of the shopkeepers any more than it is to the advantage of those who work in shops We know very well that any reorganisation whereby you bring work, whether in office or shop or wherever it may be, within some definite scheme of regulation, is a matter of difficulty, causes inconvenience,

93
and upsets old routines, and you have to reorganise your business to make it fit. To do it once, I suggest, is much pleasanter than to do it twice. If shopkeepers have to take a half stage in the course of this year and then another half in the year following, they will find that their position is not really so convenient as if they were to take the whole bite this year
There is another serious reason for expediting the regulation of hours of juveniles. Everybody who has had to consider problems of adolescence knows that we are now at the beginning of the bulge of applicants for juvenile work, and that during this year and the next three an abnormal number of boys and girls will be thrown on to the labour market. If the shortening of working hours is going to cause the employment of more boys and girls, there is not a better moment at which trade can be asked to make the necessary adjustments than at a moment when the market will be flooded with juvenile workers. That is an argument for bringing the Bill into force with all the rapidity possible. These are Committee points, and we shall hope to deal with them upstairs.
Let me conclude with a wider consideration. The Bill is the product of the Home Office, no doubt working in harmony with the Minister of Labour, but there is the far bigger question, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Westhoughton, of the entry of the boy into work, which is not merely within the scope of the Home Office or of the Ministry of Labour or even of the Board of Education, but is a subject on which these three Departments should collaborate to bring about an agreed solution of a difficulty which all of us have felt for years. At present there is no organised system of entry into work, no system whereby the process of education merges into the process of gainful occupation. These two processes are separated by one deep chasm. The boy and the girl tumble from one into the other—it is true with some assistance from juvenile advisory committees, charitable organisations, and no doubt with some help from wise friends, but with no kind of deliberate organised procedure.
I submit to the Government that this process of entering into industry is one
94
of the big social problems still unsolved with which a National Government ought to deal. They are qualified by their power for dealing with a subject which, though not necessarily extremely popular, is widely recognised as important. It is recognised as important by those who have to face the problem, and throughout the country the Government would have the earnest support of people familiar with that problem if they would set their minds to an adequate solution of its difficulties. Meanwhile, this Bill covers a real fragment of the ground of adolescent employment, and England will be the better place for youth because of it. I welcome it with gratitude and with congratulations to its authors.
6.50 p.m.
Colonel GOODMAN: In so far as it relates to hours of labour this Bill deals only in part with two economic conditions which are revolting to to-day's conception of our social responsibilities. The two conditions to which I refer are the hours of labour worked by shop assistants and those worked by young persons who are in trades officially described as unregulated trades. The public in recent years has seen and become accustomed to the early closing of shops, but it is generally under the impression that when the shutters are up and the blinds pulled down the assistants are at leisure. I agree with the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Khys Davies) that the truth is otherwise. I know that very often, long after the door is closed on the last customer, assistants are engaged scrubbing down the counters, weighing up goods for the next day and performing other occupations in readiness for the next day's trade. Whatever the Act for the hours of closing has accomplished, the fact remains that even young persons under the age of 18 are allowed to work in shops to-day for 74 hours a week. I recognise with satisfaction that this Bill does, with some exceptions which modify my satisfaction, limit the hours of those occupations to 48 hours in any one week.
The number of people who are affected by these limited hours is about one-half the number engaged in the unregulated trades. We have been told that it affects 400,000 out of 700,000. Hon. Members will note that the balance, which is not inconsiderable, are still required or may be required to work for hours and under

95
conditions of labour which working men of to-day would not tolerate for a moment if applied to themselves. The Bill is confined to the distributive trades. We are told that the decision to limit the provisions of the Bill is not to be taken as suggesting that the Government will not give sympathetic consideration to the claims of those in other unregulated trades if circumstances permit. Hon. Members may have noticed that in the Minister's speech there were two negatives in one sentence. Although we are told that two negatives in a sentence equal an affirmative, I hope that the Minister who is to reply to the Debate will reveal to the House the circumstances which will permit the Government to introduce legislation to restrict the excessive hours which are imposed on young people in those unregulated trades which are not within the scope of the Bill.
I should also like to know the reason which prevents this Bill coming into operation under two and a-half years. I cannot understand why it cannot be put into operation in six months' time at the latest, and I cannot imagine anybody on these or the Opposition benches having any reluctance to facilitate the passage of such a Measure. Hon. Members know the intensive campaign which has been waged by the official Opposition in favour of a 40-hour week for adult workers; and only this morning I read in the "Times" that the Leader of the Opposition advocated a 36-hour day for adult workers. I cannot believe that hon. Members opposite would be satisfied to leave father sitting at home in his slippers in front of the fire while his boy and girl were working 60 or 70 hours a week, which many of them have to do in the unregulated trades. In spite of all I have said, I am in favour of the Bill, because it is an advance towards the elimination of the scandal of the terrible hours which have been imposed on so many juveniles. I support it because I have for a long time taken an interest in these young persons, and, although I regret the limitations of the Bill, I would not like in any way to associate myself with any efforts which might jeopardise its passage to the Statute Book.
The Bill is confined to the distributive trades which are in a favoured and privileged position to-day inasmuch as
96
they have not to meet world competition in the same way that the producing trades have. As far as their services are competitive, everything is equal for them. They have not to worry in any way about what, for instance, Japanese distributors might be doing in the same way as every British manufacturer has to worry about the activities of the Japanese producers. They are also indifferent to quotas, tariffs, and currency restrictions which every manufacturing industry, whose production and sale depend upon exports, must face. They draw their supplies from the whole of the world, and they have a wonderful home market in which to dispose of them. The distributive trades are on velvet compared with the producing industries, and yet it is the producing industries which, in respect of hours of labour and conditions of work, are limited and regulated to a degree which never applies to the distributive trades. Therefore, when we are making legislation and have to take into account things which affect the distributive trades, we have not to be so careful with them as we must be when we consider matters which affect the producing industries, for we may be putting upon the producing industries some burden which their foreign competitors are not called upon to bear.
While I am moved by the case of the small shopkeeper who has a very hard fight to go through, I am not at all moved or impressed by the representations of the great distributive industries which are made against the Bill. I cannot make myself believe that they will be hastened to bankruptcy because they have boys and girls in their employ who will by this Bill no longer be required to work for more hours than have for a long time been adopted in the main by the producing industries. In fact, I maintain that any trade or industry which can only keep its stability by overworking boys and girls in employment should certainly have a drastic overhaul of its organisation and methods. I give my support to this Bill with the earnest hope that when it is taken in Committee Amendments will be moved and accepted by the Government which will vastly improve the hours of labour and the conditions of the young persons in the unregulated trades which have not yet been brought within the scope of the Bill.
6.58 p.m.
Mr. BERNAYS: As a Liberal, I am delighted to find a Measure of the Government which I can support wholeheartedly. This is a reform long overdue. Successive Governments have promised it, plausible reasons have been produced for procrastination, and it is peculiarly suitable that the National Government should at last act. What is the problem? Until now there has been an important gap in the protection of child labour. The Education Acts, the Factory Acts and the Shop Hours Acts have covered a great deal of ground, but they have left unprotected the boys and girls between 14 and 18, a period which, in the opinion of educationists, is the most formative period of a child's life. Horrifying figures have been adduced this afternoon as to the hours of labour worked by these young persons. It is estimated that there are 7,000 children working between 66 and 72 hours a week, and even though that includes time for meals and rest periods, it means that during all those hours they are at their place of work and under discipline and restraint. That this condition should have been allowed for so long is a blight on our social conscience.
How does this Bill meet the problem? It is pointed out that of 700,000 children, it deals with only 400,000 and regret has been expressed from all parts of the House that those engaged in the domestic side of hotel work are not included in the Bill. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. B. Davies) produced some very remarkable figures of the hours worked in hotels. Why are not they included? It really cannot be the state of trade. The National Advisory Council for Juvenile Employment in 1932 pointed out that the majority of boys and girls are employed in subsidiary occupations, and it cannot be said that the mere limitation of their hours of employment would have any appreciable effect on the cost of production. Surely it cannot be necessary in the interests of British industry that page boys, for example, should work these long hours? It is not a pleasant sight to see these boys in the stifling atmosphere of hotels, far into the night, opening and shutting doors and running errands, and sometimes having to prop open their eyes to keep awake. These boys have no votes, they cannot write to their Member of Parliament about it or agitate through
98
the usual channels and it is, therefore, the more incumbent on democratic Government to see they are adequately protected and have the fullest opportunity for attendance at night classes, and the ordinary rights of boyhood to healthy recreation.
Now, particularly, is the time to deal with this problem. It has been estimated that there are something like 100,000 juveniles unemployed between the ages of 16 and 18, and that figure is likely to be increased very considerably. As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) reminded us, there is this post-war wave of population which is going to deposit on the labour market something like 400,000 additional boys by 1936. What a tragic commentary it is on the way in which we distribute labour that there should be 300,000 boys overworked and 100,000 with no work at all. Our problem is a very serious one, and I believe that the Government would really make the best contribution to the solution of it by raising the school-leaving age. I still hope that the Government will come to that conclusion before the end of this Parliament, but, in default of that, let them at least drastically regulate the hours of child labour. I am not impressed by the argument that is sometimes adduced by parents that regulation of labour will mean restriction of the earning capacity of children. I am not at all sure that in many families to-day too great a proportion of the income is not provided by the adolescent members of the family. Something has been said about the low wages of boys and girls; I am not sure they are not sometimes too high, so that between the ages of 14 and 16 they acquire expensive habits which they are not able to maintain when they reach 18 or 19. There comes that terrible period when the wages no longer come in and the boy cannot take his best girl to the pictures, go to football matches, greyhound racing and so on, and he is exposed to peculiar temptations.
Some alarming figures were given during the week-end by a Home Office official as to the increase of juvenile crime between the ages of 16 and 21. Surely it is better that boys should earn less between 14 and 16 and more at 20 or 21, or even be able to maintain their job at all. The hon. Member for Westhoughton said that this was an

99
important Bill. I agree that it is. It may be called a very far-reaching Bill. Our problem to-day is not merely the creation of new work, but the fair distribution of the work we have already. Our generation has had to face a new industrial revolution as swift and as ruthless as the industrial revolution of 100 years ago. Man's productive capacity has increased ten-fold, fifty-fold and one hundred-fold, and the tragedy is that that productive capacity has been comparatively so little reflected in improvement in the lives of our people. To the glaring anomalies of the millionaire and (he pauper there is now added the even more fantastic contrast of the grossly overworked boy of 16 and the idle man of 21. Here is an obvious opportunity to do something to adjust the balance. I do not want to appear to cavil in any way at this Measure. It is an important milestone in social legislation, but I earnestly hope that the Government will regard it, not as the end of the journey, but as a half-way house.
7.8 p.m.
Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: There has been general agreement as to the objectives of this Bill, and as to the steps which the Government are taking for the amelioration of this very great evil, and I do not wish to utter a discordant note if I criticise in some way or another some of the provisions of the Bill. I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies), and I trust that it was not in his mind, or in the mind of the Opposition, that this Bill is in any way brought before the House as a form of condemnation of a private employer, and as saying, by inference, that the State or municipal employer is more reasonable. I think that there is little deliberate cruelty in the mind and heart of the average Englishman, altogether apart from party. There is a great deal of ignorance in our civilisation at the present time, but I know Government and county offices where the sense of responsibility is not equal to that of the private employer.
The hon. Member for Westhoughton quoted the case of the shop, with a beautiful window, where a lady, whom he said he knows, walking down Bond Street, buys a bonnet for £3 10s., and
100
awful conditions exist away behind the scenes. That may be so, but even if the hon. Member does know this particular shop and this particular instance, it is rather dangerous to quote a specific instance and attempt to draw a general conclusion from it. The point I wish to make, first, is that we should not cavil at the work done by the average, sensible, socially-conscious employer of labour in this country. Secondly, the hon. Member for Westhoughton drew the conclusion that the Bill was justified on every ground, and certainly on the ground that it would not impose any additional burden that should not be imposed on the shopkeeper. He spoke of the small shopkeeper who is at the present time hard up against it in competition with the multiple shops. I agree that is a great question with which the House of Commons will have to deal in the future. The House may have to tackle that subject on the lines the French Government have. I do not propose to discuss it, except to say that I am in complete agreement, but it is not affected by this Bill.
Another point I want to make arises out of Clause 1 (2, a), in which it is said that if in any year there have been six weeks where young people have been employed overtime, no young person shall be so employed for the remainder of the year. We are all anxious to see the objects of the Bill carried cut, but let us be careful that we do not impose any injustices or impracticable proposals. I think that we shall need to consider very carefully the effect on the seasonal centres of England if that Clause is allowed to stand as at present. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, in introducing the Bill, spoke about the seasonal occupations, and mentioned Easter, Christmas and Whitsun, but I would respectfully point out that there are holiday resorts all along the coast—I have the honour to represent two or three—in which we have Christmas, Whitsun and Easter as our short seasons, and then we have our long season, June, July, August and most of September, in which the shop people have to make their money for the rest of the year. In the winter we are dead. Under this Bill, a shop can work six weeks overtime. If we take eight days for Christmas, 10 for Easter and 10 for Whitsun, that makes 28 days, and leaves us only 14 days in

101
our long season in which we shall be allowed to employ juvenile labour overtime.
The six weeks which are allowed in this Bill should be really extended to something like 22 weeks. I am quite aware that would not commend itself to the House, but I would ask whether some limited replacement of juveniles could not be considered. I can appreciate the reason why a man should not be allowed to work a young person overtime for 50 hours and then discharge him, because the displacement of labour would be deplorable. But I believe that there could be a limited replacement when an employé might work 50 hours' overtime up to a maximum period for any particular shop of, say, three months. I think that that would overcome the holiday difficulty. The difficulty would be very great if the Bill passed in its present form, for the shopkeepers would have to curtail certain people during the hours the holiday makers expected to be served, or else the small shopkeeper would have to do overtime work himself. That is a point with which I would ask the Minister who replies to deal. No Bill is perfect when introduced, and although this Measure must commend itself to the vast majority of hon. Members I hope that such points as I have mentioned, which will affect also the constituencies of other hon. Members, will receive the sympathetic consideration of the Government and of the whole House.
7.15 p.m.
Mr. LEONARD: The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill must be very well pleased with the general reception which it has met with, but that appreciation may have been stimulated by two considerations, one a recognition of the good effects the Bill will have and the other a recognition of the great evils which exist and the hope that this legislation is only a start and will be followed up by further action in the future. I have none of the fears of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour). The employer who recognises his social obligations has nothing to fear from this Bill, or even from a stronger Bill. The person the good employer has to fear is the unscrupulous individual who is not so alive to his social obligations. A Bill of this character will be to the disadvantage of
102
no one except the unscrupulous employer. In another place a Bishop spoke of boys who are working from 80 to 90 hours a week, and I am certain that such instances could be multiplied many times by many hon. Members in this House. I feel a little regret at the age limitation in the Bill, and I hope that in the near future we shall have a more comprehensive Measure which will extend the advantages now to be bestowed on those under 18 to other sections of the community working under the conditions of which we have heard. It is not to be assumed that an employment which seems to be an easy one is, in fact, easy. I have had experience as a messenger boy and of serving behind the counter at not very heavy distributive work, and I felt more tired and mentally weary after a day in an ordinary shop than I have felt after working at manual labour at a bench for eight hours a day. The Bill adjusts some evils, but I trust that its scope may be extended.
There are only two points in the Bill upon which I rose to speak. One is the permission the Bill gives for 12 hours' overtime a week. Before the Committee stage I would like the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider whether that figure cannot be modified. I trust that it will be possible to reduce the overtime to a limit more in conformity with what has been proved to be workable in great sections of the distributive trades. The other point concerns the question of supervision, which apparently will be largely left in the hands of local authorities. Already local authorities have certain duties placed upon them under the Shops Acts, and though I have no desire to besmirch the good name of local authorities I think it could be shown that many of them are not very active in seeing that the law is observed. Therefore, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman and his Department will give some consideration to the question of stirring up the local authorities to greater activity, and take powers to themselves, in cases where local authorities are not active in enforcing this legislation, to see that it is observed. I trust these two points, with others, will be attended to in Committee, particularly in the interests of good employers, and also because this Bill is really only a start in the attempt to deal with an extensive evil.
7.22 p.m.
Mr. KENNETH LINDSAY: It would be a crime to speak much longer in this Debate, for it is difficult to add anything to what has already been said, but there is one point I would like to make. Those of us who have been working among boys welcome this Measure as a first instalment of further legislation during the coming five or 10 years. To my mind the great point about this Bill is that, for the first time, it will make it possible for the young people concerned to extend their education, not only in educational institutions but in clubs and institutes. Hitherto that has been quite impossible. It is ridiculous to ask boys to take up educational work in the evenings after the long days some of them have to work. The problem with which this Bill deals is part of a very much bigger problem, as the hon. Member for North Bristol (Mr. Bernays) has reminded us, and that is the problem of young people between 14 and 18. Statistics show that something like 45 per cent. of the boys and girls in unregulated trades have been prohibited from taking part in any sort of organised evening work because of their hours of labour, and we rejoice to think that that part of the problem will be alleviated by this Bill.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) that we need to go further and faster. We want to see a larger number of boys included. There is a lot of rash talk about van boys and some of the other boys in unregulated trades. I once asked a hundred boys in East London to write an essay on how they found their first job, what they thought of their employers, and how they obtained succeeding jobs. It was not a case of some social worker interfering to tell the boys what they should do; it was getting the boys own story. I learned a good many home truths. One of them was that a van boy's job was probably one of the healthiest in London, and also one of the most adventurous. Instead of working in some not very well-ventilated factory the boy sees London from the tail of a van, as a good many boys said in no uncertain language; but that ought not to prevent us from seeing that those boys do not have to work 60 or 70 hours a week. I am not sure whether all the boys who ought to be under the Bill are covered by it, and I hope we shall make
104
sure that we have included a good many who only seem to be included at the present moment.
I disagree with the hon. Member who said the Bill is not going to affect the small shopkeeper. I believe it is, and I am glad that it is. Also, it will affect what is called the slum shop. It is not needed in some of the bigger stores, but it is very much needed in some of the shops which are mushroom growths, because there one finds the type of employer who throws a boy off. We talk a deal about the reorganisation of basic industries. The reorganisation of our shops is not the same problem as is presented by the iron and steel and coal trades. Those engaged in the retail trades are not poor, as many hon. Members have said, and they can put their house in order.
Another point mentioned by the hon. Member for North Bristol is also relevant. I remember a boy saying once that when choosing a job at 14 be had to choose between his wife and his mother, and when I asked what he meant he explained "If I take a job at 14 I can take money home and help the family, but if I go in for apprenticeship I get nothing until I am 21, though I can get married later on." For my part, I should be in favour of any proposal that would take more young people out of employment between the ages of 14 and 18 and put more into employment between 18 and 22. I think we shall have that part of the problem with us for a good many years, quite apart from the "bulge" of 400,000 in the next two or three years. If we look at the figures of army recruiting and at the analysed results of unemployment we can trace, boy by boy, the effects of idleness and unemployment between 14 and 18 or of bad conditions of employment between 14 and 18, and if we are to have a virile race we must pay far more attention, from the physical point of view, to the formative years between 14 and 18.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon adding one more stone to the edifice which is being built up, to what I call "the charter of adolescence." We have had the Young Persons Bill, we have created juvenile instruction centres under the Unemployment Bill, now we have this Bill, and I trust we may do a little more; and it will then be said that the National Government not only paid attention to

105
the channels of trade and the stability of our currency, but also dealt with this problem, though it may not seem so urgent to some people—I am sorry to see that the Minority Report of the Juvenile Advisory Council did not regard it as urgent. I hope that we shall not only pass the Bill through Committee, but pass it with some Amendments which will widen its scope.
7.26 p.m.
Mr. MANDER: I congratulate the Government on having brought forward this Measure, which will do much for so many boys and girls who are unable to help themselves. Their brothers and sisters in factories, as a result of trade union organisation, have gained certain definite benefits and limitations of hours, but these others, who by accident have chosen to take jobs in shops, are deprived of advantages to which they have just as much right in equity as those working in factories. To my mind, it is the duty of the State to come in to assist those who cannot find through trade union organisation the support they require. Shakespeare makes Henry V say of himself and of a subject :
"The violet smells to him as it doth to me,"
and I am sure that the evening sun shines as brightly for the shop assistant as it does for the factory worker, and those who work in shops ought to be give an opportunity of getting out to play their games or go for country rambles or, in the winter months, to educate themselves. Owing to the failure of the State to give them that privilege shop workers have been severely handicapped in the race of life. I am very glad that something is being done to adjust matters in that respect.
One other point about office workers' conditions as compared with those of factory workers is that at Easter time, which, unfortunately, comes too early in the year—I wish the Home Secretary could set it on six weeks or a couple of months—it is the custom for a good many factories entirely to close down for Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday, but those who work in shops, owing to the present habits of the people, do not get that long holiday. I should very much like to see a Statutory holiday for everybody from the Thursday until the Tuesday morning. Some day we may see such a Measure. In introducing a Bill of
106
this kind, it is necessary to allow a certain amount of time for adjustment of businesses to the new conditions, but I cannot help thinking that to allow more than two years, until the end of 1936, is rather too long, and I hope that the Home Secretary may consider in Committee some limitation of that period.
There are still 300,000 out of 700,000 young workers left outside the benefits of this Measure, and I hope that the Government in Committee will look as favourably as they can on Amendments directed towards bringing in further classes. Particular classes have already been referred to. There is the exclusion of hotel workers such as page boys and lift boys. The report of the Advisory Committee of 1932 pointed out that over 70 per cent. of the catering trades work over 54 hours per week, and that the overtime in certain periods of the year is much too long. The allowance in the garage trades of 58 hours for a transitional period, and after that of 54 hours, is also too long. Theoretically, we are supposed to be in favour of the 48-hour Washington Convention. Although it has never been ratified by any Government, yet it is still our policy, and it seems unreasonable that we should put in a figure of 54 hours or anything in excess of 48.
A provision to allow young people between 16 and 18 years of age in the catering trades to work up to 1 a.m. in certain periods of the year does not seem to be satisfactory. I hope that the Home Secretary will listen favourably to any Amendment to bring transport undertakings within the scope of the Measure. They are responsible for a good deal of the difficulty which has been referred to in connection with shops, and there does not seem to be any reason why they should not be included. Cases are pointed out in the report where young people work all night. I hope there will be a severe limitation of hours in this case, and in the case of those who go on errands for producers and manufacturers. It is a question of putting in a word for people who are doing the same kind of work for different individuals. I congratulate the Government on the step forward that they have taken. They are giving people something more of the joy of life of which they have been wrongly deprived by the accident of their occupation. I hope that before

107
the Measures leaves this House the Government will go as far as they possibly can in extending that new joy of life to as large a number of young people as possible.
7.35 p.m.
Earl WINTERTON: I do not want to make a speech, but to ask a question of the Minister before he replies. The question is based largely upon what has been said by an hon. Member in regard to the hours of work of page bays in hotels. Figures have already been given in the report, and by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) and they are of a horrifying character. The report shows that the percentage of boys who work 54 hours is 56 and in the case of girls it is 71. I am informed by one of my hon. Friends that boys and girls under 18 years of age who work in restaurants come under the Shops Act. I am told that that is not so in the case of hotel workers, and a specific case was given by the hon. Member to whom I have referred. I wish to associate myself with everything that he said on the subject. I have reason to believe that girls and boys in hotels do not come under the Shops Act. If that be so, that seems to be a very serious anomaly which requires the attention of the Government, and I hope that the Government will give attention to it. I think that the general intention of the House, so far as it has been expressed this afternoon, is that this anomaly should, if possible, be done away with. The reason for singling out this particular trade is that the hours of employment in it are not those of any comparable business or trade.
7.37 p.m.
Mrs. TATE: Many of us have been waiting with very great interest for this Bill. Those of us who served on the Committee of the Shops Bill in 1932 remember the then Minister's very distinct promise that a Bill to regulate the hours of work of young people would be brought forward at the earliest possible date. The date, he said, would be when trade and industry could afford such a Bill to be brought forward. In view of that promise, which, I think, if read carefully, went considerably further than this Bill goes, I should like to ask the Minister if we are to regard the Bill merely as
108
the fulfilment of the first part of the promise and not as the ultimate aim which the Government have in mind?
I would refer to the speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour) who, I regret, is not in his place. He suggested that there should be, in holiday resorts, the power of replacement. I can only understand that in one way. Are we to understand that he wishes certain young people to be taken into employment, to be allowed to work the maximum of overtime in the course of the year, and then to be dismissed and be replaced by other young people? If so, that would cut right at the very root of the Bill and render it absolutely valueless. I believe, on the contrary, that in Committee we can hope to see some strengthening of the Bill which will make any provision such as that absolutely impossible.
7.40 p.m.
Mr. MABANE: As one engaged in the business of retail distribution, I want to make one point which I think ought to be made before this Debate is concluded. I do not want any impression to go out that the retail distributive trade is conducted, on the whole, in such a manner that it is necessary to impose the provisions of this Bill upon it. The suggestion has been made that the organised distributive trades are opposed to the Bill. I know of no such opposition. The organised distributive trades are perfectly prepared to agree to the Bill in principle, and indeed to welcome it. There are one or two detailed alterations that might be made upstairs in Committee. The Bill is largely concerned with matters of detail.
If there is one point that I would make it is that the House ought to recognise what it is doing in considering the Bill, and what it will do if the Bill is passed. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour) said that the Bill did not affect the small trader; it does. The Bill will be a very severe restriction on the small shopkeeper. The greater part of the large organisations in the retail trade will not be affected in the slightest, because they already conform to the conditions laid down in the Bill. Take, for example, the hours that are worked in what are usually called the "down-town" stores, from 9 a.m. to 6.30 p.m. on ordinary days, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. on the half-holiday and from 9 a.m.

109
to 8.30 p.m. on Saturday, which is the long day. With intervals of about two hours for meals, that makes a total of about 44½ or 45 hours a week. Those are the conditions which obtain in those large stores. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) quoted the profits made by Woolworth's, Marks and Spencer's and the Great Universal Stores. There is evidence that they are already doing what this Bill proposes, and the Bill does not affect them. The people who are going to be hit by this Bill are the small single shopkeepers. For my part, and I imagine on the part of the large retail organisations of this country, there can be no objection to these conditions being imposed. They are very good conditions, but we ought to realise that this Bill will probably be de scribed by the small shopkeepers as one that will definitely put the small single shopkeeper out of business. I have no brief for altering the provisions with regard to——
Captain BALFOUR: I thank the hon. Member for giving way to me. I am sure that he does not want to misrepresent what I said. The point that I wanted to make is that the small shopkeeper will not be materially affected by the Bill in respect of the competition of the great multiple shops. The odds are so enormous, and although they are to some extent lengthened by this Measure, the effect is not really anything in comparison with them.
Mr. MABANE: The hon. and gallant Member is entirely right. My point is that the Bill will not merely not assist the small shopkeeper against the competition of the large organisations, but it will definitely make his position worse. I was rather surprised to hear the hon. Member for Westhoughton say that the shops in Bond Street were those which would be affected by the Bill. They are not in the least the shops which will be affected. So far as I know, those shops comply already with the provisions of the Bill. It is important that the House should recognise that the Bill is going to do what I say it will. The House ought to determine, and ought to know that it is determining, whether the crushing of the small shopkeeper is a desirable or undesirable thing.
There are points which ought to be gone into in Committee. If I may draw
110
attention to one of them, it is in regard to Clause 6, which lays down that special exemptions from the provisions of the Measure are to be given to shops supplying accessories for aircraft, motor vehicles and cyclists. It lays down also that, in a business where there is more than one department, only the department which actually makes these sales shall be exempted. I have looked at the definition Clause to discover what a department is, because that is a difficulty which will confront people who run department stores, but I find no definition of a department in the Bill. I think, however, from my reading of the Bill, that it is obvious that if, say, a Woolworth's store were to sell a bicycle bell, it would be entirely exempt from the general provisions of the Measure, and would come under Clause 6. That is a point of detail which I think ought to be dealt with, because otherwise there would seem to be a grave danger that the exemption of Clause 6 might be much wider than was intended. I merely wished to make these comments on behalf of those who are engaged in retail trade. Some compliments have been paid them; some references have been made to the excellent conditions of employment in many of the larger stores; and I would say that the conditions of employment in the larger stores are far better than in almost any other occupation. I think that the large organisations and many of the smaller shopkeepers in this country will not only support the Bill but will definitely and gladly welcome its main general provisions.
7.47 p.m.
Mr. LUNN: The Home Secretary said, in the course of his speech this afternoon, that the language of the Bill is very difficult to understand and to follow. I agree with him that it is difficult to interpret clearly and distinctly what the Bill intends to do, but, in addition, it has far too many loopholes, possibilities of evasion and limitations to be regarded as in any way a courageous Measure. Moreover, I think that the transitional period of three years is far too long—that it is perfectly monstrous to allow such a long period before the Bill comes into operation. All the facts regarding shop life are known to the Government and to Members of the House of Commons. A Select Committee sat in

111
1931, and that committee, perhaps not unanimously, but as a committee, reported in favour of a 48-hour week for shop assistants, both adults and young people. The committee recommended that there should be a transitional period, and there has been a transitional period of something like three years since the committee reported. After all, it is often taken for granted that, when a Royal Commission or Select Committee makes a report, there is some intention of Parliament doing something in that direction; otherwise, what is the use of appointing a commission or committee at all? I think that, after the three years that have now elapsed, this Bill ought to come into operation immediately it is passed into law, and I hope that it will be so amended in Committee as to make that possible.
The only Act which applies to young people in shops is the Act of 1912, which has been mentioned several times in the Debate this afternoon. That Act provides that young people under 18 who are employed in shops may work up to 74 hours a week, and the Home Secretary declared that there are in shops many workers of that age who work even longer hours than 74 per week. Other speakers have said that there are children between the ages of 14 and 18 who work even 90 and 96 hours a week, which is far too long. Is there any father here who would like his boy or girl between the ages of 14 and 18 to be working 12 hours a day, six days a week, at some hard occupation? I am sure there is not. Then there is the important matter mentioned by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay). We all desire to see a more intelligent democracy, and to see them given the opportunity of taking advantage of education. I do not know how many Members have had experience of working hard between the ages of 14 and 18, but I myself, from 12 to 18, was a young miner, and I knew what it was to work hard and long during those years; and I know that, whatever opportunities may be provided for education, there is no inclination to take advantage of them when you have been tired out and everything has been knocked out of you in the occupation that you have been following. I am quite sure that these long hours which are worked by young people in shops are a
112
great deterrent to adult education, and I want to see some improvement in those conditions in connection with this Bill.
It is said that only one in seven boys or girls between the ages of 14 and 18 continue their education after they leave the ordinary elementary school. That is far too small a proportion, and it ought to be considerably increased. We are regarded' as a nation of sportsmen, and I marvel sometimes at the quality of many of the sportsmen that we have in this country, in cricket, football, tennis, and various other sports; but, after all, there are not so many sportsmen who actually practise those sports. I was one of the 100,000 who saw the Cup Final on Saturday. There there were 22 clever and wonderful sportsmen, but 100,000 watchers. We are a great nation of watchers of this sort of thing, and a great nation of supporters of sport. There is no more impressionable age in life than those years between 14 and 18, and the opportunities for self-improvement, if they are lost then, can never be regained. That is a gap that I want to see filled up as soon as possible. Then the statement has been made, and we know it is true, that juveniles in shops work just as long hours as adults, and I have no objection to that if both adults and juveniles are working short hours; I would shorten the hours considerably as compared with what they are at the present time. I think that Sub-section (1) of Clause 1 of the Bill, which lays it down that the hours of work shall be not more than 48 in the week, and the penalty provision in Sub-section (5), are sufficient as regards hours of labour, and, indeed, I would put the figure lower than that, because I do not think there is any necessity to-day for anyone to be working even 48 hours a week.
There is one provision in the Bill which I support very strongly, and that is the provision that these young people shall not be working until one o'clock in the morning, or working at night at all. That should be prevented as far as possible. I cannot, however, see the necessity for Clauses 5 and 6. I suppose that the catering trade is very strong and determined on the employers' side, and that they put their case strongly before the Select Committee and have influenced the Government to make provision for exceptions in that particular trade. Personally, I do not think there is any

113
reason or justification for exceptions in the catering trade, or in the garage trade either. I cannot see why we should make exceptions of that kind. Since 1931, when the Committee recommended that there should be a 48-hour week, there has been ample time for all concerned to make arrangements, and I think that the Government should have provided that this very limited Bill, which only deals with young people between the ages of 14 and 18, should bring into operation a 48-hour week immediately it was passed for that particular class of persons. With regard to Clause 10, which I support very strongly, I should like the Under-Secretary to tell us whether the provisions of that Clause dealing with ventilation, sanitary conveniences, heating, suitable and sufficient washing facilities, and canteens for meals, are to come into operation when the Bill is passed, or whether they also are to wait until the end of 1936 before they are put into force? There again I think there has been plenty of opportunity for the putting into operation of such provisions in all shops. I admit that in many departments of trade one can see delightful and efficient provision of this kind for the workpeople, and I do not see why it should not be made in all shops. It will make for better workmen and workwomen and for healthier citizens, and it ought to have been in existence long ago.
There are something like 2,000,000 shop assistants in this industry, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) said, is perhaps the largest industry that we have in the country. Something like 750,000 young people are engaged in the distributive trades, and here we have a Bill to deal with something less than 400,000. I think that, after the Select Committee had reported so favourably on the desirability of a 48-hour week, it would have been good to have seen a Bill to provide for that length of working week for everyone. Our first consideration should be for those who are in employment, and here we are dealing with those who are in employment, whose hours we seek to shorten at some time, and whose health conditions we seek to improve at some time; but there is another side to this question. We have in this country a large army of unemployed
114
people, still numbering some 2,250,000, of whom a large number—I do not know the exact figure—are between the ages of 14 and 18. If this Bill were to come into operation immediately on its being passed, it ought to be the means of providing employment for many young people who are now unemployed, and who would be much better if some employment could be found for them. I do not suggest for a moment that they earn their living, and I take it that no one who is the father of either boys or girls will say that boys or girls between 14 and 18 earn their keep and clothing and everything else, in view of the miserably low wages that are paid to them.
The prevention of sweating and of the miserably low wages paid in the distributive trades in this country to-day is a matter that ought to be dealt with by Parliament. There is room for great improvement, and I hope that Parliament before very long will take that into consideration. If we were all co-operators, we should not have this Bill. I belong to a movement which has no necessity for it. All its provisions are provided. I suggest that we all urge everyone to join the movement and see to its strengthening. We only have to deal with the exploiters, the private traders, those who are making money and skinning everyone they can get money out of, old or young. There is room for considerable amendment in Committee. First of all, Clauses 2, 5 and 6 ought to go. We welcome whatever possible improvement is provided by the Bill. We expect very little from this Government, so we have to be thankful for small mercies, but I have been long enough in public life to accept anything which will better the condition of the people. If there is anything that will make for improvement, I welcome it. If there is anything that is going to be a deterrent to improvement, we ought to do our best to remedy it, and there is an opportunity for those on the Committee to see that the Bill is strengthened and that shop life is made happier for everyone than it is to-day.
8.2 p.m.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Douglas Hacking): The hon. Gentleman has just said that he did not expect much from this Government, but I would

115
assure him that he is getting from this Government in connection with this matter more than he got from his own. It is not often that the Home Office is concerned with a Bill praise for the principle of which is expressed from every quarter of the House, and, in spite of the last speech, I think my statement is accurate. It is true that the praise was fainter in some quarters than in others, for example in the last speech; nevertheless, the word praise is not an unfair word to apply to the reception which the Bill has had. Of course, there has been criticism. We expected criticism, but such criticism as we have had has been almost entirely of a helpful and constructive character. I think I may say with all humility that the reason the Bill has received such general approval is that it is a good one. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), in a recent speech, said that whenever he made an intelligent statement or put forward a good argument, he often found the Government to be on his side. I am not quite sure what he meant. Did he mean that the reason the Government were so rarely on his side was that his intelligent statements and good arguments were few and far between? Let me inform him that if the Opposition was on the side of the Government on every occasion when we introduce sound and practical measures, there would always be complete harmony in the House, especially between the hon. Gentleman and myself.
My right hon. Friend has given such a full explanation of the Bill that there is very little for me to say now, but I should like to add a few words about the scope of the Bill and the extent to which its provisions will apply. I will deal solely with the first part of the Bill dealing with the employment of persons under 18 years of age. Under the existing Act the limitation of 74 hours a week—that is inclusive of meal-times—applies only to young persons "employed in or about a shop." The provisions of this Bill follow the recommendations of the Select Committee and apply to young persons "employed about the business of a shop." This is a much wider definition and the hon. Member for Westhoughton asked me what its effect would be. The new definition will include all young persons employed
116
in the following capacities in wholesale and retail shops, and in their warehouses—indoor staff engaged in serving customers, receiving orders or despatching goods—the category generally known as shop assistants. There would also be included the outdoor staff such as office boys, errand boys and girls and messengers, also—I think this has not been clearly apprehended—the clerical staff connected with retail shops and finally as far as the business of the shop is concerned there will be included the staff engaged in ancillary duties, such as cleaners and maintenance staff. In addition to that, Clause 4 extends the provision to include young persons trading elsewhere than in shops, for example, in street trading and in trading from vans. It was felt that this extension was not only in the interest of the young persons but was also reasonable and in the interests of fair competition as between shopkeepers and those who trade out of doors.
The hon. Member for Westhoughton said the Bill was long overdue. If it is long overdue now, it was overdue in 1929–31. Apart from that, the Select Committee only reported late in 1931, and, when one considers the length of time that has been taken by Governments in bringing forward legislation after the report of any particular inquiry, I do not think the House will consider that we have been very long in bringing this Measure forward. The hon. Gentleman also said he would reserve the right to table Amendments. That is not unusual, and we do not complain about it. In fact, it would make very little difference whether we complained or not. The hon. Gentleman said that 60 hours a week were allowed in the catering trade; it is true that, during one week, 60 hours may be worked, but the hon. Gentleman was careful not to tell us that in the following week only 36 hours would be allowed. He also said there could be employment in the same trade up to one o'clock in the morning under the terms of the Bill. That provision is put in in the interest of the young persons themselves. They only have the opportunity of learning the trade by occasionally working these long hours, and it is only right that they should have such opportunity if they are to make progress and obtain promotion. The hon. Gentleman told the

117
House that 48 hours was sufficient at present for co-operative societies. If that be so, I should have been very glad if he had told the House why, under the agreement between the co-operative societies and their employés, a quarter of an hour each day is included as extra time, possibly for cleaning up. This means, not a 48 but a 49i-hour week under agreements at present in existence. The hon. Gentleman quoted from this book, which I had the audacity to borrow from him, "Investigation by the Home Office and the Ministry of Labour into hours and conditions of labour in shops." This is the quotation from the book from which he made a partial quotation :
"Hours of Labour (Co-operative Trading).
The general employés normal working week shall not exceed 48 hours."
On the next page :
"Where it is necessary to clear the shop of customers after the general hour of closing, 15 minutes shall be allowed free from any overtime payment."
I am informed that frequent advantage is taken of this condition. So that 48 hours is not the maximum that is worked in co-operative society shops to-day.
The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) quoted certain anomalies about the Bill. He said that young persons employed in restaurants were included and young persons employed in hotels were excluded. That is true, but restaurants have been defined by the courts as taking part in retail trade. On the other hand, those who work in hotels are held by the courts to be engaged in domestic service. This explanation also gives the reply to the question of my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). It is a question of the definition by the court as to what is retail trade and what is not.
Earl WINTERTON: I did not dispute that, but it is an anomaly, and a Government especially an all powerful Government like this can do away with it. The point that I pressed was that these page boys in restaurants and hotels do exactly the same work except that it is longer, according to the report of the Home Department. Why should the anomaly remain?
Mr. HACKING: I quite saw the point.
Mr. DENMAN: The House has to-day declared that a stream shall be deemed to
118
include a pond. We might similarly declare that a shop shall be deemed to include a hotel.
Mr. HACKING: Although I understand that we have had one speech dealing with the Shops Bill which was made on the Water Bill, it does not necessarily follow that during the Debate on the Shops Bill I shall make a speech on the Water Bill. It is true that you could cure this anomaly but you would create others, because lift boys are not the only boys engaged in domestic service, and you would have to bring in all other people concerned in domestic service, and thus probably very much enlarge the provisions of the Bill. But these are points which can be thrashed out better in Committee than on Second Reading. I only mention those reasons now, so that the House may realise that it is not quite so easy to deal with the problem as it might appear to be on the surface.
Another anomaly was mentioned by the hon. Member for Central Leeds, that van boys employed by a contractor, if engaged in working for a retailer, would be included in the Bill. I think the hon. Member said that such van boys would be included in the terms of the Bill.
Mr. DENMAN: No.
Mr. HACKING: Well, I misunderstood the hon. Member. All I need say with regard to that point is, whether these van boys are employed by a contractor on work for a retailer, or are employed by a contractor on work for a manufacturer, in both cases they would be excluded from the provisions of this Clause. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Islington (Colonel Goodman) asked why the 48-hour week should not come into operation at once. Several other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) asked the same question. It is not only difficult for shopkeepers to adapt themselves to the provisions of a 48-hour week without a certain amount of inconvenience, but there is also—and it is a very important point, which, I think, has been overlooked by hon. Members opposite—the fear of dismissal of those who are at present young persons. Older people at the present time will be free to work longer hours, and consequently they might replace the young persons who are employed at present. Therefore, it is in the interests of the

119
young persons themselves that there should be a certain measure of delay. Whether or not the date which is fixed in the Bill will be the one upon which the House may finally decide can, again, be left for consideration in Committee.
The hon. Member for Rothwell asked me if Clause 10 comes into operation at once. If he will look at Clause 16, he will see the date on which the Bill comes into operation, namely, 30th December of this year.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour) referred to Clause 1 (2, a). He said that six weeks during which overtime could be worked was insufficient for the seaside resorts for which he was speaking. He desired the replacing of these young persons who had worked the six weeks by others who had not worked six weeks. I can make no promises at all to him to-night—I am sure he would not expect that I should give him a promise—but this, again, is a Committee point. We will give very careful consideration to the suggestions which he has made to the House this evening, but I would guard myself by saying that we must be very careful, and not allow any loopholes for abuse of the provisions which are laid down in this Bill with regard to hours of employment and overtime.
I have often been asked why children employed in business cannot be dealt with by the system of the early closing of shops. Undoubtedly, the provisions of the Early Closing Acts have conferred great benefits upon shop assistants, but from the information which has reached the Home Office, it is clear that cases arise in which young shop assistants are employed for a considerable period after the shop has officially closed. Examples have been given of that to-night. Let me give one example which came to my notice not very long ago. A youth, under 17 years of age, worked 69 hours a week, and sometimes 71 hours a week, inclusive of meal-times, notwithstanding that the shop never closed later than seven o'clock in the evening, and that the youth always received his weekly half-holiday. It is true that there may not be many cases like that—I am not insinuating that there are—but I maintain that, under the existing law, they are possible, and they ought
120
to be made absolutely impossible by Act of Parliament.
I want to say only one more thing. I have had the advantage, as also has my right hon. Friend, of discussing this Bill with the representatives of the various sections of the distributive trades, and I should like to place on record the assistance which we have received from them. They have met us not in any spirit of criticism for the sake of criticism, but with a genuine desire to assist in what they recognise to be a serious problem. As will be seen from the provisions of the Bill, we have, as far as we have been able, taken into account their special needs both as to the temporary modifications of the limitation of hours, and also in respect of the various trades such as catering, garages and others. We recognise that there are a large number of shopkeepers who treat their juvenile employés with great consideration to-day, and take a keen interest in their welfare. There are also an even larger number of shopkeepers who would be willing to afford preferential treatment to those young persons were it not for the fact that they have to compete with others who are not quite so considerate to their staffs. I hope, therefore, that this Bill, which imposes conditions of employment upon all shopkeepers alike, will be welcomed by the large majority of employers in the distributive trades, and in recommending the Bill to the House, I hope and believe that employers will feel, as undoubtedly the House feels, that it is of the utmost importance to do everything that is possible without placing too heavy a strain upon British trade to further the interests of the younger generation in whose hands rests the future of this country.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

SHOPS BILL [Lords].

  ADJOURNMKNT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Blindell]
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three Minutes after Eight o'clock.

INDIA.
  DEFENCE FORCES.
  DEFENCE FORCES.
  KASHMIR (ARMED FORCES).
  KASHMIR (ARMED FORCES).
  IMPORT DUTIES (FLOWERS).
  IMPORT DUTIES (FLOWERS).
  INSOLVENT INSURANCE COMPANIES.
  INSOLVENT INSURANCE COMPANIES.
  NATIONALITY LAW.
  NATIONALITY LAW.
ROYAL NAVY.
  FLEET ORDERS.
  FLEET ORDERS.
  ARC-LAMP CARBONS.
  ARC-LAMP CARBONS.
  PRIVATELY-OWNED WOODLANDS.
  PRIVATELY-OWNED WOODLANDS.
SCOTLAND.
  PRISON SERVICE (OFFICERS' GREATCOATS).
  PRISON SERVICE (OFFICERS' GREATCOATS).
  SMALLHOLDINGS.
  SMALLHOLDINGS.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The EARL OF ONSLOW on the Woolsack.
MARRIAGE (EXTENSION OF HOURS) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
COUNTY COURTS (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (ACCRINGTON) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (WATFORD) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Arrangements between Central ElectricityBoard and authorised undertakers.
1.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, the Central Electricity Board shall have power and shall be deemed always to have had power under that Act to make arrangements with any authorised undertakers who are the owners of a generating station which is not a selected station, for the following purposes, that is to say,—

(a) for regulating the manner in which and the purposes for which the station is to be operated and maintained or for securing that the station shall cease to be used as a generating station;

(b) for the supply of electricity, on such terms as to payment and other matters as may be agreed,—

(i) to the Board by the undertakers;

(ii) to the undertakers by the Board;

(c) for any purposes incidental to the purposes aforesaid.

(2) A generating station shall not be deemed to he a selected station for the purposes of this Act or the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, unless it is specified in a scheme for the time being in force under that Act as a selected station.
(3) Nothing in this section shall empower the Board to supply electricity directly to any undertakers to whom they would not otherwise be entitled to supply electricity directly.
THE MARQUESS OF BATHhad given Notice to move, in subsection (1), to leave out "arrangements" and insert "agreements on such terms as to payment and other matters as may be agreed." The noble Marquess said: As I understand that my noble friend in charge of the Bill has put down an Amendment which covers the point I had in mind, I do not propose to move this Amendment. I should, however, like to ask him whether he would accept the word "agreements" instead of "arrangements." I am not an expert, but I am told that the word "agreements" has a legal meaning, while nobody quite knows whether "arrangements" has a legal meaning.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): I am advised that the way of dealing with this difficulty proposed in my Amendment is the better one. So far as the word "arrangements" is concerned I think your Lordships know that that word is constantly used in all the Electricity (Supply) Acts, and I am advised that for the sake of uniformity it is important that we should retain the word "arrangements" in this particular context. Your Lordships will notice that in my Amendment the word "agreed" appears and perhaps that may relieve any fear in the mind of my noble friend.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH VISCOUNT FALMOUTH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "with any authorised undertakers" and insert

833
"directly or indirectly through any authorised undertakers with any other authorised undertakers." The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment, is to clear up a certain amount of ambiguity arising out of Clause 1 as it now stands. At the present moment in areas operated by authorised undertakers in the form of a joint electricity authority or a power company there may be a number of non-selected stations owned neither by the joint electricity authority nor by the power company. As the clause now stands it would appear impossible for the Central Electricity Board to negotiate with non-selected stations operated by undertakers who are neither the joint electricity authority nor a power company in the area. If these words were inserted in the Bill it would clear up the situation and make obvious what I think is the intention.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("with any authorised undertakers") and insert ("directly or indirectly through any authorised undertakers with any other authorised undertakers").—(Viscount Falmouth.)
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment because it goes very much further than was contemplated when the Bill was introduced. Your Lordships will remember that on the Second Reading of this Bill the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, dealt with a case in connection with Wimbledon which I mentioned. In the course of his speech he pointed out that arrangements had been made for the undertakers there to give supplies at reduced rates. This clause deals with arrangements made with authorised undertakers direct, and I can see no reason why the clause should be widened in order to include arrangements which may be made through other undertakers with those authorised undertakers. Already, as a result of this clause, it may be that consumers in other areas will have to bear additional charges because of arrangements come to under this clause, but why this should be widened to include arrangements made through other undertakers as well I cannot see, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Plymouth will not accept this Amendment.
LORD ASKWITH: I support my noble friend Lord Elibank in this matter. The
834
Central Electricity Board themselves do not claim such a power as this; they have not made any suggestion that it should be extended. Now it is put forward apparently in the interests of certain arrangements which appear to have been made, and it is proposed to give power for arrangements of that kind to be made in the future. ht is an invasion of the rights of other people and it is most unsatisfactory. I hope the Government will stick to the clause.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: As a matter of fact the Government are prepared to accept in principle the Amendment which the noble Viscount has moved, though we do not like the wording of it. I would ask the noble Viscount not to press the Amendment now, but the Government will be prepared on the Report stage to put down an Amendment to carry out his intentions. As understand it, the main object of his Amendment is to meet the particular conditions which exist in the area of the London Joint Authority, though similar conditions might arise in other joint authority areas. In the London area agreements of the type to which this clause relates are made not directly by the Board with the undertaker, but by the joint authority with the undertaker. Under the terms of the Order constituting the joint authority they have already power to make such arrangements and if the joint authority were themselves the owners of a generating station generating their own current no question would arise; but since the joint authority derive the whole of their supplies from the Central Electricity Board they have to obtain supplies of electricity from the Central Electricity Board at prices which enable them to carry out these arrangements. As I said, the Government agree in principle with this Amendment, and if the noble Viscount will withdraw the Amendment at the present stage, they will bring forward an Amendment on Report to meet the point which he has made.
LORD GAINFORD: Before the noble Viscount withdraws this Amendment, may I draw the attention of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to the fact that in subsection (3) of Clause 1 it is provided:
"Nothing in this section shall empower the Board to supply electricity directly to

835
any undertakers to whom they would not otherwise be entitled to supply electricity directly."
It does seem to me that the principle which the noble Earl is prepared to accept would make that nugatory. I therefore draw his attention to the matter before he brings forward his Amendment on the Report stage.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I will certainly look into the matter further.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: In view of what the noble Earl in charge of the Bill has said, I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK moved, in subsection (1), after the second "station," to insert "on such terms and conditions as may be agreed with such undertakers." The noble Viscount said: I had hoped that the noble Marquess, Lord Bath, would have proceeded with his first Amendment, but he has withdrawn it because of an Amendment which appears on page 2 on the list of Amendments, which is to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, which he believes meets the point contained in his own Amendment. Having read the Amendment of the noble Marquess, I regard it as being synonymous with mine, and I regret that I am not able to see eye to eye with him in his withdrawal, for reasons which I will give. "Arrangements" is a word which I am advised is of very wide legal interpretation, The clause as it stands says that there shall be "arrangements." Those arrangements are not limited by anything, and I understand that under judicial decisions which have been given in the past, the word "arrangements" might be held to include arrangements which have been come to without agreement with those specifically mentioned. I think that it is very important in this case that the intention of the clause should be fully carried out in the earlier part of it, and that the arrangements come to should be only on such terms and conditions as may be agreed with the authorised undertakers.
The Amendment to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, on the other hand (if I may be permitted to refer to it) refers only to the making of payments of such amounts as may be agreed. It does not refer to any other
836
arrangements, and there are all sorts of arrangements which might be come to and might be forced through outside the question of making such payments as may be agreed. For that reason I propose to move my Amendment; but before doing so I should like to refer to a point which was raised on the Second Reading, when my noble friend Lord Eltisley rather implied, by the remarks that he made, that I was casting a slur upon the reputation of the members of the Central Electricity Board. I made an interpolation at the time, but I was able to do so only in a few words, and I wish to say here that in anything that I said in the Second Reading debate and in anything may say this afternoon, I have no intention of casting any slur upon any member of the Central Electricity Board or the Electricity Commissioners. After all, in a matter of this kind individuals may come and individuals may go, but legislation goes on for ever.
We are not legislating this afternoon because there are certain members of the Electricity Board holding that position to-day—members for whom I have the very greatest respect and for whose work I have the very greatest respect, because I think, like my noble friend Lord Eltisley, that they have done admirable work for the country in this respect. I ask your Lordships in the Committee stage of this Bill this afternoon licit to look upon the question from the point of view advanced by Lord Eltisley in the Second Reading debate, but from the point of view that the legislation which is being passed this afternoon is coming to stay, and that it may be administered not only by the present members of the Board and the present Electricity Commissioners, but by members who may come after them, and who may not be imbued, perhaps, with the same spirit or ideas as members are who are in their places to-day. So I move this Amendment, and I ask the Government to bear that point in mind.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, after the second ("station") insert ("on such terms and conditions as may be agreed with such undertakers").—(Viscount Elibank.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: As I said when replying to the noble Marquess, Lord Bath, I am advised that no such interpretation as the noble Viscount suggests

837
can be given to the word "arrangements" in this context. This word "arrangements" is used on innumerable occasions in other Electricity (Supply) Acts. I made it perfectly clear on the Second Reading that there was absolutely no element of compulsion in this Bill. No arrangements of this kind could be arrived at unless there was agreement. I agree that my Amendment refers to agreements only in connection with terms of payment, but those are vital terms, and if no agreements can be come to in regard to payments to be made under these arrangements it is absolutely clear that these arrangements will fall through. I hope that in view of the fact that the noble Marquess has accepted my suggestion, the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I should like to take this opportunity of supporting the Amendment of Lord Elibank, and I pray your Lordships' indulgence in addressing this House for the first time. I can claim a considerable amount of municipal experience, and as such I feel it is essential that local authorities with undertakings should have confidence in the Central Electricity Board. After all, they have got to deal with them. They are authorities with responsibilities the same as the Central Electricity Board, and unless you have mutual confidence between the two it is obvious that there will be a great deal of trouble. It seems to me from what I have heard about the word "arrangements," that it is not a satisfactory word to put into a measure which is going more or less to govern the action of electricity undertakings in this country for a good many years to come. I am advised that the clause as it stands may be read as giving power to the Central Electricity Board to act in relationship to authorised undertakers with regard to the matters in Clause 1 without any restriction on the means by which they attain that result; that the term "arrangements" is a very wide and indefinite one, and that if unqualified it includes the settling of the relationship between the parties in regard to some matters without consent or agreement.
It is that important point "without consent or agreement" that I would urge the noble Earl in charge of the Bill very seriously to consider before he
838
rejects this Amendment. Municipal undertakings, like company undertakings, must be conducted on business lines. They cannot afford interference from outside, or uncertainty, which would mean inefficiency, and therefore very likely would bring loss to the ratepayers supporting any municipally-owned undertaking. The Central Electricity Board, I presume, is still out to cheapen the supply of electricity, but I hope not at the cost of the ratepayers. I trust that your Lordships will see your way to accept this Amendment, in order that there may be more confidence in municipal undertakings, which have a great deal of responsibility to their ratepayers, who are also taxpayers, from whom the Central Electricity Board derives its revenue.
LORD RANKEILLOTUR: I do not know whether any noble and learned Lord is present who can say what is the effect of the word "arrangements." Can they be cut off by either party at will? Is there any sanction? Supposing one party does not carry out the arrangements, has the other party any remedy? It is a matter of some importance. I do not know whether cases have arisen under former Electricity Acts, but I should imagine that the parties to such an arrangement might easily find themselves in a position which was never contemplated, unless there was a binding agreement. I think the question is worth asking.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I am afraid I am not satisfied with the reply given by the noble Earl. He says the word "arrangements has been used in former Acts, and that it has always been understood; but I am advised very definitely that the word "arrangements" can be used outside in an unlimited way, if I may put it in that manner, and that unless the word "arrangements" is qualified by the addition of the words "on such terms and conditions as may be agreed with such undertakers," it leaves the question in the air to some extent. The noble Earl has told us that it really does not matter. If it does not really matter why does he not agree to have this Amendment put in the Bill? On the other hand, I feel that it matters very much, and therefore I am sorry but I shall have to go to a Division if he cannot accept my Amendment.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I think it is clear that the only point at issue is what actual meaning can he placed on the word "arrangements" other than the meaning which is ordinarily accepted. The reason why I ask your Lordships to retain the word "arrangements" is that I am advised that it is constantly used in these Electricity (Supply) Acts, and that for the sake of uniformity it is extremely desirable that it should be retained in this place.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I think the noble Earl misunderstood me. I do not propose to leave out the word "arrangements"; my Amendment is to add these words in order to make it quite clear that there is an agreement with the undertakers.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The object of the Amendment is to qualify the word "arrangements." I make this suggestion to the noble Viscount. If he is prepared to withdraw his Amendment now, and put it down on Report stage, I will undertake to look into the matter and see whether, in the view of the Government, there is any substance in what he wishes.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I will accept that suggestion, and thank the noble Earl very much.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ELTISLEYmoved, at the end of paragraph (a) in subsection (1), to insert "and where arrangements are made for any of those purposes the arrangements may provide." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to make perfectly clear that the arrangements made under paragraph (b) of Clause 1 (1) for the supply of electricity to or by the Board, or to any authorised undertakers by arrangements they have made under paragraph (b), shall be contingent on arrangements being made under paragraph (a) of the subsection with respect to the operation of a generating station by the authorised undertakers, or for securing that such a station shall cease to be used as a generating station. The wide powers of making arrangements under paragraph (b) might, it is felt, be exercised to the serious detriment of other authorised undertakers if such arrangements could be made independently of
840
arrangements under paragraph (c). It is therefore desired to link up these various paragraphs. I believe that the Central Electricity Board intended, and do intend, paragraphs (b) and (c) to be contingent on paragraph (a). I am therefore rather hopeful that the Amendment may be accepted at any rate in principle, if not in the actual wording which has been drafted. In regard to the observations which fell from Lord Elibank, I was glad to hear the noble Viscount express enthusiasm for the Central Electricity Board and the Electricity Commissioners, and I am glad that he no longer fears the use of force majeure to which he referred previously.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I have never referred to force majeure being used by the Central Electricity, Board. I referred to the force majeure which is implied by this Bill, and I interrupted my noble friend on the Second Beading on that very point.
LORD ELTISLEY: I am extremely sorry if I misunderstood the noble Viscount for a second time. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 16, at end insert ("and where arrangements are made for any of those purposes the arrangements may provide").—(Lord Eltisley.)
LORD ASKWITH: My name is also on the Paper as mover of this Amendment, and I agree with my noble friend that it makes it clearer that these paragraphs are dependent on each other. The noble Earl has down a similar Amendment in which he proposes to leave out of paragraph (b) the words "on such terms as to payment and other matters as may be agreed," and I suggest that the wording of my noble friend makes the matter clearer than does the Amendment of the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I accept this Amendment on behalf of the Government, but I do not think that makes my Amendment unnecessary.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH VISCOUNT FALMOUTH had on the Paper an Amendment to insert in paragraph (b), after "supply," the words "directly or indirectly as aforesaid." The noble Viscount said: This is consequential

841
on my previous Amendment, and, in view of what the noble Earl in charge of the Bill has said, I do not move.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to omit from paragraph (b) of subsection (1) the words "on such terms as to payment and other matters as may be agreed." The noble Earl said: The object of the Amendment is merely to make it perfectly clear that the financial terms of the proposed arrangement may refer to any matters covered by the arrangement, and not specifically to the supply of electricity.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 1, leave out the said words.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to insert after paragraph (b):
"(c) for the making of payments, of such amounts as may be agreed, to the Board by the undertakers, and to the undertakers by the Board, in respect of the matters provided for by the arrangements."
The noble Earl said: This is the same point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask the noble Earl, in view of the withdrawal of my Amendment and his suggestion that I should put it down on the Report stage, whether he does not think it would be better that this Amendment should be held up, too? It seems to me that this Amendment and my Amendment are bound up with the same question, and if this Amendment were accepted it might block out mine altogether.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The effect of that would be to cut out any reference to an agreement. I think that perhaps it would be better if this were to go in. It would be open to the noble Viscount, in putting down his earlier Amendment on the Report stage, to move that this paragraph should be left out, but I think that some words mentioning the question of an agreement and the special terms of payment ought to go into the Bill.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I agree, but if this goes in I may be told on Report that it is all that is required. If the noble Earl will agree that this Amendment might be removed on Report in the event
842
of my Amendment being accepted, then I shall be content.
THE EARL or PLYMOUTH: I quite agree to that, if it is necessary.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, after paragraph (c), to insert:
"Provided that, if under any such arrangement it is proposed by the Central Electricity Board to supply to the authorised undertaker concerned electricity at a price lower than the appropriate tariff fixed under Section eleven of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, the Electricity Commissioners before giving their approval shall give any authorised undertakers appearing to them to be interested an opportunity of being heard."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment ought to be considered in connection with proposed Amendments by Lord Eltisley and Lord Elibank which appear a little later on the Paper. I regard this Amendment as of vital importance to the satisfactory passage of this Bill. What I, and those who think with me, seek is that when a body like the Central Electricity Board has fresh powers placed upon it which were not anticipated at the time of the Act of 1926, and that Board is apparently going to be given powers which will interfere very seriously with the rights and powers which already exist, and which have been given to the various undertakings under very careful supervision by Parliament, there ought to be some judicial body to whom reference can be made on points at issue. It seems to me that the Electricity Commissioners are the right authority to whom applications could be made by aggrieved parties, and that the matter should be placed before them by the various undertakers in connection with the powers which this Bill proposes to give them.
Of course, if the Electricity Commissioners think that no case has been made out, they will act accordingly and the central electricity authority will not be interfered with, but it is a somewhat serious principle to extend their powers beyond the definite and limited powers given them by the Act of 1926, merely because they have more or less completed their grid scheme, which enabled them to link authorised undertakings in this country with a view to a general supply of electricity. The powers which are

843
sought in this Bill are very considerable and apparently it would enable injustice to be done if these powers were acted upon in an unfair way. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, I am not making charges against Sir Andrew Duncan and his other able assistants on the Central Electricity Board. They have been, and are, I think, carrying out their duties to the satisfaction of the whole country. But I do say that where parties may be injured by autocratic powers given to a body like the Electricity Board they ought to be able to appear before a judicial tribunal such as the Electricity Commissioners and place their case before them.
I will give one or two illustrations. The Central Electricity Board want to sell electricity apparently under the provisions of this Bill at a price lower than the price paid by any other body under the Act of 1926, and it seems to me only reasonable that they ought to be able to prepare a case before the Electricity Commission in order to justify that extension of their powers. That has been a safeguard really for the Central Electricity Board themselves up to the present time. Any of the owners of non-selected stations can to-day apply to the Electricity Commissioners to enlarge their stations. If the Electricity Commissioners withhold their consent to that enlargement an inquiry has to take place under the Act of 1919. That gives an opportunity to the undertakers to press for a public inquiry and therefore to press the Central Electricity Board unduly, and it might be possible that in place of enlarging their station they might agree to quote very low terms. Those low terms might be very prejudicial to a substantial undertaker who has already provided electricity. It would mean loss of business, and where loss of business is concerned it would hit the consumers. It would also hit the shareholders indirectly, but it would be the other consumers who would have to bear the loss. It would be very unfair to the consumers if they were to have less generous terms quoted to them for electricity on account of unsatisfactory action being taken by the Electricity Board.
Then again, a preference might be given. Not only might they compel another authority to terminate a
844
contract, but they might also drive another undertaker to rely on the minimum clause in the contract. Nearly all these contracts have minimum clauses where large bulk supplies are involved, and they might be driven to supply at a minimum figure on account of an unfair price being quoted to one of these other undertakers. In any case large bulk suppliers would be at a disadvantage and would lose by the action of the Central Board, if there were no judicial tribunal to check it. Safeguards have been given to authorised undertakings by various Acts of Parliament—the Act of 1919, for instance, in which a non-selected station can be extended by the authorised undertaker; Section 13 of the Act of 1922, in which the Commissioners cannot refuse consent to an extension if it can be proved that local generation is cheaper than bulk supply; and Sections 10 to 14 of the Act of 1926, under which the Central Board cannot force themselves on an authorised undertaker unless they show that the statutory charge is cheaper than local generation. All these safeguards have been inserted in previous Acts of Parliament, and might go by the board unless there is some appeal to a judicial tribunal. I therefore propose to move my Amendment, but I am quite prepared to withdraw it in favour of those proposed by Lord Eltisley and Viscount Elibank which stand later on the Paper, and which are perhaps more sound because they create the judicial body that is preliminary to the words of my Amendment. Under these conditions I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 6, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Gainford.)
LORD ASKWITH: I would like to support the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Gain-ford. I am sure the adoption of this Amendment would give satisfaction to the majority of authorised undertakers in this country. There would be a feeling that the Commissioners would be an over-riding body who would keep things upon a level basis, that there would be no secret agreements or suspicions which might arise of people or undertakings being undercut, and that there would be a general power of ventilation and inquiry in the event of any one feeling at all aggrieved. Therefore I strongly support this Amendment.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: In view of the fact that this is the first of a series of Amendments dealing with this particular point, it might be an advantage if I were to make a more or less general statement about the position. It is perfectly true, as the noble Lord has suggested, that this Amendment, if accepted, would really not make sense now because at present there is no provision in the Bill for these arrangements to come under the scrutiny of the Electricity Commissioners, but I think that can be very easily remedied later on. The general object of these Amendments which have been put down by the noble Lord and by noble Lords behind me is to limit the discretion of the Central Electricity Board in making agreements by requiring the approval of the Electricity Commissioners to these agreements, and further to direct the Electricity Commissioners as to the points they must take into consideration and as to the method of their investigation.
The Central Electricity Board is a public body not working for profit, and is admitted by all parties, I think, to be an extremely efficient business organisation. Any attempt to subject their operations to detailed supervision is, in the view of the Government at any rate, unnecessary and, I think, very undesirable. After all, the Board is a statutory body working within statutory limits laid down in the Act of 1926, and while they have wide freedom and discretion in executive action the general principles on which they work are properly laid down. In practice it is really impossible to believe that the Central Electricity Board would utilise the power of making agreements for any other purpose than to secure the general advantage. Even from their own point of view it is perfectly clear that the Central Electricity Board would not enter into arrangements of this kind which would be likely to prove a disadvantage to themselves and in consequence a disadvantage to all other authorised undertakers, because what is of advantage to them must react upon the rest of the authorised undertakers of the country.
If it is the general sense of the Committee that some further safeguard is necessary in addition to what is contained in the Bill, I am prepared to accept on behalf of the Government the
846
general principle of the Amendments which have for their object to bring all future agreements of this kind under the scrutiny of the Electricity Commissioners; but I want to add that in the view of the Government it is really essential that the scrutiny should be in such a form as not to hamper the smooth and rapid working of the executive functions of the Central Electricity Board as a commercial undertaking. The scrutiny in our view should be limited to ascertaining that any proposed agreement was not for the period of its duration prejudicial to the Board, and we feel that care ought to be taken not to hamper the Commissioners in the discharge of this duty as rapidly and as efficiently as possible.
The particular point which the noble Lord opposite has raised is in connection with the position of other authorised undertakers under this Bill, and he would wish to insist that any authorised undertaker who may be considered to be interested should have the power of appealing to the Electricity Commissioners and should have the right of being heard before them. We feel that that is quite unnecessary. The Commissioners will accord a hearing wherever it appears to them to be necessary and desirable, but since it might quite well be argued, as I am advised, that any authorised undertaker in the country receiving a supply from the Board might be interested in any agreement made of that nature, it is clearly undesirable to extend to all of them the statutory right to be heard, because it would very clearly make it impossible to get any of these special agreements through in a reasonable time if that were the case. But if it is the general sense of the Committee that further safeguard is necessary, I am prepared to accept the general principle that supervision by the Electricity Commissioners should be insisted on, and it was my intention on behalf of the Government to accept that portion of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, which deals with that particular point. I hope by making this general statement I have facilitated discussion upon this clause.
LORD GAINFORD: Before this matter is disposed of I want to say that it is very obvious, from the terms of the Bill, that on more than one occasion things have occurred in relation to the late Board which apparently require white

847
washing. There are two paragraphs in the Bill which allude to the past, and therefore one is a little suspicious even of a Board such as the Electricity Board if there is no authority of a judicial kind to which some appeal can be made. The last thing those interested in the production of electricity want is to allow the Statute to be drawn in a way which would allow frivolous complaint to be made. The noble Earl, I understood, was quite prepared to allow the Commissioners to be brought in under the words which the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, desires to introduce in his Amendment; that is to say, as a body to which representations can be made; but the noble Earl made a condition, I think, that there should be no interference in matters connected with the discretionary powers of the Electricity Board. I do not know exactly what the qualifications of the Electricity Board are. What I am concerned about is the public interest. In many Statutes we have the words "public interest" brought in, and it seems to me that where the public interest is at stake, there ought to be an appeal to a judicial body, and it ought not to be merely with the acquiescence of the Board but by independent people who feel that they are aggrieved on special grounds.
LORD MERRIVALE: I hope the noble Earl will give some further consideration to what the noble Lord opposite, Lord Gainford, has said. Lord Gainford very concisely identified a possible cause of grievance among undertakings which supply electricity, and he proposed a mode of preventing that grievance from becoming effective and reducing the possibility of injustice by a statutory right of approach by persons concerned to the Electricity Commissioners in a specific case. I have great difficulty in seeing what objection in principle there could be to a process of elementary justice such as that. It is a specific matter, and it does not affect the principle of the Bill. It affects, as the noble Lord opposite said, the securing of the rights of those who are concerned in these undertakings without the possibility of an indirect interference with them.
LORD GAINFORD: At this stage I think it better to withdraw my Amendment leaving Lord Eltisley to move his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH had an Amendment on the Paper to insert, after paragraph (c):
"Provided that the approval of the Electricity Commissioners shall not be given unless the Board satisfy the Commissioners that the supply of electricity at such prices will cover the expenses of the Board (including interest and sinking fund charges on any capital expenditure incurred) in providing such supply."
The noble Lord said: I would ask leave not to move this Amendment. It has got into the wrong place. I support a similar Amendment to be moved by Lord Gainford or Lord Eltisley.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection:
"() The provisions of Section fifteen of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, and the Fourth Schedule to that Act, shall extend to and apply in the case of any officer or servant of any authorised undertakers affected by the closing (permanent or temporary) of a generating station or the cesser of the use thereof as a generating station or by the imposition of any restriction on the working or use of a generating station under or in consequence of any arrangement made under or in pursuance of this section, as if such closing or cesser were a closing authorised by that Act of a generating station and as if such restriction were imposed by or under a scheme referred to in that section."
The noble Lord said: I have tabled this Amendment on behalf of the Association of Local Government Officers, and also a joint committee representing the Association of Electrical Power Engineers and the officers and staff of the electricity companies and the municipal electrical engineers. All these important organisations are interested in Clause 1 of this Bill, and desire to insert in that clause a provision for compensation to officers and servants who may either suffer loss of employment or diminution of remuneration as a result of the arrangements which may be effected under that clause. Under Section 15 and the Fourth Schedule to the Electricity Supply Act, 1926, an officer or servant who suffers loss of employment or diminution of salary or wages as a consequence of the closing of a generating station under that Act or restrictions imposed by the Central Electricty Board by or under a scheme made in pursuance of that Act on the working or use of a generating station, would have a right to compensation for such loss. Those members of

849
your Lordships' House associated with the passing of the 1926 Act will remember that this matter was debated at great length in another place. This Amendment is really carrying out the principle which I think has already been accepted and which is given effect to in practically all Bills that are now placed on the Statute Book. In view of the fact of another Amendment being tabled in the name of the noble Lord in charge of this Bill which seems to me to cover precisely the same ground, I do not wish to weary the House with further argument in support of the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 6, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Eltisley.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to insert after subsection (1):
"() The provisions set out in the Fourth Schedule to the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926 (which relates to compensation for deprivation of employment), shall apply and shall be deemed always to have applied in relation to every officer or servant of any authorised undertakers affected by the closing (permanent or temporary), or the imposition of restrictions on the working or use, of a generating station by or under any such arrangements as aforesaid."
The noble Earl said: I beg to move the Amendment in my name. It covers the same point and the noble Lord has made it very clear.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 6, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection:
() Section twenty of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, so far as it relates to the making of agreements by authorised undertakers shall apply to the making of arrangements by the Board under this section, and accordingly the Board shall not in making any such arrangements show any undue preference to any local authority, company or person."
The noble Lord said: I think this Amendment is more or less self-explanatory. The Central Electricity Board was constituted by the Electricity Supply Act of 1926 and is subject to the
850
provisions of Section 20 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882. There is a doubt in the minds of some of us as to whether that section would apply in relation to Clause 1 subsection (1) of the Bill now before us because, whereas the section in the Act of 1882 applied to the making of "agreements", Clause 1 of this Bill empowers the Board to make "arrangements," which the Court might hold is not the same thing. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 6, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Eltisley.)
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I would like to support this Amendment. In view of the powers given in this Bill I think it is very important that this particular point as to the powers conferred in the former Act should again be emphasised. As it stands an agreement might be made, as the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, has said, outside the provisions of the Act of 1882, and might be of disadvantage to other consumers either private or industrial. Therefore I hope the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am told that this is really absolutely unnecessary. I am told that there is not the slightest doubt that the Central Electricity Board are undertakers under the Act of 1882 and quite definitely under the Act of 1926.For this reason I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment, because it is a great pity to put in words which are redundant and might for that reason lead to doubt.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask whether it is held that making an agreement is the same as making an arrangement? That is what we want to be satisfied about.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: May I say that I will look into that before Report?
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: That means that this will be put down again on Report stage.
LORD ELTISLEY: In view of that will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved to insert the following new subsection after subsection (1):

851
"()(a) No arrangements made by the Board after the passing of tins Act for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) of this section shall have effect, unless and until they have been approved by the Electricity Commissioners, and the Electricity Commissioners may approve the arrangements either without modification or subject to such modifications as they think fit or may disapprove the arrangements.
(b) If any such arrangements be approved by the Electricity Commissioners subject to modifications the arrangements shall have effect subject to those modifications."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is a rather long one, but I think it is self-explanatory. The association on behalf of which I put down this Amendment desires to protect its members and all other authorised undertakers against arrangements being made by the Central Electricity Board under Clause 1 with particular undertakers which would be unfair to other undertakers or which might result in loss to the Board. I would like to remind your Lordships that the Board's expenses can only be paid out of revenue received by the Board from the supply of electricity. The Act provides that the Board's general tariff for electricity supplied from the grid to authorised undertakers shall be fixed so that, for a term of years to be approved by the Electricity Commissioners, receipts on income account shall he sufficient to cover the expenditure on income account, including interest and sinking fund charges, together with such margin as the Electricity Commissioners may allow. It follows, therefore, that if the Board supplied some undertakers under the Bill on unremunerative terms the general tariff under the Act of 1926 would have to be raised. I think that is quite clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 6, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Eltisley.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Surely the noble Lord is dealing with a different point from that covered by the Amendment. The Amendment which I understand he moved begins: "No arrangements made by the Board"—
LORD ELTISLEY: That is the point I was dealing with.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: There is no reference to the question of financial
852
loss to the Board. Perhaps I had better read it:
"No arrangements made by the Board after the passing of this Act for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) of this section shall have effect, unless and until they have been approved by the Electricity Commissioners, and the Electricity Commissioners may approve the arrangements either without modification or subject to such modifications as they think fit or may disapprove the arrangements."
Is this the Amendment of which the noble Lord was speaking?
LORD ELTISLEY: I was.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am prepared to accept the Amendment as far as I have read it. We accept the principle of scrutiny of these arrangements by the Electricity Commissioners. It goes no further than that. With regard to paragraph (b) of the noble Lord's Amendment, I am not at all certain that the noble Lord quite realises the full implifications of that part of the Amendment. That part of the Amendment would enable the Electricity Commissioners to alter any agreement made between the Central Electricity Board and another authorised undertaker and it would make that altered agreement compulsory upon the parties. I do not think that that is the intention that the noble Lord had in mind. If I may be allowed to offer some advice to the noble Lord I would suggest that perhaps he would be prepared to withdraw that portion of the Amendment. What it does is clear. It makes it possible for the Commissioners to impose an agreement upon the parties concerned, the Central Electricity Board and the authorised undertaker with whom they are in negotiation. It enables them to alter any agreement and impose it upon them. I do not think that was the intention of the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I have an Amendment standing next on the Paper which covers all the points brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Gain-ford. I would like to ask the noble Earl whether he would accept paragraph (a) of Lord Eltisley's Amendment, and then paragraph (b) which is really Lord Gainford's Amendment, and leave paragraph (c) which is in the clause. If the noble Earl will do that then I am prepared to forgo paragraph (b):

853
"If any such arrangements be approved by the Electricity Commissioners subject to modifications the arrangements shall have effect subject to those modifications."
I believe that paragraph might have the effect stated, and that it would give power to the Electricity Commissioners to modify an agreement already come to between the Central Electricity Board and an authorised undertaker.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: And impose it upon them.
VISOOUNT ELIBANK: And impose it upon them. Therefore I think we ought to have an opportunity of looking at the Amendment again. If the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, agrees, I will withdraw so far as my whole Amendment is concerned, and support the first part of Lord Eltisley's Amendment and also Lord Gainford's proviso.
LORD GAINFORD: I think it will be convenient not to accept the part of the noble Lord's Amendment which is going to impose new powers on the Commissioners but to leave it for consideration at a later stage. With regard to the Amendment which I moved and withdrew, on condition that it should come up later after the Commissioners had been created a tribunal, I feel very strongly on the point and I hope the noble Earl will accept it.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Of course that point does not arise on this Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley. So far as this Amendment is concerned, I am prepared to accept the first portion, but I would urge the noble Lord to withdraw paragraph (b).
LORD ELTISLEY: At this stage I do not wish to press paragraph (b).
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Does the noble Lord move his Amendment in this form: in line 6, at end insert the following new subsection (a) as printed on the Order Paper, and omitting paragraph(b)?
LORD ELTISLEY: Omitting paragraph (b), yes.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK had given Notice that he would move, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection:
"() No arrangements made by the Board after the passing of this Act for any of the
854
purposes mentioned in subsection (1) of this section shall have effect unless and until they have been Approved by the Electricity Commissioners, and the Electricity Commissioners may approve the arrangements either without modification or subject to such modifications as they think fit or may disapprove the arrangements:
Provided that, if under any such arrangement it is proposed by the Central Electricity Board to supply to the authorised undertaker concerned electricity at a price other than the appropriate tariff fixed under Section eleven of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, the Electricity Commissioners before giving their approval shall give any authorised undertakers appearing to them to be interested an opportunity of being heard.
If any such arrangements be approved by the Electricity Commissioners subject to modifications, the arrangements shall have effect subject to those modifications."
The noble Viscount said: My Amendment as it stands includes in the first paragraph the Amendment which has just been accepted, in the second paragraph the Amendment which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, and in the third paragraph that part of the Amendment which has just been withdrawn. I agree with the withdrawal of that paragraph, and without giving all the arguments, because the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, has already done so at great length, I beg to move my Amendment omitting the first paragraph and the last paragraph.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 6, at end insert:
"Provided that, if under any such arrangement it is proposed by the Central Electricity Board to supply to the authorised undertaker concerned electricity at a price other than the appropriate tariff fixed under Section eleven of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, the Electricity Commissioners before giving their approval shall give any authorised undertakers appearing to them to be interested an opportunity of being heard."—(Fiscount Elibank.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I very much hope that the noble Viscount will not press this Amendment. I conceded a very great point when I conceded the institution of scrutiny by the Electricity Commissioners over the powers of the Central Electricity Board provided in Clause 1, and I would appeal to your Lordships not to tie down the Electricity Commissioners by too many detailed instructions. After all, the Electricity Commissioners are a body of business

855
men with the widest possible knowledge of the electrical industry; I doubt whether anybody knows more than they do. It seems to me that to fetter them with particular instructions may put an entirely wrong emphasis upon the duties which they are called upon to perform. If you draw attention to particular matters which they are expected or known to have to pay attention to in their decisions upon these schemes, it may tend to obscure a number of other questions which should also be taken into consideration by them when dealing with these agreements which come before them. That is one of the reasons why I very much hope that the noble Viscount will not press this Amendment.
In the second place, as I have said I very much hope that your Lordships will not agree to a number of instructions which will hamper the Electricity Commissioners and the Central Electricity Board in coming to arrangements which are essentially business operations, in which it is really of the utmost importance that time should be taken into account. As I said, it could quite well be argued, if this Amendment were passed, that any authorised undertaker in the country had an interest in any particular arrangement, and if that were the case and if they had a statutory right to be heard by the Electricity Commissioners, it would lead to a tremendous amount of delay. It is not at all the principle of this to which I object, it is the way in which it would work out in practice. I would venture to say in all earnestness that I think that in a matter of this kind a certain amount of discretion should be left to the Electricity Commissioners to see that these arrangements are not made in such as way as to be prejudicial to the Board itself and consequently prejudicial to other people. I would beg your Lordships not to press this particular point, because I do sincerely think that to leave them that discretion would be a far better way of achieving the objects which are in view.
LORD GAINFORD: I am sorry that I have to rise again, but I feel strongly upon this point. In practice, big undertakings are not going to raise frivolous points, and they are not going to create delay in connection with any action which may be taken
856
Which is going to be for the general benefit of the community. But to open the door to enable a body which may change as years go on to interfere with large established undertakings to their detriment may not only mean the loss of a great deal of money to the very big undertakings concerned, but may do a real injustice to them, and there will be no opportunity for this matter to be thrashed out in detail where all the interests are concerned. It seems to me to be fair that if an undertaking is under a sense of grievance, then in fairness to its shareholders and to the consumers generally, who may have to have the price of their own electricity raised in consequence of large pecuniary losses, it ought to have power to go to the Electricity Commissioners. It is because I think that that is fair in the interests of all concerned that I press this Amendment.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I feel very strongly on this subject, too. I know that the authorised undertakers in this country are very concerned about the terms of this Bill generally, and what they do desire is that there shall be inserted in this Bill safeguards, and definite and secure safeguards, which in the future will create a position about which there can be no uncertainty when cases come before the Electricity Commissioners. The noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, has told us that everything will be done by the Electricity Commissioners to see that justice is arrived at. I have not the slightest doubt that everything will be done by them, but if that is so, and if the insertion of this paragraph is going to allay the fears of a large number of suppliers of electricity in this country who, as the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, has pointed out, have a great amount of capital invested in these undertakings, then surely it is a very small thing to ask the Government to insert these words. The noble Earl himself has agreed that they will make really no difference one way or the other, because the Electricity Commissioners will probably carry out what we suggest shall be inserted in the Bill. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, and I shall certainly he prepared to go into the Lobby with him if the noble Earl cannot see his way to meet us on this point.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am afraid I have little to add to what I said before. It is impossible for the Government to accept a position in which it will be possible for any one of the 600 authorised undertakers in the country to claim to be heard before the Electricity Commissioners. We feel that it would make the position really impossible, and I hope that the noble Viscount will with-draw this Amendment and leave it to the Report stage, so that it can be discussed with my honourable friend the Minister of Transport, to see whether words can be inserted which would give to those with a substantial interest a right to be heard in the manner suggested by the noble Viscount. I am really afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment at the moment, in its present form.
LORD GAINFORD: I am quite prepared always to meet the Government reasonably in a matter of this kind, but I want them to realise, before the Report stage, that there is a very strong feeling that justice on substantial lines should be secured for any really aggrieved party. If the noble Earl can introduce words which will prevent undue delay, or frivolous objections being brought before a tribunal of this kind, we shall, of course, be prepared to meet him and not press a Division. I understand that he is prepared to consult with the responsible Minister in another place, and in those circumstances I am quite prepared to ask Lord Elibank not to press his Amendment at this stage, with a view to re-introducing it at a later stage if we find that the Government words do not meet the point.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I will willingly give that undertaking.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: In these circumstances I am prepared to take Lord Gainford's advice and withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH VISCOUNT FALMOUTH moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "for the time being in force." The noble Viscount said: It is clear that the object of subsection (2) is to prevent any of these non-selected stations coming under the operation of this clause as selected stations, and I think your Lordships will
858
agree that that is a very fit and proper purpose; but these words, "for the time being in force," do not seem really to be essential in any way to the main object of the clause and might be interpreted in a way which might be very prejudicial to the owners of selected stations. Under the 1926 Act, when once a station is included in the scheme as a selected station it always remains a selected station unless the owner is himself willing not to be selected, but under the 1926 Act the Electricity Commissioners have power—and these are the words of the Act— "to alter or extend the original scheme." So it might happen that the original scheme had been altered or extended under the powers given in the 1926 Act, and that would he held to fall under this particular clause as the scheme "for the time being in force," and this would have the effect of depriving the owners of selected stations which were not included in the altered scheme, of having the protection which they have got under the 1926 Act and which they would have had were it not for these words being included in this particular clause. I hope the noble Earl will see his way to delete these words.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, leave out ("for the time being in force").—(Viscount Falmouth.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. The words which the noble Viscount wishes to delete are, in the view of the Government, necessary, since the word "scheme" alone would include the schemes prepared by the Commissioners, which were, however, modified by the Central Electricity Board before adoption, and it is clear that schemes so adopted and in force are those to which reference is intended to be made in this subsection.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: I would like to ask the noble Earl if he does not think that those particular words have a prejudicial effect on the owners of selected stations.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I have not been advised to that effect.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Amendment of s. 11 of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926.
2.—(1) Nothwithstanding anything in Section eleven of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, the Central Electricity Board shall have power and shall be deemed always to have had power to supply electricity to authorised undertakers at prices and on conditions other than those specified in the appropriate tariff fixed under that section, in cases where they are satisfied that special circumstances exist and that those undertakers, or other authorised undertakers who are supplied with electricity by those undertakers, will thereby be enabled to supply, to persons whose needs for electricity are of an exceptional nature, an amount of electricity corresponding to the amount of the electricity so supplied by the Board.
(2) So much of any tariff fixed under the said Section eleven before the commencement of this Act as purports to reserve to the Board power in special circumstances to supply electricity at prices other than those specified in the tariff shall cease to have effect but no such tariff shall he deemed to be invalid by reason only that it purported to reserve such a power.
(3) Nothing in this section shall empower the Board to supply electricity directly to any undertakers to whom they would not otherwise he entitled to supply electricity directly.
LORD ERSKINE LORD ERSKINE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the first "shall" and insert "may with the approval of the Electricity Commissioners." The noble Lord said: Clause 2 of the Bill enables the Central Electricity Board to give a special supply through an authorised undertaker for the purposes of a special consumer, at a price which is lower than the grid tariff, as directed in Section 11 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, and the clause leaves it to the discretion of the Central Board as to what the price shall be, and on what occasions they may quote such a lower price. My Amendment is designed to make the Electricity Commissioners the approving body in these special cases. The Electricity Commissioners were set up to supervise and regulate the supply of electricity under the Act of 1919, and they are in many respects a judicial body. The Central Electricity Board, on the other hand, are an executive body, just like other authorised undertakers. Again, the Electricity Commissioners are the body under the 1926 Act who have to express their approval in relation to the general grid tariff of the Central Board, and it will meet much of the criticism levelled at Clause 2 if the Electricity Commissioners are brought in as the approving body.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 18, leave out the first ("shall") and insert ("may with the approval of the Electricity Commissioners").—(Lord Erskine.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The Government are quite prepared, as they are with regard to Clause 1, to accept the principle that agreements made subsequently to the passing of this Act will be subject to the approval of the Commissioners, who will satisfy themselves that the agreements are not prejudicial to the Central Electricity Board, but the effect of the Amendment would be to make it necessary for the Board to obtain the approval of the Commissioners in every case, that is where an agreement has already been made and is working, and also in the case of future agreements. I think it would be entirely unnecessary, and indeed very undesirable, to require the Commissioners to make inquiries into all agreements which have already been made, but as I have said the Government are prepared to accept the principle that all future agreements should be under their scrutiny. I do not like the wording of the Amendment, and therefore I would ask your Lordships not to accept it, but I shall be prepared to put an Amendment down to the effect that I have indicated.
LORD ERSKINE: After what has fallen from the noble Earl I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH VISCOUNT FALMOUTH had an Amendment on the Paper to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that the prices and conditions at and upon which the Board may supply electricity under this section shall he fixed so that over a term of years to be approved by the Electricity Commissioners the receipts on income account shall be sufficient to cover the expenditure on income account, including interest and sinking fund charges, with such margin as the Electricity Commissioners may allow."
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I have here a manuscript Amendment handed in by Lord Gainford. It is proposed by Lord Gainford to leave out the words after the word "shall" in the third line down to the words "be sufficient." The effect of the Amendment to the Amendment will be to leave out the words "be fixed so that over a term of years to be approved by the Electricity Commissioners the

861
receipts on income account shall." Then, after the word "cover," to insert the word "annually." The Amendment will then read:
"Provided that the prices and conditions at and upon which the Board may supply electricity under this section shall he sufficient to cover annually the expenditure on income account…."
and so on.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: I understood that the words proposed by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill in dealing with similar Amendments in Clause 1 held good in regard to Clause 2. Before moving this Amendment I should like to have his views on the matter.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Will the noble Viscount move?
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: Well, I want to know, but I will move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 28, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Falmouth.)
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, as Amendments to the Amendment, to leave out "be fixed so that over a term of years to be approved by the Electricity Commissioners the receipts on income account shall," and, after "cover," to insert the word "annually." The noble Lord said: I quite approve of the Amendment of the noble Viscount, but I am at the moment proposing these Amendments to the Amendment with a view to making it quite clear that the prices and conditions on which the Board may supply electricity must cover annually "the expenditure on income account, including interest and sinking fund charges, with such margin as the electricity Commissioners may allow." Under the Act of 1926 where power is given to the Electricity Board in connection with the supply of electricity to an undertaking the matter can be arranged for a term of years, and the object of my Amendments is that the power should now be an annual one instead of over a term of years. Where a firm or a consumer is involved it is most important that the expenses should be calculated annually because of the great fluctuations in trade prospects and from that point of view an arrangement over a term of, we will say, ten years would be quite unfair. In the case of an undertaking which has a monopoly for the supply of electricity
862
it is another matter, but in the case of a consumer who may be here to-day and gone to-morrow, or who may be making profits one year and heavy losses another, it is most desirable that the arrangement should be an annual one, and it is only fair in the interests of all parties that the accounts should be fixed so that undertakers shall not unduly suffer owing to the expenses incurred by the Electricity Commissioners.
Amendments to the proposed Amendment moved—
line 3, after ("shall") omit all words down to ("be") in line 5, and in line 5, after ("cover"), insert ("annually").—(Lord Gainford.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I should like first of all to inform the noble Viscount who moved the original Amendment that my remarks on Clause 1 were intended to apply to this clause also. In dealing with Lord Erskine's Amendment I made it clear that the Government were prepared to put down an Amendment on the Report stage accepting the principle of a scrutiny by the Electricity Commissioners, and also to the effect that it should be an instruction to them (if it may be put in that way) that any arrangement which was come to between the Board and an authorised undertaker should not be prejudicial to the Board. But I would ask the Committee not to accept this Amemdment, because once again it ties down the Commissioners and places upon them certain detailed instructions which I think should not be placed upon them. There are also some real practical objections to this Amendment in addition. As I have said, it is naturally intended that the Commissioners should satisfy themselves that the price at which supply is given is not prejudicial to the Board; that is to say, that it should not throw upon the Board any financial loss; but cases might quite well arise, I am told, in which the price, while contributing to the overhead charges of the grid, which (I would remind your Lordships) have to be borne in any event, do not cover the average of those charges.
This principle applies with even greater force in the cases which will arise under Clauses 2 and 4, which provide for giving special prices to large industrial consumers and railway companies, as those supplies are

863
necessarily given at rates which, while pf general advantage to the Board, do not make the full contribution towards interest and sinking fund charges and overhead expenses which have to be borne in any event. I am told that it is the ordinary practice of all electrical undertakings catering for large industrial supply to make special contracts at reduced rates which contribute less than the average to the overhead charges, including interest and sinking fund. To give specific directions of this kind is, in the view of the Government, quite inappropriate when the whole purpose of the clause is to enable special arrangements to be made.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: In view of what the noble Earl said, that he would bring up an Amendment on Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD GAINFORD: Having made my point I do not desire to interfere with the withdrawal of this Amendment, seeing that the noble Earl is going to consider the whole matter again before Report.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection:
"() Nothing in this section shall affect the application to the Board of Section 20 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, and accordingly nothing in this section shall empower the Board to supply electricity to any authorised undertakers at prices or on conditions which would give any undue preference to those undertakers."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is very similar to my Amendment on Clause 1, page 2, line 6, and, as I think the observations I made in support of that Amendment meet the case, I will not repeat them. The noble Earl accepted the first part of that Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 35, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Eltisley.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: This is the Amendment dealing with undue preference and I am advised that there is no question of the Central Electricity Board not being an authorised undertaker under this Act, but the question of
864
arrangements arose and I undertook to look into the matter before the Report stage.
LORD ELTISLEY: I gather that the noble Earl said the Amendment is unnecessary. If that is so, I do not propose to press it.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I am not, quite clear as to what the noble Earl means. Under the Act of 1926 there is a specific procedure under which the charges to be made for electricity are laid down. That procedure is not to be departed from except under another special procedure, and this special procedure is, so far as I recollect it, that first of all the Electricity Commissioners shall agree and, subsequent to the agreement of the Electricity Commissioners, whatever is arranged Shall be embodied in a Parliamentary Order and placed before Parliament. Under this Bill as it is drafted the Central Electricity Board will be able to do away with all that procedure and merely make arrangements on preferential lines without any provision at all. Certain agreements have been made up to date which will be whitewashed by this Bill. We all know that is going to happen, but I submit to your Lordships that the agreements which are to be made in the future should be subject at least to the same procedure as is laid down in the 1926 Act. That procedure is a very reasonable one. It is not one to which anyone ought to take exception, and that is that the Electricity Commissioners should approve of such arrangements. I would go so far as to say that I see no reason why such arrangements should not be embodied in an Order, as has been done in the past. I feel that the noble Earl is asking rather much of your Lordships when he asks that these agreements should be entered into by the Central Electricity Board without any arbitration at all.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Amendment of s. 12 of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926.
3.—(1) if it is made to appear to the Electricity Commissioners by persons appearing to them to be interested, that it is in the general interest of the persons concerned so to do, the Commissioners may direct that the charges and allowances to he included in the price to be charged for electricity under Section twelve of the

865
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, by the undertakers to whom the direction relates shall be computed as if all such electric lines used by the undertakers (for whatever purpose) as are specified in that behalf in the direction—

(a) were transmission lines; and

(b) were used for all the purposes for which any of them were used;

and, unless and until the direction is revoked by the Commissioners, the said charges and allowances shall be computed accordingly.
(2) In ascertaining for the purposes of the said Section twelve the terms on which any undertakers receive a supply of electricity from the Central Electricity Board, any supply which is by virtue of the provisions of the last foregoing section given to the undertakers at prices other than those specified in the appropriate tariff shall be disregarded.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved, at the beginning, to insert the following new subsection:
"() Section twelve of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, shall have effect as if—

(i) the words 'in bulk' where those words secondly occur in the section were omitted, and

(ii) the following words were inserted in the section after the words 'the Third Schedule to this Act' viz.: 'and also in the case of a supply for haulage or traction purposes to a railway company a fair proportion of any sums apportioned to or demanded from the undertakers giving the supply in respect of the expenses or estimated expenses of the Electricity Commissioners, including in those expenses any sums paid or payable by the Electricity Commissioners to the Central Electricity Board under subsection (3) of Section 9 of this Act."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the supply of electricity for haulage or traction purposes to railway companies. The Act of 1926 prescribes the price which the Board charges to various undertakers who pass on supply, plus the transmission charges incurred by the undertakers in passing that supply on. Clause 3 proposes to make provision for pooling the whole or part of these transmission charges. To that I am not making objection, but Clause 3 does not deal with another defect in Section 12 of the Act of 1926. That section is so worded as to raise doubt, particularly when read in conjunction with the Third Schedule of the Act of 1926,as to whether, when a supply is passed on to a railway company for haulage or traction purposes, the railway company has to pay for the transmission charges. It is believed that it was intended that the
866
railway companies should be obliged to make this payment under the Act of 1926, but as Section 12 and the Third Schedule appear not to carry out that intention this Amendment is desired. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 40, at the beginning insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Eltisley.)
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I have an Amendment down in similar terms and I should like to support the Amendment of my noble friend. I think it is only fair that the railways should bear the same expenses as private and industrial consumers do, and believe it has always been felt that the railways have been too favourably treated in this respect.
LORD ELTTSLEY: I do not care which Amendment is accepted, as we have both the same object in view.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Amendments are identical except that Lord Eltisley has, after "expenses," the words "or estimated expenses." I do not know in which form the noble Lord wishes to move.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am prepared to accept this Amendment in principle, but here again I am told the wording is not very good, and if the noble Lord is prepared to withdraw his Amendment, and the one dealing with a similar point later on, I will undertake on behalf of the Government to bring forward Amendments on the Report stage dealing with this particular point.
LORD ELTISLEY: Thank you. I ask leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ELTISLEYmoved, in subsection (1), to leave out "persons appearing to them to be interested" and insert "any authorised undertakers or railway companies." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that these authorised undertakers and railway companies are to be entitled, and are the only persons entitled, to ask the Electricity Commissioners to authorise the pooling of transmission charges. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 41, leave out ("persons appearing to them to be interested") and insert ("any authorised undertakers or railway companies").—(Lord Eltisley.)
LORD ASKWITH: I wish to support Lord Eltisley in what he has said. You want to define these people clearly. You cannot have a person coming forward who has a general interest. The whole drafting of these two or three lines is, I think, extremely poor.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I prefer the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Falmouth to that of my noble friend Lord Eltisley. I think "railway company" ought to be in the singular, and if the noble Lord is prepared to amend his Amendment in order to make it read "railway company" instead of "railway companies" I gladly accept.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The proper procedure would be for this Amendment to be withdrawn, and then for the House to take the Amendment which the noble Earl proposes to accept.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTHmoved, in subsection (1), to leave out "persons appearing to them to be interested" and insert "any authorised undertakers or railway company." The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 41, leave out ("persons appearing to them to be interested") and insert ("any authorised undertakers or railway company").—(Viscount Falmouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTHmoved, in subsection (1), to leave out "it is in the general interest of the persons concerned" and insert "it is desirable in the interest of the general supply of electricity within an area specified by a scheme adopted by the Central Electricity Board under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926." The noble Viscount said: This is a very small Amendment. The object is to limit the number of people who are interested in one of these arrangements. I do not know whether the noble Lord will accept the Amendment, but it seems to me it contains very considerably better wording than does the Bill at the present moment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 42, leave out ("it is in the general interest of the persons concerned") and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Falmouth.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am afraid I cannot agree that it is better
868
wording. I should have thought this made it far wider and was inconsistent with the previous Amendment, which has taken out "persons…interested" and specified "authorised undertakers or railway company." After all this clause deals with Section 12 of the Act of 1926. It is with the interests of those who come under Section 12 of that Act that we are dealing here. So far as I can see there is no cause for adding to the number of people whose interests have to be taken into account when the Electricity Commissioners have to deal with a matter of this kind.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: The object was to reduce the number of people who would be interested in any one of the particular arrangements. As the Bill is drawn someone in Sussex would take an interest in Scotland, whereas by my Amendment it would be limited to the area specified by the scheme. I will ask the noble Earl to consider that point and will withdraw this Amendment.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I will consider the point, but I would point out that the words "in the interests of the general supply of electricity in an area" to my mind are far wider than those at present in the Bill. I see the noble Viscount's point, that anybody outside the area concerned might be able to make objection to a scheme of this kind, and I will look into it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "of the persons concerned." The noble Lord said: After what has been said I feel exceedingly diffident of suggesting any alteration in the drafting of the Bill, but I venture to move the deletion of the words "of the persons concerned" because they appear to me to be redundant.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 42, leave out ("of the persons concerned").—(Lord Eltisley.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I hope the noble Lord will not think too hardly of any criticisms I may have made with regard to his drafting capacity. At any rate, I can assure him I meant nothing at all insulting, and I accept this Amendment with the very greatest pleasure.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved, in subsection (1), after 1926, to insert "as amended by this section." The noble Lord said: I think this is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 4, after ("1926") insert ("as amended by this section").—(Lord Eitisley.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am afraid I cannot agree to this because I think it is entirely unnecessary. If you amend, as we are amending, the Act of 1926, or a certain section of it, then in future a reference to that section is "as amended." It really is entirely unnecessary to insert "as amended"; that will make no difference at all.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert:
"Provided that before giving any such direction the Commissioners shall give an opportunity of being heard to any other authorised undertaker or railway company affected who consider that such direction may be prejudicial to them."
The noble Viscount said: The object of this proviso is to give other parties who may be affected by a direction of the Electricity Commissioners under this clause an opportunity of being heard. I should like to give an illustration. Suppose there is a large undertaking giving bulk supplies to other under takings, and one of these other undertakings happens to be situated quite close to the generating station of the suppliers whereas another undertaking supplied may be situated some forty miles away, it is obvious that the undertaking situated forty miles away will make an application under Clause 3 and endeavour to get the Electricity Commissioners to give a direction which will reduce the transmission charges to that long-distance undertaking and spread them over the other undertakers supplied from the same source. If that direction is given it is equally obvious that the undertaking situated quite close to the generating station will have to pay more for its supply. It is only right, before a direction is given, that the Electricity Commissioners should hear both sides, and it is with that object that I ask the Government to insert this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 13, at end insert the said provision.—(Viscount Elibank.)
LORD PENTLAND: I should like to support this Amendment, and in spite of the remarks already made by the noble Earl I hope it may be possible for him to accept it. As has already been explained, the principle of Clause 3 is that you have perhaps a large transmission system over which supplies are being given to a number of different undertakers. Instead of charging each one of these according to the economic cost, you are to pool the charges, which are re-allocated on an entirely artificial and, I think you might say, uneconomic basis. If you give preferential advantage to one consumer or undertaking you can only do that by taking away from another undertaker. We are proud of the record of the Electricity Commissioners, but there is no magic power about those Commissioners. If they give to one undertaking they can only do it by taking away from another. On those grounds I very much hope that this Amendment will be accepted.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: This is really similar to an Amendment moved in connection with an earlier clause, and which the noble Lord agreed to withdraw on a certain undertaking which I gave. My objection to this Amendment is even greater than my objection to that of the noble Lord, Lord Gainford. To begin with, I cannot accept the proposition of the noble Lord opposite when he says that if you give a preferential advantage to one undertaker it must deleteriously affect another. To my mind that is an entirely erroneous assumption. It is not so at all. The Central Electricity Board, which is the body he was referring to rather than the Electricity Commissioners, would be the last people in the world to do a thing of that kind if its was going to prejudice and consequently react unfavourably on other people. A preferential arrangement is not by any means necessarily uneconomical or unadvantageous. I think in most cases it is an advantageous arrangement and an economical one. I feel certain the Central Electricity Board will not enter into such arrangements if they do not think it advantageous to do so.

871
May I add that this is an attempt to force a hearing and, possibly, an inquiry upon every occasion that a matter of this kind arises? As it is open to the Electricity Commissioners to vary their directions every year, this would enable one dissentient undertaker to attempt a hearing every year, with the probability that other undertakers would be forced to attend, thus putting every one in the area to great expense. The prices to be determined relate to a particular year, and the possibility of an indefinite multiplication of inquiries would seriously hinder the efficient working of this clause. If this Amendment were accepted I think it would be most undesirable. These are essentially business operations and time in a matter of this kind is of the utmost importance. I want to assure noble Lords that in practice the Commissioners are very ready to accord hearings where-ever necessary, and they invariably do so. I venture to say that provisions of this nature are really objectionable in a clause of this kind, because they entirely hold up arrangements for a period and would very detrimentally affect all concerned.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I hope that the noble Earl will regard this Amendment in the same light as the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Gainford. There is a feeling, as I said before, amongst the undertakers that in the future when there is a different Board and when the spirit of this Bill has disappeared, their position may not be so carefully considered as it would be to-day. It is perfectly true, as the noble Earl says, that the object of this Amendment is very much the same as the object of the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Gainford. I should like to ask him whether it would not be possible upon the Report stage to produce some Amendment which might satisfy the undertakers that they will be given a hearing when the occasion arises. Surely it is not beyond the wit of the legal advisers of the Government to devise some Amendment which will meet us if the noble Earl is not able to accept the Amendments which we have placed upon the Amendment Paper. I would ask the noble Earl to state whether he would do that, before I decide whether to withdraw or not.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I think I must, having regard to the undertaking
872
I gave earlier, undertake to look into this point as well. I cannot go further than that.
LORD ASKWITH: May I suggest that in dealing with this question the noble Earl should consider the procedure that appertains at the Board of Trade with regard to the railway companies? There this question of undue preference has always been a very vital one. Here it is becoming a very vital one, or at any rate it may become so, although there are not likely to be the same number of applications as in the case of railway companies. Occasionally there is a spate of complaints of undue preference against railway companies, but, as a matter of fact, they usually boil down to comparatively few. The trader making an application tries first to settle with the railway company, and if he is unable to settle he can then go to the Assistant Secretary who is the head of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade The Assistant Secretary has both parties before him and tries to see if there are any means by which an agreement can be come to, or if he thinks there is undue preference a hint can be given to the railway company of such a nature that the company is usually prepared to make a proper agreement. If this procedure at the Board of Trade does not yield a satisfactory result the trader can go before the Railway and Canal Commission and I think he can come to the House of Lords. No doubt that is an expensive business, but there are cases even now which come up before the Railway and Canal Commission. I do not see why an authorised undertaker should not have as much protection against undue preference as a trader has against a railway company.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: May I point out that it has been the traditional practice in Parliament and in all Parliamentary inquiries not to refuse a hearing to any person who can show a reasonable locus standi? The question of who can show a reasonable locus standi is not always an easy one, but in cases like this it should not be impossible to devise some plan whereby any parties who can make a prima facie case that they are affected should he heard. One plan would be that the parties should enter into a bond—a monetary bond if you like—that they would appear and oppose. To give the

873
Electricity Commissioners in a matter like this a power which is entirely against the practice of Parliament and against precedents in dealing with such matters is surely going too far. I suggest that the noble Earl might bear this suggestion in mind when he is dealing with the matter.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I do not know that the Commissioners are given any greater power than they have already. I can only assure the noble Viscount that I will look into this on the same basis as I said I would look into the point raised on an earlier clause.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: In those circumstances I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, but I shall put it down again on Report stage in order to keep the matter open.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ELTISLEYmoved, in subsection (2), after "twelve," to insert "as amended by this section." The noble Lord said: In view of the reception given to art Amendment in similar terms just now I am rather apprehensive as to the reception of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 16, after ("twelve") insert ("as amended by this section").—(Lord Eltisley.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. It is exactly the same as a previous Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH VISCOUNT FALMOUTH moved, in subsection (2), after "supply of electricity," to insert "directly or indirectly." The noble Viscount said: A supply of electricity may be direct or indirect, or it may be both. I think it is fairly clear that the intention is that it should be both. I feel that it would considerably improve the lucidity of the Bill if these words were inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 16, after ("electricity") insert ("directly or indirectly").—(Viscount Falmouth.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I will accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH VISCOUNT FALMOUTH moved to leave out the last word in subsection (2) and
874
insert "regarded only in connection with the supply to any such undertakers or railway company for whose requirements such supply has been given." The noble Viscount said: As the Bill stands it is rather difficult to understand what is meant by the last subsection in this clause. There are several sources of supply and an undertaker may be getting a direct supply. In that case, apparently, according to this clause he is able to make full use of Clause 2 of the Bill. That is to say, if there is any big consumer who makes 'a contract with this undertaker he is able to supply this undertaker at a cheaper rate under Clause 2. If, however, there happens to be an undertaker who is receiving an indirect supply, that is to say, a supply under Section 12 of the 1926 Act, it would appear, according to the clause as drawn, that the advantage which ought to be given to the large consumer in Clause 2 shall be disregarded. It seems to me that this clause defeats itself by the word "disregarded." The words I move to insert will make quite clear what is the purpose of the clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 20, leave out ("disregarded") and insert ("regarded only in connection with the supply to any such undertakers or railway company for whose requirements such supply has been given.")—(Viscount Falmouth.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am afraid I do not quite appreciate the full object of the noble Viscount's Amendment. I thought it was connected with the earlier Amendment on Clause 2 which he withdrew. I will undertake to look into the matter before the Report stage if the noble Viscount will withdraw now.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: I am very pleased to accept the noble Earl's suggestion. There is a definite distinction in the Bill between a supply of electricity directly from the Board and an indirect supply of electricity, and my Amendment seeks to eliminate that distinction. It is really a technical point, and perhaps the noble Earl will consider it before the next stage of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK had given Notice that he would move, after Clause 3, to insert the following new clause:

875
".The Third Schedule to the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, shall have effect as if—

(i) in the heading thereof the word 'bulk' was omitted and the words or for haulage or traction purposes to a railway company' were added at the end thereof:

(ii) in line four thereof the words or for haulage or traction purposes to a railway company' were inserted after the word 'undertakers'; and

(iii) the last sentence thereof were omitted and the following sentence substituted 'If a transmission line be used partly for giving a supply in bulk to an authorised undertaker and partly for other purposes (whether a supply in bulk to another authorised undertaker or a supply for haulage or traction purposes to a railway company, or a supply for any other purpose whatsoever) or if a transmission line be used partly for giving a supply for haulage or traction purposes to a railway company and partly for other purposes (whether a supply in bulk to an authorised undertaker or a supply for haulage or traction purposes to another railway company or a supply for any other purpose whatsoever) the charges and allowances shall be the proper proportion of such charges and allowances as aforesaid.'"

The noble Viscount said: I will not move this Amendment, in view of the assurance which the noble Earl in charge of the Bill has given that he will put down an Amendment on the Report stage to deal with this matter.
Clause 4:
Supply of electricity by Central Electricity Board to railway companies.
4.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Central Electricity Board may supply electricity directly to any railway company upon such terms and at such prices as may be agreed:
Provided that the Central Electricity Board shall not enter into any agreement with a railway company for the supply of electricity to that company under this section at any point within the area of supply of any authorised undertakers who own a selected station without the consent of those undertakers, so, however, that such consent shall he deemed to have been given if, on the application of the Board, the Electricity Commissioners determine that the withholding thereof is unreasonable.
(2) Electricity supplied to a railway company under this section may be used for the haulage or traction of vehicles used on the railway on any part of the system of the company and for the lighting of the vehicles for the haulage or traction of which electricity so supplied is used, and, subject to the provisions of this section, shall not be used for any other purpose:
Provided that, with the consent of the Minister of Transport and subject to such
876
limitations, if any, as he may prescribe either generally or in any particular case, the electricity supplied under this section to a railway company at any point may be used partly for such purposes as aforesaid and partly for other purposes of the company's undertaking, being purposes for which the company are entitled to use electricity.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Central Electricity Board may supply electricity directly to any railway company upon such terms and at such prices as may be agreed," and insert "Electricity Commissioners may if, having regard to all the circumstances, they think it expedient by a Special Order under Section 26 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, make provision for the supply direct to any railway company by the Central Electricity Board." The noble Viscount said: This clause is the most controversial clause in the whole Bill, as it attacks a most definite principle which was laid down in the 1926 Act—namely, that the Central Board should supply electricity only in bulk and not in retail; that railways should be placed in certain respects in a favoured position, but that definitely no supplies should be given directly to the railways by the Central Electricity Board but only through authorised undertakers. This clause as it stands takes away, or tends to take away, that right from the authorised undertakers. As the clause is framed it would enable the Central Electricity Board to supply direct, without any further application to a higher authority.
In regard to this clause I am speaking for the greater part of the electrical generation and supply industry of the country, and I can say quite definitely that the majority of those engaged in the industry are very much opposed to the principle contained in this clause. They are opposed to the infringement of the Act of 1926 as it stands, and they have absolutely no desire for a reversal of the policy which was laid down in that Act and which I have just described. I think it can be substantiated on all sides that the railway companies have received satisfactory treatment at the hands of the authorised undertakers and have not complained of the prices charged. In support of this I would instance the electrification which has taken place of the London to Brighton section and other sections of the Southern Railway, and I

877
would also ask your Lordships, if you have not already done so, to read a report, which has been published to-day, by Sir Herbert Walker, the General Manager of the Southern Railway, in which he points out the enormous strides which electrification has made in his railway system in the South of England, in certain dense areas and down to the coastal towns. He not only shows the strides which have been made, but he points out the advantages which have been derived from the electrification of those railways. But in that report there is not a single word which would indicate to any one that the Southern Railway is in any way discontented with the manner in which they have received their supplies.
In fact, the inference to be drawn from that report is that they have received their supplies in a satisfactory way, that the authorised undertakers have carried out all their obligations under the Acts, and that they have done everything possible to assist the railways to electrify those portions of their systems. Yet in spite of that, the Government are now asking Parliament to agree to an alteration in the system and to enable the Central Board to supply direct to the railways, thereby entirely reversing their policy and in some instances taking away from authorised undertakers the advantages which they derive from making those supplies. I, for one, cannot conceive what the railways have got to gain by this. In this debate we have heard no one on the side of the railways. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, in his reply, or some noble Lord in the House who is a railway director, will tell us whether the railways are in favour of this change of policy and what advantages the railways will derive from it; because I am inclined to think that the advantages to the railways may not be as great as the Government seem to suppose.
This Amendment as it stands therefore makes certain suggestions. Whilst the undertakers and all those, or most of those, interested in that side of the industry, are very much opposed to this proposal, they feel, and I feel, that possibly it may be difficult to resist the proposal altogether. I frankly state that my inclination would be to move the omission of this clause from the Bill altogether, but I am not doing that. On the contrary, I am putting forward a
878
compromise to the Government which I hope they may see their way to accept, as being one of a reasonable nature. All I am asking is that where it is suggested that a supply is to be given direct to the railway companies, such a supply should not be given without a special order, after approval by the Electricity Commissioners, and after being laid before your Lordships' House, and presumably before another place.
That is a procedure laid down in the Existing Electricity Acts. It was a procedure which was laid down, as I have said, at a time when the principle was definitely agreed upon that there should be no supplies given direct to the railway companies. Now that that principle is to be reversed, which I venture to say is absolutely wrong, I can see no reason whatsoever why, at any rate, the procedure which was laid down under former Acts should not apply in the present position. The noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House was Attorney-General in 1926 when the Act of that year was passed, and at that time he laid it down very clearly that there should be no reversal of this policy of supplying direct. But if it is to be reversed, then I submit that the proper thing is that the procedure laid down under the Act of 1926 should not be reversed at the same time. I hope that the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment. It is one which, as I have said, I am moving only because I am trying to meet the Government With a compromise in this matter. I feel sure that if they can see their way to accept this Amendment it will remove a great deal of the feeling which exists within the industry on account of this particular clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, leave out lines 22 to 24 and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Elibank.)
LORD GAINFORD: Perhaps I may be allowed to speak on this Amendment, for the arguments are almost equally relevant to an Amendment which I have on the Paper a little later, which deals with an alternative power given to the Commissioners. My Amendment suggests that the Commissioners have to be satisfied that the supply of electricity to the company upon the terms and at the prices proposed to be stated in the agreement will not result in a financial

879
loss to the Board, and that the authorised undertaker in whose area the supply is proposed to be taken is unwilling and not in a position to give the supply on those terms and prices. It is to be recognised that we have had a very great number of Acts giving to undertakers certain powers, some by special Act, some by Provisional Order, and some by Special Order, and here it is suggested that it should be by Special Order, in the event of the Electricity Commissioners thinking that under all the circumstances it is expedient.
That seems to me to be in consonance and in harmony with past practice, but I would point out that in these various Orders which have been considered by Parliament, and given to undertakers, it has been very definitely defined that they had to have the power, over a defined area, of giving the supplies. As there was no competition they would all practically possess a monopoly in that district, but then Parliament has guarded very greatly these monopolies, and has prevented them from being able to declare more than a certain dividend and in the event of the profits being large the consumer is to have the benefit to a greater extent than the shareholders, after a certain percentage is given in dividends. All these undertakings are prepared, so far as I know, to supply, without the intervention of the Electricity Board, the railway companies with electricity at fair prices. It is to their interest to do so. Their great ambition is to secure as large a load as they can, in order to be able to produce more cheaply, and to make as high a profit as they are allowed by Parliament to make. Therefore it is to the interest of all these undertakings to do the work which it is now proposed under this Bill to hand over to the Central Electricity Board.
The point I want to urge is that no case is at present made out as against the existing undertakings. They are prepared to supply electricity on fair terms. This Bill, however, gives the Electricity Board power, at any price they like, to supply the railway companies, and when Lord Elibank a few moments ago suggested that a railway director might get up and say whether they were satisfied or not, I believe they are satisfied that electricity has been supplied when they wanted it. That, however, is quite
880
another point. If the Electricity Board are going to be allowed to supply electricity at their own price, the railway companies may be induced to take electricity all over the country, and people interested in the production of electricity want to supply it to the railway companies, but only at a fair price. It is in order to secure fair prices that we want either this Special Order or the limitation suggested in my Amendment. At the present moment I believe that the Electricity Board have indicated that the cost of electricity to the railways of this country is£70,000,000 or£80,000,000, but they have been very careful not to tell the public that the cost of work in connection with the electrification of the railways, quite apart from the scrapping of rolling stock and capital, is£200,000,000; and so your Lordships may take it that the electrification of the railway companies of this country would mean a cost of£300,000,000, and we are not in a position in this country to spend that amount of money.
It would mean, moreover, the diversion of coal from consumption by locomotives to electricity works. Now the amount of coal consumed by the railways at the present time amounts to about 5 per cent. of the output—about 9,000,000 tons a year. If you are going to adopt a principle of this kind, and give power to the Electricity Board to electrify our railways, you must be prepared for a number of things. You must be prepared to see several thousands of miners thrown out of work, and many collieries closed down, with the result that the distressed areas in this country are going to suffer, and I am quite sure that at the present moment the country is not prepared to electrify the railways in this way, or to give powers to the Electricity Board over the heads of the undertakers to provide cheap electricity at the public cost, and to the detriment of the electricity undertakings as well.
I am very glad to see the noble Viscount the Leader of the House in his place, because he made it quite clear when the Bill of 1926 was going through another place that the Government had no intention of interfering. He was then Attorney-General and he was at pains to allay any fears that Parliament was giving the Central Electricity Board a status by which they would compete with

881
ordinary authorised undertakers. This is exactly what is going to be done unless these Amendments are accepted by the Government. You are going to give the Central Board a status by which they will be able to compete with the ordinary authorised undertakers. The noble Viscount in another place said that the only power given to the Central Board was to supply any unoccupied area, and that as soon as such an area became part of an area of supply of an authorised undertaker, the right of the Board to supply direct would cease. It is in order to maintain that position that I think it is important that the Government should accept one of these Amendments, in order, at any rate, to limit the power of the Electricity Commissioners to treat unfairly the present undertakers, who are prepared to do all that is necessary to provide the railway companies with electricity.
LORD STRABOLOGI: I submit that we are not now considering whether the country can or cannot afford to electrify the railways. I quite agree with the noble Lord that the electrification of the railways will cause a lot of distress in the coalfields, but that is an argument for general planning, including the organisation of transport and using the savings to assist the men thrown out of work in other ways. But when the noble Lord says we cannot afford to electrify the railways, and uses that as an argument against Clause 2, with very great respect we are doing it now. As Lord Eltisley and other noble Lords have pointed out, the Southern Railway now has the biggest single electrified system in the world.
LORD GAINFORD: My point is that we are doing it now by the powers which have been conferred by Parliament on existing undertakings. In the Bill you are going to transfer those powers without any check to the Electricity Board.
LORD STRABOLGI: That is perfectly true. But the Central Electricity Board, I gather, is not going to do the electrification of the railways, it is for the railways in the first place to do it; and the conflict is as to whether in certain circumstances the Central Electricity Board shall be allowed to supply direct, or whether it shall remain the sole right and power of the undertakers. Now, the
882
Southern Railway is electrifying fast, and my information is that already the London, Midland and Scottish Railway has spent£10,000,000 on suburban electrification only. That is round the outskirts of London.
LORD GAINFORD: I do not think the noble Lord realises the point. It is a question of price. At the present time the undertakers are supplying the railways with all the electricity they want at an agreed price. What I am objecting to is that the power should be given to the Board to supply power for electrification at an uneconomic rate, in order that they may be able to expand their operations as an Electricity Board.
LORD STRABOLGI: I do not reply to the noble Lord because the point I was going to make is that in the case of the Southern Railway you only pass through the areas of a few undertakings. In the case of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway they have already spent the great sum I have mentioned. Suppose they now go on to electrify as far as York. Then they will pass through the areas of a great number of undertakings, and obviously it might in those circumstances be more efficient and more economical for the Board to supply to the whole of that great area, subject, to the safeguards of this Bill.
I do not know what reply the Government are going to make, but I think it is necessary to point out that it is not a question of what the country can or cannot afford, it is a question of what the railway companies can afford, and if the railway companies can raise capital, perhaps with Government assistance, to electrify, and we could provide electricity through the Board more efficiently by bulk arrangements, then all we in this House have to do is to see that no injustice is done to the separate undertakings. I am personally in favour of seeing that no injustice is done to the undertakings. They have embarked on great schemes of development on the faith of the promises made to them in 1926 in another place. But if you are going to hamper the objects of this Bill I am not sure that you are going to safeguard the undertakers, but what you will probably do is to delay the electrification of the main railways, which the country badly needs as a fillip to employment and for greater efficiency in running. Do let

883
us get the matter quite clear. The main principle of the Bill, as I said on behalf of my noble friends on the Second Reading, is very good, but do not let us whittle away all the good in the Bill by unduly hampering the operations of the Electricity Board under the well-meaning guise of safeguarding the rights of the private undertakers.
LORD ASKWITH: My name is also down on the Paper as mover of this Amendment, and after the interesting conversation that has taken place I must agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken when he says that he would like to do justice to the undertakers. That is the object of this Amendment—not to give too much work to the Electricity Commissioners (I trust that that argument will not be brought forward), not unduly to hamper the Central Electricity Board, but to give the protection of Parliament in this particular case, in order that grievous harm should not be done to authorised undertakings by permitting direct supply to be given, and refusing a say in the matter to the undertakers, and refusing them the opportunity to quote for and to supply the electricity that is required.
Now where is the complaint from the point of view of the railways When any big railway question has been before this House I have seen railway director after railway director spring up and put the case for the railways. Not a single one has spoken to-day. In the case of the Southern Railway—the chief case of electrification that has taken place in this country at present—no complaint has been made in the report which was made by the Chairman of that company about the electrification of the railway. The Southern Railway were able to get their supplies from four different points on their railway from authorised undertakers and from municipalities, and they have made no complaints. A railway company can take electricity at any point it likes, but if the Central Electricity Board had power to supply direct and in bulk to the railway companies there would be no saving of money; they will have to have their experts and their engineers and their accountants and so on, just as the authorised undertakers have to have theirs. They will have to produce a new system, and in doing so they will only do a great deal
884
of harm to authorised undertakers and not give them a fair chance of a cut from the joint.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: Mention has been made that no railway director has said anything about this Bill. Railway directors are naturally shy and retiring individuals, and I certainly am one who does not like to speak in this House when he does not know so much about the forms and procedure of the House as he ought to know. I do not know, for instance, whether it is permissible to discuss the whole of Clause 4 on this particular Amendment. I imagine that Clause 4 was introduced by the Government to facilitate the provision of electricity to railways and to other big undertakings, and I know that if this first Amendment is carried it will delay any such undertaking for a very considerable time. I know that any Order or egg laid on that box has to be three weeks in its hatching at least. I know that this House often adjourns from July to November, and I anticipate therefore, if this first Amendment is carried, not only very considerable delay, which may be of great importance, but also that very considerable expense will be added to the carrying out of a wish to electrify part of a railway.
I do not know whether I may mention other matters. My noble friend opposite has mentioned the difficulty of passing through a large number of undertakings. He mentioned the London, Midland and Scottish going from London to York. It is quite true, taking Manchester, for instance, as a very small area, we might pass through eleven or twelve undertakings. Is a railway company to be hampered because one small undertaking objects to electricity passing through its area which it does not supply? It seems to me altogether unreasonable, and it seems to me that in this Bill the Government have proposed every sort of safeguard that humanity could ask.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: I have an Amendment down on this clause similar to the Amendments I have had previously. It seems to me that the authorised undertakers are taking an unnecessarily serious view of this matter. Supply of electricity to a railway company is done under Section 12 of the 1926 Act—that is to say, supply at cost,

885
plus certain additions for their charges and so on, so that the advantage to authorised undertakers with selected stations for a railway load is not very great, nothing like so much as it may appear at first sight. The chief advantage an authorised undertaker derives from a railway load is that he is enabled to improve what is called his diversity factor. It has always seemed to be unfair that a few authorised undertakers should be able to improve their diversity factors as the result of railway electrification which runs throughout the country. That improvement of diversity factor, in my opinion, properly belongs to the country as a whole. Another matter is the question that was brought up by the noble Lord opposite, and that is the question of taking on electricity at different places throughout the system, say from London to Manchester.
At the present moment railway companies take on supply at certain places if they want to, but they have to have their own transmission system; they cannot use the grid for this purpose. If this Bill becomes law they will be enabled to use the grid, and they will be able to take on the electrical supply at various points throughout their system, using the main grid transmission system of the country, effecting thereby very considerable economy. For these reasons I hope your Lordships will place no undue opposition in the way of the passing of this clause. My own Amendment meets the case perfectly fairly—that is to say, if the Electricity Commissioners are dissatisfied with the prices charged they may comment on this fact and take action. But apart from that I hope this clause will go through, because it will be a great advantage from the point of view of the electrification of the railways of this country, which is so urgently sought by traders.
THE EARL OF CARRICK: My name is also down on the Paper as supporting the Amendment. I speak not on behalf of the undertakers or the electrical industry: I speak as a member of the general public. After examining this clause I noticed that the Central Electricity Board are seeking to take powers by which they may supply the railways with electricity at an agreed price. The question of price is what worries me. By the Act of 1926 the Board are enabled
886
to supply electricity at bare cost of production plus the necessary overhead charges. Were this clause to be passed as it stands you would be giving the Central Electricity Board powers by which not only would it be possible but very probable that they would be supplying current to the railways at rates which would be definitely uneconomical. What would be the result? Somebody has got to make up the deficiency. It is obvious that it must be either the authorised undertaker or, in my opinion, it will eventually pass on to the general public. That is what I wish to prevent because, to put it in another form, it amounts to what one might almost say is a subsidy to the railways. What I wish to avoid, directly or indirectly, is any new form of taxation, and I wish to see every undertaking standing on its own feet. Therefore I support the Amendment.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: During the discussion on this particular Amendment we have covered a large number of other Amendments suggested to the Bill. I do not make any complaint of that, but if I may I would take this opportunity to express the attitude of the Government towards those various Amendments. We are prepared so far as Clause 4 is concerned, as we were prepared so far as the other clauses were concerned, to accept the principle of the supervision of the Electricity Commissioners in this particular matter. I am indeed prepared to accept, possibly with certain verbal alterations, the first part of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, to page 3, line 34—to insert another proviso in subsection (1).
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Which page is that?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Page 12 of the Marshalled List of Amendments.
LORD STRABOLGI: Down to the last "Board"?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Yes, I am prepared to accept it in principle. Having said that, I think I had better deal with this particular Amendment. I do not like this Amendment for a number of reasons some of which have already been mentioned. The object of the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, is to make it necessary that in order to obtain the advantages dealt with

887
under this clause the railway companies must proceed by means of a Special Order. I cannot see that there is any case for that. I cannot see that there is any case for differentiating as between one railway company and another. To begin with, I venture to say it is a question of the principle of whether this concession is to be made to the railway companies or not. That is the principle we have to decide in discussing this Bill now. I do not intend to discuss the general question of the electrification of railways and the various repercussions it might have. The case for the electrification of railways is put very clearly in the Weir Report. I do not wish to dwell upon it, but would merely say that the object of this clause is to facilitate the electrification of railways and to take away any impediments which at present exist, provided always that no injustice is done to any of the undertakers concerned.
What does this Special Order procedure entail? It is bound to entail a very considerable delay. The argument that I brought forward in dealing with the earlier clauses obtains just as much in this particular case. These are essentially business operations, and it is vital there should be no unnecessary delay. The effect of this Amendment would be to necessitate a Special Order. There would first of all be involved an application to the Electricity Commissioners for an Order. If that is contested, there would be an inquiry by the Commissioners. The Order then made has to be submitted to the Minister of Transport for confirmation. He, again, is required to hold an inquiry, and the Order, when confirmed by the Minister, requires an affirmative Resolution in each House of Parliament, which, as the noble Viscount rightly points out, might entail a very considerable delay, indeed, a delay of months.
I frankly admit, as I did on Second Reading, that this is a reversal of the policy that was maintained when the original Bill of 1926 was brought in, but it was made clear to us by the Report of the Weir Committee that there were certain matters which were impeding to a certain extent the electrification of railways. I suggest therefore that that principle should be decided in discussing this Bill, and so far as I can see there is no case for differentiating between one
888
railway company and another. What would actually happen? It would mean that every railway company which applied for these advantages would have to ask for a Special Order. In both cases, very probably, there would be two inquiries in regard to that matter, and even then you would only settle the principle. I do in these circumstances venture to say that this is not a satisfactory way of dealing with the difficulty that the noble Viscount has in mind. I would prefer to accept the limitations suggested by the noble Lord opposite, Lord Gainford. I hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment.
LORD GAINFORD: I do not know if might appeal to the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, in these circumstances not to press his Amendment. I myself have realised that the Special Order might entail delay. The undertakers should be satisfied that no injustice is done to their undertaking, and they should be afforded an opportunity of going to the Electricity Commissioners and having the prices and terms considered. I think the noble Earl has fairly met me at this stage, and I am prepared to accept his offer to accept a portion of my Amendment, reserving to myself the right at a further stage, if I want to do so, to move a further Amendment. I should like to say that I appreciate very much the way in which the noble Earl has conducted the debate, and the way in which he has tried to meet us.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I thank the noble Lord opposite. May I also say that I also reserve to myself the right to move an Amendment to his Amendment?
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I must say that I do not feel very satisfied with the reply that the noble Earl has given, but that is perhaps because I am so much opposed to the whole clause. Possibly if I had not such strong feelings about the whole clause I should have been more inclined to accept in another spirit what the noble Earl has said. In view of what my noble friend Lord Gainford has said, and in view of the fact that the noble Earl has conceded something in connection with this clause, I do not propose to press this Amendment to a Division, but I would ask the noble Earl once more to bring in on the Report stage the question of the Electricity Commissioners control and,

889
further, to make some arrangements under which authorised undertakers who are to-day supplying railway companies are not injured by this clause.
There is one other matter I would like to refer to before I sit down. The noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, suggested that if this clause were not passed there would be delay and expense to the railway companies in connection with the further electrification of their railways. I only ask your Lordships to consider this one point. How is it that the company for which he was really speaking, the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company, has within the last few months expended some£10,000,000 on the electrification of their line? They have done this without any difficulty or trouble and, I presume, with advantage to the company.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: We make the electricity ourselves.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: The reply is that the company make it for themselves and in future will take it from the grid.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: Not necessarily.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Why have all these arrangements been made? I do not think the noble Viscount was really speaking with full knowledge. He made another point. He said one small undertaker might stop the supply for electrification over an area. Under the procedure at the present, moment there would be no stoppage, for the simple reason that a railway is enabled to take a supply at any point and pass that supply right along the line into the areas of other undertakers. In view of what the noble Earl has said I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MIDDLETON LORD MIDDLETON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "railway company" and insert "company or authority being the owners or lessees of a railway, dock, harbour or canal undertaking." The noble Lord said: There are several Amendments standing in my name which all have the same purpose. They are tabled on behalf of the Canal Association in order that the provisions of this Bill may apply to canal undertakings equally with railways. Had I no reason to anticipate opposition I could
890
deal with these Amendments in a very few words, but as I am advised that there may be some opposition I must go into a rather longer explanation. The first three Amendments which I have put down are to Clause 4, subsection (1), of the Bill. The others I will refer to later. The object of the Amendments is to extend Clause 4 of the Bill so as to empower the Central Electricity Board to supply electricity directly to dock, harbour and canal undertakers as well as to railway companies for haulage or traction.
Clause 4 (1) of the Bill as it now stands will, if passed, empower the Central Electricity Board to supply electricity directly to railway companies. Clause 4 (2) empowers the railway companies to use electricity so supplied for haulage and traction on any part of their system and including any part of their dock, harbours and canals. Clause 4 is likely to be of considerable financial advantage to the railway companies because the Central Electricity Board will presumably be able to supply electricity on cheaper terms than an electric power company or other authorised electricity undertaker. I would remind your Lordships that by the schemes made by the Electricity Commissioners under Section 4 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, the more important generating stations in the country have been prescribed as "selected stations" for the purposes of the operations of the Central Electricity Board and their grid.
By Section 7 of the Act of 1926 the owners of a selected station are required to operate the station under the direction of the Central Electricity Board and to sell to the Board all electricity generated at the station at cost price. The owners of the selected station are then entitled to be supplied by the Central Electricity Board at their selected station with such amount of electricity as they may require for their undertaking, not exceeding the amount generated at the station, but for the electricity which they thus buy back they have to pay cost price adjusted according to load factor and power factor—commonly knows as "adjusted station cost"—or the Board's tariff as fixed under the Act of 1926, whichever is the lower. The adjusted station cost necessarily exceeds the cost price of generation, and as the Board's tariff is

891
required by Section 11 of the Act of 1926 to be fixed at such a sum as will make the Board's income cover their revenue expenditure, including interest and loan charges on capital raised for the construction of the grid, the tariff is likely always to be higher than the cost price of generation at the selected stations. It will thus be seen that the price at which the Central Electricity Board buy the whole of the electricity generated at all the selected stations in the country will almost certainly always be less than that at which the owners of selected stations can buy back electricity from the Board.
Therefore the Board ought to be in a position to supply a railway company at a lower price than that at which an owner of a selected station could supply. The railway companies will therefore derive a financial advantage under Clause 4 (1), and I maintain that other forms of inland transport should be given a like advantage. I admit that a supply of electricity for haulage and traction is of less importance to dock, harbour and canal undertakers than to railway companies, but these dock, harbour and canal undertakers do require electricity for haulage and traction on their dock railways and possibly elsewhere. Furthermore, several of the more important canal undertakers in the country have been expending large sums in recent years in the improvement and development of their respective undertakings. I have several examples of that which I can give if noble Lords so desire. A strong argument for extending Clause 4 of the Bill to dock, harbour and canal undertakers can be found in past legislation. There are several sections in the Electricity (Supply) Acts and many sections in local Acts of electric power companies which have placed a supply of electricity to railway companies and to dock, harbour and canal undertakers on the same footing.
If Clause 4 of the Bill is not extended to dock, harbour and canal undertakers it will not accord with former decisions of Parliament. I would draw your Lordships' attention briefly to the following sections of Acts of Parliament: the Electric Lighting Act of 1909, Section 5, the Electricity Supply Act, 1919, Section 12 (1), the Electricity Supply Act, 1922, Section 24, and the Electricity Supply Act,
892
1926, Section 47. To go on giving all the sections of various Acts bearing on this point would take up another half hour and I will not do that. I hope that I have convinced your Lordships that no new principle is involved. The purpose of these Amendments is merely to bring this Bill into conformity with previous legislation. It has been said that very little electricity is likely in the near future to be required for haulage on canals, but I am told that experiments are being carried out for haulage of barges on canals by electricity and even if difficulties do occur to-day they may be swept away to-morrow. It appears to me that acceptance of these Amendments would only be in accordance with justice and I hope that the noble Earl will see his way to accept them.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 23, leave out ("railway company") and insert ("company or authority being the owners or lessees of a railway, dock, harbour or canal undertaking").—(Lord Middleton.)
LORD ASKWITH: The long statement which has just been made by the noble Lord clearly shows how dangerous it is to bring in one exception because it gives rise to a large number of others. The proposal of the noble Lord is quite contrary to the principle of the Act of 1926, and the argument that the Central Electricity Board will and must necessarily supply cheaper than authorised undertakers is begging the question and is not founded on fact. I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: I wish to support the noble Lord's Amendment. Parliament again and again has linked up railways, canals and docks in Electricity (Supply) Acts. I see no just reason why canals and docks should not be included in this Bill. After all, the object of this Bill is to give railway companies cheap electrical power in bulk, and no doubt that is the object of the Government. It seems wrong to allow docks run by railway companies to be put on better terms than docks not controlled by railway companies. It seems to me that this Amendment is very well founded and that the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, are overwhelming. I do not want to detain your Lordships at this late hour by advancing long arguments, but I wish to say that

893
I think the Amendment is well founded and that I hope the Government will accept it.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. I would like to point out that the primary object of the clause is to facilitate the use of electricity for traction. That is the main point. One object of conferring on the Central Electricity Board power to supply direct to railway companies is to facilitate electrification of a line running through many areas. Parliament has already decided in 1926 that railway companies should have the rights of authorised undertakers as regards the price of their supplies, and the clause extends these rights as recommended by Lord Weir's Committee to cover the right of direct supply. These considerations do not arise in the case of dock and harbour and canal undertakings. I quite realise that it may be argued that the clause as drafted would enable direct supplies to be given for use in harbours and canals merely because they belonged to a railway company, but I am advised that this is not so. Supplies could only be given if required for use for haulage or traction on a railway within the harbour or canal area. If they were required for other purposes the consent of the Minister of Transport would have to be obtained, and it would not he obtained if there were any valid objection to it. So far as canals are concerned I would merely say that if a serious proposal were made for the application of electric traction to a long stretch of canal passing through many areas, the matter could be dealt with by this House when the proposal was put forward, but I gather that the only use of electricity by canal undertakers at present is of a local nature and that it is appropriately supplied by the undertakers in the particular area.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: Before the noble Earl sits down will he explain why it is that the Government have selected railways only and have departed from the phraseology of Section 47 of the 1926 Act, where they linked up railway, dock, harbour and canal undertakings? There must be some reason why they have suddenly cut out the other undertakings and stuck to railways only.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH VISCOUNT FALMOUTH had given Notice that he would move, in subsection (1), immediately before the proviso, to insert:
"Provided that the prices and conditions at and upon which the Board may supply electricity under this section shall be fixed so that over a term of years to be approved by the Electricity Commissioners the receipts on income account shall be sufficient to cover the expenditure on income account including interest and sinking fund charges with such margin as the Electricity Commissioners may allow."
The noble Viscount said: In view of what the noble Earl in charge of the Bill has said in connection with previous Amendments, I will not move this Amendment.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK had given Notice that he would move, in the proviso in subsection (1), to leave out "the Central Electricity Board shall not enter into any agreement with a railway company for the supply of electricity to that company under this section" and insert "no such Order shall enable a railway company to use electricity so supplied." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is consequential on an earlier one, and in view of that I will not move it. I assume that will be on the same understanding as in the other case.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved, in the proviso in subsection (1), to leave out "at any point" and insert "for use." The noble Lord said: Those on whose behalf this Amendment has been tabled regard it as an important Amendment. As I understand that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will be good enough to accept the Amendment, perhaps I need not weary the House by giving my reasons for moving it.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 28, leave out ("at any point") and insert ("for use").—(Lord Eltisley.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I think I may save time by saying that I am prepared to accept this Amendment in principle and to let it go into the Bill now, but I think the words may require some slight alteration.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved, in the proviso in subsection (1), to leave out "who own a selected station." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to extend to all electricity undertakers

895
the qualified veto given by the proviso to Clause 4, subsection (1), to a selected station owner on the supply of electricity by the Central Electricity Board to a railway company for use within the area of supply of the electricity undertakers. This Amendment has to be considered with a subsequent Amendment in Clause 4—to omit certain words from the proviso in subsection (1) and to insert another proviso—which it is hoped the Government will be able to accept. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 29, leave out ("who own a selected station").—(Lord Eltisley.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment. In the case of any substantial scheme of railway electrification the supply to the railways would require to be given at a number of points and to be used in the area of supply of various undertakers traversed by the electrified line. As I understand it, if a supply were given by a power company or joint authority, the other undertakers would have no veto, or qualified veto, as to the use of the electricity in their area of supply, and there is no reason Why they should be given a qualified veto if the railway supplies are effected direct from the grid system of the Central Board. In this connection it might be apposite to quote certain words used in the Report of Lord Weir's Committee on Main Line Electrification. That Report says this:
"A railway runs through the territory of many authorised undertakers, some small, others large. In a great main line electrification scheme it is clearly impracticable for a railway company to make individual agreements, which are necessarily elaborate, with a number of independent undertakers. Such divided responsibility and the difficulties of co-ordination would be definitely harmful to a comprehensive scheme of supply. Moreover, it is clear that the demand for electrical energy from the substations along the main line would not coincide in time, and were such individual demands to form the basis of the charge to be made by each undertaker, the result would be inequitable and uneconomical."
LORD ELTISLEY: I accept that, and beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK had given Notice that he would move to leave out all words in the proviso in subsection (1) after the second "undertakers." The noble
896
Viscount said: I do not propose to move this Amendment, because Lord Eltisley has an Amendment on the Paper following mine which covers my point and adds a proviso with which I am in entire agreement. I will not speak upon his Amendment.
LORD ELTISLEY: Why not?
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: The point is that under the law as it now stands the owner of a selected station is entitled to get back from the Central Board at his own station a sufficient supply at cost price for his own customers. If he is deprived of a railway supply, that is to say as one of his own customers, it must affect the cost at the generating station, and instead of his obtaining the advantage of that supply, which will tend to lower the cost at the station, the clause as it now stands might result in increasing his cost by giving to the Central Board all the benefits of that supply. It is proposed to alter that, and at the same time the proviso will interpret what is meant by the word "unreasonable."
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I do not want to interrupt the noble Viscount, but may I remind him that he has not put a question and that there is nothing before the Committee at the moment?
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Then I will not move my Amendment so that Lord Eltisley can speak on behalf of his.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved to leave out all words in the proviso in subsection (1) after the second "undertakers," and insert:
"Provided also that where the authorised undertakers refuse or withhold their consent the Board may appeal to the Electricity Commissioners as to whether the consent is unreasonably refused or withheld and the Electricity Commissioners may dispense with such consent if in their opinion it is unreasonably refused or withheld, and the consent shall be deemed to be unreasonably refused or withheld if the authorised undertakers are not willing and in a position to give the supply within a reasonable time and at the price specified in Section 12 of and the Third Schedule to the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, as amended by this Act."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 30, leave out from ("undertakers") to the end of subsection (1) and insert the said new proviso.—(Lord Eltisley.)
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I will conclude my speech after that interruption. The noble Lord opposite was quite right to interrupt me. The point is this, that under the clause as it now stands there is no interpretation of the word "unreasonable," and what we wish to ensure is that the word "unreasonable" shall not be unreasonably interpreted by the Electricity Commissioners and that any authorised undertaker who is in a position to give the supply which is asked for by the railway company within a reasonable time and at the same price as, or perhaps at a lesser price than, the Central Electricity Board, shall have the power to supply that energy. That really sums up the Amendment, and I hope that in view of the fact that the Government would not agree to my first Amendment, which was to some extent along the same lines, they may be more sympathetic to this one.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment, because it is completely a wrecking Amendment, and makes the remainder of the clause quite negative.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am afraid I am unable to accept this Amendment. The object of Clause 4 is to enable the Board to make agreements with railway companies for the supply of the large quantity of electricity required for railway electrification at terms which may be below the ordinary rates provided by Section 12 of the 1926 Act. This proposed proviso would result in any undertaker being able to exclude the Board from giving a supply to a railway company if the undertaker was prepared to give the supply under the terms of Section 12, which is passing on at the same rate at which it was received from the Board, that is, in the case of ordinary undertakers, at tariff prices. It therefore might conflict with the object of the clause. The owners of large selected stations, however, who receive their supplies at "selected station costs" which are in the case of important stations below the general tariff, might be able to give supplies to railway companies at terms comparing favourably with those which the Board is able to offer. These undertakers are adequately protected by the clause as it stands. The satisfactory solution therefore, I venture to say, is that proposed in the Bill as it stands.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided also that the Central Electricity Board shall not enter into any agreement with a railway company for a supply of electricity to that company under this section unless and until the Board have satisfied the Electricity Commissioners that the supply of electricity to the company upon the terms and at the prices proposed to be stated in the agreement will not result in a financial loss to the Board."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment, which I understand the Government are prepared to accept in this modified form.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 34, at end, insert the said proviso.—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided also that the Central Electricity Board shall not enter into any agreement with a railway company for a supply of electricity to that company under this section unless and until the Board have satisfied the Electricity Commissioners that the payment for such supply on the terms and at the prices proposed to be stated in the agreement will cover all expenses of the Board (including interest and sinking fund charges on any capital expenditure incurred) in providing such supply."
The noble Lord said: I am not quite clear how far the Amendment just accepted covers the ground which I desire to cover by my Amendment. The object of the Amendment which I have tabled is to secure that the Central Electricity Board shall not supply electricity to a railway company on terms which are unremunerative to the Board.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 34, at end, insert the said proviso.—(Lord Eltisley.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I think that the Amendment of Lord Gainford really covers the point raised by the noble Lord behind me. I am not in a position to state the exact words in which I think this clause will be found after passing through this House, but I have accepted the principle of the Amendment and only reserved to myself the right to make such verbal alterations as may be thought necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved, in the proviso in subsection (2), after "limitations," to insert "and conditions." The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 2, after ("limitations") insert ("and conditions").— (Lord Eltisley.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I accept that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved to insert the following proviso:
"Provided that the Minister of Transport shall not in any case give any such consent until notice of the application for the consent has been given by advertisement or otherwise in such manner as he may direct and an opportunity has been given by him to any person affected of making representations and being heard thereon."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment relates to the power proposed to be given to the Minister of Transport by the proviso in subsection (2) of the clause, to permit a railway company supplied with electricity by the Board under Clause 4, for haulage or traction, to use electricity so supplied for other purposes of the railway company's undertaking—for example, the lighting of stations, and so on. The object of the Amendment is to secure that authorised undertakers affected by the use by a railway company, for ancillary purposes such as the lighting of stations, of electricity received under the clause from the Board, should have the right of objecting to such use before the Minister sanctions it. The proviso is identical with the proviso to Section 47 of the Act of 1926, which section similarly provided that a railway company receiving electricity from authorised undertakers for haulage or traction could, with the consent of the Minister, use the electricity so supplied for any purposes of their undertaking. I hope this explanation is sufficient.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 8, at end, insert the said proviso.—(Lord Eltisley.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I think this is covered by a later Amendment of mine. The wording is not exactly the same, but it is preferred by the Government, and therefore I hope that the noble Lord will accept my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved, at the end of the proviso, to insert:
"but the Minister shall not in any case give any such consent until notice of the application for the consent has been given by advertisement or otherwise in such manner as the Minister may direct, and an opportunity has been given to any person who appears to the Minister to be affected of making representations thereon."
The noble Earl said: This is the Amendment to which I have just referred.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 8, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH VISCOUNT FALMOUTH moved to insert the following new subsection:
"(4) The Board shall pay to any authorised undertakers directly affected by any action taken by the Board under this section such sum as may be agreed between the Board and the undertakers, or, in the absence of agreement, as may be determined by the Electricity Commissioners as compensation in respect of the value depreciated in accordance with a scale fixed by the Electricity Commissioners of any capital expenditure which may have been incurred by such undertakers in giving a supply to a railway company, and which by the action of the Board shall be rendered wholly or partly unremunerative to the undertakers."
The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is this. An authorised undertaker who has been giving a supply of electricity to a railway company for lighting stations, or for use with cranes and other machinery, may suddenly be told that the supply will be taken away from him, and that the company will in future take from the Central Board. Many of these contracts are terminable at forty-eight hours notice, and I feel that considerable injustice may be done to authorised undertakers if they are not protected in some way. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 8, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Falmouth.)
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I shall now be glad to support my noble friend. I think it is an Amendment which is most reasonable, and one which should be incorporated in the Bill. It really would be most unfair, as I said at an earlier stage, if authorised undertakers who are supplying electricity to railway companies are suddenly deprived of that supply without any form of compensation at all. I hope the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. I think it would be very objectionable in principle to load the Electricity Board with commitments of this kind. So far as I can see there is no reason why the Board should be asked to pay compensation which any other authorised undertaker taking over supply would not be obliged to pay. If the clause refers to supplies given for traction purposes any contract is made on the basis that if it is terminated at the end the suppliers will have recouped themselves for any necessary outlay, and they should have no claim for any further compensation. If the reference is to supplies given by local undertakers for lighting or other purposes at Board points, then if any hardship appears to arise the Minister before giving his consent for the use of a traction supply for other purposes would take this into consideration.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: If an authorised undertaker took over a concern from another authorised undertaker who was supplying power to a railway company he certainly would be compensated by that authorised undertaker, because, as the noble Earl knows, the diversity factor involved in that supply is a certain advantage to the authorised undertaker. Therefore, that argument of the noble Earl does not seem to me to stand on all fours.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved, after Clause 4, to insert the following new clause:
Central Electricity Board to contribute to expenses of Electricity Commissioners.
".Notwithstanding anything in this Act the Central Electricity Board shall continue to be authorised undertakers for the purposes of the apportionment of the expenses of the Electricity Commissioners in pursuance of Section 29 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, as modified by Section 7 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922, and subsection (3) of Section 9 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926."
The noble Lord said: I desire to remind your Lordships that the Central Electricity Board are authorised undertakers within the meaning of the Electricity (Supply) Acts, and in that capacity are liable to bear part of the expenses of the Electricity Commissioners on the like basis as all other authorised undertakers. But so long as the Board only supply electricity in bulk to authorised under
902
takers the apportionment against them of the Commissioner's expenses is nil. If, however, the Board commence to supply electricity to railway companies under Clause 4 they will then be supplying electricity otherwise than in bulk to authorised undertakers, and with respect to the supply to the railway company they ought to bear the proper apportioned part of the Commissioners' expenses. It may perhaps be urged that this clause is unnecessary because its object is already provided for in the existing Acts. Nevertheless, undertakers would be glad to have the Amendment, or in any case to have a definite statement from the Minister to this effect.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4 insert the said new clause. —(Lord Eltisley.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am quite prepared to give that assurance. It is the view of the Minister that this is entirely unnecessary and redundant, and that the position is perfectly covered as the Bill at present stands.
LORD ELTISLEY: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clause agreed to.

ARBITRATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Askwith.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
[The references are to Bill No.89 as printed for the House of Commons.]
Clause 6, page 4, line 2, leave out ("an arbitration agreement") and insert ("reference").
Clause 12, page 5, line 39, at end insert:
("Provided that nothing herein shall invalidate such a provision when it is part of an agreement to submit to arbitration a dispute which has arisen before the making of such agreement.")
Clause 19, page 10, line 7, at end insert the following new clause:
Application to statutory arbitrations.
(".This Act, except the provisions thereof set out in the Second Schedule to this Act, shall apply in relation to every arbitration under any other Act passed before or after the commencement of this Act, as if the arbitration were pursuant to an arbitration agreement and as if that other Act were an arbitration agreement, except in so far as this Act is inconsistent with that other Act or with any rules or procedure authorised or recognised thereby:
Provided that this Act shall not apply to any arbitration to which the principal Act does not apply and no provision of this Act which expressly amends a provision of the principal Act shall apply to any arbitration to which that provision of the principal Act does not apply.")
Schedule, page 11, line 22, at end insert the following new Schedule:
("SCHEDULE.
Provisions of Act which do not apply to statutory arbitrations.

Subsection (1) of Section one.

Section two.

Section three.

Subsection (2) of Section eight.

Subsection (1) of Section twelve.

Section fourteen.

Section sixteen.")

LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons Amendments. There is one clerical Amendment, and some additions have been made for the sake of clarity.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Askwith.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUPPLY OF WATER IN BULK (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Amulree.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
[The references are to Bill No. 44.]
Clause 1, page 2, line 25, after ("committee") insert ("or crosses over or under a canal or inland navigation maintained by a navigation authority.")
Clause 1, page 2, line 26, after ("committee") insert ("or navigation authority.")
Clause 1, page 2, line 27, leave out ("and") and insert ("or.")
Clause 1, page 2, line 29, after ("committee") isert ("or navigation authority.")
Clause 1, page 2, line 35, after ("committee") insert ("or authority.")
Clause 1, page 2, line 38, after ("committee") insert ("or authority.")
Clause 1, page 2, line 41, after ("committee") insert ("or authority.")
Clause 1, page 2, line 44, at end insert ("For the purposes of this proviso, the expressions railway company' and 'railway committee' shall include the London Passenger Transport Board.")
Page 3, line 7, leave out ("a local Act") and insert ("any Act of Parliament, other than this Act, or under any Order confirmed by Parliament").
Clause 3, page 4, line 6, at end insert:
("'Navigation authority' means any person or body of persons having powers under any Act of Parliament to work or maintain a canal or other inland navigation.")
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons Amendments. They are all reasonable Amendments or consequential.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Amulree.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINES (WORKING FACILITIES) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
FIREARMS ACT (1920) AMENDMENT BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

PROCEEDINGS IN RELATION TO SPECIAL ORDERS.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, during the last Session your Lordships appointed a Committee to go into the question of Special Orders, consisting of the noble Lords mentioned in the Motion on the Order Paper. I put down as the result of that Committee certain Amendments to the Standing Orders. A certain Government Department wished to raise points in connection therewith and, as the Committee was functus officio, it had

905
to be reconstituted. I consulted all my late colleagues, and I therefore bring this Motion before your Lordships and be to move.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed further to consider and report whether any, and if so, what amendment of Standing Order No.212, relative to Special Orders, is desirable, and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Salisbury,

E. Lucan,

V. Hutchinson (E. Dononghmore),

L. Stanmore,

L. Marks,

L. Marley.

—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WATER SUPPLIES (EXCEPTIONAL SHORTAGE ORDERS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la; and to be printed.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE: CLERK AS A WITNESS.
Message received from the Commons requesting that their Lordships would be pleased to give leave to the Clerk attending the Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform to attend to be examined as a witness before the Committee of Privileges appointed by them.
LORD STRABOLGI: Can the noble and learned Viscount give us any reason why the Clerk is needed?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I have no idea why the Clerk is needed, but apparently he is.
LORD STRABOLGI: Have you moved that leave be given?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: In fact the practice of the House is for consent to be given as of course. He has no power to go without your Lordships' consent. It really amounts to a direction of the House, and as such it will appear in the Minutes without any formal Motion or discussion in this House.
LORD STRABOLGI: It is a very interesting point. Do I understand our Clerk is summoned before this special Committee?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It quite often happens that the Clerk of this House is asked to give evidence on some point on which a Committee desires information. Obviously the House has formally to give leave. Normally the Message is read and consent is taken as given. Sometimes, I believe, we even do not go through the formality of reading it, although it so appears in the Minutes.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am much obliged.
Leave given accordingly, and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eight o'clock.