Sitting of 20 June 1934

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock.

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE.
The CLERK at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting.
Whereupon Sir DENNIS HERBERT, the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London County Council (Money) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Milford Haven) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Morley) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Steyning and District Water) Bill [Lords],
Read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now able to state the names of the British representatives, whether Parliamentary or drawn from the Civil Service, on the four sub-committees of the Disarmament Commission recently appointed at Geneva?
  The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): The United Kingdom representative on the Special Committee on Security and on the committee which is dealing with the question of Guarantees of Execution ano Supervision is at present Sir William Malkin, the Legal Adviser to the Foreign
  356
  Office. I understand that the Committee on the Control of the Manufacture of and Trade in Arms has not yet met. As at present arranged, the United Kingdom representatives on this committee will be Mr. Stevenson (Foreign Office) and Brigadier Temperley (War Office). The date of the next meeting of the Air Committee is not fixed, and it has not yet been decided who will be the United Kingdom representatives.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why, at the meeting of the Committee of the Disarmament Conference dealing with the question of guarantees of execution, held on 13th June at Geneva, the British representative, Mr. Strang, took no part in the discussion; and whether it is the intention of the British Government to actively participate in the further proceedings?
  Mr. EDEN: The meeting to which the hon. Member refers was private and was for the purpose of deciding the manner in which the committee could best deal with its task which is the technical examination of a new and complicated subject. His Majesty's Government having agreed to the appointment of the Committee on Guarantees of Execution, and being represented upon it, the United Kingdom representative has naturally made and will make whatever contribution is best designed to further the work of the Committee. I would ask the hon. Member not to draw inferences to the contrary from statements he may have seen about a private meeting, no official record of which has been circulated even to the Governments there represented.

  ARMS TRAFFIC CONVENTION.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the American Senate has yet ratified the Convention for the Supervision of the International Traffic in Munitions of War; and how many more ratifications are required before the convention comes into operation?
  Mr. EDEN: I am informed that the United States Senate has authorised the President to ratify the convention subject to the reservation that it shall not come into force so far as the United States is concerned until it shall have come into

  357
  force in respect of Belgium, the British Empire, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Sweden and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. As regards the second part of the question, the convention will come into operation four months after the ratifications of 14 Powers shall have been notified to the signatories. Effective ratifications of and notifications of accessions to the convention have been deposited in respect of nine Powers. A number of other States have ratified the convention, but their ratifications are subject to conditions which have not yet been fulfilled.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    ROYAL FLEET AUXILIARY SERVICE (CREWS).
    Captain MOSSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give any information as to the engagement of crews for ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service, both as regards the ships actually owned by the Admiralty and those under charter to the Admiralty from private shipowners; whether he is aware that some of these ships, such, for instance, as the "War Sirdar," have Chinese crews; and whether, having regard to the unemployment among British seamen in this country, he will direct that British-born white seamen shall always have the preference when crews are being engaged for these ships?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): The Royal Fleet Auxiliary, none of which is under charter from a private shipowner, are manned, with the following exceptions, by crews engaged in the United Kingdom. Vessels permanently attached to fleets on stations abroad are manned by local crews, and, in view of the climatic conditions, a few large oilers, including the "War Sirdar" recently in England for repairs, which are principally employed in the Far East, are manned by Chinese crews engaged at the port of Singapore. The standing instructions to masters provide that local crews are to be British subjects. In the case of Chinese ratings, it is not possible for this rule to be invariably observed, but otherwise none but British subjects are engaged. Other things being equal, preference has been, and will be, given to British-born white seamen.

    CONTRACTS (ELECTRIC WELDERS' WAGES).
    Mr. TINKER (for Mr. KIRKWOOD)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty to what extent the Admiralty have sanctioned electric welding on naval vessels; if it is the intention of the Admiralty to extend electric welding in naval shipbuilding; and will the Government insist on trade union wages and conditions being paid to the men employed in this class of work?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Chatham (Sir P. Goff) on the 19th of March last. With regard to the second part, the Fair Wages Clause is embodied in the contract.
    Mr. MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman says the Fair Wages Clause is embodied in the contracts. Is it not the case that there is a dispute going on between the Boilermakers' Society and the shipbuilding employers as to what should be the trade union rate for this particular class of work?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: That has nothing to do with the Admiralty at all. The Fair Wages Clause is embodied in contracts.
    Mr. MACLEAN: If what is considered a fair wage, which is generally agreed upon between the trade union and the employers, is not agreed upon in this case, what action is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take to see that a real fair wage is paid to these men?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: When that contingency arises if the hon. Gentleman puts a question to me I will answer it.
    Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman paying for this particular class of work the same rates as previously?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    INTERNATIONAL TIN AND RUBBER CONTROL COMMITTEES.
    Rear-Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is satisfied that, in view of the fact that a delegate representing one or more of the signatory countries is chairman of the International Tin Committee and of the International Rubber Control Committee, and also that

    359
    it is the primary business of the chairman to reconcile divergent opinions rather than to stress the interests of any particular country, the interests of the colonies will be adequately represented by the delegations of which the delegate in question is a member?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): Yes, Sir.

    STRAITS SETTLEMENTS (TEXTILE IMPORTS).
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has considered the letter sent by the committee of the British Association of Straits Merchants protesting against the imposition of quotas as damaging the entrepôt trade of the Colony; and whether the legislation to impose quotas on foreign textile imports, which was opposed by all the unofficial members, was passed with his sanction?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have considered the letter referred to, and the Association has been informed that the most careful thought was given to the safeguarding of the valuable entrepôt trade of Singapore and Penang and that I hope that the legislation devised for the application of quota restrictions on textile imports in the Straits Settlements will give full scope for the maintenance of the entrepôt trade of those two ports. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: Is the primary purpose of these quotas the interests of the Straits Settlements or the interests of this country?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The common interest of the quota policy is the interest of the Colony and of this country.

    MEAT WRAPPERS.
    Miss HORSBRUGHasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to ensure that in any trade agreement with Uruguay all the jute wrappers on meat imported from that country shall be of United Kingdom manufacture?
    Lieut-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The question of meat wrappers will not be overlooked during the commercial negotiations with Uruguay.

    COTTON IMPORTS.
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether in view of the increased quantity of cotton textile imports this year being of a more expensive quality, involving more wages cost per yard, he will take special steps to limit this import;
    (2) if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of cotton piece goods have grown from. 3,181,000 square yards in the first five months of 1932 to 6,456,000 square yards in the same period of 1933 and to 9,047,000 square yards in 1934; and, having regard to the present difficulties and unemployment in the trade, what steps he proposes to take to overcome this increase and the unemployment caused?
    Lieut. Colonel COLVILLE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) and for Norwich (Mr. Hartland) on the 1st May.
    Mr. CHORLTON: Does that mean that any action or no action is to be taken?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: If the hon. Member will study the reply, he will find that it indicates that it is open to manufacturers concerned to make application to the advisory committee.
    Sir JOHN HASLAM: Is the hon. and gallant Member not aware that we can make more cotton goods than we need and that it is absolutely superfluous to import any at all?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: That is a matter for submission to the committee.

    ANGLO-FRENCH AGREEMENT.
    Captain STRICKLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any statement to make with regard to the trade agreement with France, having particular regard to the position of the silk and artificial silk industries?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am not in a position to add anything to the statement on the Trade Agreement with France made by my right hon. Friend yesterday.

    SPAIN (BRITISH IMPORTS).
    Dr. LEECHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will

    361
    obtain from the British Chamber of Commerce in Spain a statement showing the principal obstacles to the importation of British coal and goods into Spain; and will he then appoint a committee to examine the statement for the purpose of suggesting to him a line of action preparatory to drawing up a new Anglo-Spanish trade agreement to supplant that of 1922?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: My right hon. Friend is at all times ready to give careful consideration to any representations made by the British Chamber of Commerce in Spain, and the appointment of a committee to consider such representations would not seem necessary.
    Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Will the hon. and gallant Member ask the British Chambers of Commerce in Spain and find out whether Spanish importers complain that they have difficulty in buying of us because British firms quote in English instead of in Spanish and use British weights, measures and money terms instead of Spanish weights, measures and money terms?
    Lieut-Colonel COLVILLE: I will make a note of the suggestion.
    Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that there is an impression among British coal exporters that there are obstacles in the way of the export of British coal to Spain, and will be see that something is done to dispel their fears or remove the cause?
    Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that the British Chambers of Commerce in Spain have made inquiries into this matter of obstacles, and will he ask them to let him know the result of their inquiries?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I have no doubt that we shall receive the result of their inquiries shortly.
    Mr. PETHERICK: Is it not the case that one of the difficulties is the restrictions on the exchange in Spain, and will he use his endeavours to get these restrictions on British goods removed?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: All relevant questions will be borne in mind.

    CANADIAN TARIFF BOARD.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs
    362
    if his attention has been drawn to the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in Canada with regard to the powers and jurisdiction of the Tariff Board; and what action he proposes to take to ensure that effect will be given to this section of the Ottawa Agreements?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I have seen only a telegraphic summary of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in regard to the Canadian Tariff Board, and I am therefore not in a position to make any statement in the matter at present.
    Mr. WHITE: If I put a question again next week, will the right hon. Gentleman give some information on the matter?
    Mr. THOMAS: Yes, probably next week.
    Sir PERCY HURD: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been called to an explanatory statement on the subject made by Mr. Bennett, the Prime Minister of Canada, and his protest against the misrepresentation that the Ottawa Agreements are not being fully honoured?
    Mr. THOMAS: I have just said that I have seen only a telegraphic summary, and I prefer not to give a definite answer until I see the whole case.
    Sir P. HURD: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the explanatory statement by Mr. Bennett?
    Mr. THOMAS: I have seen Press statements to that effect.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the opinion of Ottawa on the subject as reflected in the local elections in Ontario?
    Mr. THOMAS: I have seen it, and I am sure my hon. Friend is envious that he does not live in Canada?

    COLONIES AND PROTECTORATES (JAPANESE COMPETITION).
    Major PROCTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which Colonies and Protectorates have implemented the action of His Majesty's Government in restricting the imports of Japanese cotton textiles in the Colonial Empire; whether Ceylon has taken action; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The passing of the necessary legislation has been reported in the following territories: The Straits Settlements, Nigeria, Gold Coast, the Gambia, Jamaica, Trinidad, Bahamas, Malta and Somaliland. Legislation has been introduced in a number of other Colonies, but reports of the passing of it are not yet to hand. In Ceylon the Board of Ministers are introducing legislation in the State Council.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to show that a great deal of these cheap Japanese goods which are being imported into the Colonial Empire are imported by merchants living in London and of English origin?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That may very well be so, but it certainly is no reason why we should not pursue a policy of Imperial co-operation.
    Mr. DAVIES: Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to take steps in London to prevent this being done?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, that would be impracticable and ineffective. We have taken steps in London to see that a proper tariff is put upon foreign goods coming in here. We are now taking steps in the Colonies to see that adequate safeguards are provided there.

    COTTON INDUSTRY.
    Major PROCTERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received any representations in favour of measures to assist the cotton industry by the removal of credit restrictions imposed by the banks; and, if not, whether His Majesty's Government proposes to take any steps in this direction, and thus enable the cotton mills to make machinery replacements and improvements in their internal organisation?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second part my right hon. Friend has noted with interest the recent discussions in Lancashire on the subject of machinery replacement, but I am not clear what action my hon. and gallant Friend would suggest the Government should take.
    Major PROCTER: Am I to understand that the expert advisers of His Majesty's Government have not made representations
    364
    as to the evil effects on the cotton industry of the restrictions imposed by the banks?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The first part of my answer indicates that we have not received representaions.

  PALESTINE.

    LOCAL TAXATION, JERUSALEM.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proportion of the local taxation in Jerusalem is drawn from local rates, exclusive of water, and what proportion from urban property tax?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The information is not available, but I will ask the High Commissioner for Palestine what was the amount of revenue from municipal rates in Jerusalem last year and what amount of revenue was obtained from urban property tax in the municipal area of Jerusalem.

    JERUSALEM MUNICIPAL COUNCIL.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the approximate population of the old city of Jerusalem and the rest represented on the municipal council?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The information is not available, but I will ask the High Commissioner for Palestine whether he can furnish it.

    TEL-AVIV (AERODROME AND RAILWAY JUNCTION).
    Mr. JANNERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the experience of having a temporary aerodrome at Lydda during the currency of the Levant fair; whether consideration has been given to the application by the municipality of Tel-Aviv for permission to construct an aerodrome nearer that city; and whether, in view of the necessity for making early provision therefor owing to the rapid development of Tel-Aviv, approval will be given to such request?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have not yet received a report on the use that was made of the temporary aerodrome at Lydda. With regard to the remainder of the question I am not yet in a position to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on the 28th March.
    Mr. JANNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause inquiries to be made with regard to the necessity of having an aerodrome nearer Tel-Aviv?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Member may remember that I told him, in answer to a previous question, that the whole matter of the development of civil aviation in Palestine and the question of aerodromes is under the active consideration of the High Commissioner.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question of landing facilities at Tel-Aviv is part of the same question as the aerodrome matter? Will he consider both questions simultaneously?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think it is extremely desirable that the question of air facilities in Palestine should be considered as a whole.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is very important to have your landing station in Palestine on a suitable site near the railway?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I know, and that is one of the chief considerations which is being taken into account, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is well acquainted with the difficulties of air transport and must realise that it is enormously important not only that the site of your aerodrome should be in what would appear to be the most convenient place, but that it is really adaptable for an aerodrome.
    Mr. JANNERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether arrangements have yet been completed for a railway junction in the vicinity of Tel-Aviv, Palestine; and whether regard will be had to the desirability of having it close to this large and growing centre of population?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am aware that a local committee in Palestine has recommended the construction of a railway junction in the vicinity of Tel-Aviv. This proposal and the other recommendations of the committee will require the most careful consideration by the High Commissioner for Palestine and myself, and I am at present awaiting an expression of the High Commissioner's views.

    HARBOUR ACCOMMODATION.
    Major PROCTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that it has been estimated that the harbours of Haifa and Jaffa will very shortly be insufficient to cope with the increasing trade of Palestine; whether any request has been made for permission to construct an additional harbour at Tel-Aviv; and, if so, whether permission is to be granted?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Steps are being taken to improve the facilities at both Haifa and Jaffa, and I have no reason to believe that when the necessary improvements have been carried out the accommodation and facilities available at these two harbours will not be sufficient to meet the needs of Palestine for many years to come. I am aware that the possibility of constructing a harbour at Tel-Aviv has been tentatively suggested, but I have not received from the High Commissioner any proposal for such a harbour, and so far as I am aware, such a work is not contemplated by the Palestine Government.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    EDUCATIONAL SERVICE.
    Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if any expansion of the Royal Air Force educational service is contemplated; and, if so, whether priority will be given to those officers who suffered loss of employment owing to the curtailment of services in 1932?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): As regards the first part of the question a few vacancies are expected at the end of this year. As regards the second part, the applications of all candidates will be examined on their merits and all relevant factors will be taken into account; the efficiency of the educational service must, however, be the decisive consideration.

    AIR STRENGTH.
    Brigadier-General NATIONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether it is intended to introduce a supplementary Air Estimate during the current financial year in connection with bringing this country up to air parity?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I regret that I am not at this stage in a position to add anything to the statement of the Lord President of the Council on this subject in the course of the Debate on the 18th May.

  AVIATION (NIGHT AIR-MAIL SERVICES).
  Mr. SIMMONDSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is satisfied with the results of his policy of regarding the inauguration of night air-mail services as primarily the responsibility of aircraft operating companies?
  Sir P. SASSOON: My Noble Friend will, of course, welcome the time when there is a genuine commercial demand for night air-mail services. Pending the emergence of such a demand, he does not consider the expenditure of public money on the artificial support of night air-mail services would be justified.
  Mr. SIMMONDS: Can my right hon. Friend explain why, when these services are necessary to other countries, they are not considered to be necessary to us?
  Sir P. SASSOON: Because conditions vary from country to country.
  Mr. SIMMONDS: I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise this matter on the Adjournment at an early date.

  TRANSPORT.

    PASSENGER SERVICES (HERTFORD).
    Sir M. SUETERasked the Minister of Transport if he has any information whether the streamline rail-car experiments carried out by the Great Western and London and North Eastern Railway Companies have been successful; and whether he will request the London Traffic Board to look into the obsolete and often, when fog descends, chaotic means of passenger transport to Hertford and the surrounding neighbourhood, and take the necessary steps to improve the travelling facilities in this district that has lately so much developed?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The Great Western Railway Company have at present one stream-lined rail-car in use experimentally. The company consider that so far it
    368
    has proved very successful for their purpose and I understand that they have ordered six somewhat similar cars. The London and North Eastern Railway Company have not described any of their rail-cars as stream-lined. As regards the services to Hertford and the surrounding neighbourhood, the London Passenger Transport Board inform me that they have taken over a number of small operators in the Hertford area and are now engaged upon consolidating the services.

    RETURN RAILWAY TICKETS (COLLIER'S WOOD-LONDON BRIDGE).
    Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Transport if he will make inquiries from the London Passenger Transport Board as to the reason why return tickets were not issued on Sunday between Collier's Wood and London Bridge stations; and if he will ascertain whether this practice operates on any other tube railway?
    Mr. STANLEY: I presume that the hon. Member refers to cheap day return tickets which are issued with the object of encouraging travel from suburban areas to the central areas. I am informed by the London Passenger Transport Board that it has been the practice on the tube railways to issue these tickets on weekdays only as it is not considered likely that they would attract sufficient additional traffic on Sundays to justify the concession.
    Mr. THORNE: Does the hon. Member not think that it is a great hardship upon a very large number of working people that on the only day when they are able to travel they are not able to have cheap tickets?
    Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member will realise that I have nothing to do with the fares charged.
    Mr. THORNE: Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Transport Board with a view to trying to get cheap tickets?
    Mr. STANLEY: I will certainly convey the point of the hon. Member's supplementary question.

    PEDESTRIAN CROSSING-PLACES.
    Dr. SALTERasked the Minister of Transport whether the organisation representing pedestrians was consulted

    369
    before the new experimental crossing-places in London were instituted; and, if not, whether he will undertake that before further innovations are made regarding crossing-places in the London and Home counties area he will consult the representative bodies of all road users?
    Mr. STANLEY: No Sir, but in accordance with my statutory duty I consulted the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee upon which the local authorities of the area are largely represented.
    Dr. SALTER: Is the Minister aware that pedestrians are not represented on the committee, and does he not think that the muddle and confusion which now exists would have been avoided if specialists, who have given great attention to this subject, had been consulted?
    Mr. STANLEY: I think that I got very good advice on this matter from local authorities which represent the ratepayers. I take exception to the statement that a great deal of muddle and chaos has resulted from experiments which I believe will prove successful.
    Mr. TINKER: Is there any way of instructing people at these crossings. Speaking from my own experience, it is difficult to understand when to cross and when not to cross. Everyone is in the same predicament.
    Mr. STANLEY: I understand that there is a possibility of an opportunity to discuss this matter in connection with a Prayer on the Regulations which have been laid, and I should certainly welcome an opportunity of giving full publicity to the object of these crossings.
    Mr. LAWSON: Will that Prayer be discussed at a time when it will get the necessary publicity?
    Mr. STANLEY: I cannot say; nor do I say that it is impossible to get publicity after eleven o'clock at night.
    Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEYasked the Minister of Transport if he consulted the Paris traffic authorities before introducing the new system of crossing-places in the streets of London; and if he can state the number of casualties which take place annually in Paris as compared with London?
    Mr. STANLEY: Before introducing an experiment with marked pedestrian crossing places in London, I obtained information as to the system adopted in Paris and ascertained that the introduction of crossing places on a large scale was accompanied by a substantial reduction in accidents. Having regard to the different conditions obtaining in the two cities, I do not consider that a valid comparison can be made between the number of casualties in London and Paris.

    RAILWAY STATISTICS.
    Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEYasked the Minister of Transport the cost of printing the publication entitled Railway Statistics?
    Mr. STANLEY: I am informed that the cost is about £1,100 a year.

    TRAFFIC SIGNALS.
    Mr. POTTERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that drivers of vehicles frequently disobey the stop signal in connection with mechanical indicators; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent such practices?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Douglas Hacking): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) on the 18th instant, in which he indicated the measures now being taken by the Metropolitan police to secure better compliance with the indications of the light signals.

  REGENT'S PARK (OPEN AIR THEATRE).
  Mr. BERNAYSasked the First Commissioner of Works the rent paid by the organisers of the open air theatre for the use of the Botanical Gardens, Regent's Park?
  Mr. BLINDELL (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The rent for the open air theatre in the Inner Circle Gardens, Regent's Park, is calculated on the basis of 10 per cent. of the gross takings (less tax and library discounts), subject to a minimum payment of £50 per week. The licensee bears the expense of providing all equipment, including chairs.
  Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Is it not the case that this theatre provides a good deal of employment in a distressed profession and that the performances are splendid advertisements for British dramatic art?
  Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Does it mean that we are going to get the Botanical Gardens in Regent's Park made into a fair for roundabouts, or are we still to have it as a garden?

  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1922.
  Mr. POTTERasked the Minister of Health the number of local authorities who have adopted the Superannuation Act, 1922; and will he introduce legislation making it compulsory for all local authorities to adopt the provisions of this Act?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The number of authorities in England and Wales who have availed themselves of the provisions of the Act is 948. In the present state of public business my right hon. Friend regrets that it is not possible to make any promise as to legislation.
  Mr. PETHERICK: Can the hon. Member say what percentage of the total that 948 represents?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Not without notice.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  Captain FULLERasked the Minister of Health if he will consider the desirability of amending the National Health Insurance Act so as to include all persons within its scope who, on leaving school, will enter into insurable employment at 14 under the new Unemployment Bill?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) on the 19th April last.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is the hon. Member aware that a large number of associations which have considered this problem have recently decided to make representations to the Ministry on the urgency
  372
  of bringing these children within the national insurance scheme; and will he look into this matter once again?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: We shall certainly consider all representations that are made.

  WATER SUPPLIES.
  Mr. TINKERasked the Minister of Health if he has had information from local authorities since 1933 of supplies of water being available from colliery shafts, and if any of them have made use of it since January, 1934; and what is the amount used at present from that source?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Since 1st January, 1934, my right hon. Friend has received information that one authority proposes to take emergency supplies from an old colliery working. The 27 water undertakers referred to in the reply to the hon. Member's question on the 10th May last are still obtaining supplies from this source, but my right hon. Friend has no records of the amounts taken.
  Mr. TINKER: Will the hon. Member urge local authorities to try and do something to make use of this water, because I can assure him that a lot of water which would be most useful to the community is going to waste?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I have no doubt that they will take notice of the question and answer.
  Mr. TINKERasked the Minister of Health if his Department has made a survey and calculation of all the available supplies of water; and whether it is his intention to co-ordinate them and bring them under one central control for distribution?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) on the 18th December last, of which I am sending him a copy. There is no intention of proceeding as in the second part of the question. The procedure is for the responsible local authorities to survey their needs and to submit plans for meeting them. Common action is taken where there is common interest and co-ordination of supply is aimed at where it is the right method of meeting the needs.
  Mr. TINKER: Are we to wait until the thing becomes a dread before we do anything at all? In my opinion, this subject will demand more attention from the Government than it has had up to the present.
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The hon. Member need only wait for an hour when the whole water position will be explained by the Minister of Health.
  Mr. CHORLTON: Is the hon. Member not aware of the strong recommendations made as long ago as 1920 by a commission which inquired into this subject upon all the points raised in the question, which even up to now have not received attention?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I am aware that we are carrying out the policy advocated by the Advisory Water Committee.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. TEMPLE MORRISasked the Minister of Pensions whether his statistics show that ex-service men with accepted pension disabilities are needing increased medical treatment as years advance; and whether he can assure the House that such needs are fully met?
  The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The Ministry statistics show that here, as also in other countries, the demand for treatment for conditions referable to war service has been and is still declining. Even if the present trend were, as I do not anticipate, to change, the Ministry's medical facilities are ample to meet all needs, as I have satisfied myself by personal inspection.
  Captain STRICKLAND: Does my right hon. Friend refer to the number of claims being made for better treatment or to individual cases which are increasing in intensity?
  Major TRYON: I am referring to the point raised in the question, as to adequate accommodation for the numbers involved. I am glad to say that we have ample accommodation, and I have satisfied myself personally.
  Captain STRICKLAND: Has the Minister's attention been directed to the fact that the question asks for statistics
  374
  to show that ex-service men with severe pensionable disability are needing increased medical treatment, and does not ask as to the number needing additional accommodation?
  Major TRYON: That is the answer I gave. It is not the case that there are more demands for treatment. The numbers are continually going down in this and all other countries.
  Captain STRICKLAND: That is just the point I want to press on the Minister. If his reply refers to numbers, it does not meet the demand that many of us feel is necessary with regard to individual cases. I am not asking about an increase in numbers, but about the increase in disability arising in individual cases.
  Major TRYON: That is a matter relating to an entirely different subject from hospital accommodation. A certain number of cases are getting worse, and they are met by the usual arrangements.

  SCOTLAND.

    PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can state the amount of money expended by the public assistance committees in the counties of Dumbarton, Renfrew and Lanark, including the city of Glasgow and the burghs of Airdrie, Coatbridge, Hamilton, Motherwell and Wishaw, and Rutherglen for 1933?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): As the answer involves a number of figures I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The net amounts expended by the public assistance authorities of the areas referred to for the year ended the 15th May, 1933, the last date for which figures are available, were as follow:

    £

    Dumbarton County

    83,228

    Renfrew County

    73,876

    Lanark County

    328,613

    Airdrie Burgh

    20,303

    Coatbridge Burgh

    41,408

    Glasgow Burgh

    2,202,884

    Hamilton Burgh

    60,142

    Motherwell and Wishaw Burgh

    36,943

    Rutherglen Burgh

    18,745

    MCBRAYNE STEAMBOAT FARES.
    Mr. TINKER (for Mr. KIRKWOOD)asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the complaints regarding the fares charged by David McBrayne (1928), Limited, on the Skye route between Mallaig and Portree, which are excesesive compared with Clyde steamer fares; and will he bring this to the notice of the company with a view to bringing these fares to the same level as the charges on Clyde steamers?
    Mr. STANLEY: I am not aware of the complaints to which the hon. Member refers. The fares charged by Messrs. McBrayne between Mallaig and Portree have twice been reduced since the new company was formed, first in 1929 and again so recently as March of this year, and I have no reason to consider that the present fares are excessive.
    Mr. MACLEAN: In view of the fact that the McBrayne Company receive a very large subsidy for carrying the mails to the West Highlands, cannot the hon. Gentleman make some investigation into this matter and make comparisons between the fares charged by this company and the ordinary steamboat fares to other parts in the West of Scotland?
    Mr. STANLEY: I find that the single fares charged only average 25 per cent. above the pre-War rate, and that the charge for return tickets is 40 per cent. above the pre-War rate. I do not think that, in existing circumstances, one can consider those charges excessive.
    Mr. MACLEAN: But does not the hon. Gentleman realise that other steamboat companies have reduced their fares very considerably below those figures, and have special fares for special occasions?
    Mr. GUY: Does my hon. Friend know that this company is now providing a very much better service on this particular route than that which existed in previous years?

  BRITISH UNION OF FASCISTS.
  Mr. THORNEasked the Home Secretary if he has received a report from the Commissioner of Police in connection with the disturbance at the Fascist meeting in Regent's Park on Sunday afternoon; and whether any persons were arrested and how many were injured?
  Mr. HACKING: Yes, Sir; my right hon. Friend has obtained a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who informs him that a meeting organised by the St. Pancras Branch of the British Union of Fascists was held in Regent's Park on the 17th instant. During the meeting the police entered the park at the request of the park keepers, but though there was some heckling no disorder occurred in the park. At the end of the meeting the Fascists marched back to the headquarters of the St. Pancras branch in Camden Town, accompanied by the police. Two Fascists who had become separated from the main body were attacked in Arlington Road by hostile onlookers and received slight injuries but declined medical assistance. Two persons were arrested and charged with using insulting words and behaviour.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on Monday last 40,000 mine workers and their wives paraded in Doncaster without police either in front of them or behind them, and will he consider employing a few miners to teach the Fascists their business?
  Mr. HACKING: That does not arise on this question.
  Mr. BERNAYS: Is not this incident a further instance of the fact that it is the Fascist uniform which is provocative?
  Mr. G. NICHOLSON: Are we to understand that the police cannot enter Regent's Park unless requested by the keepers?
  Mr. HACKING: It is not usual for the police to enter any park which is controlled by another body, without the request of that body.
  Mr. THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the cause of all this trouble is the fact that people in general are beginning to realise what the Fascists are after and that they have a private army behind them?

  STREET ASSAULTS ON WOMEN.
  Mr. POTTERasked the Home Secretary if he is aware of the increasing number of assaults on unprotected women in London and the outskirts; and what steps he intends to take to prevent these practices?
  Mr. HACKING: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that so far as separate figures are available they do not support the suggestion that crimes of this kind are increasing. So far as they can be prevented by police measures, those measures will continue to be taken.

  HEATHS AND COMMONS (FIEE PREVENTION).
  Mr. TEMPLE MORRISasked the Home Secretary whether he will circulate to local authorities who have powers of control over commons, advice as to measures of fire prevention and methods of combating fires on heaths and commons; and if he is in a position to make a statement on the matter?
  Mr. HACKING: Yes, Sir. A circular letter covering a memorandum containing advice as to the most effective methods of guarding against such fires and of dealing with them when they occur was issued on the 14th instant to the local authorities who have powers of control over commons. This memorandum is being printed and will, I hope, be on sale by the Stationery Office at the price of one penny early next week.

  BRITISH VISITORS, GERMANY (PASSPORTS).
  Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to increase the exchange balance in Britain's favour, he will take steps by means of the Anglo-German exchange clearing to restrict non-essential expenditure of British money in Germany by subjecting to a considerable charge per person all passports issued for tourist and similar visits to Germany, but so that no alteration should be made in the present arrangements for passports for British subjects visiting Germany for purposes of trade?
  Captain AUSTIN HUDSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend has considered my hon. Friend's proposal, but he does rot think that it would be desirable to adopt it. I would point out that the expenditure of British tourists in Germany increases her foreign exchange resources and should thus tend to facilitate payments in respect of her foreign debt.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is the Minister aware that the passport method adopted with great effect by Germany has prevented German tourists going into Austria to spend their money, and is it not worth considering?
  Captain HUDSON: I understand my right hon. Friend has considered it and does not propose to adopt it here.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.
    Mr. WHITEasked the Minister of Labour (1) if he has issued any directions to public assistance committees with regard to the raising of the basic rates in assessing transitional payments as from 1st July next;
    (2) what steps he proposes to take to ensure uniformity of action by public assistance committees in dealing with transitional payments in relation to the increase in standard unemployment benefit?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): A Circular, dated 24th May, of which I am sending a copy to the hon. Member, was issued to local authorities informing them of the proposed alteration of unemployment benefit rates and of the effect of such alteration upon their legal powers and duties in respect of transitional payments.
    Mr. THORNE: Would the Minister be good enough to supply all the Members of the House with a similar circular? I put a question the other day on the subject, and I would like to know the contents of the circular.
    Mr. TINKER: May I support that same appeal?
    Mr. HUDSON: I will see if we can do it. If not, I will send both hon. Members a copy and put a couple of copies in the Library.
    Mr. THORNE: Will the hon. Gentleman have copies put in the Vote Office, and then we can get them for ourselves?
    Mr. HUDSON: I will see what can be done.

    DUMBARTON, RENFREW AND LANARK (BENEFIT).
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Minister of Labour whether he can state the amount of money expended on unemploy-

    379
    ment benefit in the counties of Dumbarton, Renfrew and Lanark, including the city of Glasgow, in 1933, giving the amount spent in each county separately?

    Amounts paid in Unemployment Benefit and Transitional Payments at Employment Exchanges in the counties of Dumbarton, Renfrew and Lanark in the year 1933. Corresponding figures for the amounts paid through associations are not available.

    County.

    Unemployment Benefit.

    Transitional Payments.

    Total.

    £

    £

    £

    Dumbarton

    …

    126,206

    516,523

    642,729

    Renfrew

    …

    231,982

    834,665

    1,066,647

    Lanark (including Glasgow)

    …

    1,743,917

    4,050,211

    5,794,128

  KENYA (LAND COMMISSION'S REPORT).
  Mr. DAVID GRENFELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in order to obtain the views of the African population thereby affected, he will take steps to secure the translation into Swahili of the main points in the report of the Morris Carter Land Commission, and the submission to the different tribes of those parts of the report with which they are specially concerned?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. Any summary of so intricate a report could hardly fail to be misleading; and it is out of the question to translate the whole document into Swahili, a language, moreover, which is by no means universally understood by the native tribes. I am relying with confidence on the district officers of Kenya to explain the findings and recommendations of the report and the decisions of Government to the communities under their charge.
  Mr. GRENFELL: Is it not the case that a very large number of the natives concerned do not understand English at all and would it not be convenient to have the full report or at any rate the essential points of the report translated into Swahili?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think you could satisfactorily summarise the report, and it would be perfectly impossible to translate a document of this character, running to 700 closely-printed pages, into Swahili.
  Mr. GRENFELL: Is there not a great feeling in Kenya that as the natives are
  Mr. HUDSON: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the reply:
  the people most intimately concerned with the recommendations in the report they should be made acquainted with it?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I entirely agree that it is very important that the natives should know, but anybody who has had experience of administration will agree that much the best way of allowing the natives to know is for those who are responsible for the administration to meet the natives and explain and discuss with them these various matters, exactly in the way that this Commission themselves took their evidence.
  Mr. GRENFELL: But is it not the case that very large numbers of the natives do know Swahili and do not know English?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, I know it is, but the district officers in discussing all these points with the natives would discuss them in Swahili or in some other language understood by the natives. I am perfectly certain that you could not translate the whole of this vast document into Swahili.

  LORD STRATHNAIRN STATUE.
  Mr. LOVAT-FRASERasked the First Commissioner of Works what has become of the statue of Lord Strathnairn and when it is proposed to restore it to its former position in Knightsbridge?
  Mr. BLINDELL (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. This statue is in the charge of the Westminster City Council and not of my right hon. Friend's Department, but I understand that it has been removed in

  381
  connection with the alterations to the Underground Railway station at Knights-bridge.
  Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: When is it going to be restored to its old place?
  Mr. BLINDELL: I am afraid I cannot tell the hon. Member.

  BILL PRESENTED.
    DEBTS CLEARING OFFICES AND IMPORT RESTRICTIONS REPRISALS BILL,
    "to authorise the setting up of clearing offices for collecting and dealing with certain debts; to authorise the imposition of restrictions on imports from certain foreign countries; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; supported by Sir John Simon and Mr. Runciman; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 152.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. THORNE: May I ask the Prime Minister whether there will be any possibility of a Second Reading discussion on the Bill in connection with Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Reprisals to be presented to-day.
The PRIME MINISTER: It will go through in the usual way.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Ordered,
  "That the Proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at half-past Seven of the clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, be exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) and, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 6, any such Private Business may be taken after half-past Nine of the clock."—[The Prime Minister.]

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairman's Panel; That they had appointed him to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Solicitors Bill [Lords] and the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords]).
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Statutory Salaries (Restoration) Bill, without Amendment.
Unemployment Bill.
Licensing (Permitted Hours) Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
West Gloucestershire Water Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Wey Valley Water Company." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wey Valley Water) Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the South Middlesex and Richmond Joint Hospital District." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (South Middlesex and Richmond Joint Hospital District) Bill [Lords.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WEY VALLEY WATER) BILL [Lords].
  Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 154.]
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SOUTH MIDDLESEX AND RICHMOND JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) Bill [Lords].
  Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 155.]
UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 153.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [9TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1934.
      CLASS V.

        MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That a sum, not exceeding £13,639,924, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Health; including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, certain Grants to Local Authorities, etc., Grants in Aid in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, certain Expenses in connection with the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts, and other Services."—[Note: £6,000,000 has been voted on account.]
        3.29 p.m.
        The MINISTER OF HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): Before I speak on the work of the Ministry of Health I should explain the principal changes on last year's Estimates. Last year there was no increase in the administrative expenses of the Ministry. This year, the Committee will see there is an increase of £18,500. It is the result of the increased work, staff and expenditure rendered necessary in respect of two matters to which I shall have occasion to refer later on. The first is slum clearance and the second rural water supplies. The increase is of course the result of the balance between increases and diminutions in various items and I should like to refer here to a particularly good result as regards economy of administration, effected in the pensions work of the Ministry by those responsible under the Minister for that work. Between the years 1932 and 1934 there has been a constant increase in the work of the pensions administration. Nevertheless, in the course of that period of two years, owing to improvements in the methods of administration, gained by experience, there has been a reduction in the staff of that branch of the Ministry of no fewer
        390
        than 134 persons—an excellent result as regards organisation, which deserves a word of tribute.
        The Committee will see that there is an increase of £167,000 in respect of housing grants. That is the result of a balance between increases in the housing grants under the Acts of 1924 and 1930 and a reduction of £200,000 in the grants under the Act of 1919. It is an economy effected by a reduction in the interest rates, and it is an example of how widespread are the economies that result from the improved national standing and the improved confidence of the country as a whole. As against that, there was an increase in housing grants of £374,000, in respect of the general subsidies under the Acts of 1924 and 1930. Finally, in this connection, the Committee will see that on the other Vote for which I am responsible, the miscellaneous grants, there is an increase of £199,000. The increase there is a result of the Vote in respect of the £1,000,000 which has been granted by the House for the improvement of rural water supplies.
        A student of national finance may well find interesting material for his studies in the Vote for the Ministry of Health, and I would like to make this comment upon it before I turn from the question of our Estimates as a whole. The Committee will see, if it looks, that between the years 1919 and 1934 our Vote has increased by the enormous figure of £58,000,000. Since 1919 it has increased from £13,000,000 to £71,000,000. The observation which I would make is by way of assisting towards an understanding of the nature of the increase and how it can be controlled. In the first place, nearly half that great increase of the Vote of the Ministry of Health has been caused by the De-rating Act, and so it has nothing whatever to do with social services; it simply represents a change of expenditure from the local to the central pockets of the State.
        Then, again, I would just mention this as a matter of interest to students of national finance. Look at the character of the expenditure of the Ministry of Health when we are considering the control of national finance and economy and efficiency. Of this expenditure of £71,000,000, £40,000,000 is the block grant to the local authorities, £11,500,000 is the State expenditure on pensions, and £14,000,000 is the State expenditure on

        391
        housing. These make up £65,500,000 out of our total of £71,000,000, but the point which is worth attention is that, as the Committee will see, the whole of that expenditure depends entirely upon policy laid down by the House of Commons and is not susceptible to increase or decrease by any administrative action. As I say, the Vote for the Ministry of Health is, I think, the most characteristic Vote to show how our national expenditure is determined by decisions of policy made by the House and how insusceptible it is, except over a very small margin, to administrative control once the House has decided the policy.
        I will again take advantage of this opportunity to give some account to the Committee of the work of the Ministry during the year in relation to the national health, directed particularly to those anxieties which are naturally felt about the national health in difficult times. Last year I dealt with the aspect of this question which is summarised in the word "nutrition," a matter in which it is difficult to give positive proofs. This year I will deal with another aspect of national health in general, and that is the standard of national physique and health as it is shown by the incidence of disease in the country and the resistance of our population to disease. This is a matter on which it is possible to give very much more positive information, because it is reflected much more in actual figures, and I will confine myself principally to the most positive of all witnesses as to the state of national health in respect of disease, namely, the mortality figures, the death-rates from disease, which are very positive witnesses indeed to the state of the nation.
        The most conclusive figure is the general death-rate, which is very sensitive to the effects of epidemics and diseases. It took a sharp and marked rise in the influenza year of 1929. The general death-rate of the nation shows an encouraging downward tendency, and that downward tendency is the best proof positive we could have of the general maintenance of national health and physique. Actually, in comparison with five years before, the standardised death-rate for 1932 stands 10 per cent. lower. I do not emphasise the actual figure, but I would only say that it shows a downward tendency, and that, let it be observed,
        392
        is an improvement in the death-rate after taking account of the fact that our population, owing to the falling birth-rate, is annually getting older in its average age. The death-rate is a standardised death-rate which allows for any increase in the age of the population.
        The next figure to which I will turn is a figure in which we see a more positive and encouraging result from the nation's great outlay of energy and money on its health services, and that is the infant death-rate. How can I put it so as to show the actual good results? I will do it in this way, that during the last 10 years, owing to the improvement in the infant death-rate, we have saved 40,000 more infants under one every year than we were saving at the beginning of the century, and the figures for the 10 years at the beginning of the century were a great improvement on those of any preceding such period. This indeed is an encouraging result to make us believe that we are obtaining good value from the health services of the country. It is due, as the technicians say, to improvement in environment. What is the environment of an infant under one? It is, I imagine, more than anything else its mother, and the improvement we see here is, I believe, due basically to the improvement in the education of the mothers of the country in the care of infants.
        I should like to offer a word of tribute to the magnificent work which has been done by the 1,340 ante-natal clinics in the country and the 2,820 infant welfare centres. I sincerely wish that every Member of the Committee could have had my experience of visiting infant welfare clinics all over the country. There is nothing that gives one a firmer personal conviction of the value of health work than what one sees at these centres, and the encouragement that one derives from seeing the mothers imbued with a competitive spirit for the health of their infants in contact with careful, knowledgeable people who teach them, not the fancies, but the common sense of bringing up children well. All this enables one to see, indeed, that good work is being done for the future of the race by those who work at these centres. In connection with that, I would not pass over the thousands of health visitors and nurses who from the centres proceed outwards and carry the good work into the

        393
        homes of the people themselves. There, indeed, we have an army for health from whose work we derive enormous advantage. What is the result? In the last 15 years we have cut down the death-rate of children under five years of age from the three diseases most fatal to children, namely, bronchitis, diarrhoea and measles, by more than one-half.
        Let me give a little wider extension of the general survey of the country's resistence to disease. If we look not only to children but to adults, we shall see a good result from the faithful work of the medical profession and the hospitals and of the administrators in the public health services and in the whole field of local and central government. I will bring it to a head again in the death-rate figures, and let me put it in a way that will show the improvement in resistance to disease. Where one person died of whooping cough in 1932, nearly four died at the beginning of the century; where one died of diphtheria, four died at the beginning of the century; where one died in 1932 of scarlet fever, over seven were dying at the beginning of the century. The most remarkable scientific result of all, and attributable to the public health work, is shown by the fact that where one person died in 1932 of typhoid, the number who died at the beginning of the century was 22. I do not think these figures are known to the public, and it is well they should be known in order that the public should understand the value of our health services.
        The brilliant successes that have been made in this field are shown whenever we come to outside carriers like water or milk, or some bug or insect, or food. That is where the brilliant successes have been achieved; the difficulties arise where infection is carried from person to person. It may not be generally known, but it is known to science, that there are constantly great waves of infection of these diseases passing through the public which never break. The microbes are there and they grow and decline, but the infection does not break in actual cases of disease. These waves are very difficult to check in order to stop a break of the disease. It follows from that that, since the difficulty of checking these diseases is greatest in cases where it is person-to-person infection, what we have to work on in order to prevent the diseases
        394
        is to see that persons are not crowded too closely together. Overcrowding is the principal cause of the diseases which it is difficult to check. Therefore, if we put our finger on overcrowding as an evil that clamours for a national remedy, we do so not only in a social sense but in order to prevent disease.
        I must give one more figure in this connection, because I am referring now to the field in which the health work of the country has won its most brilliant victories owing to the great national campaign which has been in progress for many years against what seemed to be the most intractable of diseases, tuberculosis. I will give some positive figures to show the progress that has been made. In the 10 years up to 1933, the death-rate from tuberculosis has been decreased by 22 per cent. Where 100 people 10 years before died from tuberculosis, 78 die now. I do not think any one will question that this is one of the most brilliant victories which has been achieved by medical science and the health services of the country. To what is it due? It is due, in the first place, to the identification of the causes of the disease, leading to the knowledge that isolation is the principal preventative of the disease. It is due to the general improvement of social conditions, and in particular to the vast improvement in the welfare of the child and in child care, to which I have referred in connection with clinics. We see again how intimate is the connection of health with the housing problem, because nothing is more certain than that, however far the success against tuberculosis is carried, we shall never get rid of it until we finally get rid of the slums, because the slums are the refuges of the disease.
        There is one aspect of disease which may give a less favourable impression, and that is the statistics as regards lunacy and mental deficiency. They are deceptive. The apparent increase in lunacy is deceptive, because it is a disease of advanced years, and it is probable that the increased average age of the population accounts for the increase in lunacy rather than any actual increase in the disease. There has been an apparent enormous increase in mental deficiency, but this is really due to the fact that we are for the first time undertaking a great service

        395
        for the segregation of mental deficients. Hence the apparent increase is due to better ascertainment rather than to an increase of the disease.
        On the question of mental deficiency, there has been a most interesting report in the course of the year on the difficult problem of the sterilisation of the mentally unfit. About that I would say a word as an individual and from the ministerial point of view. As an individual, I would say that I am profoundly impressed by the strength of the reasons given by the committee in support of their recommendations as to sterilisation. I am equally impressed by the unanimity of their report. As far as my own individual conscience is concerned, I can see not the least difficulty in approving the recommendations of the committee. As regards ministerial responsibility, we must remember that this is a novel question and one which has not yet been thought out by the mind and heart of the nation. At the present time consideration is being given to the report by great organisations of national opinion, such as the churches. It is right that these organisations should have adequate time for thinking it out, because we are concerned here with a matter which affects the conscience as well as the mind. I think it would be wrong from a ministerial point of view to propose any national policy in the matter until there has been sufficient time for the national mind and conscience to be cleared, and for us to be quite sure that we are making no proposal that does not offend against the national conscience.
        One other aspect of this general health question to which I would refer is the maternity death rate, which has given as much anxiety to my predecessors as it does to me. Here there is not so favourable an account to give. The maternity death rate has not decreased like other death rates during the last 20 years, and that is not satisfactory. We have obtained more knowledge of the question now, by intensive study, and we know that the reason it has not decreased is due to the fact of there being bad local patches from the point of view of maternity welfare work. I take this occasion to urge on the responsible authorities in those localities where the maternity death rate is above the normal
        396
        the immense service that can be done to public health by following up and intensifying inquiries as to the cause of the local variation. In the mean while, are we to rest content that the death rate has not decreased? We should not.
        But what is the remedy? To press ahead with the development of maternity services and to make sure, a thing of which we are not sure at the present time, that the standard of the maternity service is as good in every locality as it now is in the best. That is the policy we are pursuing at the Ministry of Health year by year and month by month. I can report progress in that respect. We have 147 more ante-natal clinics, and a growing number of births take place under the supervision of ante-natal clinics. There is also an increase in the number of maternity beds, and I would like to pay special tribute to the success of the London County Council in increasing their maternity services. But while we press ahead, and while we recognise the achievement in the best places, we shall not be content until we have encouraged, persuaded and stimulated all those that are not up to the best standard to develop their maternity services until they are equal to the best.
        Finally, let me say this of the health services of the country. I have quoted many favourable results of our health services, and have dealt with some of the points which require intensive application. The work done has been very much assisted, improvement has been achieved, and our knowledge has been enormously increased, by the systematic review of the health services of the country by the Ministry of Health which has been in progress ever since the Act of 1929 made that review possible. The health services of the local authorities have been passed in review by the Ministry with a view to ensuring that their standards of efficiency are up to the mark. We have already dealt with the counties, the county boroughs and the metropolitan boroughs, and we are going on to deal with the smaller authorities.
        Two things are particularly sought in these reviews besides a general increase in efficiency. First, we want to press forward with the movement inaugurated by the Act of 1929 for taking the treatment of disease out of the Poor Law and for making it no longer a part, as

        397
        it were, of the relief of destitution, particularly by the transfer of institutions which deal with ill-health from the public assistance committees of local authorities to the public health committees. Good progress has been made in this respect, particularly in the larger areas, where it is naturally easier; and here, again, I must pay tribute to what has been done in London, where no fewer than 60 institutions have been taken out of the Poor Law. Where the difficulties are greater the progress has not been so good. It is the policy of the Ministry, pursued by active persuasion and stimulus, to press forward with the removal of health services from the Poor Law. Another great advantage is found in the specialising of institutions, so that instead of all sorts of cases—mental cases, health cases, old and young—being grouped in one institution, they are now treated in specialist institutions, which means an increase in efficiency and also an increase in the area covered by those institutions.
        I have dealt so far with the general work of the Ministry from the point of view of public health, in order to give the House some idea of what is being achieved by the expenditure of energy and public and local funds on our great health services. Now let me pass to two subjects of particular importance at the present time as affecting the public health, and the first is the water supply of the country. The House knows the situation which has resulted from the prolonged drought. I would, at the outset, say a word of caution to the country as a whole against supposing that the recent rainfall has really very much affected the position. It has not. Though there has been some rainfall in the course of the last two days, I hope that will not be accepted as evidence of a belief that the way to induce rainfall is to table a Motion for the reduction of the salary of the Minister of Health, because that would be a most unscientific assumption. Our present difficulties are not due to the dry summer—though it is a dry summer, it is only a normally dry summer—but are due to the lack of water in the winter and in the spring; and not until next autumn brings its rainfall—as we hope will be the case—can we expect to be out of the difficulties.
        Let me refer first to the urban water supplies. As a result of the not occasional but constant touch which has
        398
        been maintained with the position, the urban supplies are fairly good, considering the difficulties. Those responsible for the urban supplies are confident that they will be able to deal with the difficulties of summer, with the goodwill and co-operation of all forces, including the public. The fact that the situation has somewhat improved during the last few weeks is due not so much to the rainfall, although that rainfall in the North has been not inconsiderable, as to these influences to which I refer. The present confidence of the urban water undertakers and the recent appreciable improvement in the situation are a result of prolonged hard work on the part of all those concerned—water undertakers, local authorities and the Ministry—in order to fortify the situation, and an invaluable aid has been the Act which the House passed earlier in the year.
        Emergency measures have been in active progress wherever there was any need for them. They have taken the form of sinking new bores to get new supplies; cutting down compensation water in order to turn water into the reservoirs and not allow it to run to waste down the rivers; the use of special supplies, as in the case of Liverpool, which is taking sea water to wash the streets in order to relieve the consumable water; and arrangements between local authorities to share out their water, those which have water helping those which are not so well off. These are all measures which have been actively instituted in those urban centres where there was any need for them. To a large extent these special emergency arrangements have been made under voluntary agreements between the water undertakings and those concerned, for instance, those who were entitled to compensation water, or owned some new source of supply, but, of course, we recognise that these voluntary arrangements have been enormously helped because there was the emergency Act of Parliament behind. It was because the water undertaker could have resorted to an Order if he could not get a voluntary arrangement that, human nature being what it is, voluntary arrangements have turned out much easier to make.
        There have been a number of cases of applications for actual Orders, but in view of the success attending the volun-

        399
        tary arrangements, the number of applications has not been great. I have ten on record, including a very important one from the Metropolitan Water Board—under its special Act, and not the general Act—for taking more water from the Thames. Up to the present time I have had no need to make use of the initiative and powers of compulsion which the Act gives me. As the Committee is aware, I have power under the Act to take the initiative for making Orders so as to secure the water supply of the nation, but I am glad to say that, owing to the hearty co-operation of the water undertakers and the common sense and social sense of the community, there has been no need at present to resort to compulsory Orders. But I need not say that if it were necessary, in order to secure an essential water supply in any area, there would be no hesitation in making use of this power.
        The second great influence which has enabled me to make this statement as to the urban supplies of the country has been the voluntary co-operation of the public in economising water. I think that the extent to which the public has realised that in its own self-defence it should economise water in order that it may avoid worse hardships if it were necessary to impose compulsory restrictions, has been very remarkable, and I would pay a tribute to the great service which the Press of the country has rendered in enforcing this necessity on the public. I sometimes wish that national necessities might at all times receive attention in certain quarters without exaggeration, because I do not believe in scare-mongering, and I wish that they were not treated as matters of party political controversy. But, be that as it may, undoubtedly admirable service is performed by the organs of publicity in calling the attention of the public to the great need for economy in water at the present time. It only needs to have its attention called to it for it to act with common sense in the matter. In London the public has voluntarily achieved a reduction of 10 per cent. in the consumption of water. That is a remarkable achievement, but it is not enough. The economy must be carried further in order to avoid compulsion, and I sincerely hope that a mere shower of rain will not lead to any relaxation.
        Sir PERCY HURD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what period that 10 per cent. covers?
        Sir H. YOUNG: Since the beginning of the campaign by the Metropolitan Water Board.
        Mr. CHORLTON: But it has gone up again.
        Sir H. YOUNG: There was a shower of rain, which produced a slight relaxation.
        As regards the urban situation, the Ministry is in touch with every part of the country where there is any difficulty from day to day, and, as regards the cooperation which I have described, I should like to pay my tribute to the great services performed by the great water associations of the country—the Waterworks' Association, the Association of Water Engineers, and the Water Companies' Association, and particularly to the help of that standing conference which I have instituted so that I may have at once information where action is necessary, and also the most expert guidance as regards the measures which should be taken in an area.
        Let me turn from the urban supplies to the rural supplies. There, of course, the situation is one of great difficulty. At the present time the situation is that there are difficulties in specific areas, but those difficulties are not yet widespread. What we have to consider particularly is, that unless there are quite unforeseeable rain-falls in the course of the next few weeks, those difficulties will increase in August and September. It is those months we have to look at, and the difficulty has this charactertistic, that of course it is greatest in the case of isolated houses and isolated groups of houses, which are furthest away from the possibiities of help. When you are dealing with a rural area, the problem is absolutely different, because there is no general nation-wide remedy which you can apply. You have to deal with the actual difficulties of each locality, and action differs in each case. The measures which can be taken are the sinking of new bore-holes, the deepening of boreholes, the deepening of wells and the getting of supplies from neighbours. There are many rural areas which long ago could have had supplies from neighbours if they could have got them at a reasonable rate, and those areas are now taking the matter up.

        401
        The next Measure which promises much more widespread relief is to make supplies which are at present imperfect, readily available by chlorination, a method of more general application, and the Ministry have put the necessary information at the disposition of the local authorities. I notice with great interest that one big firm, Imperial Chemical Industries, are also putting the most recent information as to methods and means of obtaining supplies of the necessary chemicals at the disposal of the local authorities—an example which, I have no doubt, will be followed by other firms. All such measures for increasing the knowledge and facility of remedies in the hands of the local authorities are of the greatest possible service.
        Lastly, in the final resort, if the worst comes to the worst in rural areas, there is only one measure to take in order to relieve the necessity, and that is the cartage of water organised by the local authorities. In the rural districts with which I have been closely in touch on this matter since last February, let me make it perfectly clear that these measures are being actively taken, and the picture painted in some quarters of lethargic authorities doing nothing to relieve rural districts where there is a shortage of water, is absolutely false. On the contrary, rural authorities are showing, on the whole, great activity in relieving necessities where there is a shortage.
        I may be asked: Is one satisfied with the situation? I am not satisfied, because I think that it is necessary to give more attention to the pinch which is coming in August and September, and to be more assured that the local authorities are alive to that, and taking measures accordingly. What is needed now is, that rural authorities, where there is the least danger of this pinch in the worst months, should at once put themselves in touch with the Ministry of Health and take advantage of the help of the Ministry and the county councils, which are showing the right spirit in being willing to help the rural authorities. Measures are in progress to secure that the rural district authorities supply information of the situation, in all cases of shortage either where there is need or where there is going to be need, so that they receive the necessary advice as to how to deal with the situation. Thus we can make
        402
        sure that plans are prepared in due time, and measures are being taken to stimulate the county councils, where necessary, to assist the rural areas. Then these measures are followed up by the appointment of special officers of the Ministry to proceed to the areas where the situation is worst in order to assist the authorities to deal with it.
        At the present time action of this kind is being taken in four such areas in Lincolnshire (Holland), Northamptonshire, Dorsetshire and Denbigh. We have thus an area organisation capable of being rapidly brought to bear upon any district in which there appears likely to be any lack of water during the coming summer-months. I will not detain the Committee on this occasion with an account of the work which is now being done as regards permanent water schemes for rural areas. I will only say that applications are coming in sufficiently rapidly, and cover a sufficiently wide ground to make it certain that we shall get a prompt and useful expenditure of the money in order permanently to relieve the situation in the rural districts concerned.
        As regards this water crisis, I have described the measures which are in progress in order to relieve the present emergency, and I will say this final word on the subject. The position at present is like that of somebody whose house is on fire; the immediate necessity is to put the fire out. We are endeavouring to prevent, as far as we humanly can, suffering from the shortage of water, particularly in rural areas. When, however, the crisis is over, we shall not forget the experience of the great drought, but will profit by it in order to see what can wisely be done to insure against similar emergencies in the future.
        Let me refer very briefly to the other great activity of the Ministry in the course of the year—the work of housing. The year has been one of tremendous activity in housing, in particular with the slum clearance campaign, where we have been actively engaged on the most critical phase of the work, which is the conversion of the programme of the White Paper into the actual work of slum clearance itself. As regards the intensive work on the part of local authorities and the housing staff of the Ministry, I should like to express a word of recognition. Let me give the Committee a concentrated report of the progress which has

        403
        been made as a result of that work. I will give it in the following figures, which are really eloquent figures. In the course of 1933–34, during the slum clearance campaign, which has been pushed forward into its present activity, we have achieved the declaration of 2,250 slum areas—that is, quite apart from individual houses—covering 37,000 houses and 172,000 people. Let me note that that is during the initial stage of the campaign in which we are still pushing forward the rate of progress.
        At the present time, the rate of acceleration, that is, the speeding up of the slum clearance campaign, is still going on as hard as it can. We have not by any means got to the fastest stage of the work, but we have multiplied the rate of progress in slum clearance in this initial stage of the campaign by five, so that we are now going five times faster than we have ever gone before, and that rate is increasing monthly. The Committee will be inclined to ask the Administration, "From the experience you have now got, what do you say about the possibility of carrying out the programme?" I will give the Committee the answer, on the figures now ascertained, that if this rate of acceleration is maintained we shall achieve the programme of the White Paper in the course of the five years. I realise that that is a very bold thing to say. The Committee may say that the present rate of demolition is not good enough to carry out the programme. That is true. We must speed it up more than we have speeded it up yet, in order to reach the result. I can say, with the knowledge that I have of the ways in which things are progressing with the local authorities and of the vigour which those authorities are putting into the matter, that unless there is any set-back we have achieved a rate of progress which encourages one to believe that five years will see the programme substantially carried out. I know that it will need intense work on the part of the local authorities and of the Ministry of Health, and firm support in all quarters, in order to keep up the pressure which will enable the Ministry to carry out the undertaking. It can be done. I do not doubt the power of the Ministry, nor do I doubt the firm resolution of the House of Commons and of the local authorities. I have confidence in the continuance of the support
        404
        which we have had, and in what we shall achieve by it.
        The Ministry have given careful attention to all means of facilitating the work and during the year I have reorganised the housing work of the Ministry in order to meet the immense burdens which are being thrown upon it. I have put together the town planning and the housing work into a single department, under an officer with the special status of director of housing. I find that the more the work proceeds the more necessary it is to bring it into close relation with town planning. The wider sweep we give to slum clearance and to the work which we have before us in regard to overcrowding, the more essential it is to take care to build the right house in the right place. The House will observe that there is a town-planning advisory council, in order to bring the help of well-informed, knowledgeable and expert persons to the aid of the Ministry on town-planning work. That has involved an increase in the staff of the Ministry to cope with the increase of work.
        The year has also seen a tremendous boom in the building of small houses in London. The figures are fairly well known to the Committee, I believe. Forty thousand more houses were built in the half-year ended 31st March than in the preceding half-year, and 34,000 more houses were built by private enterprise; 77,000 houses were built in the half-year for the lower-paid wage earners. As a result of this astonishing boom, we are now building houses at the rate of 300,000 houses a year, and at the rate of 155,000 a year for the lower-paid wage earners. That is one of the most remarkable facts that has ever emerged on the housing scene. I do not want to mar the satisfaction of anyone who listens to me by reference to any of the more controversial aspects of the matter, because I am sure that we all join in satisfaction at the astonishing number of houses, but I would like to introduce one historical reference. That astonishing activity in the production of houses follows upon the Act of 1933, which altered the system from a general subsidy—which interposed the competition of subsidised building on the part of local authorities in the way of private enterprise—into a system of a controlled subsidy for slum clearance. Those of us

        405
        who take that view must be allowed our firm conviction that this astonishing activity in housing is the result of that encouragement given to private enterprise.
        Critics will say, whatever the number of houses that are being built, that rents are not yet lower. I know it can be said, not only by my critics upon the Benches opposite, but from the Benches behind me, and it is a principal source of dissatisfaction on the part of all housing reformers, that rents are not yet down. Bents show an excess in comparison with the other necessities of life, in relation to the standard of living. One has to find means of solving that problem. Let me remind the Committee that the tremendous production of houses is rapidly overtaking the shortage. It is perfectly well known by all students of any sort of market that, when there is a shortage and the market is overtaking it, the result is not seen in prices until the market has actually overtaken it. Not until the shortage is actually overtaken do you begin to reap the full benefit of the effort in the form of a reduction of prices. We therefore cannot expect to see the full effect upon rents until the shortage of houses has been fully overtaken. I shall be asked, "Do you mean that nothing is to be done and that we are to wait until we get the fruition of all this house building before action is taken on behalf of the lower-paid wage earners?" Wherever there is a need for public help in order to get houses at rents which the lower-paid wage earners can pay, we shall give it, because that will not compete with private enterprise. We must leave to private enterprise those fields where it can provide houses on an economic basis, but there are great exceptions and one of them is in regard to the slums. Without public help you cannot replace the slums or build houses at rents which can be paid by the overcrowded population in the centres of our great towns. There, again, is an admitted sphere for the provision of houses which cannot be built without some form of public help which does not compete with private enterprise. Private enterprise cannot touch rehousing in the centre of great towns.
        To discuss housing policy without some reference to future legislation is like discussing the play of Hamlet with the
        406
        Prince of Denmark left out. It is recognised in our policy that we proceed by two stages to supplement private enterprise where it cannot work, first of all as regards the great slums—the decreasing slums—and secondly as regards replacing the over-crowded population. It is a very complex administrative problem. If anybody asks, "Why are you not dealing with overcrowding as distinct from the slum population at the present time? the answer is purely administrative. The resources of the building strength and the housing organisation of the local authorities of the country must not be overloaded by placing upon them the rehousing of the overcrowded population and the clearance of slums at the same time because you will jam them, and they will not be able to work at all. You should go on with slum clearance, as we are doing to the end of the summer, and then you will be able to carry out the overcrowding part of the work.
        I have only been able to give summary references to the housing problem of the country. The more one studies that problem the more one becomes persuaded that it cannot be effectively solved or dealt with without keeping in the forefront the forces of local government in the towns and the rural districts. We cannot deal effectively with local conditions without enlisting for the purpose those local forces. I notice two phases in public opinion as regards the achievement of the work of our social services. There is the phase in which the public desire that everything should be done by the central Minister without loss of time and by dictatorial powers, he ordering everybody to do exactly what he would have them do. The second phase is that which exhibits a certain jealousy towards any extension of the powers of the Minister in the direction of over-riding and proceeding in a dictatorial manner. The wisdom of the efficient conduct of our public business lies between the two. It is in a wise distribution of powers between the local authorities and the central government that we can use most effectively those two forces for the efficient discharge of the duties of our social services. I am confident that that is so in the matter of housing, and that the best way to make a fuller discharge, in regard to such a social service as housing, is to enlist to the full the intimate knowledge of local conditions, and the

        407
        keen personal interest in them, of the men on the spot.
        It will be appropriate that my closing observations should be not only a tribute to those who have done hard work in other spheres but a reiteration of the warm appreciation which any Minister of Health must feel towards those who give their voluntary services in the conduct of the local government of this country. I assure the Committee, if there are any hon. Members who are not directly conscious of this, that there is no other force of such great moment for the proper conduct of our social services as the voluntary forces which operate in our local government.
        4.28 p.m.
        Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: This day is always one of very great interest to me for sentimental as well as for national reasons. The right hon. Gentleman devoted the first part of his speech to something which interests all of us, a record of the general march of progress in public opinion and how that has been responsible for the lengthening of human life, the diminution of the death-rate, particularly of infant mortality, and the improvement in the resistance of our people to disease. That, of course, none of us will deny. Indeed, we are delighted to know that, after generations of effort, we have overcome some of the most dread diseases, and at the same time have improved, not merely the physique, but the morale of our people. I share the Minister's feeling of sorrow that we have not yet made any impression on the maternity death-rate. That is perhaps the most difficult, and in a sense the most fundamental, of all our national health problems, and if the right hon. Gentleman can produce any kind of scheme which will reduce that rate to the minimum that we must face, with the risks that there are in life, I can assure him that he will have no more warm supporters than hon. Members on this side of the House.
        As regards the rest of his speech, I am bound to say that we are now going to part company, as I imagine Members of the Committee would expect. I think, if I may say so, that the right hon. Gentleman has been rather evasive, both about the question of water supply and about the progress of housing. It is not very long since he used words which I think
        408
        are worth quoting again to-day. When he spoke only three weeks ago at Swindon on this problem of the water supplies of the country, he said that the first necessity was that measures should be taken in good time—that action must be efficient and must be taken promptly and well beforehand. That is an excellent text for a sermon on the Government's treatment of this problem. I am bound to remind the Committee again that the right hon. Gentleman this year, in face of an emergency, has had to revert to a policy of financial assistance which was in full operation when he took office, and which he did his best to destroy. There is not the slightest doubt that, in the two years from 1929 to 1931, the increased grants which were made available especially for rural water supplies did make a contribution to the question, and, had that contribution not been made then, I tremble to think what would have been happening in many rural areas at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman brought all this activity to an end. I need not go over the history of the matter; I do not want to repeat what I have said already in the House; but the right hon. Gentleman's initial policy was one of deliberately discouraging local authorities from making provision for their immediate and prospective water needs.
        Last year, as a bolt from the blue, the right hon. Gentleman made a speech, during the Debate on the Address, in which he referred particularly to this question of rural water. He told us that the problem was becoming serious—he having as a matter of fact massacred the rest of the rural water schemes which we left behind in 1931—and that something would have to be done about it. Although no reference had been made to this question in the King's Speech, we were informed that the right hon. Gentleman meant to take early action. He took that early action towards the end of February this year. Six months before he came to the House in November of last year, he had felt it his duty to send round a Circular to rural authorities with regard to the provision of adequate water supplies. After six months he makes a speech; after three further months he comes to the House of Commons with his Rural Water Supplies Bill; and two months after that he comes to the House again with his Water Supply (Exceptional

        409
        Shortage Orders) Bill. I said at that time that he had taken two bites at the cherry and yet had not eaten the whole cherry, and I will try to prove that.
        I think it is perfectly clear, from the speeches he has made, that he has never appreciated the gravity of this problem. I remember, on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Rural Water Supplies Bill, the air of gay irresponsibility with which the Parliamentary Secretary replied to the Debate. He told us that all this was a figment of the imagination; he said that, as an old journalist, he was not going to begrudge newspaper men the advantage of making copy out of it; he said that it was a mare's nest, that there was nothing in it. Even a few weeks ago he was, I was going to say guilty, of saying that the Ministry of Health had two daily prayers: "Up with the houses" and "Down with the rain." I must say I thought that that was worthy of an ex-journalist. But I would remind the hon. Gentleman—for he and I come of the same kind of Nonconformist stock—that faith and works must go together. It is not much good praying for rain unless you are going to do something about it.
        I have mentioned that in order to show that the Government have never taken a serious view of this situation. They have always tried to minimise it. They did so in February, they did so in April, and the right hon. Gentleman's speech to-day will clearly make no impression on the public outside. He has been trying to prove to this Committee that, although things may be rather serious, they are not as grave as the newspapers would make out, and all will be well if we leave the solution of the problem to him. What is the position to-day? It is true that during the last two days the Clerk of the Weather has wept a few crocodile tears over London, but, as the right hon. Gentleman says, we must not regard this as having ended the difficulties of London. He has said that this is a dry summer, but not exceptionally dry, and he points out to-day the difficulties—the great difficulties, he says now—which we shall encounter because of the lack of rain during last winter and during the spring. It is very difficult for anybody to forecast the weather, but, if one looks at what available statistics of rainfall there are, it is quite clear that you do get periods of years when, on the
        410
        average, the rainfall is in excess of the normal, and periods of years when the rainfall is below the normal. We have had a series of years in which the rainfall has been more than normal. It may be now—nobody knows, but it is the right hon. Gentleman's duty as a statesman to have regard to it—it may be now that we have entered on a period of dry years. Certainly during the last 15 or 18 months we have had a very exceptional situation, and, whatever the right hon. Gentleman day do now, the outlook is serious. I do not believe that he has issued a sufficiently strong note of warning to the people of this country in the speech that he has made this afternoon.
        While there is a very grave shortage of water in many districts of this country—it is no use minimising that—there is a scandalous waste of water going on today. I was never more shocked in my life than when I saw in the newspapers the story of the hundreds of thousands of gallons of water from the Thames that had been wasted to keep the Ascot racecourse right for the races this week. It may be that that will not in any way affect the necessities of East Anglia or other areas, but it is surely an indication that public and semi-public and sporting organisations have not realised the psychological importance to-day of recognising that there is a drought.
        When I said that the right hon. Gentleman was evasive and vague, I meant it. What is the position? It does not matter whether it obtains in 20 parishes or in 200 parishes; the truth is to-day that we are in danger, as a nation, of suffering a very substantial economic loss this year because of the drought. It is undoubtedly true to-day that farmers are having to pay very extravagant prices for water cartage in order to keep their cattle alive and fit. It is undoubtedly true to-day that water is having to be bought, again at very extravagant prices, for the fruit-growing areas of this country. It is undoubtedly true to-day that in certain areas of this country human beings are being driven willy-nilly to sources of supply which may be contaminated and polluted. I say that that is a very serious situation, and nothing that the right hon. Gentleman can do now can ease that situation in any degree. The damage is done, as a consequence, as I believe, and as I think my speeches in the House on this question

        411
        will show, of the short-sightedness of the Government and the tardiness of the action which they have taken.
        The right hon. Gentleman has admitted to-day that the dry winter and the dry spring are the cause of the difficulty with which we are going to be faced towards the end of the summer this year. Even if the drought broke now, even if we had incessant rain for a month, or six weeks, or two months, there would still be a shortage of water in many areas in Great Britain at the end of the summer. Nothing can prevent that. To-day, part of the water supply of London is not what fell last year or the year before; it comes from what one might call the hidden reserves which fell years ago; and it is going to take a series of phenomenally wet seasons before the reserves which the nation has been using in the last 15 months are fully replaced. With a larger population, with a greatly increased consumption of water per head—and a desirable increase in water consumption per head—but with a non-expanding supply of water, the ease for the conservation of our water supplies becomes stronger year by year, and the present situation ought to be a warning to the nation to deal with this problem on a scale which does not yet appear to have appealed to the Minister of Health.
        If farmers are ruined this year, as many may be, if in the textile districts, which require water for their industrial processes, unemployment is increased, if the country is swept by epidemics because of the use of contaminated water supplies, all that long trail of misery must lie at the door of the right hon. Gentleman. [An HON. MEMBER: "And his predecessors."] Hon. Members will perhaps recollect my words a little earlier on this question. My story on the occasions when I have spoken on this question has been perfectly consistent. I am dealing now with this emergency. I am saying what I have said in the House before, that the right hon. Gentleman ought to have known more than a year ago that there was an emergency and taken the action a year ago that he took in April, instead of merely sending a circular to local authorities. I am putting the responsibility on the Minister and the Government for not having taken effective action in
        412
        what has proved to be, and what many of us thought it might become, a serious national emergency. After taking two bites at the cherry, he has taken a third small bite and has now established a standing conference to consider the question of water. If the experience of the past 15 months proves anything at all, quite apart from the need for dealing with the emergency which is on us now, and which will grow in seriousness, if there is one lesson that we should have learnt it is that of the need for a far more drastic national policy of conservation and distribution of our water supplies than we have had hitherto, and it is a little regrettable that the right hon. Gentleman should have spent the time of the House on two Measures neither of which can conceivably meet the situation which now confronts the country.
        Then the right hon. Gentleman spoke of housing. He talked about the initial stage of the campaign. He talked about speeding up. He referred to the way he was multiplying the rate of growth. He spoke of the tremendous boom in the building of small houses in general, whatever that may mean. He spoke of the astonishing activities which have followed the passage of the 1933 Act. From my point of view, the facts of the situation do not in the least bear out the right hon. Gentleman's enthusiastic account of his own period of inactivity. If one looks at the figures, the truth is that, from the point of view of the objective which the right hon. Gentleman himself put before the House in the King's Speech Debate, the provision of houses to let at reasonable rents, the Housing Act of 1933 is a complete fiasco.
        As regards the progress that has been made under the 1930 Act, I am bound again to remind the Committee that that was my Act and that he wasted the best part of two years before he implemented the programme that was in being when we left office in 1931. The right hon. Gentleman took office in the early autumn of that year. During the previous two years, when I sat on that side of the House, building activities grew monthly. The number of houses actually being built as officially recorded, grew month by month. They reached their maximum at the end of October, 1931—houses actually under construction. They were not in any way

        413
        the responsibility of this Government. They were houses all of which I myself had approved in the previous months before the downfall of the Labour Government. I dare say that many of the houses under construction month by month after that were houses that I had approved before I left office. At the end of October, 1931, there were under construction in local authorities' schemes between 44,000 and 45,000 houses. That was the peak figure. From then onwards the number of houses under construction by local authorities at the end of each month, when the Ministry takes stock of houses actually being built, apart from minor fluctuations, has fallen. Instead of there being nearly 45,000 houses under construction, at the end of April this year there were, under local authorities' schemes of all kinds, 19,000 houses. Astonishing activity following the 1933 Act! Tremendous boom in the building of small houses!
        We will pursue the figures a little farther. I do not want to run away from the consequences of these statistics. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Why should I? I see no reason why I should run away from the fact that the housing activities of local authorities is far less than half what it was when the Labour Government left office. I am not wanting to run away from that fact at all. I want to go on to the other side of the question. The 1933 Housing Act was passed for one purpose only, in order to allow private builders to continue the profitable enterprise of building houses for sale rather than contracting with local authorities and building houses to let. That is what the right hon. Gentleman had in mind. In that object he has succeeded, and I pay him that tribute, that he has in that sense carried out the purpose of the Act. It was to be an Act, as he told the House, which would result in harnessing the building societies to the building industry not to build houses for sale, but to build houses to let. From that point of view, the Bill has been a complete failure.
        I was not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman steered clear of referring to the actual results of the 1933 Act. But the situation is, according to his own information given in answer to questions, that under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1933, which was to set in motion a great campaign to produce
        414
        houses to let at reasonable rents aided by guarantees from the building societies at the end of March this year, guarantees have been given in respect of 1,631 houses. What a campaign! But let the whole truth be known. In addition, guarantees in respect of 8,400 houses had either been promised or were the subject of active negotiation. The subject of active negotiations is a very good phrase which may cover a multiplicity of omissions and meanings.
        Mr. PIKE: Tell us how many have been built.
        Mr. GREENWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman might have told the Committee. He has not chosen to do so, from which I gather that the number is not such as he would care to confess. The truth is that the 1933 Act has not worked in the way it was supposed to work when the right hon. Gentleman brought his scheme before the House. The Bill was going to deal with the problem of houses to let. He said on more than one occasion that there was no difference of opinion among us as to the problem. It was that of providing houses to let at reasonable rents. The 1933 Act is producing no crop of houses built to let. I will go forward to this astonishing activity resulting from the 1933 Act due, as I said, to what was the real motive behind the Act, to get rid of every subsidy, to throw back the solution of the housing problem, apart from slum clearance, which is too complicated for private enterprise and not sufficiently profitable, on to speculative builders.
        Let it be said that there has been a boom in the building of houses. Let it be said that private enterprise last year built more houses than it did the year before. The increase in the number of houses does not compensate for the number of local authorities' houses which would have been built but which have not been built. [Interruption.] The hon. Member must not challenge my figures, because I will quote them all if he likes. I am prepared to admit that, if the figures for the whole year up to the end of September are double the figure of houses built by private enterprise in the six months up to the end of March, it will be greater than it was in the previous 12 months.
        The right hon. Gentleman talks about rapidly overtaking the shortage. For

        415
        whom have those houses been built? How many of them have been built to let, and how many have been built to let at rents within the capacity of working-class families to pay? If builders were prepared to build houses to let, they could have done it with building society guarantees under the 1933 Act, but they have not done so. Those houses have been built for sale, to meet the still unsatisfied demand of the lower-middle classes, the superior artisans, and the people who do not want houses of their own but are driven by necessity to buy houses which they do not want. This great building boom, this astonishing activity, and this rapid overtaking of the shortage has done nothing whatever to deal with the problem of working-class houses in this country. Indeed, the damping down of working-class house building by local authorities is intensifying the problem and providing no solution whatever. Now the right hon. Gentleman refers to slum clearance. I wish he would remember that that is really my baby and not his. It is true that he is its foster parent now, but, after all, I have a certain responsibility, and, although I had an ejectment order against me and he took over the rest of the family, the baby still stands in the birth certificate in my name.
        Sir H. YOUNG: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to make one comment? It was a very puny infant when I took it over.
        Mr. GREENWOOD: My reply to that is that it is suffering from malnutrition now. We had better proceed with this simile. The right hon. Gentleman denied the baby nourishment when he took it over. In fact, he treated it very cruelly. I am not sure that a case might not have been brought against him in the Courts. He certainly neglected the child, and, indeed, he deliberately bullied and discouraged the nurse. He said to local authorities, "What! In this hour of our national trial, build houses? It is ridiculous. You must cut down the infant's milk." And my poor baby suffered in consequence, and its elder brothers and sisters outside the slum clearance scheme suffered in consequence, and some of the nurses up and down the country became broken hearted. There are members of Conservative local autho-
        416
        rities present in the Committee to-day, and they know that what I say is true, namely, that from the first day the National Government took office they deliberately discouraged local authorities from going on with any housing schemes at all. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] It is true, and members of the Committee know that it is true. I have referred to this matter before in the House. It is an undeniable statement of fact. The right hon. Gentleman having massacred the 1924 Act, turns round and talks about this neglected baby of mine. The poor thing had got rickets by that time. It was suffering very seriously from malnutrition. I do not know what kind of patent food he is giving it at the moment; it is looking a little Healthier than it did, but it is not the healthy infant that it ought to have been. Why? Because it has been neglected for 18 months or two years by the right hon. Gentleman.
        If these results are due to anything, they are due to the direct depressing influences of the right hon. Gentleman, and the programme which we should have carried out has not up to this date been fulfilled because of the enormous waste of time due to the false economy policy of the Government. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will go back on his tracks a little farther. I, like him, cannot refer to legislation, but he has threatened us this afternoon—I use the word "threaten" advisably because all his Bills are Measures which one does not receive with enormous enthusiasm—to deal with the problem of overcrowding. He is going back on his tracks. The problem of overcrowding is essentially one of a shortage of houses. It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman thought fit to destroy the subsidy under the 1924 Act and to deter and discourage local authorities for so long, and now finds that he may have to retrace his steps by some future Bill which has been adumbrated in very vague terms in the press and by the Prime Minister. While on all sides of the Committee we always welcome the statement of the Minister of Health where he reviews and takes stock of our position from the point of view of national health and well-being, if he wishes really to go down to history as one who has added to the well-being and improvement of the health of the people, he must do more than he has done about

        417
        water, and he must certainly do much more than he has done already for the housing of the working-people.
        5.8 p.m.
        Mr. E. J. YOUNG: I should like to join with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) in congratulating the Minister of Health upon several things he has done. He has to exercise very wide functions and has a great many tasks to carry out, and it is unfortunately true that he inherited a certain Act from the previous Minister of Health upon which I propose to make a few comments. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield claim paternity for the iniquitous Housing Act of 1930. I have taken a particular interest in slum clearance as I happen to be a journalist connected with the building trade and have received protests from many parts of the country about the way the Act is being worked. I can understand the right hon. Gentleman passing a Measure such as that with the sanction of the party who supported him. It is purely a Socialist Act. It provides for the confiscation of private property. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Liberal party supported it."] I cannot help that; I was not here. I oppose it to-day and have a number of reasons for so doing. [An HON. MEMBER: "What kind of property is to be confiscated?"] I have in my hand a copy of the Act of 1930, which permits a local authority to select a certain area for clearance. It is true that the Act says that in certain cases:
        "The authority shall cause that area to be defined … in such manner as to exclude from the area any building which is not unfit for human habitation or dangerous or injurious to health."
        I put it to the Committee that there is no area in this country of any size that would conform to that provision. Good houses and bad houses are inextricably mixed up, and housing associations and corporations in all parts of the country are complaining because under the Act the local authorities have the power to destroy the good houses as well as the bad without compensation of any kind. I have a number of documents upon which I raised a question in the House yesterday concerning an elderly woman whose husband, a business man, recently died. He had invested his life savings in a number of small cottages. The cottages,
        418
        I believe, were good cottages, but the area in which they were situated was scheduled for clearance. The lady received notice calling upon her to have the cottages demolished within six weeks. There was not a penny compensation for the property nor for the site value.
        I communicated with the town clerk of the authority of the town where those houses were demolished, and asked him whether the local authority intended to purchase the site. He said very definitely, "No, not at present," and he told me also that the present owner cannot secure permission to build upon the site without the consent of the local authority. While under the Act one can make an appeal to the Minister of Health, as far as I can ascertain there has not been a single appeal in any part of the country which has been successful. One must remember that it is necessary to be represented either by counsel or a skilled surveyor when an appeal is made. The lady of whom I am speaking had six houses in two different parts of the town. Four of them were swept away, and I have a bill in my hand for £37, which was the cost of demolition, while she had previously spent £42 10s. in engaging legal advice and the assistance of surveyors to try and prevent the demolition from taking place. She has had to pay the cost of demolition, and now she is not allowed to sell the site to anyone who could use it, and consequently the site is valueless.
        The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): Can the hon. Gentleman give the capital value of the houses, and the rents she received?
        Mr. LOGAN: Would the hon. Gentleman also point out whether the houses were insanitary and ought to be demolished?
        Mr. YOUNG: That is the whole point. The houses were not insanitary, but they were inside the clearance area. The Minister of Health has the power to make certain concessions if he wishes to do so in a case like that, but I cannot trace a case in regard to which an appeal has been made to the Minister of Health where such concessions have been granted, nor can I trace a single case in any part of the country where good property in this process of selected

        419
        destruction has been separated from the insanitary and slum property and has been allowed to stand. It is impossible to schedule an area for general slum clearance and leave decent property standing while the rest of the property is demolished. The Parliamentary Secretary asked me the value of those houses. I have not the value but I could get it, though I do not see how it can affect the principle of the case at all. They were houses which were bought by a small tradesman in order that his wife might have a small income from rents in the event of his death. He died about two years ago. The rents were collected until last year when the particular clearance scheme became operative.
        I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should claim paternity of a Measure which, by this time, has grown into a veritable burglar Measure, which not only seizes the property, ejects the tenants, and orders its demolition, but refuses to make any compensation for the site value or to allow the site to be sold or used or taken over by a town council on payment of compensation, and which, in addition, has compelled this lady to pay the expenses incurred in the process, without securing one penny of compensation. I cannot congratulate the right hon. Member for Wakefield on his boast of the paternity of an Act which flagrantly robs the poorer people who dwell in these houses and the people who purchase them, as well as the richer people against whom his party have declared war many years ago.
        It is interesting to note how the Act of 1930 relates to a shop in a district such as I have indicated. The word "shop" is not mentioned, but it is conceivable that a new shop may have been built in 1929 and, according to the strict text of the Act, it could be separated from the rest of the buildings scheduled for clearance, and could be allowed to stand after the poorer houses in front, behind and on each side of it were demolished; but, if that were done, there would be no opportunity for town-planning. You cannot have a clearance scheme which allows some houses to stand within a scheme, while the other houses are demolished. It is possible that in 1929, the year before the passing of the Act, a shop may have been built in that area. A man may have put the whole of his
        420
        savings into the shop as an investment. In the following year, or a year later, he may have received a notice to get out of the shop, to pull it down, to pay the cost of the demolition and any expense that he cares to incur in trying to avoid the loss of property upon which he has depended for his living.
        Several instances have come to my notice of people who have bought houses through building societies in areas of that kind. I am willing to concede the point that the houses bought may have been slum houses and had to be demolished under a clearance scheme. That was not really so, but I am willing to suppose that that was the case. If that were the ease, a man might have taken out a 14 years' mortgage with a building society in 1929, in 1931 he may be ordered to get out, to pull down the house on which possibly he has only paid three or four years subscriptions. That means that for the next 10 years he has to go on paying, in effect, a double rent. He has to pay his contributions to the building society and also the rent of the new house into which he has gone to live because his own house has been demolished. These things are happening in all parts of the country under the slum clearance schemes of the 1930 Act.
        I have received a protest from property owners, who are not necessarily Liberals and Conservatives. Socialists own property, I know of several Socialists, members of the Labour party, who are great land owners. I remember one particularly in the north of England who owns a very large area of land, and I remember distinctly some years ago standing on a platform with him and singing "God gave the land to the people." I suppose he would say: "All except my bit." I have received a protest from the National Federation of Property Owners and Ratepayers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I can fully understand the position of hon. Members above the Gangway. They do not believe in the private ownership of property, but I cannot see why the National Government, which is not a Socialist movement, should compound the present felony by refusing to alter the terms of an Act which takes private property without compensation, regardless of whether the owner is a rich person or a poor person, a millionaire or a member of the working class.

        421
        Hon. Members above the Gangway, apparently, do not wish me to read the resolution of protest, and I am not anxious to do so. I have no doubt that they will have received a similar protest. It sets forth that while property owners have every sympathy with the idea of good housing for all, and are willing to co-operate in the achievement of that ideal, they cannot be expected to agree to methods of wholesale clearance which involve the destruction of property in a good state of repair, simply because it happens to be included with bad property in a clearance area. Protests of that kind are drawn up by experts. I do not think that anyone can doubt that a good deal of the operations of slum clearance under the 1930 Act do sweep away good property in common with bad property. Such action takes away security in property and leaves the person affected impoverished and sometimes penniless.
        The Minister of Health ought to take these matters into consideration. I have pointed out one definite case. I could produce hundreds of cases if necessary where poor people whose money is invested in property—it is invested in good property in as many cases as in bad property—have been ordered to get out and to pull their houses down. We have been discussing recently a Measure which, in certain circumstances, will give the police the right of entry and search. Hon. Members above the Gangway have been very indignant at the thought of the police having the right to enter and search both property and person. That is not nearly so bad as the demand that you should pull down the house in which you may be living, or the house in which your tenant is living, upon which your living depends, to clear the site to incur heavy legal costs and, then, although the land is supposed to belong to you it is useless because you are not allowed to use it or to sell it to anyone else who might use it. In many cases the local authorities refuse to take the land because they say that we have no plans for it and do not know what use the piece of land will be. I do hope that the constitutional party opposite will, at least, take some steps to remove this grievance. People who own property in all parts of the country have sent their protests. Some organisations have had a personal interview with the Minister of
        422
        Health. I cannot see why the right hon. Gentleman, or the party to which he belongs, or the National Government should continue to implement the Act of 1930. which stands for the Socialist policy of confiscation without compensation.
        I should like to make a few general comments on the housing question. The Minister of Health has done exceedingly well in building the number of houses that have been built. It is not easy to get the local authorities to come into line. There are many reasons why they cannot easily do so, but I believe that with a little encouragement the private builder could supply all the houses that we need to-day, at rents which the poorer people could manage to pay. In pre-war days municipal and national housing schemes were practically unknown. Only on special occasions did the local authorities step in and assist in building. The private builder was able in those days to provde the houses because there was cheap material, a low bank rate, and land was available. He built the houses perhaps not in the most satisfactory manner but in a manner that allowed the working classes to have a house for each family.
        I heard a Noble Lord yesterday, in speaking on another question, saying that he thanked the Government because the President of the Board of Trade had promised to deal generously with landowners whose land was tapped for the purpose of the discovery of oil. He said that the interference with land was detrimental to the building of houses in pre-War years, and pointed out that the passing of certain land legislation including the Land Valuation Act had closed speculation in the building trade. That belief is held especially in the Conservative party and has been held for a great many years. I do not believe that there is any vestige of truth in the assertion. There are competent gentlemen here who are interested in building of various kinds, and I think they will agree with me that the building trade is prosperous in inverse ratio to most other industries. When the great industrial concerns are slack and have plenty of money in the bank, uninvested, the bank rate falls and the builder seizes the opportunity to build while the bank rate is low. As soon as industrial conditions improve and there is an advance in the bank rate the building trade always

        423
        falls slack. The slackness that fell upon the building trade during the time the pre-War valuation was taking place was due almost entirely to the sudden boom in oil and rubber which created a great demand for money and ran the bank rate up to two-thirds higher than it had been previously. That made conditions difficult for speculative building.
        In these days there are three things that we ought to do to make it possible to build houses. One is to deal with the land question. Hon. Members opposite who think that the land valuation proposals had a good deal to do with stopping the building boom, have possibly never considered what little effect that could have had. What happened under the land legislation. There was a tax of ½d, in the £ on undeveloped land of less than £50 an acre in value. That did not stop building. There was an increment tax which allowed the person to get 10 per cent. and then the State levied 10 per cent. on the remainder of the increment. There was nothing in that to prevent building. There was a reversion duty, under which the State took 20 per cent. of the increment when the lease fell in. There was nothing in that to prevent a man from speculating in building. The mineral rights duty had nothing to do with building. What are the three things that ought to be done? One is to deal drastically with the land question and to prevent people who own land from holding it up in order to obtain future high values. In the present Budget the Land Values Duty has been repealed. That, I suppose, has put a nail in the coffin of land taxation for some years to come. It is hopeless to assume that either a local authority or a private builder can build successfully in order to enable the people to be housed cheaply while land is continually increasing in price. For that the Minister of Health is not responsible. During the past two years, however, the Government have imposed certain tariffs which have sent up the cost of building materials.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): The hon. Member has just stated that the Minister of Health is not responsible. He must not go outside the Minister's responsibility.
        Mr. YOUNG: I know how difficult the right hon. Gentleman's task is, and I can
        424
        only hope that in the interests of housing, some of his colleagues may be induced either to reduce or to remove these taxes. Practically everything that the private builder uses has advanced in price very materially during the last two years. The price of fittings has gone up. There is a proposal of a combination of cement merchants to advance the price of cement by 4s. to 7s. a ton during the next few weeks.
        Mr. THORNE: Private enterprise.
        Mr. YOUNG: Private monopoly. Timber has also advanced considerably in price. If the Government want to do something for housing they should enable people who require timber to get it from Russia, where the best soft timber in the world is produced. When these things have been done the next and most important step is to take rates off property—
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That will require legislation and cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply.
        Mr. YOUNG: I am sorry, I wish I were a little more skilful in Debate. I have had a good many years experience of the building industry on the technical and practical side and I think it is the task of the private builder more than a public authority to provide the houses we want. He can do it if he had the little assistance to which I am out of order in referring. If we are expected to make some contribution towards a solution of this problem I think we should be allowed to explain to the Government exactly what we think ought to be done to provide houses. Let me make a suggestion. Yesterday morning hon. Members were invited by the Postmaster-General to see a film exhibited by the Post Office. We learned a great deal more about the details of the Department than ever before. We came away a good deal enlightened as to what the Post Office really does. If the Minister of Health would have a film of his Department made and let the public know exactly what he is doing he would meet with execration rather than congratulation. If only the public saw how officials serve notices on tenants, how tenants and their families are ejected into the streets, lock, stock and barrel—
        Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: The house would probably tumble down.
        Mr. YOUNG: Yes, if you put a few crowbars behind it. Whatever else the Minister of Health does I hope he will repudiate as soon as possible the Slum Clearance Act of 1930, which confiscates the property of private individuals without any compensation whatever.
        5.33 p.m.
        Mr. SELLEY: I only wish I had time to deal with the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Young). He is absolutely wrong in all his facts, but I do not suppose that I should make much impression upon him even if I occupied the attention of the Committee for a couple of hours. I rose principally to deal with the problem of money. I think that the Minister of Health was optimistic when he said that we were going to solve the problem in five years. I understand that London is not included in the time schedule.
        Sir H. YOUNG: The five years programme is summarised in the White Paper, and the hon. Member will remember that London is treated as a special case because it requires more time.
        Mr. SELLEY: In regard to what the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has said, I happened to be the Chairman of the Housing Committee of the London County Council in 1930 and my capital commitment for the year was £5,000,000. It was the Government itself which starved the Housing Act of 1930 when it disturbed the finances of the country to such an extent that it became impossible for local authorities to go into the market and carry on work of capital expenditure. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to know why we have been able to put a little blood into the bloodless infant he left us it is because we have been able to get cheap money. We have been able for the first time to raise money at 3 and 3½ per cent., and that has had far more effect on rent conditions and the ultimate financial result than anything that could happen in the way of building costs or the cost of land.
        The Socialist party never regard the production of houses as a solution of the housing problem. With them, it is always a question not of who builds the house but who owns it. That is the only point which affects them. You can talk about providing 40,000 houses by private enterprise and you are at once met with the remark that they are built to sell. If
        426
        they will only look at the newspapers they will see hundreds of houses built for a small deposit, where the total out goings including rates and taxes are anything between 16s. and 17s. per week. It may be said that this does not help the lower-paid artisan. I agree, but if these houses were not provided there would be still greater pressure on the accommodation available inside London and our big provincial cities. Therefore, I suggest that the production of houses by whatever source or agency is a great contribution to the housing problem. There is another point I want to put with regard to the 1933 Act. I never expected that that Act would build thousands of houses in the London area for the simple reason that there are no sites available within the county boroughs which would enable any company or any private enterprise to get hold of a large area of land.
        The difficulty in regard to building societies and houses to be let at 10s. per week is this. In the first place, local authorities are able to borrow money at 3 or 3½ per cent., and their capital redemption is over a period of 60 years on buildings and probably 80 years on the land, whereas the private builder is called upon to pay not less than 4 or 4½ percent., with a capital redemption starting the first week after he has built his houses, and goes on for a period of 30 to 35 years. No builder could make ends meet to pay that rate of interest, and let houses at 10s. per week. Where the scheme of the building societies went wrong, instead of attempting to build houses to let for one particular class of people at a fixed rent we should have begun the problem as a much larger one, to include tenants up to 15s. or to 16s. per week, that local authorities to-day and in the future will not be levied for a certain class of persons at a rent of 10s. per week, inclusive. Many of the houses let by the London County Council range from 10s. up to 17s. and 19s. per week, inclusive. If we had got hold of the problem on a larger scale we should have built on a large tract of property, covered people from 10s. to 15s. per week, inclusive, and thus have got the right type of people to come forward, with a good percentage of all classes of the working classes.
        I do not believe that it is a good thing to segregate one class of tenant together. The best thing socially and for the com-

        427
        munity is to have a mixed development, all types living together in their right environment. In that way you would make ends meet and have a reasonable proposition for re-housing. I think the Minister took the right action when he did away with the 1924 subsidy. The London County Council have built some-think like 60,000 houses and spent something like £60,000,000 of capital. Out of the whole of that money only £6,000,000 has been spent on actual slum clearance. Had we gone on without the Minister of Health laying it down that we should not receive a subsidy unless we destroyed we may have gone on and spent another £40,000,000 of money, and these weeping slums would still have been there and would still have been occupied. I suggest that to link up destruction with the subsidy was the right method to destroy and get rid of slums. We have of course a much bigger problem in London than elsewhere. We cannot re-develop London by way of getting hold of estates. It has to be redeveloped with tenement buildings, with probably six, seven and more storeys. In regard to what the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East has said, I happen to have some figures here, and from the time the Housing Committee of the London County Council says "go," until we have got the tenant back into a building on a site which has been cleared, a period of two years elapse. The hon. Member said we should not do it, that we should give compensation, that we should see that all these people are paid for their product. That was not altogether the fault of the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Wakefield. I do not want to blame him for something for which he is not responsible. This has been there since the Chamberlain Act was passed, one of the earliest Acts passed after the War.
        Mr. E. J. YOUNG: To which Act is the hon. Member referring?
        Mr. SELLEY: To the 1923 Act. The case which the hon. Member quoted was not, I imagine, a slum clearance case at all; it sounded to me more like an improvement scheme, where a local authority can come in and make better conditions, clear the place out and let in air, but leaving the land in the occupation of the owner. I can see how the
        428
        hon. Member's client was unable to sell or redevelop the land. We all know the difficulties of that Act. I have studied it, and, while I do not know how it is operating in other parts of the country, in London we are careful to see that everybody gets a square deal. The standard of measurement is that if property is unfit for human habitation, is injurious to the health of the people, if nothing can be done with it save clearing it away, then we say it is a slum and should be cleared away, and no compensation should be given for such property.
        Mr. YOUNG: If a house within a slum area is not a slum house but well built, do you also take it away without paying compensation for the house or the site?
        Mr. SELLEY: If that is in a clearance area my experience is that the authority would shade that house grey or blue, and there would be compensation. It is true that the person who has spent most money on his property gets no more compensation than the person who has neglected his property. I am not prepared to say that there is not some consideration that should be given in that case. As a hidebound Tory myself I stick up for the rights of property. I happen to be a property owner, and when property comes under condemnation because it is said to be injurious to the health of tenants and unfit for habitation, I am no party to standing up for that type of property. I am sorry that my Liberal land-taxing friend below the Gangway has the idea that we have got to do something for Liberals that we would not do for good old Tories. Liberals want the best of both worlds and they cannot get it. When my hon. Friend refers to beneficial Acts, to the taxation of land, which will help the house-builder, I reply that it destroys just that little bit of confidence that the man who is carrying borrowed money wants to enable him to get on with his job. A Bank rate up or down had little or nothing to do with whether the speculative builder would put up property. What did matter was that the solicitor of the investor whom he had to see in the City or in the West End was prepared to put in permanent mortgages.
        In my early days these mortgages we could get freely at 4 per cent., but directly the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)

        429
        started mucking about with the land the rate of interest went up 1 per cent. and the amount of the mortgage was cut down by about 20 per cent. In the old days we land-grabbers, who bought land as a raw material to enable us to create ground rents, sold it, not to the Duke or the dustman, but largely to the friendly societies. I want my hon. Friend to work it out. How much did we take in the rent of the working man who occupied a house on which we had created a £5 5s. ground rent for 99 years, when the price was originally 26½ years' purchase but had gone down to 22 years because it was threatened with land taxation? How were we able to pass on the loss to the tenant? Those were working-class properties. What happens is this: Directly you start to threaten that kind of investment the people who have to put in their money and want to see that they have ample security make sure that they have a reserve; and the result is that, instead of getting 25 or 26 years' purchase, which was the market value in the old days, there is an immediate drop to 22 years, so that they can have a little bit in the till when the hon. Member comes to collect the land tax.
        The right hon. Member for Wakefield said that the Minister of Health would take all the credit for what the right hon. Member for Wakefield had left on the stocks when he left office. I want the right hon. Member to come across the river and to tell his friend Mr. Lewis Silkin kindly to remember not only the author, the father, but, I was going to say, the one who germinated practically the whole of the great scheme that I left behind at County Hall about three months ago. I take it that that gentleman and his party will claim the credit for it, whereas in fact I laid the egg and they are simply sitting on it.
        5.51 p.m.
        Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: I wish to congratulate the right hon. Member the Minister of Health on his speech to-day. I listened intently to him and I thought he was painting a very good picture. He reminded me of the days when I was a boy. I used to go to a place where there was a man outside a circus. He told us all to come in and said that inside everything was beautiful. Outside on the canvas was painted the clock-eyed lady and other people, but when we got in-
        430
        side it was not as nice as outside. That is how I felt to-day when the Minister was talking. I am not going to talk about housing. I want to talk about three things. The first is tuberculosis. The Minister told us about the lower percentage of deaths from tuberculosis. He said that the deaths had been reduced by 22 per cent. When we talk in percentages it does not seem possible to see the human side of things. I want to put the matter another way to-day, by saying that every day in England, leaving out Scotland and Wales, 95 people die of tuberculosis. Of those 95, 54 per cent. die under the age of 35 and 34 die at ages between 15 and 25. It means that this terrible scourge is sucking away the real life of the nation. The total of deaths in 1932 was 32,000.
        What is largely the cause of tuberculosis? I am not an expert on housing like the hon. Member for Middlesbrough East (Mr. Young), who gave us a lecture on the economic side of housing. What is the cause? Dr. Bradbury has been making a close investigation in Jarrow and Blaydon for over two years and has published the result of his investigation. He puts the cause of tuberculosis under three headings. First there is the bad sanitary condition of houses. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough East said, "You must compensate people for houses." While he was speaking I remembered that if a butcher by accident buys a beast that is full of tuberculosis and he exposes it for sale, he is haled before the magistrate and either heavily fined or sent to prison for selling diseased meat. The person who exposes an insanitary house for occupation and asks rent for it ought to be dealt with as drastically as, if not more drastically than, the man who exposes bad meat. Instead of that we have hon. Members in this House who say, "Oh, if by accident a man has bought an insanitary house, to prevent him from going to the workhouse you ought to give him some compensation." They do not say that about the butcher; they send the butcher to gaol. I should send the man who exposes insanitary houses for occupation to gaol also.
        The next cause of tuberculosis, Dr. Bradbury reported, was overcrowding. Here I will say what has possibly never been mentioned in this House by referring to forcible overcrowding. What do I

        431
        mean by that? I mean that there are lots of people, thousands upon thousands of them, who are living two families in a house because one family cannot pay the rent. The Ministry of Health have sent down an auditor into the Division and the little town in which I live. There the auditor looks at the books and says, "What is the matter with these arrears of rent here? What are you doing with arrears like this?" He turns to the clerk and says, "You must get down these arrears. If you do not you will have to clear the people out." We, as a Housing Committee, then call these people before us. We say to one, "Now then Jack, you owe £20 rent and the auditor says you have either to pay it or clear out." He replies, "Where am I to go?" and we say, "We do not know." At the next Housing Committee meeting we have an application from Jack, who asks, "Can Sam Brown come and live with me? If he can I will try to clear off a bit of my arrears of rent, and between us we shall be able to pay the rent of the house." That is forcible overcrowding, and thousands upon thousands of people are overcrowded in that way in this country. Such overcrowding helps to bring on tuberculosis. Dr. Bradbury made a special point of that as a cause.
        I am pleased that a representative of the medical profession is present. Medical men in the past have been very much like lawyers. They have fallen out with each other and have not been able to define one legal Clause. If the Minister of Health has not read Dr. Bradbury's document I invite him to read it. Dr. Bradbury states definitely, after a thorough investigation—not after a flying visit in an aeroplane but after two years of inquiry—that the chief cause of tuberculosis in this country is poverty. There are then three causes—bad housing; forcible overcrowding, sometimes by the Ministry; and poverty. He states that of the three the greatest is poverty.
        As the chairman of the Tuberculosis Sub-Committee of the West Riding County Council for the past five years, it has come to my notice that of the miners' wives in that county scores and scores have got tuberculosis as a result of underfeeding. I have followed the matter closely. The Ministry of Health states in its 1932 report what was said
        432
        by the Medical Officer of Health of the West Riding. That medical officer stated that the health of the children in school was very often "gratifying in revealing surprising little evidence of malnutrition," and he added: "This result is obtained by the self-sacrificing bravery of the mothers." The mothers starve themselves in order to give the children a chance, and as a result, contract tuberculosis—all on account of poverty and low wages.
        I leave that point and I would call the attention of the Committee to a matter over which I thought the Minister skipped rather rapidly. Of course it was a subject as to which he had not a very rosy account to give to the Committee. He simply said that he was sorry that the maternity death rate was not going down. I should say that maternity is the most dangerous occupation in the world. The miner's occupation is bad enough. We kill miners day after day but 3,000 mothers in this country die every year in bringing new life into the world and Sir George Newman the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry has stated that at least 50 per cent. of these mothers could be saved if they were properly looked after. That is a damning indictment of this country. If 50 per cent. can be saved what is the matter? Why is the Minister of Health not getting on with the business of saving them? It is his business, it is a matter which belongs to his Department. The reason why so many mothers die is because, when it comes to the vital point, they have not the necessary strength. They have, I might say, been starved to death. In many cases they have not had sufficient to eat and not having had sufficient to eat, they cannot survive under the stress of childbirth. This is a subject about which we feel very strongly.
        Mr. BATEY: Blame the Government.
        Mr. GRIFFITHS: I have done so, not only in this House but outside the House before I came here. My people in Hemsworth sent me here to tell the Government, face to face, their views on these matters, and the only thing that I am sorry about is that we had not a contest in that division in order to show to the Government how much the Hemsworth people think about them. If I may turn to another subject which has not been touched upon at all in this Debate, I

        433
        would mention the case of the diabetics. I would like the ear of the Committee for some words on that subject. There are in this country 196,000 diabetic people, which means that one out of every 250 of the population suffers from that disease. In America there is one diabetic out of every 100 of the population and it is said in America that when shares go down diabetes goes up. In this country when wages go down diabetes goes up.
        I was very pleased indeed to see that one who has helped to prolong the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in this country received a well-merited honour in the Birthday Honours on 4th June. I was very happy when I opened my paper in the train coming to London to find that Dr. Banting had been honoured. That certainly is an honour which has been well-earned. The point to which I would particularly direct the attention of the Minister is this. In the 1932 Health Insurance Act there is a section which states that if a man has been out of work for two years and nine months he forfeits medical benefit, his wife forfeits maternity benefit, and he also forfeits pension rights. If one out of every 250 of the population suffers from diabetes and if there are 100,000 unemployed people who have forfeited medical benefit, there must be, on the law of averages, at least 400 diabetics in this country who have been deprived by the Minister of Health, through that Act, of the means of getting insulin.
        Insulin is the life of the diabetic. I have proved it myself. I know something about it. I have it every day and I wish to make a claim on behalf of these people that they also should have it. What have the Government done to the diabetic? They have taxed his lettuce, his tomatoes, his bacon and even the needles which he has to use. I was paying 4½d. each for needles in Boots chemists shop at Wakefield but recently the young lady there said to me, "It will cost you a 'tanner' now because they lave put a tax of 25 per cent. on imported needles." That meant an increase of 33⅓ per cent. in the price.
        Mr. T. SMITH: Sharp practice.
        Mr. GRIFFITHS: It was sharp practice as I found out. I would ask the Minister or whoever replies for the Department to give us a promise that the diabetic who has been deprived of other
        434
        medical benefits should continue to get his insulin. It may be said that the cost is not much. Somebody on the opposite side a fortnight ago said that the price of 100 units was 1s. 5d. and 1s. 8d. I have a letter here from Allen and Hanburys and the latest price for 100 units is 1s. 10d. Here is a bottle which hon. Members can see for themselves. This bottle contains 100 units and it costs 1s. 10d., and there are some people who have to take 500 units a week, which represents 9s. 2d. a week. How is a man expected to pay 9s. 2d. a week either for himself or for a member of his family out of transitional payments or unemployment benefit? It cannot be done and I ask the Minister to see that diabetic people who have fallen out of benefit should continue to get their insulin free as they have done in the past. If they are deprived of it, I say here that it is slow murder. Once a person has been taking it, if he is deprived of it he goes down slowly and he ultimately dies as a result of the deprivation. I repeat my appeal to the Minister—and I appeal both to his heart and his head in this matter—to allow these 400 people at least to have their insulin free even though they are thrown out of general medical benefit.
        6.10 p.m.
        Mr. CHORLTON: This discussion has been both interesting and profitable. It has covered a wide range of subjects, but I am afraid that the limitation which has been put upon the time available, will prevent hon. Members from raising many points which we would like to have considered. I wish, in the first place, to refer to what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) with reference to the Act of 1930. I was astounded at the pride which the right hon. Gentleman appeared to take in that Measure. In my experience, which may be limited in this respect, I have never known of a Measure which has stirred up such discontent among the ordinary working people. It is no use for hon. Members who sit below me to reply by references to property owners. It is not to them I am referring but to the disturbance of ordinary poor people, frequently very poor people, who have spent most of their lives in these clearance areas who may have acquired a small stake of some kind in the district and who are com-

        435
        pelled to go without any compensation at all.
        I, unfortunately, have in my division a very large clearance area where there are a large number of very poor people. Admittedly, there are poor houses in that area, though some are of a better type. The declaration of this area as a clearance area has brought before all concerned a state of affairs which they had not believed to exist. Take the case of poor people in an area of this kind who have by their industry made sufficient to keep going say a little cobbler's shop. After a time they have been able from their savings to introduce a machine into it, and develop the business a little further. I know of one case of a crippled man who had built up a business in that way. This man is going to be cleared out of the district without getting anything under the Act of 1930. A list has been made in connection with the clearance scheme of the number of cases of really poor people who are going to be shabbily treated as a result of that Act not containing any specific provision for some form of compensation, and the number of such cases is astonishing. If hon. Members below me were only looking after the people whom they claim to be their own in this respect, they would not have passed a Measure of that kind. They appear to have forgotten these people entirely and the Act is arousing indignation among those who are affected by it. I am astonished therefore at the right hon. Gentleman claiming it as his own and taking such pride in it.
        I cannot, in the limited time at my disposal, give other examples but I hope, if any other Member from my district who knows the difficulties in which we are placed, intervenes in this Debate, he will give further particulars. We beg the Minister to help us by putting pressure in any way he can upon the local authorities—in this case the city council—to grant compensation in these cases. Already by our efforts we have got a good deal more than was in prospect originally, and that result has been due almost entirely to the indignation shown by the poorer people living in those districts at the way in which it is proposed to treat them.
        With regard to the actual buildings arising out of such clearances, the first
        436
        wish of the people directly concerned is that they should be rehoused on the site, but the initial difficulty is that only half the people in the case I have in mind are going to be rehoused on the site. The city council has got out some rather fancy town-planning schemes and by that means they have cut down the number for whom accommodation will be provided in that district. It became necessary to devise flats of varying sizes, though not so high as those which we have here in London. An attempt has been made by means of multi-storied buildings to try to meet the desires of the people. I believe that we are making progress in the direction of getting local authorities to realise that a man to-day does not necessarily want to move out of the town into the country when he has to travel to and from his work every day. I gather from what the Minister has said lately that he is beginning to accept that point of view, and, in any new Measure which he may introduce, I hope he will employ additional means to help development in that respect, quite apart from the means that we feel sure he will take in some way to deal with compensation.
        With regard to the clearance programme, I think the right hon. Gentleman is unduly optimistic. I cannot see how he will complete all this slum clearance and replace it by storied houses unless something more definite is done in the way of standardising the flats that are going to be put up. In each case you have to deal with the local people, with their own ideas of town planning, and all that will take time and produce variation in construction. I know there is a Research Council on this question, whose report is now available to the public, and that it gives examples of all kinds of structures, but that does not bring the question down to the engineering problem involved. You can make a structure which is built upon unit sets of rooms, with a steel frame, very much like a piece of Meccano construction, and if there is concentration on that class of work by engineers, the possibility of completing the big programme that the Minister has in view will be rendered far greater than it is at the present time. At present it looks as if we shall not only be short of the actual time in which to complete the schemes, but that we shall be short of bricks and bricklayers, and I cannot see how, with

        437
        our ordinary methods of construction, we can possibly complete the Minister's programme.
        I should like to say a little about the water side of the question, with which I have concerned myself a great deal, and I wish I had more time at my disposal. I think that here also the Minister is an incurable optimist, and the trouble is that with his charming manner and wonderful flow of words he is able to get away with it. I think he has done a great deal of work in helping forward the water question, but at the same time there has been a great deal of delay. I do not want to go through all the recommendations that have been made in the past. I could quote what I have said long before the drought ever began, and I could quote, and have quoted in this House, the recommendations of a committee which reported as far back as 1920, but in about 1932 the Chairman of the Metropolitan Water Board observed:
        "Unless regional control and pooling of supplies are established, there is going to be a great shortage of water in some of the large populous areas."
        That was in 1932, and he is a member of the Advisory Committee by whose advice the Minister has guided his policy. The new engineer to the Metropolitan Water Board is also a member of that committee, and how is it, therefore, that such a long time has been taken before any emergency measures have been brought in? While not wishing in any sense to say anything against the work that the right hon. Gentleman has done, I think there has been far too much hoping that it was going to rain. If action had been taken, as it well might have been, arising out of the remarks which I have quoted of one of the members of this Advisory Committee, we should not be in the state in which we find ourselves to-day. The Minister here again seems to me to be looking forward to a better state of affairs and counting upon the drought to cease, but the records that have been published by the Meteorological Office show that these dry areas persist in being dry, not for two years alone, but it may be for three or four years, and if what the Minister said about the severity of the shortage is continued into the autumn, we shall be worse off next year than this. Therefore, the measures proposed might very well have been put in force without waiting any longer.
        438
        The difficulty in the administration of water supplies has been the permissive nature of all the instructions that have been issued. Regional committees have been set up, but those committees have been given no power to act. They might try to discover the needs of a district and to bring about common action, but they have not had any power to act. These things, on account of the increasing urgency of the problem, are improving, but still we have no definite authority given to anybody to get on with the job; and the outstanding feature of the policy of the Department seems to be not to take any responsibility to itself but to pass it on to others, and to leave it to others to get on with the job much as they like. I feel that if this had been a war measure, we should have had definite officers appointed for the various regions with authority to get the bore holes put down, and to get it done in the shortest possible time. That would have secured water, and we should not then have been in the position in which we find ourselves to-day. The trouble is this continual saying "You may," instead of "You must."
        There is one other point in connection with water policy which must be touched upon. The Minister has not mentioned it to-day, but it has been said by the Department that it was not intended in any way to change the method of control of the water supplies of this country. The Committee which reported in 1920 said:
        "We find that the difficulty in fairly allocating water is becoming greater year by year in England and Wales, and evidence proves beyond doubt the urgent necessity in the national interests of some measure of control of all water, both underground and surface, in order that the available supplies may be impartially reviewed and allocated and may be made to suffice for all purposes in future. In consequence of increase of population, improvement in conditions of life, and growing requirements of industry, the demand for water is steadily increasing, and the problem of meeting future needs is giving rise to considerable anxiety in many parts of England and Wales. At present no department is charged with the duty of exercising general control over the use of water in the interest of the whole community."
        Here is the point at which there is a, difference in opinion. Electricity is under central control, but water is not, and it is not fair to say that water and electricity are different. That is only the

        439
        reply of the man who does not understand the job. I hope the Minister will excuse me for being so blunt. It is easier to co-ordinate water than it is to co-ordinate electricity, and it is just as, or even more, important to have a public utility of the nature of water, which is the first need of life, centrally controlled, it may be under the Minister—I will not go into any details—with power to allocate and organise, so that it could be developed in the way in which electricity has been developed.
        Further than that, we have come to a state in which, if we are not careful, we shall be landed eventually in some epidemic. Very little has been said about that lately, but anybody who knows anything about it knows what happened in the Middle Ages and how the population in those days was kept down by outbreaks of plague, due to polluted water. Look at the state of alarm that we should have if an epidemic occurred. People would be rushing about digging in the ground in order to bring about a change. I am not discounting the possibility of treating water chemically in order to make it almost certain that this danger might be removed, but everyone knows how a small slip can make a change in the water, and we are not altogether immune from the effects of bacteria and the possibility of a very severe epidemic.
        On the question of central control, much would be gained by completely examining the water supplies of the country, properly allocating them, and seeing that everyone got a proper share and that all systems were interconnected, so that there could be a pooling of supplies, giving a fair and square deal for everyone, and paying less account to the conventions of the past. I wish the Minister would give this question more serious attention. I am afraid that he is completely in the hands of the existing water authorities and is not really strong enough to get out of them. How can he expect the existing authorities to hang themselves? They are not going to change the present state of affairs, because it does not suit them to do so. That is rather plain speaking, but that is where there is the greatest difference between the control of water and that of electricity. On the one hand, you have had this extraordinary combination of electrical engineers, which has produced
        440
        an expansion that no other public utility has seen, and, on the other hand, you have this backwardness in connection with the control of water supplies. It is a subject on which I should very much like to have spoken at greater length, but time does not permit, and I must apologise to the Committee for having already occupied so much of its time.
        6.28 p.m.
        Captain ELLISTON: As the last speaker said, the time is so short and there are so many hon. Members who wish to speak, that I will try to confine myself to a few subjects which are not being dealt with by other hon. Members. I should like, first of all, to say how those of us who are in touch with local administration in all parts of the country are impressed by the remarkable progress that has been made in connection with slum clearance as a result of the initiative and drive of the Minister of Health. It seems to me that this afternoon some speakers have concentrated rather on the difficulties and hardships involved in these schemes, but I think we should make a very complete acknowledgment of the extraordinary progress that has been achieved during the past year. In spite of criticism and disparagement from those who do not particularly desire to assist the operation of slum clearance, we know as a fact that at the present time there are more areas being declared each month than in the whole of the 10 years before 1930. In that period, 1920 to 1930, there were only 121 schemes prepared, and of those only 43 were carried to completion. In contrast to that we have the statement of the Minister to-day that in the last 12 months 2,215 areas have been declared.
        That is a very remarkable achievement, and it would be ungracious of the Committee if we discussed these Estimates without recognising the enormous advance that has been made. Indeed, I am told by experienced social and health administrators in various parts of the country that there are distinct indications of housing conditions becoming easier, and when the Minister develops his schemes for dealing with overcrowding we hope, without undue optimism, that all slums may disappear in the course of the next 10 years, and that with a reduction in building costs it will be once more worth while for private enterprise to erect tenements which can be let to give a reason-

        441
        able return on capital. A disappointing fact which I venture to mention in the presence of the Minister is that the form of the improvement area procedure provided in the 1930 Act has not been given a fair chance by local authorities. I hope that these bodies will be encouraged to make more use of this procedure in the deteriorating areas so as to prevent them from becoming slums.
        We know from what the Minister has told us that this is present in his mind and no doubt will form part of his scheme for dealing with over-crowding, but it is a fact that the local authorities have made very little use of the powers which the Housing Act, 1930, conferred upon them for dealing with improvement areas, as compared with the use made of the powers for the declaration of clearance areas. It may be that during the earlier period of operating the Act the local authorities, not unnaturally, had their attention first drawn to blocks of property which fell within the description of clearance areas, namely, those which were in such a condition that they required to be swept away altogether. Again, the characteristics of a clearance area are easily recognised, and the procedure is akin to, though not identical with, the procedure for dealing with unhealthy areas which was in operation under the earlier Housing Acts. However, by the improvement of deteriorating areas a large expenditure on the provision of new houses may be avoided, or at any rate deferred for a considerable time. That, of course, means that you are leaving assets for both owners and collectors of public revenue.
        So much has been said about housing that I will deal with only one or two other small matters to which, I hope, the Minister will give his consideration, even if he is unable to refer to them to-day.
        I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what are the intentions of the Government with regard to the British Post-graduate Hospital and Medical School. The Committee will remember that before the financial crisis of 1931 a sum of £250,000 had been voted for the provision and equipment of this hospital and school. After the crisis, that sum was reduced to £100,000, but many leaders of British medicine hope that now that the strain of our financial struggles is less acute the Government will take a more liberal view of the possibilities in
        442
        this connection. They want to see in London a post-graduate medical school which is not only worthy of British medicine, but which will be a central rallying point for medical men from all parts of the Empire and the United States, which send over hundreds of graduates year by year to work in the medical schools of Paris, Vienna, Berlin and Rome. They leave London out because the teaching facilities here are so ill-organised and inadequate. We have in London material which will rival that of any capital in Europe, and it is unfortunate that men from abroad and the British Empire should have to go to Continental centres, even secondary Continental centres, to get the teaching which could be so supremely well given in London. Although this is not a matter that interests the general body of Members, it is something which deserves the attention of the Minister, and with which, I hope, he may deal in a liberal spirit.
        I want to mention the subject of health education. The health departments of this country are so fully organised and equipped and so ably administered, that there is very little more than can be done to increase their efficiency. They offer the public all the services they require in the promotion of health and the prevention of disease, so much so that any further extension or expenditure in that direction is hardly necessary. It only remains to teach the public to make use of those facilities that are provided by our public health departments. This is an economical proposition that will save a great amount of public expenditure. It is no use having all this organisation of health visitors, doctors, laboratories and everything that is provided, if the public will not use it. One can see how much expenditure in connection with such things as maternity, infant welfare, nutrition, tuberculosis and venereal disease is wasted unless the public can be taught to use the facilities provided. The Minister has already given valuable help in the matter of health education. For years the need of such education has been preached by Sir George Newman, the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry, and recently the Minister has encouraged the Central Council for Health Education in their work, and has gone as far as to secure for their use those fine hoardings which belonged to the Empire Marketing

        443
        Board. Unfortunately, the Central Council has no funds, and it is regrettable that the Minister appealed in vain recently to the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils' Association to get their constituent bodies to support the central organisation. For some reason these representative bodies are either not interested or they think it beyond their duty to advise local authorities in such matters. The fact remains that both these bodies are not interested and choose not to associate themselves with the matter at all.
        I therefore appeal to the Minister to consider whether he himself can advise local authorities that a small expenditure in this connection to support this work would mean a great saving in the cost of public health departments and in preserving the health of the people. I regret that that magnificent unit for the production of moving pictures which belonged to the Empire Marketing Board, which has been lent to the General Post Office and has produced such remarkable films for the Post Office, was not retained for the purposes of the Ministry of Health. There are some matters of great concern to the public which are not dealt with by existing organisations. There is, for instance, the instruction of the public in regard to nutrition. By the use of that cinema unit the Ministry of Health could secure for the public a valuable series of films which would have a great educational effect. I should like to ask the Minister to consider whether when that cinema organisation and the skilled people who are in charge of it have finished their work with the Post Office, they can carry out similar work for the Ministry of Health?
        I have a final appeal to make to the Minister with regard to the local government officers, who are doing such magnificent work in all parts of the country. The local government officers are emulating all the virtues of the Civil Service, and they deserve from this House and the Government all reasonable help and recognition. It is a great hardship in the local government service that superannuation is in force in only some areas. The result is that in those areas where schemes of superannuation have not been adopted we see elderly officials past their best retained because there is
        444
        nothing on which they can retire. This is a matter which should not be left to private Members or private organisations; a Measure enforcing universal superannuation for local government officers is a responsibility that should be undertaken by the Government.
        6.42 p.m.
        Miss RATHBONE: The Minister in his very interesting statement has travelled over a great deal of ground, but I want to allude to only one of the questions about which he spoke, namely, housing, and only to one or two aspects of it. I felt when I was listening to the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) that he was rather ungrateful in accusing the Minister of neglecting his duty. The five years' slum clearance scheme accomplished under the Greenwood Act is really impressive, and I thought that a tribute might have been paid to the Minister for his success in stirring up local authorities to their responsibility for the slums. Until recently they have been inclined to neglect that aspect of the housing question because of its, difficulties. My complaints against the Minister are of a different nature. It struck me that a curious thing has happened, which sometimes does happen in families, namely, that the foster father of the Greenwood Act has realised that the foster child is a finer specimen than his own offspring, and that he has therefore been anxious to claim paternity. The Act which bears the present Minister's name—although I have never heard the 1933 Act referred to as the "Hilton Young" Act—has, I think, been disappointing.
        I wonder whether the Committee realises a rather curious fact about the figures which the Minister gave. One might have supposed when he was drawing a contrast between what had been accomplished during the two Ministries—his own and that of his predecessor—that the great increase in private enterprise building which has undoubtedly taken place was due to the 1933 Act. Was it? How many of the 120,000 houses which were undertaken by private enterprise during the six months ending 31st April were due to the 1933 Act? The Minister himself admitted, in reply to a Parliamentary question, that the number of guarantees actually given under Section 2 of the 1933 Act was only 1,631—a wretchedly small number. It is time that another 8,000 guarantees were under

        445
        negotiation, but that does not afford any proof that the negotiations will reach a satisfactory issue. I have recently made inquiries in my own city of Liverpool, where, as everyone recognises, we have an exceptionally good housing committee and an exceptionally severe housing problem, and I find that up to a few weeks ago there had been only one scheme, and that for four houses, submitted under Section 2 of the Act of 1933, and that scheme had to be rejected as unsatisfactory. That is in spite of the fact that the housing committee have on more than one occasion issued circulars to private builders reminding them of the facilities offered by the Act and urging them to put forward programmes. The small use made of that Section of the Act would not matter if private enterprise were meeting the needs of the lower-paid wage-earners without either subsidy or guarantee, but notoriously—at least notoriously according to the belief of most people—that is not so.
        I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us some further explanation of his claim this afternoon that 155,000 houses are being built each year for the poorer wage-earners. What proportion of those houses is being built for rental and not for selling, and what are the rentals? Hitherto, no one has succeeded through Parliamentary questions in getting that information, although several Members have tried. The Minister has always replied that the figures were not available. He did tell us some weeks ago the average rental of the houses built by private enterprise in the rural areas, but he has never given the figure for the urban areas. It cannot be beyond the means of the Minister to find out. He could require that when the figures are presented to him they shall be in such a form that he can say how many private enterprise houses are built for sale and how many to let, and what are the rentals of those to let. It is obvious that this information is of immense importance, as bearing on the question of whether the 1933 Act is working satisfactorily, and if he continues to say that he is unable to answer that question, he cannot accuse us of being unduly suspicious if we do suspect that the reason the figures are not produced is that he is aware that if they were forthcoming they would not bear out the claim that the Act of 1933, or private enterprise, is in any way meet-
        446
        ing the needs of the poorer wage-earners.
        Sir H. YOUNG: I cannot allow that statement to pass. Every figure available on that subject has been produced to the House at the first moment at which it was available.
        Miss RATHBONE: The question I was putting was, Why is the information not available? Will the Minister tell us why he has been able to produce figures showing the average rental of private enterprise houses built in the rural areas and has never been able to tell us the figures for the urban areas? If he is not able to tell us, why is he not able to tell us? Why cannot he ask for the returns to be made in such a form that the figure will be available? That is the point. Again and again we have been told that the reason for withdrawing the subsidy was to see what private enterprise would do, and the Minister has said that he would agree to local authorities building without subsidy only if they could prove that private enterprise was not going to step in. How can we prove that private enterprise is not willing to step in if nobody can provide figures showing the rents at which the houses built by private enterprise are let?
        The Minister thinks that the gap left to be filled is represented by the needs of the overcrowded, and we know, although he was not able to deal with it to-day, that he has in contemplation legislation to deal with the problem of overcrowding. But it seems to me that he has always ignored the fact that besides the slum-dwellers and others who are suffering from overcrowding, there is a very large and—although I hate the phrase, I cannot help using it—deserving class who are particularly in need of cheaper houses. There are hundreds and thousands of decent, respectable but poorly-paid people who have somehow or other managed to keep themselves out of the slums but only by paying rents which they can pay only by stinting the family food bill. I recall a phrase which has stuck in my mind ever since I began to do social work in Liverpool 30 years ago. I was reproaching a poor woman about the large proportion of the very small family income which went in rent. I asked how she could afford to spend half her husband's wages on rent? She said, "Miss, me and my husband have often

        447
        talked it over, and have said that we would rather pinch the children's bellies than bring them up in those pig-sties of places "—referring to the low-rented houses in courts which were available. Everyone who knows the lives of the poor realises that that crude phrase expresses the feeling of very large numbers of working people. They are not slum-dwellers, they are not living in overcrowded conditions, but they are paying the price of decent housing at the expense of stinting their children of the necessaries of life. We have as yet had no evidence that private enterprise is beginning to step in to fill that particular gap.
        Another point I should like to deal with concerns an old complaint of mine. It applies not only to the present Minister of Health, but to his immediate predecessor, and, I think, to all his predecessors. I believe every Minister of Health has done his best, according to his lights, to assist the housing problem, but all seem to forget that to provide houses for the working classes is not enough unless there is some control of the use that is made of those houses. Some time ago I asked what was the definition of the phrase, which has been in use ever since about 1860, "the housing of the working classes." I was told that it has always been left to the local authorities to define the phrase and that the Minister had never found it necessary to interfere. But do not we all know that what has actually happened during the whole period of post-war housing is that houses built with the help of money drawn from the pockets of the general body of taxpayers and rate payers—many of them poorer than the people who succeed eventually in getting those corporation houses—are allocated by most housing authorities with hardly any regard to the question of whether the tenants can afford to pay an economic rent, and that the Ministry has never attempted to stop that practice? It is true that the Ministry has issued circulars. An excellent circular was issued soon after the Greenwood Act was passed which specifically laid it down that in the case of houses built under that Act—the Act of 1930—regard should be had to the capacity of the tenants to pay, and that rent relief should not be given to those who did not need it.
        448
        Under that circular a considerable number of local authorities have adopted a system of differential rents, fixing a standard rent and allowing rebates to tenants who could not afford that standard rent. The present Ministry issued a circular on the same lines applying not only to the Act of 1930 but to the other Acts, and specifically to the Act of 1924, under which the great majority of working class houses have been built. That circular laid it down that subsidies should not be wasted on those who do not require them, and urged local authorities, if they found that tenants in their houses had so improved in circumstances that they could pay a higher rent, to require those tenants either to vacate the houses or pay the full economic rent. But it is not enough to issue circulars if no trouble is taken to see that they are carried out. We all know what happens to circulars. I fear that in most cases they never reach anybody except the official in charge, or, possibly, the chairman of the housing committee. I doubt whether one in ten of the members of housing committees ever reads the circulars of the Ministry, or is given the opportunity of reading them, and when a circular advocates an unpopular policy it is not likely that that advice will be followed unless something more is done than merely print the circular and send one copy to every local authority.
        The local authority in Leeds, which recently obtained a Socialist majority, attempted to carry out in full the principle of the Ministry's circular. They have revised the rentals of all houses on their estates, and where the circumstances of the tenants have improved, they have told them either to pay more or to get out. Have they had any encouragement from the Minister? On several occasions when the matter has been brought up at Question Time in the House the Minister, if not showing disapproval of the Leeds scheme, has evinced an obvious disposition to throw cold water on it, and to say that what has been done has excited considerable unpopularity. Of course it has. Any scheme is likely to be unpopular which tries to undo a wrong, but the onus of that unpopularity should rest not on those at present in charge of the Leeds housing but on those who for years and years disregarded the circulars of the Ministry, disregarded what the Ministry declared was the plain inten-

        449
        tion of the Housing Acts, and accepted as tenants for highly-subsidised houses those who could perfectly well afford to pay economic rents. The Ministry should either withdraw its circulars or encourages and foster the public-spirited action of those local authorities who try to carry out the principles advocated.
        I beg the Minister to say something on this question when he replies. He has told us a great deal about house building, and what he is doing to encourage house building. Will he for once tell us a little about what he is doing, or hopes to do, to make sure that when houses have been built by the aid of rates and taxes they shall be used only by those for whom they are built? Is it consistent for the Ministry, which has identified itself with the principle of the means test in another sphere, to say, "When public assistance is being given to which there is no limit, except the amount of money which the taxpayer can provide, we will impose a means test; but when it is a case of a commodity which is strictly limited, not only by the amount of money available but by the necessary slowness of house building, we will insist on no means test; we will use the public money to put up those houses, and then we shall say, 'We leave it to you, the local authority, to make any use of it that you please,'" although by far the greater part of the money comes from the taxpayer and not from the ratepayer? A man will, therefore, get a house to which he was never entitled, and he may not only keep it himself the whole of his lifetime without any inquiry into his means, but it may descend after him to his children and grandchildren. That seems to me to be carrying out the perfect opposite of the means test, and to lead to a perfectly indefensible conclusion. It may not have been the policy of the Ministry to encourage that, but the Ministry has never done anything to put a stop to the misuse of subsidised houses by persons of ample means.
        7.1 p.m.
        Mr. LIDDALL: At the outset of my remarks I wish to offer my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health upon the very able, informative and encouraging speech which he delivered at the opening of this Debate. His wonderful appeal, the sincerity of which must have been obvious to
        450
        everyone in the Chamber, and his tribute to our glorious health services, will be appreciated by hundreds of thousands of poor working-class mothers who have benefited by our health clinics, "babies' welcomes," and so on. I wish, however, to speak for a few moments on the somewhat interesting subject to which the hon. Member for the Platting Division of Manchester (Mr. Chorlton) referred at some length in his speech a little earlier. That is the subject of water, without which the dispensing chemist would be at sea and would have to fall back upon the tabloid treatment; the Welshman's leek would not flourish, and the Lloyds and the Lewises, the Joneses and the Johns, would have to make up the deficiency by weeping copiously.
        I do not follow the hon. Member to the extent which he was prepared to go. I understood him to suggest that we should have water distributed throughout the country in a similar manner to the way in which electricity is distributed by means of the electrical grid. The question of water supplies is most important, but people must not be led into panic and embark upon ill-conceived schemes to meet the present position—schemes which would be an unwarranted burden upon the ratepayers and the users for probably 19 out of 20 years of normal rainfall. We must not forget that the drought of 1933, which year saw the start of the Ministry's present effort, was not so acute as the drought of 1921. Not only was 1921 dry, but during the summer months of that year the position was aggravated by the coal strkie, which materially affected the supply of all towns dependent upon underground sources. To-day the position is rendered worse than it otherwise would have been because 1934, up to date, has not supplied the deficiency of 1933; in other words, a dry season has followed upon an exceptionally dry season.
        Let me present to the Committee a little mathematical calculation. (A) The average rainfall over England and Wales is approximately 30 inches. (B) The area of England and Wales is approximately 60,000 square miles. (C) One inch of rain over 60,000 square miles equals 860,000,00,0000 gallons. Give each person 30 gallons per day, and one inch of rain collected over England and Wales would supply 40,000,000 persons for two years. A matter of one-sixtieth part of the rain-

        451
        fall of Great Britain would supply 40,000,000 people with 30 gallons per day for one year. Having worked this out, let us see where the rest goes. First, a percentage is re-evaporated. Secondly, a percentage is consumed by vegetation. Thirdly, another percentage, and a good one, sinks into the pervious beds and is stored up in vast underground reservoirs—the chalks, lower estuaries, Trias or New Reds, and other formations. Scunthorpe, where I reside, takes its water from the lower estuaries. London takes vast quantities from the chalk measures. The South Staffordshire Water Company takes 21,000,000 gallons a day from New Red. My own constituency, Lincoln City, takes over 2,500,000 gallons a day from New Red. Fourthly, a large percentage of the water runs away by ditches and streams to the rivers and back to the sea, from which it first came by evaporation. Beyond all doubt, all water of a potable character should be strictly conserved and protected and used only for purely domestic purposes. There are ample Supplies of a borderline quality that could and should be used for all industrial purposes and for sewer flushing. Some of these supplies also, in periods of drought, could by filtration and chlorination be rendered reasonably fit for domestic use.
        It is, however, in the rural areas that at the present time there is the greatest cause for complaint. It is in those areas that we are faced with the greatest difficulties. The population is widely spread and limited in numbers, with a very low rateable basis. These areas entail the maximum outlay for mains for the minimum of consumers, and in my opinion some of the recently suggested schemes and estimates are far too elaborate, and almost prohibitive. I suggest that too little attention is being given to local supplies, perhaps small in themselves but ample for rural needs. Many rural areas have no sewers or disposal works, hence water-closets and baths are not as usual as they are in the urban areas or larger towns and there is not such a great call upon the water supplies for these purposes.
        I was interested in the Minister's reply last Thursday to the hon. and gallant Member for Howdenshire (Major Carver):
        452
        "Rain-water, with proper storage, should provide a reasonably adequate supply of water in country districts where other supplies are impracticable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1934; col. 1883, Vol. 290.]
        and I am glad that the Minister is issuing a leaflet to local authorities on measures for conserving rain-water. Roof water in a village, if entirely collected, strained, filtered and stored in clean concrete tanks, covered and underground, with pump, would meet practically all domestic needs on the site without long lengths of mains to bring in an outside supply. As most housewives know, roof water is much softer than any underground supply, and I am told that saving of soap by the use of softer water may be considerable. The other day a Sheffield newspaper referred to rain-water as an aid to beauty. It told of one woman, brought up in the heart of the country where all the water for washing was collected from rain, and commented thus:
        "Whenever she goes to her country home and washes again in this way, she is amazed at the difference it makes to her complexion, and to her hair. She has fair hair, and she avers that rain-water brings out its colour in a way that tap-water never could. She has collected rain-water in Sheffield, and the results have been most beneficial. She is shortly going to live in a new house, and she is arranging for a tank to be placed where it can catch the drippings from the spouting round the house, and she will use this as often as possible for beauty purposes."
        Many districts would have ample supplies for all local needs if the springs and other sources of supply were opened out, protected and rendered available; while from the roof areas in every hamlet or village a yield of probably over 20 inches would be available to collect, filter and store. Underground supplies, while they may be organically and bacteriologically pure, are often very hard from water, passing through the permeable beds, taking up soluble salts of lime, magnesium or sodium. I repeat that some of the present schemes for rural supplies are too grandiose, and the estimated costs could, with efficiency, be reduced by one-half if experienced water engineers instead of purely civil engineers were placed in charge. I submit that our water engineers should be well versed in the sanitary needs of the people and know how to meet such needs. They should know how to utilise and conserve any local supply, have a long knowledge of rainfalls, the nature of

        453
        gathering-grounds and absorptions of soils; they should not only be able to detect impurities and discover their origin, but know how to eliminate them; they should also have a sound, practical knowledge of costs and be able to provide and run any plant, whether driven by steam, oil or electricity.
        The Minister appreciates that rural areas cannot, by reason of their widely scattered population, be given a mains supply throughout the area at a figure that can be met by a charge upon the local rates, but in practically every village or hamlet not merely one inch but 30 inches of rain water can be collected from roofs, filtered and stored as local units. That applies also to rain which has fallen on the land and flows along in streams, and to rain that has sunk into porous beds and has come to the surface again as springs. That water is available at very little expense if dealt with by practical men with local knowledge, rather than by the London office-trained experts—so-called—who can only see these problems by means of their textbooks, and who do not realise that it is utterly impossible for the ratepayers in those widely scattered rural areas to meet the heavy capital cost of long lengths of pipe. I earnestly beg the Minister to bear these facts in mind. There is no need for panic. I repeat that rural supplies can be given as separate units from within their own areas in nearly every instance. Rural supplies should be for rural needs, and should not be provided on the more elaborate town system until all rural areas have sewers and sewage schemes, and until rural ratepayers have water closets and baths.
        7.18 p.m.
        Mr. EADY: The discussion is getting a little threadbare and the Minister a little restless; I will therefore endeavour to concentrate my remarks into a small compass. I listened with very great interest to the Minister's statement, and he is to be congratulated upon the wonderful results shown in the lowering of the percentages in many departments of public health. I am a little uneasy whether I entirely agree with him in regard to the housing position. I do not know why, but there seems to be a widespread impression in regard to the Act of 1933. I grant that the Minister has provided figures of the houses built during a certain period, but I want to
        454
        know whether the figures in regard to the 1933 Act are sufficiently encouraging, considering the time that was spent in trying to bring that Measure forward. Where does the difference lie? Who is responsible—irresponsible, I should say—for not carrying out the Act as was intended? It is not a question of finance. The financial side was properly arranged and everything was satisfactory. If it is not on the financial side, is it on the side of the builder? I am inclined to think that the builder does not favour the Act. I know from my own experience that if certain builders can continue to build houses at, say, £500 and upwards, they will not be interested in building the type of house for which that Act was made.
        If the builder fails to come forward and do his duty, what is the next step, and whom shall we hold responsible for the carrying out of the Act? Responsibility would be left then with the local authorities. I have had a great experience of local authorities in regard to building and to the managing of local affairs, and I can assure the Committee that I am not greatly enamoured of them. If pressure can be put on the private builder to insist upon a certain number of houses being built in a form that would be suitable for the wage-earning people, it would do a great amount of good. I should prefer pressure to be put upon the private builder rather than the matter should be left in the hands of the local authority. The local authority has two alternative systems—letting building out by tender, or doing it by direct tlabour. We have had a great amount of experience of direct labour, and we think it has not proved beneficial.
        Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: What about Sheffield?
        Mr. EADY: I am not going to mention Sheffield. In our city we are suffering from a sixpenny rate, and shall be for many years to come, as a result of the building of houses by direct labour. I know that housing and slum clearance are allied questions, and if we can get over the difficulty of providing a number of houses at a reasonable rent, that will help to solve the slum clearance problem. We, naturally, cannot move in regard to slum clearance because we cannot find accommodation or suitable places for the people. That is the first thing to be

        455
        done. In the city which I represent we have undertaken a certain amount of reconditioning to prevent the houses from being condemned as slum property. We have reconditioned about 4,000 houses and have made them satisfactory. They were back-to-back houses in a condemned position, and most of them have been made back-to-back or with side ventilation. The result is that they are now good property and they have partly helped to solve the question of our slum areas. I am proud that the city I represent has not been backward in accepting a scheme and doing its share towards slum clearance. A lot of comment has been made about the 1933 Act, and I would add my contribution to the various complaints that are heard all over the country. I hope that the Minister when he is making new arrangements in regard to slum clearance will try to be lenient and to make things easier for people who, unfortunately, may have their property condemned. I appeal to him to give them all the assistance he can.
        7.27 p.m.
        Mr. PICKERING: I am not rising in order to condemn the Minister for what he has done in regard to the housing problem, nor to praise him, but to add a little friendly criticism. I feel in a somewhat embarrassing position in criticising him for not gingering up local authorities more in regard to their housing schemes, because the Minister said to-day that he has not received a scheme from the city which I represent. I can inform him that that is not due to lack of zeal. For one reason, the Minister came in a somewhat suspicious guise; he came as a foster parent of the Greenwood baby, and the Greenwood Act is none too popular with the people who are concerned with slum clearance—the property owners. Difficulties were created, although they were not fundamental, and we were naturally unable to present a scheme. In a very short time the Minister will receive this scheme, and I trust that he will find it as good as he would wish.
        One reason why the Ministry have not done all that they ought to have done in regard to solving the housing problem is that they are separating the two great problems of slum clearance and over-
        456
        crowding. That is what we feel in Leicester. In a sense we have no slums in Leicester at all comparable with what people usually mean when they speak of slums, but we have a great number of houses for the poorer working class, and some resentment has been aroused at the idea of pulling down and clearing out houses which are badly required by many people. I am not, of course, justifying the existence of insanitary houses and of slums. There should not be one house in any city which is not merely not fit for human habitation but which is not a joy for human beings to dwell in. For all that, we are faced with this real difficulty—
        It being Half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 6, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.

    TAUNTON CORPORATION BILL. (By Order).
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. NOEL LINDSAY: The substantial point with regard to this Bill is contained in Clauses 3 and 4, with regard to which a Motion for an Instruction appears on the Order Paper. The next Clause, Clause 5, is unobjectionable from our point of view. In view of these facts, my hon. Friends and I do not propose to divide the House on the Second Reading, but to make our case on the Instruction.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a Second time, and committed.
    Mr. LINDSAY: I beg to move,
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to leave out Clauses 3 and 4."
    I move this Motion with some personal regret, because in doing so I find myself opposed certainly to two hon. Members for whom I have the greatest personal respect, and I should like at once to make it quite clear that this Instruction is not moved in any spirit of hostility to the ancient city of Taunton, a city which I myself have always found to be a most

    457
    hospitable city, and in which, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) knows, both he and I have spent many laborious if not very profitable days. It is necessary, in approaching this somewhat complicated and difficult matter, that there should be a few words of explanation as to how it is that the House finds itself examining this Bill to-night. Hon. Members will recollect that, in 1926, Parliament passed the Electricity (Supply) Act; and under that Act there was set up the Central Electricity Board, as the central supply authority for the whole country. The object of the Act and of the scheme has been to concentrate the supply of electricity for the whole country in a limited number of selected stations. Those selected stations are under the obligation to supply to the Central Electricity Board the whole of their output, and they receive back from the board as much power as they require for their own purposes. Out of the surplus, the board provides electricity in bulk to other undertakers.
    The Act contains a large number of complicated terms and conditions. I need not trouble the House with these at the moment, but the House will appreciate that, where power is generated at a selected station, the undertakers who run that selected station are under very stringent terms and conditions. The whole thing is now familiarly known to the man in the street as the grid scheme, and many people are conscious of it only as being the cause of the pylons which are such a marked and striking feature of our rural scenery. Of course, the grid scheme is not universal; it does not cover the whole of the electricity generated in this country; and Taunton is one of the towns which have remained outside the scheme. Up to the present time, Taunton has generated and consumed its own electricity. It found itself at the beginning of last winter in a position of shortage, not being able to generate as much electricity as the inhabitants of Taunton and the surrounding country desired to consume, and being faced, therefore, with the necessity of extension. Under the Act Taunton could not extend without taking into consultation the Electricity Commissioners. They went to the Electricity Commissioners, and there were protracted negotiations, which resulted, I understand, although the matter
    458
    is in some little obscurity, in an agreement being made between the corporation of Taunton and the Central Electricity Board.
    I observe that, in the statement which has been circulated to Members of the House to-day, it is said that if this Bill is not passed Taunton will not be in a position to supply its consumers next winter, but I venture respectfully to suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Taunton (Lieut.-Colonel Gault) that, if that be the position, Taunton has the alternative of going into the grid scheme under the conditions which were suggested as an alternative to the agreement which was actually made. As I understand it, the city of Taunton has in fact made an agreement with the Central Electricity Board whereby the board is to take over the existing generating station at Taunton, and in return the board is to supply Taunton from that station with the whole of the electricity which Taunton requires. The Preamble to this Bill says, with what appears to me to be a certain amount of disingenuousness, that doubts have arisen as to the validity of this agreement, which does not surprise me at all, because it appears to me, and it has appeared to others who are far more competent to judge than I am, to be definitely an illegal agreement, outside the Act of Parliament altogether.
    I and my colleagues who sit for Bristol are not faced here with a new position. It is a position which has arisen before at Bristol, as the Minister of Transport knows—the position of something having been done which was definitely illegal, and then a Measure being brought before Parliament ex post facto to legalise what has already been done. In these circumstances, the City of Taunton comes to Parliament and says that, having made an agreement which is illegal, it now desires these two Clauses of a Private Bill to go through the House of Commons in order to legalise that agreement. The first objection that I take is a minor one, but it is just as well that it should be stated quite clearly. It is that this is a wrong method of procedure in any event. If a corporation desires to legalise an agreement which it has made then, in common sense and fairness, that agreement ought to be scheduled to the Bill, so that Parliament, if it is asked to pass a Private Bill of this sort, may know

    459
    exactly what it is. Here we are acting very much in the dark; we are not even told in the Bill that the agreement has been made. Clause 3 of the Bill says that it shall be lawful in future for Taunton to make agreements for the supply of electricity to the board by Taunton, and for the supply of electricity to Taunton by the board; while Clause 4 is a most objectionable form of legislation, for it says that the Act shall be retrospective, and that any agreement which has already been made—without admitting that there is any agreement—shall be legal. That appears to me to be a most objectionable form of procedure.
    I am speaking to-night for the City of Bristol, which takes very strong objection to these two Clauses. Bristol is one of the selected stations under the Act of 1926. There are seven selected stations for the South-Western area of England and the area of South Wales, and one of the largest and most important is the new station which has been erected by the City of Bristol at Portishead. It was begun in 1926, under the Act of that year and at the express request of the Electricity Commissioners under the scheme which was made for the South-Western part of England. It is a vast undertaking, with a capacity enormously greater than the requirements of Bristol and the surrounding district, and I do not think it can be disputed for a moment that the original intention of the scheme was that Taunton, in common with Exeter, Devon and the South-West of England generally, should be supplied from Portishead. In fact, the Portishead station is at the present moment linked up with Taunton; the line which supplies Exeter goes through Taunton, and the machinery is there in existence at the present moment.
    The very large sum of money—somewhere in the neighbourhood of £2,000,000, I believe—which was expended on the construction of the Portishead station, was borrowed by the ratepayers of Bristol. That station having been constructed, and it being now a selected station, the city of Bristol is under a double liability. It is under the liability, in the first place, to generate as much electricity as the Central Electricity Board tells it to generate, and it is also under the liability to supply to the board the whole of the electricity that it generates. Taunton, originally intended
    460
    to be supplied from Portishead, is now seeking by some back door to make an agreement with the Central Electricity Board whereby, in effect, Taunton, outside the scheme altogether, becomes a substituted selected station, and whereby the City of Bristol, which has been put to the whole expense of building this vast power station, so much bigger than is required for its own needs, is deprived of a large amount of revenue to which it is justly entitled to look as the result of the undertaking.
    I am aware that the statement to which I have already referred says that it will be cheaper for the inhabitants of Taunton if the Act of 1926 is torn up in this way, and if they are allowed to go outside and behind it and take their electricity under this special agreement. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Taunton will forgive me if I do not share his natural enthusiasm for that point of view. My desire is to protect at this stage the citizens of Bristol, and to say very strongly that, Parliament having passed an Act, and public money having been expended in carrying out that Act, no municipality ought now to be allowed to go behind the Act and do something which would have a result detrimental to another municipality; but that undertakers who have come into the grid scheme and taken part in this expensive and elaborate machinery are entitled to expect that it will be loyally carried out.
    If this were nothing more than a mere dispute between the City of Bristol and the City of Taunton, I should not venture to take up the time of the House, and I should be quite properly told from the other side, that this a point which counsel could argue before a Private Bill Committee; and that would be quite a valid answer. But there is an entirely new and different element in the situation. Since this Bill was first introduced—I understand that it was prepared at about the beginning of January—the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies has introduced in another place, with the sanction of the Government, another Electricity (Supply) Bill, which is by no means the same as the two Clauses we are now discussing. There may be, and I do not doubt that there will be, very strong arguments in this House against that Bill, which has passed through all its stages in the other House, and is, in fact, on the Order Paper of this House

    461
    for Second Reading to-morrow. I should be out of order in referring to it to-night except in so far as it affects the position with regard to the Taunton Bill.
    The Government Bill has already been very considerably amended in the other House, and it may be further amended here. I have no doubt that there will be strenuous efforts to that end. It contains, even in its unamended form as it comes from the other House, much more elaborate safeguards and much more definite conditions than are laid down in Clauses 3 and 4 of this Taunton Bill. But the Debate, which was protracted, in the other House, demonstrates quite clearly that this matter of agreements, outside the Act of 1926, between the Central Electricity Board and municipalities or private undertakers, is a very highly controversial one, and that it would be contrary to the best interests of Parliament at the present time to allow a subject of this sort to be discussed on a Private Bill.
    I move this Instruction for three reasons: First of all, because this is an attempt to go behind the 1926 Act. I do not stress the purely local aspect; I do not stress the point that this is going to damage my own constituents for the purpose of improving the position of my hon. and gallant Friend. That is purely a Committee point. But Bristol, after all, is only one out of many selected stations, and what is done to Bristol to-day may be done to any other selected station to-morrow, and once you concede a principle of this sort you begin to eat away the whole fabric and substance of the Act of 1926. There are at present without exaggeration millions of pounds sunk in generating stations all over the country under the aegis of the 1926 Act. Undertakers who have loyally observed the terms and conditions of that Act are entitled to expect the same sort of treatment from the Central Electricity Board as other undertakers who have not yet come within the Act.
    The second reason why we urge the Instruction on the House is that we believe it to be quite contrary to the best Parliamentary practice to proceed with Clauses of this sort in a private Bill at a time when there is before Parliament a public Bill covering very similar ground. In the statement that reached
    462
    me this morning on behalf of the corporation of Taunton, it is said:
    "We are afraid that this public Bill may not get through Parliament before the autumn, and we are very anxious to have Taunton properly lighted next winter."
    There is, of course, the obvious alternative of coming into the scheme, but for some reason Taunton does not want to come into the scheme. The Second Reading of the public Bill is down for Thursday, and it must get through very soon. The only reason that could possibly delay it for a long time would be if there were to develop in this House a strenuous and protracted opposition. If there were a real obstacle to the passing of the Bill, that would be the only thing that could prevent it going through in a comparatively short time and, if it is likely that a substantial and strenuous opposition is going to develop to the Government Bill, how much more dangerous is it to pass in a private Bill a principle which is to be so hotly contested? If these two Clauses are dropped, this becomes in effect an unopposed Bill. If they are not dropped, it will go through all its stages as an opposed Bill. It may expose the ratepayers of Taunton and Bristol, and possibly other ratepayers, to considerable expense and, not only that, but it will take up a great deal of Parliamentary time unnecessarily.
    The final reason why we urge the Instruction is that in any event this is not the sort of thing that ought to be dealt with in a private Bill at all. If there is one thing on which everyone would be agreed, it is that the fundamental motive in the mind of every Member of Parliament at present must be to maintain the proper position of this House in the life of the country. This is only a small matter; it would be ridiculous to attempt to elevate it to anything more, but it has its bearing on that which must be the guiding principle of all of us. This is a matter of serious principle, and it would be quite wrong for this House to allow a private Bill to go through dealing with a matter of general principle which ought to be dealt with in a public Bill.
    Mr. BERNAYS: I beg formally to second the Motion.
    7.50 p.m.
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I am sure this is an

    463
    occasion when the House will think it right for me to state the position of the Government and, that being so, it will probably be for the convenience of all that I should state it at the earliest possible moment. I do not intend to go at all into the very difficult technical point which has been raised and which is the substance of the two Clauses to which my hon. Friend objects. I should only like to congratulate him on the clarity and the brevity with which he has dealt with the point. Without going into the merits or demerits of his arguments, I agree with him on two points. The first is that a real question of principle, and a principle of general application, is raised by these Clauses, and, secondly, it is a principle which, although I and the Government support it, is opposed in other quarters.
    It seems to me that the whole position of this private Bill is rendered extremely complicated by the fact that a public Bill introduced in another place is now awaiting the consideration of this House. It is true that the terms of that Bill are rather different from the terms of the Clause to which my hon. Friend objects, but they are only different because to him they are less objectionable, and it is certain that the general principle raised by the Government Bill is exactly the same general principle that is implicit in the Clauses to which he objects, and the House may well consider whether it is in accordance with Parliamentary precedent and procedure and with the public interest that at the same time that it is called upon to consider and to pass judgment upon a public Bill which raises a general question of principle and general application it should, through the medium of another of its Committees, be called upon to consider the same principle in a limited form and applicable only to one particular area.
    It may well be that the House will think that a question of such importance and such general application as this should be settled once and for all by a general decision of the House as a whole upon the principle that is raised in a public Bill and not on this Bill. I quite understand the difficulty of the promoters of this Bill and their desire that in one way or another the principle shall be settled, either on this Bill or on the Gov-
    464
    ernment Bill, in plenty of time for them to make whatever arrangements they have to make as a consequence of the decision that the House takes. The public Bill has already passed through all its stages in another place. It is the intention of the Government to pass it into law. While the date on which the Bill can be taken must depend upon other business, the Government fully recognises the importance of the time factor, and there will be no avoidable delay. I can give the promoters of the Bill that assurance, but, in so far as it falls to me as a Member of the House to advise them at all, I could not advise them to raise in this Measure, and through this medium, and in a limited form, the very principle which the Government are going to call upon them to discuss and decide in the widest possible form and by a procedure which is the appropriate one for the occasion.
    7.56 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: I fully appreciate what the Minister has said in regard to the Government Measure, but Taunton is in the position at present of finding itself without the resources of supplying consumers of Taunton and the surrounding countryside with electrical energy next year unless they are given powers to purchase from the Central Electricity Board, and I am informed that business arrangements have been entered into by the authorities concerned, and it only remains for the necessary authority to be given in order that those business arrangements should be carried into effect. I have no intention of dealing with the local aspect of the Bill, but I should like to point out that at the present juncture Taunton is endeavouring not only to supply its own needs but the needs of the countryside and country districts in the neighbourhood which for many a long year past have been crying out for an electricity supply. It seems rather strange that in this year, 1934, there should be districts crying out for electricity when practically every part of of the world is supplied. All that the Bill asks is for the corporation to have the right of entering into an agreement with the Central Electricity Board to enable it to obtain additional supplies of electricity to meet its obligations to the borough itself and to the surrounding districts in the coming year. I trust that

    465
    the House will in its generosity and wisdom give the Bill a Second Reading.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I must point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Second Reading has already been dealt with. We are now on the question of an Instruction to the Committee to omit certain Clauses.
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: I am also in a position to say that the promoters of the Bill will be perfectly prepared to accept a new Clause in Committee to bring it into line with the Government Bill. All that the corporation asks is that it shall have authority to obtain an electricity supply in the not far distant future for, if that authority cannot be obtained, it simply means that electrical development in the locality is going to be very seriously curtailed, to the disadvantage not only of the citizens of Taunton but of the citizens and the rural people of the whole countryside.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: We seem to be in a difficulty. If we do not press forward the Instruction which has been moved, the House will in principle have given assent to the two Clauses, and by implication, therefore, given assent to Clause 1 of the Bill which has already passed through another place. I do not think that on this Bill we should give assent to something which we shall want to debate at much greater length than we can debate the circumstances of the particular corporation to-night. The essential feature about the Bill, as far as those who have nothing to do with the West country is concerned, is that it raises vital questions of principle. There are in the Bill certain other matters, which, though perhaps not of great importance, are such as I imagine the Taunton Corporation require. The Minister has made a declaration that it is the intention of the Government to press forward, to the best of their ability, with the Bill which has been introduced. Clause 1 of that Bill proposes, rightly or wrongly—I think it is very much open to criticism—that certain agreements never contemplated under the 1926 Act are to be sanctioned after certain procedure has been gone through. Only if it is desired to concede the principle generally should it be conceded to anybody, and for those reasons I am strongly of opinion that the
    466
    Instruction ought to be pressed, and, if the majority of the House take the view which I take, it should be carried.
    What is the great question of principle? In 1926 we passed a Bill, the general principles of which I supported though I did not like all its details. The general underlying principle was that there were great economies to be effected in the generation of electricity if, by the linking of stations, you could eliminate a very large amount of spare plant which had to be maintained in stations when it was not wholly required. Out of that principle, stimulated by Mr. Insull, who has not been as fortunate in other matters as he was in that, the great grid has been built up. That grid has to be financed. It is part of the duty of the board, with the approval of the Commissioners, to fix different tariffs for different areas. The country is split up into a number of areas, and the tariff has to be so constructed that after a period of years it will pay all the charges with which the Central Electricity Board are faced. The board have to pay the cost of the construction of the grid, and up to now the interest charges have been paid out of capital. We are now reaching the stage when those charges will have to be paid out of interest. In addition the board have to pay the selected stations who generate the electricity the cost of generation. Therefore, broadly speaking, the grid tariff for each area has to consist of two items, the cost of generating the electricity and the cost of transmitting it, that is to say, the grid cost. The tariff is fixed on that basis.
    What is the object of this agreement? It is apparently to permit the board to sell electricity to Taunton at a lower rate than the grid tariff. If the grid tariff is the right tariff, it will result in the board not making any profit in the wider sense, but merely enough to meet the charges. Therefore, under the Bill it is proposed to sell electricity to Taunton at rates which must involve a loss if the tariff has been correctly constructed. Therefore, those who do not make special arrangements will have to pay more in order to compensate for the lower price which Taunton will pay. You have only to keep on making agreements and no one will be left to pay the cost of the grid. Some of us are therefore perturbed. It is true that there is no Government guarantee—I think some

    467
    £50,000,000 has been spent—but there is a certain moral guarantee, because it is under the control of a board which has the sanction of Parliament. The ordinary person who subscribes to public issues of capital, even if there be no Government guarantee, assumes at the back of his mind that if anything goes wrong the State in the last resort would step in and save those who have subscribed their money in good faith to what they regard to all intents and purposes as a State institution. Therefore, we ought to look upon the matter with the utmost care and ought not to sanction the proposal to-night. If we do, we shall be doing it without having the fuller and more exhaustive Debate we are bound to have when the Government Bill is under discussion.
    On the other hand, I have every sympathy with the problems of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Taunton (Lieut.-Colonel Gault) who does not want to see his constituents in the dark next winter, but that matter does not arise. There will be opportunities for Taunton to obtain current on grid terms. That is open to them. Therefore, it is no good trying to terrify the House by saying that the people of Somerset will be in the dark if the Bill be not passed. If the Government Bill or this Bill be not passed, they will be able to get current. The question is whether Taunton will get it cheaper so that everybody else will have to pay more. That is the issue. There is the grid tariff. They want something better than that. To the extent that Taunton pays less per unit the board will have to raise money to balance their accounts. Every penny which Taunton objects to pay, somebody else will have to pay. The hon. and gallant Member for Taunton and his immediate neighbours are against the rest of the world. They are seeking to get advantages at the expense of the rest of the world. We sympathise with them.
    This case may lead to a very much more careful examination on the part of all of us of the way the board is carrying on its operations. Everyone has the greatest sympathy with the distinguished gentlemen operating the board, but they have a great responsibility to the public if they enter into what we are advised are illegal agreements. I understand that they have entered into similar agreements with
    468
    other people which no one up to now has thought to be illegal. They have entered into an agreement with the Wimbledon Corporation which is a very successful undertaking. I was for three years a member of their Electricity Committee. They generated electricity so economically, that that was, I think, the reason why they were stimulated to offer special terms. People asked why was it that Wimbledon was much more efficient than the grid, but I am not going into that matter. Many years have elapsed since I had responsibility, and the success is not due to me. I do not think we ought to give Taunton these powers tonight. The House ought to make it definite that they will not be given in isolated cases because of the fundamental principles which must be raised. We are custodians for a great undertaking. Ultimately the responsibility is ours. If, later on, emergency steps have to be taken to support the grid in any way, this House will have to take them. Therefore, we ought not, on a private Bill, to drive a coach and four right through the 1926 Act. We do not even know the design of the coach and four. It is an extraordinary thing that we should have in a Bill the words contained in Clause 4, which are as follow:
    "Any Agreement which may have been entered into between the Corporation and the Board prior to the passing of this Act for any of the purposes mentioned in the last preceding section of this Act shall be deemed to have been lawfully made and shall he binding upon the Corporation and the Board."
    We are not told one word of the terms of the Agreement. There is in the document circulated to-day by the Taunton Corporation certain financial calculations as to the effect it will have on them if one or other scheme is adopted, but they do not tell the House what illegal agreement they are asking this House to validate. It is an intolerable position, and on principle we ought not to assent to these Clauses being allowed to remain in the Bill.
    8.10 p.m.
    Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: The situation of the Taunton Corporation in this matter is one of considerable difficulty. I will deal with some of the difficulties, which, it has been suggested, arise on this Bill, and which I will endeavour to show do not and cannot arise in view of the undertaking which has been suggested by my

    469
    hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Taunton (Lieut.-Colonel Gault). The position of the Taunton Corporation was that they did not desire an agreement of this nature at all. Their desire was to obtain the necessary loan in order that they might have an opportunity of developing on the most economical lines to suit the necessities of their own district, the undertaking for which they are responsible, and which has been committed to their administration. That was the situation in which the local people administering a local matter of local self-government desired to find themselves.
    Unfortunately, they have not succeeded up to now in obtaining the sanction from the authority under the Act for the loan of money which they desired, and which would have been the most economical course for them to adopt. In those circumstances they were offered instead a supply of electricity, and then came the question, could an agreement lawfully be made? Was it an agreement which, having regard to the terms of the Act of 1926, Was within the power of the other side to enter? The other side took advice, and they were advised, and as far as the corporation know are still advised, that this was an agreement which they could lawfully make, having regard to the terms of the Act of 1926. If the House will forgive me for using one of those bits of dog Latin used in the Law Courts about these matters, they were advised ultimately that the matter was within their power, that is to say, intra vires. The corporation themselves had some doubt about it, and they took advice which was to the contrary effect.
    They found themselves placed—and it is a commentary on the difficulties of the corporation—in this position, that, desiring to get a loan which they could not get, they were offered something else which would be of assistance to them, although more expensive than that which they desired, but which in the circumstances was the only thing to take. They were then advised that the people who were proposing to enter into that contract had no power to enter into it, although the people on the other side were advised that they had the power. The Taunton Corporation did the only thing they could do in the circumstances. They could not leave the people in their district to suffer as the result of this legal difficulty—and however interested the House is in the
    470
    legal difficulty and whether the conditions of the Act of 1926 are to be treated as sacrosanct—the consequences in the succeeding winter of being without electric current.
    Mr. CULVERWELL: May I interrupt?
    Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: No. That being the position, the corporation promote their Bill, and, having promoted it for the purpose of giving effect to this arrangement and indeed to remove the doubt which has arisen, the Government then introduce their Bill, which deals with a much wider problem, and, as I understand, with other problems. The corporation waited and waited all through this Session of Parliament in the hope that business would be so conducted that it might be possible for them to drop their Bill, or to drop these Clauses, by reason of the fact that the Government Bill had gone through. I am not ascribing or attempting to ascribe to anybody in any part of the House any blame for that situation. It arises owing to the congestion of public business. That is why at this time, still faced with the same difficulty, the corporation cannot, in pursuance of their duty to the public, any longer leave this matter without attempting to get it regularised, so that the agreement, which is the only thing offered to them, may be lawfully entered into. That is the position.
    In those circumstances, if the Government Bill had the smallest possibility of getting through this Session—by which we mean when we go into Recess at the end of next month—the corporation of Taunton are not in the least interested in this great problem, in this great principle. Neither are they interested in anything except doing their duty to the people of whose affairs they are in control. If there were the smallest chance of that happening the Instruction would be accepted without any more ado. The corporation want to administer their electrical property. They do not want to put on the Statute Book any sort of principle that is going to affect other cases. Indeed, if it were possible now for the loan to be granted so that they could go on in the ordinary way, in the way they want to go, there would be no necessity for this Bill. It does, however, raise a difficult situation, and one which I beg the House not to regard lightly, as I am sure it will not.

    471
    As to the questions which, have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), I do not think that he has done full justice to the offer that was made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Taunton with regard to our accepting, when the Bill goes upstairs, the terms of the Government Bill, of the Government section, as it stands at present. Perhaps I may be permitted very briefly to tell the House the effect of that. First of all, the agreement must be subject to the approval of the Electricity Commissioners. The corporation are content that that should be made a term of their Bill and of their agreement. Secondly, under the Government Bill the Commissioners are not to give their assent unless they are satisfied that the arrangement will not result in financial loss to the board. That answers one of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon. The Commissioners are to give authorised undertakers—I commend this to the attention of my colleagues from the city and county of Bristol—who are under contract to supply electricity, the power to make representations dealing with this very matter. I have no doubt, and I suggest that there can be no doubt, that those safeguards which have been introduced into the Government section, if they were introduced into the Taunton Corporation section, as we contend that they should be, would have the effect of removing a great many of the difficulties which have been held over the heads of some of us in the course of this evening's Debate.
    Mr. N. LINDSAY: Suppose that this House, in its wisdom, should make further alteration in Clause 1 of the Government's Bill, what then?
    Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: My hon. Friend cannot really expect the corporation of Taunton to undertake to put into their Bill a section which they have never seen. They are content to accept the section in the terms in which it has left another place, the section in the Bill which is now upon the Order Paper of this House, and my argument is that that is sufficient, and ought to be sufficient, to meet the difficulties, because the corporation is providing a new safeguard for other places and for ensuring that there is no loss to the board. I do not desire to follow my hon. Friend the Mem-
    472
    ber for Bristol, South (Mr. N. Lindsay) into an examination of the true situation with regard to the Portishead Station. It is sufficient for the moment for me to say that some question has arisen in regard to the boilers at that station, and that we are by no means satisfied with the position.
    In these circumstances, I do ask the House not to say with regard to this borough that by merely passing this Clause to deal with an urgent situation in one particular district the House is giving away any question of principle whatever. Without expressing any view, indeed, if the House likes, reserving every view as to the ultimate fate of the Government's Bill on the larger question which the Government Bill may involve, and in dealing here with what has become, and will become during the next few months, an emergency situation, I do say that the House ought to permit the Bill to proceed, or this Clause to proceed. We are asking that the Clause should be allowed to proceed so that, having regard to the exceptional situation and the emergency which is going to arise, the Corporation may have an opportunity of making out their case, if necessary, for exceptional treatment. I have the very largest sympathy with those who think that exceptions to the general law of the land ought not to be made, as a general rule on behalf of particular councils, but here the position is at least doubtful whether an exception is being made.
    The House will appreciate that if this thing is intra vires, if the opinion obtained by the board should turn out to be right, the agreement could have been made and brought into force without the necessity for any Bill. Therefore, what the House is really doing if it passes the Instruction, on something where, apparently, the lawyers differ, where there is a doubt, whether the board could do it or not is to say that the Taunton Corporation in these circumstances shall not have the opportunity upstairs of trying to prove their case and of trying to get the powers which they tell the House, through my hon. and gallant Friend and myself, they are really desirous of getting, because they feel it their bounden public duty to try to get. That is the issue, not an issue as to whether we are giving away a question of principle but whether the

    473
    House thinks that it is right to stop this local body from putting forward its case upstairs, having regard to the situation in which its expert people, and those who advise it from the electrical point of view, tell it that it is going to find itself during the coming winter months.
    The House must realise that if by any chance there is delay with regard to the Government Bill, and none of us can prophesy about it—we appreciate the position in which my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport finds himself—the situation may very well be that nothing will be able to be done during the course of this year. In these circumstances I appeal to my hon. Friends. With their general point of view on this question I have the profoundest sympathy. I have acted with them on this principle where there has been no exceptional local conditions which justifies an amendment of the general law in favour of any local authority, but I appeal to them, in this particular case, not to pocket or destroy their principles but to permit these Clauses to proceed to the Committee upstairs where the matter can be thoroughly investigated. If by that time it should turn out that this question has been raised in the courts and that this form of agreement has been held to be intra vires—I understand that one of these agreements has been in existence for years and has never been challenged, at any rate, it has not got into the law courts—we might find ourselves in the ridiculous position of having refused the corporation an opportunity of trying to prove their case when they might well have done it without seeking any approval at all. As to the point that the House is being invited to approve an agreement of which it does not know the terms, that is met by a later Clause which the promoters are willing to accept which will safeguard the interests of those who object. For these reasons, too inadequately placed before the House, I appeal to my colleagues to permit the Bill to go upstairs and give the corporation a chance of dealing with a situation which they regard as grave and troublesome.
    Major LLEWELLIN: Would not the promoters in any event have to produce any existing agreement to the Committee upstairs?
    Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: They probably would. I am not in a position,
    474
    from my own knowledge of the procedure upstairs, to say whether that is so or not, but I am much obliged for the suggestion as it is an additional reason why the matter should be allowed to proceed. If the Committee upstairs comes to the view that the agreement is wholly unreasonable I suspect that that fact might have an adverse effect on the passage of the Bill.
    8.28 p.m.
    Mr. GEORGE BALFOUR: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. N. Lindsay) on the admirable and lucid manner in which he has submitted the case for Bristol. I can confirm what he has said. Equally I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) on having put before us a thoroughly fair and perfectly clear statement of the case as far as the Taunton Corporation is concerned. I find myself in this difficulty. We are faced with a private Bill containing Clauses which, in fact, cannot properly be presented to the House otherwise than in a public Bill. It deals with matters not only affecting the relations of Bristol and Taunton but the relations of every selected station and every owner of a non-selected station. While a private Bill contains such matters it is clear that it is totally inappropriate to consider it as a private Bill. On the other hand, a Bill is coming from another place to amend the Electricity Act of 1926. It amends that Act in only one particular, and that is to extend the powers of the Central Board, and in so far as it is a Bill to give effect to that one simple object, the Central Board being a statutory authority, it should in the ordinary course come before this House as a private Bill. We find ourselves therefore in the peculiar and complicated position of having to resent Clauses in a private Bill which should never be dealt with in a private Bill and also Clauses in a public Bill which in my judgment can only be considered appropriately in a private Bill.
    Let us try and get the matter straight. The difficulty arises under the 1926 Act, where all selected stations are bound to operate entirely under the direction and control of the Central Board. The whole of the output of these stations to be absorbed and consumed by the selected station owners themselves, or the balance

    475
    of the aggregate transmitted to other stations, was to produce such economy that the board would be able to establish a grid tariff, which would enable them to offer such tempting and favourable terms to non-selected station owners that they would be tempted to buy their current from the grid. That has not materialised. The selected station owners, Taunton to wit, simply have no use for the tariff under the grid scheme. Then the Central Board says, "Cannot we make a bargain with you?" and they thereupon enter into a bargain which I hold, and have always held, to be ultra vires to the Act of 1926. They say, "We will give you current at such a price." I have not seen the agreement, indeed, I never heard it, referred to until this evening, but I can say that it is based on these terms; your costs amount to so much, we will give you a price which, including deductions equal to the contributions which will be necessary to amortise the outstanding debt upon your station, shall not be dearer than your price to-day.
    Several of these agreements have been entered into. In my particularly difficult position, so closely identified with the electricity industry, I have endeavoured to do nothing and to say nothing which will embarrass the Electricity Commissioners or the Central Board, but when these matters emerge on the Floor of the House the least I can do is to try and give the House such guidance as I can by a clear exposition of the position, without any desire to take sides in the issue, but simply with an endeavour to see that the House has the issue clearly before it.
    The whole question in this Bill, which should never have been brought forward as a private Bill, and the issues which will arise in the other Bill, is the question whether, despite the 1926 Act and in spite of the 1926 Act, we are now to say that as the grid tariff does not work we are to give powers at large, a blank cheque, to the Central Board to make agreements in any terms they may desire. They may say "Go to the Electricity Commissioners." My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridgwater has had experience of the relationship between the Central Board and the Electricity Commissioners. I cast no aspersion and make no suggestion and
    476
    am dealing only with the facts. My hon. and learned Friend has said that Taunton desired to extend their plant, that they were refused, that they went to the Central Board and made a bargain with the board. Why cannot the Commissioners give power to extend the station? They have to make this bargain to get current at a price which is below the grid price. At the expense of whom? It can only be at the expense of the selected station owners. The Central Board have not a penny invested in power stations in England. The money must come out of the capital resources of other people.
    I do not want to burden the House with a mass of detail, but I do urge my hon. Friend the Minister to have regard to the fact that this matter digs deeply into principles which will not only affect electricity supply but will affect many other institutions, enterprises and businesses in the country. If we are not to consider these matters from that standpoint, but to consider each one merely as a trading proposition, I am afraid that this House has ceased to function in its proper capacity. My hon. Friend the Minister of Transport said that the principle in these two Bills was exactly the same, and he rather indicated—I do not think he went so far as to state—that the Government Bill will come before the House and will be pressed through. I do hope that my hon. Friend in his ministerial capacity will keep an open mind.
    We are in this country drifting dangerously near the control of the Minister by the Department in many of our affairs, and the time has come when we must assert definitely the control of this House over Ministers and Ministers' control over the Departments, rather than the Departments' control over the Ministers and the Ministers' control over this House. I hope that nothing I have said will in any way indicate any feeling of antagonism or of distrust of either the central board or the electricity commissioners. I do not think I exaggerate when I say that all the members of both those bodies are not only esteemed, but I think I can call them personal friends; and I am stating what I state as I feel bound to state it, very reluctantly. I detest becoming embroiled in matters that affect the industry but whatever odium attaches these things must be

    477
    stated unless we are to drift into a parlous condition.
    8.39 p.m.
    Major MILNER: I hesitate to intervene in this Debate, because I have no special technical knowledge. I was most impressed by the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson), but it occurred to me that there is surely a greater responsibility on the Government than the hon. and learned Gentleman had assumed. I invite the Minister of Transport to state when the Government propose to bring the public Bill into this House and to pass it. The Minister told us that this would be done without avoidable delay. I am sure the Minister can give us a much closer approximation to the time when the Bill is likely to come forward. He does not tell us more closely or more definitely, I am afraid, because he fears that the Bill may not come before the House until after the Autumn Recess. In that event surely this House is not going to refuse to the Taunton Corporation at least a hearing before the Committee. That is what we are really discussing. I say nothing as to the particular merit of Taunton's case, because I am not competent to do so. I understand that the Law Committee of the Association of Municipal Corporations have considered the matter, and that with all the weight which they have they have expressed a somewhat similar view. I do not propose to go into the details of the Measure, but I press the point that unless the Minister can tell us something much more definite the House ought to permit the Bill to proceed, so that the Taunton Corporation can have an opportunity of proving its case before a Committee of this House.
    8.42 p.m.
    Sir GEOFFREY ELLIS: I should not have risen but for what has been stated by the last speaker. This is really a question of principle and of a principle which goes a very long way. Those of us who are connected with the industry feel the deepest sympathy with the unfortunate position in which Taunton has found itself. The question behind this is, what electricity is to cost in future and who is to pay for it? One cannot possibly admit that that question is to be decided by a side issue in a private Bill. The whole question is essentially one for the House to consider, possibly by a Select
    478
    Committee, and it is essentially a question for the House to consider in due course and without haste. It is entirely wrong that there should be an attempt to prejudge it in a private Bill, however awkward that may be for the people concerned.
    8.43 p.m.
    Mr. CULVERWELL: We have now reached the stage when we should come to a decision on the matter. I would like to reinforce what my hon. Friend who has just spoken has said. In his admirable speech my hon. Friend the Member for South Bristol (Mr. N. Lindsay) laid stress not so much on the merits of these Clauses as upon the procedure which the Taunton Corporation adopted for securing powers. I thought that the whole matter would have been closed when we had the expression of opinion from the Minister that this was too great a principle to be decided in a private Bill, and, seeing that a Government Bill which covered the same powers—covered them perhaps in a way which might not satisfy the Taunton Corporation because there are additional safeguards in the Government Bill—I had hoped that the hon. Members who represent Taunton would see that it was not fair to the House to expect a Second Reading Debate upon the great principle of future charges for electricity and the mode in which the Central Board shall conduct its operations. I do not want to discuss the merits of the Clauses, although much might be said about them. We shall have an opportunity of discussing these points presently on the Electricity Supply Bill which is on the Order Paper for Second Reading to-morrow. I suggest to the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) that it is strange that the Taunton Corporation should persist in endeavouring to secure the passage of this Bill when there is a Government Bill dealing with the very same points on the Order Paper and the Minister of Transport has told us that that Bill will be proceeded with without unavoidable delay.
    Mr. STANLEY: In the interests of accuracy, may I point out that what I said was "without avoidable delay" and not "without unavoidable delay"?
    Mr. CULVERWELL: I accept the hon. Gentleman's correction. The hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater is of course an adept at addressing juries and

    479
    enlisting sympathy for those whom he is defending, but in this case I think he has rather wasted his rhetorical gifts on the Members of the House. He did not deal with any of the points referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for South Bristol. He suggested that the Taunton Corporation, knowing that they were going to be short of electricity during this winter, had applied to the commissioners for a loan to enable them to extend their plant, and that they had not been able to obtain that loan. But the statement of the corporation does not say that the loan has been refused. The corporation make the extraordinary statement that no communication has since been received from the commissioners upon the subject. If the Taunton Corporation feared that their citizens might have darkened homes during the coming winter because of lack of electricity supply, surely they would have seen to it that they got a reply from the commissioners to their request.
    Then, the hon. and learned Member told us that they had applied to the board and that, unless this agreement—the legality of which they were rather doubtful about—was carried into effect, the inhabitants of Taunton would be without electricity in the course of the winter. He did not tell the House that it is within the option of the Taunton Corporation to join the grid system and to take electricity at the tariff rate. There is no necessity for the inhabitants of Taunton to be without electricity if they do not get an extension of plant. They can take electricity in the same way as any other non-authorised station. The harrowing tale told by the hon. and learned Member apparently appealed to the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) who thought it was an appalling thing that the people of Taunton should be left without electricity, merely because of a doubt in this
    House as to the wisdom of the course which the Taunton Corporation is adopting. Let him be assured that the inhabitants of Taunton can get electricity when they want it by taking it at the tariff rate from the grid instead of getting it in the roundabout and preferential manner advocated by the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater. We are not conversant with the nature of this agreement. The hon. and learned Member when asked whether the corporation would amend these Clauses so as to make them conform with the Clauses in the Government Bill, said the corporation could not be expected to accept a Clause which they had never seen. We have never seen the agreement between the corporation and the Electricity Board. The hon. and gallant Member for Taunton (Lieut.-Colonel Gault) said that the agreement had already been effected.
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: Entered into.
    Mr. CULVERWELL: We do not know the nature of the agreement and I suggest that if the Taunton Corporation are really anxious to secure these powers and this preferential treatment, it would be much better, both from their own point of view and from the point of view of Parliamentary procedure, that they should await the passage into law of the Government Bill. Thereby they would avoid expense both to themselves and to the Bristol Corporation, because that body will feel bound to oppose these Clauses. For those reasons I trust that the House will accept the Instruction which we have moved and await a full consideration and discussion of the great principles involved in these Clauses on the Government Bill when it is submitted to the House.
    Question put, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to leave out Clauses 3 and 4."
    The House divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 35.

    Division No. 296.]

    AYES.

    [8.53 p.m.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Curry, A. C.

    Graves, Marjorie

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    Bernays, Robert

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Dickle, John P.

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Blindell, James

    Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

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

    Boulton, W. W.

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilord)

    Broadbent, Colonel John

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

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Burnett, John George

    Elmley, Viscount

    Harbord, Arthur

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

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Christle, James Archibald

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

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

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Pearson, William G.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

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

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Stones, James

    Janner, Barnett

    Radford, E. A.

    Storey, Samuel

    Ker, J. Campbell

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

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Ray, Sir William

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

    Levy, Thomas

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Rickards, George William

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Ross, Ronald D.

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

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

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    McKeag, William

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Magnay, Thomas

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    White, Henry Graham

    Mander, Geoffrey le M

    Salt, Edward W.

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

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

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

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

    Selley, Harry R.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Withers, Sir John James

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Shute, Colonel J. J.

    Womersley, Sir Walter

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

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield. Hallam)

    Nall, Sir Joseph

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Mr. Noel Lindsay and Mr.

    Culverwell.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Batey, Joseph

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

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

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

    Milner, Major James

    Buchanan, George

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Daggar, George

    John, William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    West, F. R.

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

    Kirkwood, David

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lawson, John James

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Davies, Stephen Owen

    Liewellin, Major John J.

    Dobbie, William

    Logan, David Gilbert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Edwards, Charles

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Lieut.-Colonel Gault and Mr. Croom-

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Johnson.

    Question, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered," put, and agreed to.

  LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD BILL (By Order).
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. MANDER: I desire to raise a matter of general interest concerning the circumstances in which supplies of trolley-vehicles to the London Passenger Trans-port Board can be tendered for. I think it will be generally agreed that, unless there is some very strong reason to the contrary, when powers are given to a great public board of this kind equal facilities should be given to contractors of all kinds all over the country to tender for and to obtain the orders, if they can, on their merits. I understand that it is, as a matter of fact, the intention of the board to pursue that practice and, in so far as all established firms are concerned, to give them an opportunity of tendering for orders freely and fairly; and if that is done, there can be no possible complaint. Among such manufacturers—and there are many in the country—there are
  482
  some who have had a considerable experience of the types that are likely to be required where this regenerative control has been adopted, and I want to ask whether those in charge of the Bill will be good enough to give the assurance, which I believe they are perfectly ready to give, that it is the intention of the board to submit these tenders for the supply of trolley vehicles to open competition.
  9.2 p.m.
  Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: In this Bill the promoters are asking for certain powers in reference to trolley vehicles similar to the powers they already have for running omnibuses, and for powers to fix fares and to arrange stopping places. Therefore, it is germane to the question to consider how they are using their present powers, so as to give one an idea as to how they are likely to exercise the extra powers if they are given them. I would like to mention a certain kind of comment that one hears from one's constituents in the country. Obviously, in the main, evidence will come from the London area direct, but at the same time the provincial ring around London has to be considered, and on the

  483
  outskirts of Hertfordshire we get the powers of the London Passenger Transport Board affecting us, both in my own part of the area, and also further west, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means—who, of course, cannot take part in the discussion to-day—at Watford.
  There is great and widespread dissatisfaction in some of these areas as regards the working of the scheme at present, and it is only right to call attention to the complaints that one hears. A question was asked to-day on the subject by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter). There are complaints that the omnibus services have been reduced and stopping places altered, to the very great inconvenience of passengers themselves, though they were altered, I have no doubt, for special large-scale reasons which do not appeal to the people who use these vehicles. It would require a considerable amount of explanation before one could be satisfied that there had been any good reason for the stopping places being altered as they have been. In many cases the fares have been increased, very often in an unreasonable way, and these grievances have not been given the consideration due from a body like this, established for the public convenience. I have, for instance, the evidence brought before me of complaints by a minister of religion, who has a large and poor parish where he sees the actual hardships that are inflicted upon people who are the users of omnibus services and train services.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I must remind the hon. Member that, except to a very small extent, this Bill affects neither omnibuses nor trains.
  Sir F. FREMANTLE: It affects the people in my district in regard to trolley vehicles because the proposal is to have trolley vehicles in the outskirts as well. Possibly the board may adopt a change of front and a different spirit in using trolley vehicles than they have adopted in regard to omnibuses. The children's fares on omnibuses are being doubled, and that is a great hardship to the children who use the vehicles regularly. If the board are going to do this now that they have become a monopoly, it
  484
  seems probable that from the point of view of a long policy they are looking at it as a matter of business. When we give a big board a monopoly to run services in the public interest, the danger is that in order to be efficient they may try and make a complete businesslike service regardless of the needs of the public. While in general they agree to consider the needs of the public, in actual practice they seem to overlook them. It is in order to call attention to this kind of complaint, for it is right that we should have an explanation from someone speaking on behalf of the Transport Board and a promise that they will pay more attention than they have seemed to do to these minor questions of public convenience in the services which the board ask us to extend.
  9.8 p.m.
  Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: In answer to the question of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), I am authorised to say that the London Passenger Transport Board will, of course, put out public tenders for any machines that they buy under this Bill. With regard to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), to which I have listened with great interest, I can only assure him that it will be read by the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman, and all the board, and that they will take into consideration every word that he has said. Otherwise, I am afraid I was not able to see how his speech was connected with this Bill.
  Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.

  LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD BILL (By Order).

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Further provisions as to Inner Circle.)
    (1) Notwithstanding the repeal by this Act of section eighty-nine of the Metropolitan and District Railways (City Lines and Extensions) Act, 1879, the Board shall continue to provide a continuous service of trains throughout the railways known as "the Inner Circle," not less frequent than the service provided immediately before the passing of this Act until the South Kensington Station has been reconstructed so that passengers arriving from either direction at a platform at that station can continue their journey along the Inner Circle by entering a train from the same platform.
    (2) At all times after the reconstruction of the South Kensington Station the Board

    485
    shall provide a service of trains each way between that station and Edgware Road Station not less frequent than the service of trains between those stations immediately before the passing of this Act.—[Sir W. Davison.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    9.10 p.m.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This Clause will be an addendum to Clause 102 of the Bill, which repeals the provisions for the continuous working of the Inner Circle. It says:
    "Section 89 (For securing continuous working of Inner Circle) of the Metropolitan and District Railways (City Lines and Extensions) Act, 1879, is hereby repealed."
    Ever since 1879 the citizens of Kensington, Paddington and the surrounding districts have had the statutory privilege of continuous journeyings in Inner Circle trains to and from the city, either on the north side by Edgware Road and Baker Street, or on the south side by South Kensington and Gloucester Road. It is now proposed by Clause 102 of the Bill to take away those privileges which have been enjoyed by Statute for upwards of 50 years. I need not say what a great convenience those privileges have been to the people of Kensington and the surrounding districts. It is strongly felt and commonly expressed in the west of London that one of the first actions taken by this new transport monopoly should be the curtailment of facilities which a large number of citizens have possessed for some 50 years. In fact, some of us rather feared that when we had a monopoliy of this kind that might be the result, and it is curious that the first action of the board so far as my constituents and the constituents of some of my hon. Friends are concerned is seriously to curtail privileges given to them by this House.
    The borough council of Kensington petitioned against this Bill, but finally decided by a majority vote not to proceed with their petition mainly on the grounds set out in the memorandum which has been circulated by the London Passenger Transport Board, that in the interests of London as a whole it was desirable that the Circle trains should be discontinued. The town clerk also received a letter assuring the borough council that the service would not be less
    486
    than it had been before. Notwithstanding the serious inconvenience which this proposal will occasion to the people of Kensington and the surrounding districts, they are prepared to agree to the release of the statutory privileges provided the train service which they now have is not less good after the Bill is uassed than it is to-day, and provided also that the Circle trains are continued until such time as they can change into a train on the same platform at South Kensington without going up the bridge and down the other side. I hope the House will realise how inconvenient it is for passengers to change trains at all. They will very likely have to get out at South Kensington or Edgware Road and find a full train waiting, and have to strap-hang for the rest of the journey. It will be intolerable if in addition they have to cross a bridge in order to find another train.
    The Town Clerk of Kensington has had a letter from the Transport Board stating that they propose to continue a not less good service than previously, and I desire to say at once that there is nothing in what I am submitting now which in any way affects the validity or the desirability of the acceptance of assurances given in the conduct of Bills in a committee room. I do think this case is slightly different; but that is not the point which I am raising. Our main point is that if Parliament is taking away from a body of citizens a privilege which was given to them by Statute more than 50 years ago it is not too much to ask that Parliament should secure for them not all that they had before but at any rate a service of trains equally as good as that which they at present enjoy. The new service will be a shuttle service, and instead of getting into the train at Kensington High Street or Notting Hill Gate or Praed Street and going right through to their destination in the City passengers will have to change; but at any rate we ask that we should have an equally good service. There is no intention, as suggested in the memorandum of subverting—I think that is the phrase that is used—the established practice of accepting undertakings given by promoters of Bills.
    This case can be quite well differentiated from that in which undertakings are ordinarily given in Committee when Bills are before Parliament, although I recognise their validity. We are not

    487
    suggesting that it may not be in the public interest that these Inner Circle trains should be discontinued, but if the House discontinues a privilege which a large district of London has had, by the authority of this House, for upwards of half-a-century, we say that it is not unreasonable to request that the same Measure which takes away those privileges should contain a Clause saying that the future service shall not be less complete than that which the inhabitants of the district have previously had.
    9.18 p.m.
    Mr. JAMES DUNCAN: I beg to second the Motion.
    The Inner Circle service serves a considerable number of people, because the population of Kensington at the last census was somewhere in the region of 180,000 and the population of Padding-ton in the region of 144,000, and, in addition, there are considerable numbers of people—as can be seen on the platform of High Street Kensington Station at any rush hour—who though they do not live in either Kensington or Paddington use the Inner Circle. Therefore, this facility is of considerable importance not only to those in the locality but to all those who live elsewhere in London and work in the locality in the daytime. I feel that this privilege, which has existed for so long, ought to go on in the future uninterruptedly. This is an old statutory right. It may interest the House to know that the intention when the Act of 1879 was passed, Section 89 of which it is now proposed to repeal, was to link up the gap between Aldgate and the Mansion House and the eastern end of the Inner Circle by joining up the Metropolitan Railway with what was then called the Metropolitan District Railway. It was clearly stated that the intention was to secure to the public the advantages of "continuous working" of the Inner Circle service—those were the actual words of the Act.
    Therefore, Parliament in those days decided that the Inner Circle was to be worked continuously. Times have changed since then, and the suburbs have grown, as the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir G. Hamilton) will no doubt agree; and as I understand it the London Passenger Transport Board now wishes to increase its suburban services, which it cannot do
    488
    at the moment, as every fourth train must be an Inner Circle train running round this railway. The people of Kensington and the Kensington Borough Council realise the position, and have no wish to interfere with the plans of the Transport Board to increase their suburban services, provided they can get an adequate service on the Inner Circle between South Kensington and Edgware Road. This is an old statutory right to an adequate service, which is still very badly needed not only by local residents but by those who work in the district. This Clause has really been agreed to in effect, because the Town Clerk of Kensington received a letter, dated the 27th April, from the Vice-Chairman of the London Passenger Transport Board, which, as can be seen from the document which has been circulated by the board, embodies in effect what is proposed in this Clause. But that statement only says it is the intention of the board, according to paragraph 6, to provide a shuttle service. By paragraph 7 it is also indicated that the platform interchange will be provided. In our opinion that is not sufficiently definite, although we naturally take no exception to the honesty or integrity of the board in making that promise. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) has already said, this is an old statutory right, and this undertaking is something rather different from the ordinary undertaking given to a Select Committee upstairs. This undertaking was not given to the Select Committee but only to the Town Clerk and the Borough Council, and in view of the fact that this is an old statutory right we feel the House ought to insert this new Clause in the Bill to make the matter more definite.
    9.23 p.m.
    Mr. WEST: It seems to me that the chief argument put forward by the two hon. Members for Kensington who have spoken has been the fact that the Act was passed in 1879, 55 years ago. From a transport point of view that would be, to my mind, a jolly good argument in favour of changing the law. Their argument is on the lines of saying that because old horse omnibuses were given rights in 1790 we ought to continue them in 1934. As the last speaker said, times have changed since 1879, and in no respect more than in transport conditions. Kensington and Paddington ought not to

    489
    look upon this matter from so parochial a point of view. It is bigger than a Kensington or Paddington problem; it is a London problem. Let us look at some of the changes that have occurred. The traffic in the West End of London from North to South of the division has diminished a great deal. Let any hon. Member stand in the Westminster Station of the Underground Railway and take a check for himself of the trains going through—the District Railway and the Inner Circle Railway. I have travelled on those lines for the last 12 years, and am beginning to think that I am at least an expert on the Inner Circle Railway. Stand on the platform, especially in the rush hours between 5 and 7 p.m., and you will see two or three trains packed to capacity; they are the east to west trains, the District trains. Then there comes a half-empty train, and without looking at the sign you can see that it is an Inner Circle train. The Inner Circle trains are half-full at this period, and they constitute, roughly, 20 per cent. of the traffic. One in every five of the trains going between Westminster and Victoria Stations is an Inner Circle train; in other words one-fifth of the traffic at that important time is running half-full, and four-fifths is running packed beyond all bearing.
    Not only has the traffic in the West End of London diminished from north to south, but it has been given increased facilities in the last five years. There is a new shuttle service between Edgware Road and Earl's Court, and an omnibus service, 49, between High Street, Kensington, and Gloucester Road. As every hon. Member knows, there bas been a tremendous movement of population in London. The population inside London has diminished by many hundreds of thousands; the population outside, in the Western suburbs, has grown by nearly 1,000,000 in the last 10 years. As long as the Inner Circle trains occupy such an enormous part of the time, it is quite impossible to increase the number of trains to take a tremendously-increased traffic from west to east or east to west.
    I agree with the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) that this change-over will certainly inconvenience, to a small extent, all the passengers who come from Kensington and have to change at South Kensington. On the average it means between one and two
    490
    minutes inconvenience in the changing of trains. The trains are every two minutes, so that it only averages a minute's inconvenience. It will inconvenience for one minute 10 per cent. of the passenger traffic, but it will greatly convenience 90 per cent. of the passengers moving from east to west. You have to consider the convenience of the vast majority of the people who use these railways. I cannot claim to be a traffic expert, but I have no doubt whatever that the experts of the London Passenger Transport Board have weighed and considered, with a wealth of statistics that we do not possess, the pros and cons of this problem. I believe that they have considered it, not from the point of view of Paddington and of Kensington, but from the point of view of the whole traffic problem of London. I have confidence that in the repeal of this Section they are doing something which will be beneficial to 95 per cent. of the railway passengers of London and the suburbs.
    9.29 p.m.
    Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: As I was chairman of the Committee which considered this Bill upstairs, it might be as well for me to say a word or two about the position. The Royal Borough of Kensington presented a petition against the Bill, but that petition was withdrawn on the understanding that an undertaking was given by the London Passenger Transport Board that a sufficient service would be instituted instead of the statutory service which at present exists. Consequently, the Committee did not go into the details of the matter. If the borough had then proceeded in opposition to the extent of endeavouring to secure the insertion of this Clause, then the whole matter could have been exhaustively discussed by means of counsel for and against, as the rest of the Bill was treated upstairs. That was the position. It is not for me to say whether the board's proposal ought to be accepted or rejected, but I feel bound to say that any such undertaking given by a great public board such as the London Passenger Transport Board is at least as good as a statutory Clause. I can scarcely imagine such a body not fulfilling their undertaking. Moreover, they have the strongest reasons for fulfilling it, for if they did not, they would prejudice all their future dealings with this House.

    491
    I think it was right that I should put before the House the position as it exists.
    9.31 p.m.
    Sir G. HAMILTON: I cannot but feel that my hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan) has been rather led into this matter by his colleague, the energetic and enthusiastic Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison). The hon. Member for South Kensington has obviously not read the letter addressed to his own council by the board. Nevertheless, he asked one most important question, as to whether it would be necessary to change platforms and go over a bridge at South Kensington Station. The letter addressed to the council is perfectly clear; it says:
    "Passengers shall be able to continue their journey in the trains proceeding east and west respectively by merely crossing over the platform."
    That, obviously, means that they have not to go over a bridge. Then the question was raised by one of the hon. Members for Kensington whether the service would be equal to what it now is if the Inner Circle trains were knocked out. This letter, which is a definite undertaking and one which I am glad to hear from the Chairman of the Committee which considered the Bill upstairs is regarded as equally binding upon the board as if it were put in under this new Clause which the hon. Member for South Kensington has so ably moved, definitely says that the service at present 1s 7½ minutes, on Sundays 10 minutes, and that the board would contemplate trying out a service of trains—what are called shuttle trains—at 4½minute intervals; but that, of course, the continuance of such a service at 4½minute intervals would depend on whether the traffic entitled the board to run such a service. Surely that answers the whole of the questions raised by the two hon. Members for Kensington. My hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington is an alderman of the council, and here is the official answer of the council to the board. They say:
    "I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 27th April last. In consideration of the undertaking given by the board to reconstruct South Kensington Station and to maintain a service of trains at least as good as that of the present Inner Circle, this Council has instructed me to withdraw their opposition to Clause 90 (Repeal of provisions
    492
    as to the continuous working of the Inner Circle) of your Bill."
    9.33 p.m.
    Sir W. DAVISON: I said in my speech that the Kensington Borough Council decided by a majority to withdraw their petition prior to the Committee stage of the Bill, the reasons being to a large extent those set out in the memorandum of the board. As my hon. Friend says, I am an alderman of the council, but I had no reason to know that, because, as the hon. Member will see, this report, which was brought up to the council suggesting that the petition should be withdrawn, was a manuscript report brought up immediately before the council meeting and not circulated, as is the practice with our reports. Many members of the council did not know, about it and had no notice of it until the actual meeting of the council.
    Sir G. HAMILTON: I am sorry that the hon. Member should criticise the council in this matter. I thought that the Kensington Council conducted their business with a little better respect for public policy than the alderman would give me to understand. Surely when the council replies officially by their town clerk, accepting an undertaking, it is improper for an alderman to come here and say that the town clerk was not authorised to write that official letter.
    Sir W. DAVISON indicated dissent.
    Sir G. HAMILTON: The hon. Member insinuated it.
    Sir W. DAVISON: I said that the resolution was carried by a majority, and the town clerk had to act upon the decision of that majority.
    Sir G. HAMILTON: I heard what the hon. Member said, but I do not want to have any dispute or argument. I cannot accept one alderman against the official opinion of the Kensington Council and against an official letter which I hold in my hand. I know that the hon. Member is what we would describe in this House as a great Tory. He believes that the principles which governed the traffic of London in 1879 are good enough for that traffic to-day. Unfortunately, we who live in London and have had to experience that traffic, both in the strike as well as in other times, realise that the

    493
    traffic in London is impeded by some of those old Acts of Parliament. Some of us who travel on the District Railway realise that to have a service on the Inner Circle travelling over lines where you can get only 40 trains in the hour, is blocking those lines, because other trains cannot get along, for the reason that that service has to be kept up. Surely it is wrong for hon. Members to get up and obstruct a Bill—
    Sir W. DAVISON: No.
    Sir G. HAMILTON: Well, to try to get a Clause put in the Bill—let us put it that way—when that Bill has been approved by a Committee of this House. Every undertaking which the Board can give to Kensington has been given. By an old practice of this House an undertaking has been given by the Chairman of the Committee, and that is just as sacred to this House as though it were in a Clause in a Bill. If a definite undertaking is given and is reported to this House, it is just as good as any Clause in a Bill, and to throw an aspersion on an undertaking by suggesting that you cannot accept it is most improper and would throw very grave doubts upon a past procedure of this House which has been so successful. It is a matter of vital importance. The Bill should be passed and passed at once. It is unfortunate that this proposal for an additional Clause has been put down, because I understand that 99 per cent. of the people concerned with the Bill consider that the undertakings given meet fully and completely the desires of the two hon. Members for Kensington. I hope that those hon. Members will not press their demand to have this Clause inserted, but will allow the Bill to go through as reported by the Committee.
    9.39 p.m.
    Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: I support the inclusion of the new Clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison). I would say quite clearly that neither I nor my friends who speak in support of its inclusion in any way doubt the good faith of the board's intention to carry out the undertaking which has been given; neither do we suggest that it is not necessary to alter the service which is being given on the Inner Circle Railway. We realise that the traffic in 1879 does not compare with the traffic of to-day,
    494
    and that it is essential there should be an alteration. There has been an enormous increase in the number of inhabitants and in the development of the Underground, tube and omnibus transport systems, and a large transfer of population to the outer areas of London, and all those factors naturally and rightly necessitate an alteration in the service which was given in 1879. We agree with all that, but that is not the point. The point is that in 1879 there was statutory power that this service should run for the benefit of the public, and that statutory power is now to be taken away. A new service is to be introduced, and an undertaking has been given that it will be at least as good as that which is given at the present time. The board have also said that they hope to be able to improve it. I very much hope that they will. Our point is that the service which is running to-day was run under statutory power and that, as that is being taken away, it is only right and fair that the new service should also be given under statutory power. I cannot see any logical reason for objecting to giving statutory power to this new service.
    Speaking as the Member for South Paddington, and especially in the interests of the very important shopping interests in that constituency, I realise that this is a very important matter and that the service rendered by transport, whether on the Inner Circle, the Tube or the omnibuses, should be as easy and as efficient as it is possible to make it. Shops depend to a very great extent for their patronage on the ease and convenience of the transport of the area in which they are placed, and, whenever any alteration is brought about in the ease and convenience of that transport, it directly affects the shopping interests in the locality. We have had a continuous Inner Circle service up to the present time, but now that is to be taken away, and people who have been in the habit of going from the south of the Park to the north and vice versa for shopping purposes, will now have to change trains at South Kensington. That is a definite inconvenience; it is true that it is mitigated by their only having to walk across the platform, but it is nevertheless a real inconvenience. I very much hope that the board will be able to give a better service—that is, a greater number

    495
    of trains—in the shuttle service that they are to introduce, because that will do away with the possiblity of overcrowding and of straphanging in the trains when people change at South Kensington. Incidentally, it will diminish, by the greater number of trains which will be running, the inconvenience of having to change at South Kensington. In the interests of the very important shopping centre of South Paddington, I hope that the House will accept this new Clause and that the opposition to it will be withdrawn.
    9.45 p.m.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): In rising to say a word in this Debate, I do not wish in any way to influence the votes of Members of the House one way or the other. It seems to me that the case has been very well put on both sides, but that the real point at issue is not a very great one. It is only whether an agreement should be accepted which has been made upstairs in the ordinary course of Parliamentary business in Committee, or whether a definite Clause, which does not exactly reproduce that agreement, should be put into the Bill by the House at this stage.
    Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Has this undertaking, which has been given in Committee upstairs, the force of law?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: It is perfectly obvious that what the Chairman of the Committee says should be accepted by the House, and an engagement of this kind entered into by the parties upstairs has more, if I may say so, than the force of law, because no great public authority, or, indeed, any party to a Parliamentary discussion upstairs, could make such an agreement and break it without risking for ever their chances of getting anything out of Parliament. I can tell my hon. and gallant Friend from my own experience, which is a very long one, in Committees of both Houses of Parliament, that these engagements are continually made and are invariably accepted in good faith by both parties. I have no suggestion to offer to the House except that it seems to me that the letters which have passed between the vice-chairman of the Transport Board and the town clerk of Kensington are ample proof that the people of Kensington, through their elected representatives, have accepted this agreement.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 40; Noes, 120.

    Division No. 297.]

    AYES.

    [9.48 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Elmley, Viscount

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

    Rickards, George William

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Robinson, John Roland

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

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Bernays, Robert

    Harbord, Arthur

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Boulton, W. W.

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Bracken, Brendan

    Hellgers, Captain F F. A.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Jamieson, Douglas

    White, Henry Graham

    Buchanan, George

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    McKeag, William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Curry, A. C.

    Magnay, Thomas

    Mr. James Duncan and Vice-

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Maxton, James

    Admiral Taylor.

    Dickle, John P.

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

    NOES.

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Batey, Joseph

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Crossley, A. C.

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Daggar, George

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Blindell, James

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

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

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Graves, Marjorie

    Burnett, John George

    Davies, Stephen Owen

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Dobbie, William

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

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

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Edmondson, Major Sir James

    Grimston, R. V.

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Edwards, Charles

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Munro, Patrick

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Nation, Brigadler-General J. J. H.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Stevenson, James

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

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Stones, James

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Storey, Samuel

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Pearson, William G.

    Strauss, Edward A.

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

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    John, William

    Radford, E. A.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Ker, J. Campbell

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

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Kirkwood, David

    Rankin, Robert

    Wallace, John (Dunfermilne)

    Lawson, John James

    Ray, Sir William

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

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    West, F. R.

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

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

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Salt, Edward W.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Selley, Harry R.

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Shute, Colonel J. J.

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

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Mr. Edward Grenfell and Sir George

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Hamilton.

    Milne, Charles

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 33.—(Power to work Aldgate to Grove Road tramway on overhead system.)
    9.55 p.m.
    Dr. O'DONOVAN: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    This Amendment is a very modest one. The Clause asks for power to work Aldgate to Grove Road tramway on the overhead system. It has been said that the proposal covers only 1⅞ miles of tramway track but, although the promoters have used in Committee the word "only," what to them is "only" 1⅞ miles of track is the whole of my constituency and a great part of the Whitechapel division of Stepney as well. There is such a thing as Naboth's vineyard, and one vineyard escaped, to wit that termed Bedford Square, for in that area there are many distinguished people whose letters can receive publication in the "Times," and who can speak with ease and persuasion to those in authority, but the area that I represent in default of distinguished people can only produce three Members in this House, one now leading His Majesty's Opposition, one a member of the law, and the other a practising physician, and they are only able to put before Parliament at this stage the very strong objections that we feel to this taking over of a vineyard which is envied by this very powerful corporation. One might almost say that the smallness to which the board draws attention is one reason why it might escape its action. Its promoters say—
    498
    and it is an unfortunate saying—that "to place the promoters of this Bill at the mercy of the Stepney Borough Council is not a business proposition." If that be so, it suggests that Stepney, which values the amenities of its road transport is, for the sake of a business proposition, to be offered something that it does not like, not for the good of London, not for the good of Stepney, but solely for the business prosperity of the London Passenger Transport Board, and that seems to me an unworthy reason.
    May I call attention to the extent of the proposition? It is a line running from Aldgate down to the extremes of the East of London. From Aldgate are five converging lines of busy traffic coming into the bottleneck of Whitechapel High Street and diverging so that the road leads to the docks, to the Epping Forest, to the coast and to East Anglia, and it is suggested in the Bill that at Aldgate there should first of all be a combination of overhead power and the conduit system. Every one in the House and all East Londoners will remember the relief that we felt when the Aldgate haymarket, an ancient institution, was abolished; but, it would be a pity if that obstruction, now gone, is to be replaced by the obstruction of a doubled transport power system. This tram line runs through the biggest thoroughfare of this great city, a thoroughfare lined by trees, having on one side the greatest hospital in London, on the other side two almshouses, a very broad gardened street and is the greatest amenity in the poorest part of London.

    499
    It would be a pity if this Clause should fasten upon us a transport system which may well be suited to those large dormitory villages across the Lea which have ancient trams which might be called the Old Bills of transport, but which trams should not be encouraged to carry their overhead ancient trolleys up the very fine Mile End road. These new tram lines will be noisy and sleep is precious. To go back from the conduit system to the overhead system and replace a tolerable rumble by rumble plus shrill noise is backward progress in transport, a hindrance to the recovery of the sick, and a disturbance to the King's subjects in the night hours.
    Up to the present the local authorities have had, through the power of Parliament, the right of veto. That was given to them in 1900. That veto then was against the introduction of posts and pillars for the overhead system if the local authorities objected. They could exercise that veto by Resolution. If this power was necessary in the days of gentle traffic when children walked about the streets, sometimes under the horses' noses, it is even more necessary to-day when the pace of traffic and the congestion of traffic and the risks of traffic are greatly increased; for, it is the local authorities who are most vigilant for the lives of their people and the transport authorities consider transport as their primary function, and the protection of the lives of His Majesty's subjects is not the prime function of those whose duty it is to provide transport. The local borough council has a prime duty to conserve the health and lives of its people, and it is very much concerned that its veto should not be removed.
    The addition of wayside posts means the addition of obstructions to the footway, more people and more children in the crowded hours being pushed into the roadside. Pillars and posts cast abnormal shadows at dusk. They cause at times erratic driving. This great road is already a road of slaughter, and the borough council and its people feel that posts will not add to its safety. It has been said that the present middle line that carries the slipper for the power of the conduit system is an added risk to cyclists. There is no one in the House who is more experienced than myself in fatal traffic accidents. It is rare for me
    500
    to hear of a cyclist being killed by being nipped in the middle rail. The cyclist seeing six rails is more anxious than when he sees four, and the danger to a cyclist largely comes from his zeal to use machines with extremely shallow treads which will sink into the ordinary slot quite as easily as the centre slot. It is a new thought to me that the Transport Board should seriously put before Parliament, through a Select Committee, its care for the cyclist with a light machine as the solid reason which has moved them to give us in the Mile End Road an ancient trolley overhead system.
    It has been said to Parliament, through its Select Committee, that, if this veto that we have given to the borough councils is lifted in this case, it will not be a precedent. What happens once will happen again. What has happened can always be quoted. Lawyers have great memories, and good card indexes, and what Stepney has suffered will be a precedent to be used against any other borough council which wishes to use the veto that Parliament has given to it. If the Passenger Transport Board were going to give us trolley omnibuses and replace rumble by quietness and rubber, my objection would be largely weakened. The board that would meet our objections more than halfway is a board with which we could negotiate quite amicably, and one would be anxious then to withdraw opposition; but the engineer of the, board has told Parliament that he cannot visualise in the near future trolley omnibuses, the latest thing, "running in this area." That was evidence given to the Select Committee. That is to say, that we who live in the East are not considered worthy of the latest, but must go back to a system that has been given up elsewhere. Stepney Borough Council is a vigilant public body which has, in a constitutional way, put its evidence before the Select Committee, which has listened to its representatives with patience. I believe that a member of the Select Committee visited this area, but as far as I can make out he visited it on the Sabbath day when the conditions of the road are a little different from the traffic with which I have been familiar every day of the week since I was a medical student.
    If hon. Members will inspect the Bill they will see many pages of legal care are given to protect the interests of the Postmaster-General, the London County

    501
    Council, and the interest of the sewers, and pages of protection are given to the City Corporation, but the only privilege allowed to the Stepney Borough Council is that it has the right of saying whether the posts are put in a proper position. The Stepney Borough Council is, in this matter, trusted so little that if it is thought to object unreasonably to the position of the posts, the Minister of Transport is to be called in to help—a more ignominious position for an up-to-date and progressive borough council I could hardly imagine.
    It would be a pity if my remarks were purely destructive. I have commented on our great loss of local amenities. I only wish to say that if we could have an offer of trolley omnibuses all opposition would melt from this side. The one cardinal weakness of the system which has not been touched in this Bill or in Committee is that, if only this tram traffic stopped at what is called Gardiner's Corner the worst congestion, that at the bottle neck of Aldgate, would cease to trouble us. If that could be considered here or in another place, I would not delay this House another minute, but because there is not, to the best of my knowledge, in the whole of Stepney, one enthusiastic supporter of Clause 33, I have felt it necessary to detain the House in order to carry out my duty as a Member for Stepney and to lay before the House the objections which are sincerely felt, in the hope that here or elsewhere they might be met at least in some degree.
    10.9 p.m.
    Mr. JANNER: I beg to second the Amendment, which has been so ably brought to the notice of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Dr. O'Donovan), in the hope that the House will appreciate the very important principles involved. This is not a minor Amendment but one of extreme importance. It deals with something which has been held very dearly by the whole of the Metropolitan boroughs and which at no time has been altered, although many attempts have been made to alter the position through the House of Commons and elsewhere. It is the right, in the first instance, of the borough council or the highway authority to decide whether it shall or shall not have a particular kind of tramway service. If it were for that reason alone, hon.
    502
    Members who are present would consider the position very carefully, and would not allow something which has been of considerable value in the past to be frittered away.
    The people best able to decide the most satisfactory system of transport in that particular district by reason of the fact that they have hitherto had the right to say what should be the system, should not be thrown upon the mercy, generosity or good will of any other body, or even of the Minister of Transport himself. The case is one which admirably illustrates how absurd it would be to leave the decision of this nature in the hands of anyone who does not understand the district thoroughly. The board are asking that an overhead system should be adopted from a place called Grove Road, and that they should have the right to instal that system instead of the conduit system right to Aldgate. Is there any Member in this House who has visited the corner to which my hon. Friend referred—Gardener's Corner—and the bottle-neck at Aldgate, who could say that either of those places is a suitable place at which a change should be made? I should be very greatly surprised, and would certainly like such Member to go down again and compare the congestion which exists at Aldgate or Gardener's Corner with the position at Grove Road. The position at present is that a change-over is made at Grove Road. The Transport Board say that that is a very serious thing because it interferes with traffic, and that instead of interfering with traffic at Grove Road they should interfere with traffic at Gardener's Corner, which is a centre of five main lines of traffic, or let them interfere with the position at Aldgate which is almost invariably crushed out with traffic and with people waiting for various means of conveyance.
    In asking us to accept a Clause of this description they cannot really have studied the position properly. I ask hon. Members, if they intend to vote in the direction other than that in which we ask them to vote, to go down and satisfy themselves of the position. It is not a light matter to interfere with a hospital such as the London Hospital, which is the largest in the world, and has a very large frontage to the road over which this traffic is to be taken. I saw some hon. Members smile when the question of

    503
    sleep was referred to, and I should like to know how they would feel if even a small amount of additional noise were added to that which already exists in that particular road if they happened to be lying in a London hospital about to undergo an operation, or after having undergone an operation. Are not the people who are best able to judge those who control the London Hospital? Is there any person in the London Hospital who has come forward or who is prepared to come forward to say that the overhead lines would be a better system as far as their patients are concerned than the system which exists at present, without the buzz and the noise which necessarily follows the introduction of overhead wires? If that had been the only reason why this Clause should be deleted, that in itself would have been sufficient. It is the suffering mass of humanity who have to go into the hospital who will be interfered with, and that they should not have to suffer more than they have already to suffer is an argument which should be taken into very careful consideration.
    What has actually happened? Whenever the London County Council have introduced any measure to dispense with Section 23 of the Act of 1900, dealing with the right to veto, it has always been defeated. I hope that my hon. Friend who was Chairman of the Committee will forgive me for saying that I cannot accept the statement which his Committee was good enough to make at the time when they came to the decision that it should not be regarded as a precedent. There are 18 other similar centres in London. Stepney was not going to be used as a precedent. The reason why Stepney was not going to be so used was because Section 32 was in itself a sufficient protection. The Minister will agree that Section 32 was the reason why this case was not going to be treated as a precedent. Section 32 is to-day Section 34. Section 34 says:
    "For the purpose of working the Aldgate to Grove Road tramway by electrical power on the overhead system the board may on, in, under or over the surface of any street or road in the Metropolitan Borough of Stepney …"
    do certain things, provided that:
    "no posts poles standards or other apparatus shall be erected on the carriageway of any street or road except with the consent of the Minister."
    504
    Not the consent of the local council, as was the case before. All apparatus and so on is to be approved by the road authority. The road authority is given the right to approve the kind of materials that are to be used, but there is a proviso that consent must not be unreasonably withheld, or the Minister is to be called upon again. The Section says in the first place: "We will do you the favour, as the local council, of coming to you and saying, 'What do you think of it?' When you have said: 'It is a rotten idea,' we shall say: 'We do not agree with you. Therefore, let us take you before the Minister.'" Already we realise what the Passenger Transport Board is going to do in these matters, because they have decided that this is going to be a useful thing for Stepney. Stepney does not want it. The tramway users do not want it. The invalids do not want it. Those who are suffering from noise already do not want it. The passengers who want to go to their jobs regularly and to have the ordinary amenities of life do not want it. Who, in Heaven's name, does want it? The Passenger Transport Board say that they want it because they are going to have a regular service from Stratford and Ilford right down to Aldgate.
    I hope that I have said enough to convince the House that the proposal is absurd, because it will merely mean that a turning will have to be made right in the heart of my constituency, where we have enough congestion already, instead of in a place where at the present time there is comparatively little trouble. It is not fair that the East End of London because it happens to be poor should be made the scapegoat for the introduction of ideas which are to be tried on them first, and afterwards possibly upon other sections of the community, who will have to accept them because poor Stepney had to suffer in the past and had not been able to raise its voice in protest. It is true that it is a poor district and that we have not the people who can protest in higher circles. It is a very fine district, it has wonderful streets, and when aesthetic arguments are advanced let me say that as far as Whitechapel High Street, Whitechapel Road and Mile End Road are concerned, the inhabitants are quite entitled to have their magnificent streets without the obstruction of over-

    505
    head wires and all the maze of trouble which you will get when you have these tramways running from one end of London to another. What do the experts say on this subject? Dr. Kelly in an old report, but which in my view holds good to-day more so than at the time, said:
    "I have to say, after examining very many overhead and underground lines in large cities and especially after seeing the two systems frequently side by side in the same city, that the general convenience of having the roadway absolutely clear of overhead obstructions, especially in important street junctions, seems to be so great that even if the extra cost were much more than it is actually likely to be I think the London County Council ought to adopt for all the central parts of their line the underground system, that is to say, a system in which overhead wires are entirely dispensed with. As to the much vexed aesthetic part of the question. I do not wish to say anything, but I feel certain that in such a large and wealthy city as London, where the tramway traffic will be enormous and especially where in the City of London the tramways are in the hands of the municipality, such overhead arrangements would never be tolerated as more than a makeshift. I believe if the overhead system in the first case were adopted in London there would be, before many years a demand that they should be pulled down and replaced by some other system free from its obvious drawbacks."
    That is what actually happened in London. You had the conduit system right through London and it was only in the outer parts that you had overhead lines. Here, poor Stepney is being attacked in a Bill, in a special Clause all to itself, the outcast of Metropolitan boroughs, in order to persuade it to do something which it realises is not in the best interests of the inhabitants of the district or of those who use the service. My hon. Friend is right in moving his Amendment, we are fully justified in pressing it, and I hope that this House, although it only affects a district which we happen to represent, will in the interests of their own districts, as and when similar attacks might be made, will support us in this struggle against this large and influential body.
    10.24 p.m.
    Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: May I add a word to the discussion on behalf of the Committee which considered the Bill upstairs. They fully sympathise with what has been said by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, but I put this general consideration before the House. Why has the House adopted the procedure of
    506
    sending such Bills to a Select Committee? It is for this reason, that it is perfectly impossible for such Bills to be examined as they ought to be examined on the Floor of the House?
    Mr. JANNER: Then why discuss it at all on the Floor of the House?
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: Why bring forward this Amendment?
    Dr. O'DONOVAN: As the hon. Member has put the question, may I say that having regard to the magnificent work his Committee has produced in this tremendous Bill I thought I had found but one fly in the ointment, one flaw in it, Clause 33, and very diffidently I submitted it for the consideration of the House.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: I thank my hon. Friend for the courtesy with which he has put the matter. Upstairs a number of details, technical, special and local, that it would be impossible to examine on the Floor of the House, were considered. Upstairs each opposed point is gone into and argued most closely by counsel on opposite sides; witnesses are examined and cross-examined; and I can assure the House that a Committee takes a great deal of trouble and gives a great deal of time to consideration of these Bills. The Bill in question occupied 10 days, that is from 36 to 40 hours of close consideration. If this House makes it a practice to Debate the findings of Committees upstairs it would break the system, and in the end I think there would be produced very imperfect work. All I would add now is that all the considerations that have been advanced by my hon. Friends were present to us. Of course, if they oppose a certain course of action they pick out what is favourable to their case, but the majority in the House are not familiar with the details and do not ask questions about them. I cannot now go into the merits of the case. I can only say that we gave to this matter the fullest consideration, with the greatest sympathy with the representations that have been urged to-night, and on balance of public advantage we came to the conclusion that is embodied in the Bill.
    10.28 p.m.
    Miss GRAVES: I rise to support the omission of the Clause. I do so, not because I possess the advantage of my hon.

    507
    Friends of having a constituency bordering on that magnificent highway, but because, perhaps like the majority in this House, I am a common user of the highway and a not uninterested observer of the amenities which there obtain. I shall not detain the House by repeating the arguments which have been set forth. The Chairman of the Select Committee which considered the Bill upstairs has, indeed, put in a most powerful plea for peace. I will only draw the attention of the House to one small illustration, which so far has not been set forth, of the result of going back to a system of overhead wires. The average height of the houses occupied by the people of Stepney is two storeys. It is obvious to everyone that the wires run at the level of the first or sleeping floor. Anyone who has been near Gray's Inn Road, even though so fortunately situated as to live in Gray's Inn itself, knows what the thrash of those wires means at night. I put it to the House, which I know is entirely sympathetic with the unfortunate beings who have to live in rather overcrowded surroundings, sleeping under difficulties very often in that end of London, that it is rather more than a matter of amenity to condemn those who live on the borders of the Mile End Road, to listen to the thrash of those overhead lines at a level with their sleeping accommodation.
    I am not here to insist on the advantages of the change-over from the conduit to the overhead system at Grove Road. It must be obvious to everyone who has to use the bottle-neck of Aldgate that there is no possibility of a convenient turn-round there. There must be some other project in the minds of the London Passenger Transport Board. I very much hope that we shall be assured that the trolley system which, on balance, would have the advantage of doing away with much of the noise, is in their mind in considering the future, notwithstanding the reference which has been made to the engineer's negative suggestion. In that case, to go back to the system of overhead wires would be tolerable and no doubt the people of Mile End would not object to suffering a little in contemplation of the greater convenience and the reduction of noise which must result from the installation of a trolley system of omnibuses. I venture to urge the House
    508
    to consider the sweet reasonableness of the suggestions which have come from Stepney and South Hackney.
    10.31 p.m.
    Mr. WEST: There are many Members who can speak about the inconvenience of train lines in busy London thoroughfares, but I think the cyclists are the best authorities on that subject. In this very important road there are already six tram lines, and I cannot accept the view that the more tram lines there are the more the cyclists are pleased. I cannot believe that if you double the number of tram lines you make the road safer for the cyclists. If that be true, why not have 20 tram lines, and make the roads safe for everybody? Then we should all be happy. Other Members can speak about the general inconvenience to traffic of having trains in a road like the Mile End Road, but this is a special case of traffic obstruction. This road running from Aldgate is a road upon which probably the greatest volume of traffic in London moves every day, to the docks and elsewhere. Yet not only is there a very heavy tram service upon it but a mile down the road—I presume that Mile End means a mile from Aldgate—there is a special obstruction, because the trams there have to change over from the conduit system to the overhead system. Two men are employed all day long at the change-over. The tram has to be stopped, the slipper removed from underneath the tram and the trolley attached to the overhead line. I do not know how much time is occupied, but it is certainly more than is involved in the ordinary kind of obstruction which a tram service has to meet. I think that should be a very important factor in the minds of those governing London traffic.
    Mr. JANNER: What will happen with regard to changing over in the event of the overhead wires replacing the conduit system, where will the change-over take place, and what will happen with the traffic at those spots?
    Mr. WEST: I understand that the authorities are convinced that there will be a less change-over and that less time will be necessary under the new overhead system which will continue along perhaps right into Aldgate itself. In that event the overhead system would be used right throughout the length of the route, and

    509
    the change-over would be only half a change-over. I am no authority on the question of noise, as to which is the noisier, the conduit system or the overhead system. Experts know much more about that than we do, but I believe that this overhead system is again a halfway house towards what we all agree is the more silent system, namely, the trolley-omnibus system. I think it is proper to suggest that the board really have in view the ultimate ideal of an overhead trolley system the whole length of the route, and when that is done, it will solve most of the troubles that afflict hon. Members. I feel that this again is a question of modernising the transport system. I agree that there will be certain drawbacks for the time being, but one cannot hold up these improvements because of parochial troubles, whether in Stepney, Kensington, or anywhere else. I also believe that the best judges as to which is the best system to adopt are the experts who are in charge of the London Passenger Transport Board, and because I believe their judgment is superior to mine and to that of other hon. Members, I hope this Clause will remain in the Bill.
    10.38 p.m.
    Sir G. HAMILTON: My hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Dr. O' Donovan), in his eloquent speech, started by saying that this proposition was put forward entirely because the London Passenger Transport Board wanted to get some financial advantage out of that area. My hon. Friend knows quite well that this House set up that board with one object, and one object only, namely, that it should control the traffic of London economically and efficiently, in the interests of the travelling public. The London Passenger Transport Board introduced this Bill and asked that on this portion of their tramway system, which they have now taken over, they should have permission to use overhead trolleys in addition to the underground conduit system, which they would have to retain because it would be required for certain trams. The reason they want the overhead system on this congested street, where there are many side streets coming in from all directions, is that the underground conduit system has one great fault. If a tram is suddenly pulled up and its electric connection happens to be at the break of
    510
    the rails, and the contact is not made, that tram cannot start again. The result is that another tram has to come up behind and push it along. Sometimes one tram is not enough, and I am sure hon. Members have seen, as I have, in that very road five trams all pushing one wretched tram in order to enable it to regain contact. That creates a tremendous block of traffic in this great main street.
    The London Passenger Transport Board are anxious that there should not be these blocks in the traffic for which they are responsible, and they suggest a way of preventing them and the troubles that arise when a policeman suddenly stops a tram, as he has to do, and a tram gets off the contact. The board are responsible for the traffic in the streets, and they have not come to the House to ask that extra tram fares should be allowed them or anything of that sort. They have made a suggestion in this particular Clause that will improve the efficiency of the tram service in this area. The talk of my hon. Friend the Member for White-chapel (Mr. Janner) about the noise of overhead equipment might have been true 10 or 11 years ago, but, knowing something about electrical engineering, I know that overhead equipment can be made practically silent. To say that the noise of the overhead equipment will disturb the patients in the London Hospital is merely appealing to the sentiment of this House, and I do not think he will improve his case by making statements of that sort. I am certain that if the London Hospital had any feeling against overhead equipment they would have let us know. The hon. Member said they have never sent any message in favour of it. Perhaps they are in favour of it, nevertheless.
    Dr. O' DONOVAN: My hon. Friend will understand that I am a physician on the active staff of that hospital, and that my own patients sleep in a ward aligned against that road. My hon. Friend's old bucketing trams will go past the London Hospital. If he will offer new trams I will withdraw what I said, but I know his ancient vehicles.
    Sir G. HAMILTON: We are not dealing with the ancient trams that come from the borough of Ilford but with new overhead equipment. That modern overhead equipment will not cause any noise

    511
    which will disturb the patients at the London Hospital, and I am sure my hon. Friend will agree with me that the hon. Member for Whitechapel has appealed to the sentiment of the House unnecessarily on behalf of the London Hospital. The real point before the House is a very small one. The London Passenger Transport Board want this Clause because they are convinced that it will improve the traffic facilities of this main artery of our great city. The Clause was most carefully considered in Committee upstairs. Counsel was briefed and was heard, and we have heard from the Chairman of the Committee that the Committee took the matter into every possible consideration. This, I believe, is the Committee's own report:
    "The Committee have considered this with great care. We are asked to say that we think this proved in regard to the line from Grove Road to Aldgate, and in view of the benefit that would result to the public we find that the preamble is proved with reference to this. At the same time we have been very reluctant to interfere with the provisions of the Act of 1900 which gives the right of veto to a local authority, and it is quite clear that this decision does not in any way affect any future case of like kind. We are, of course, saying that Clause 32, providing for the safeguards which have been placed in the Bill, has had very considerable influence in our decision."
    The Committee upstairs have reported in favour of this Bill being given its Third Reading to-night. It is for the London Passenger Transport Board to come to this House to submit their case by counsel to a Committee upstairs, and for that Committee to give us the best advice they can after hearing the arguments from all sides. I appeal to the House not to hang up this Bill any longer, but to let us have a Division and to let the Bill become law.
    Dr. O' DONOVAN: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to suggest that instead of appealing to the House to go to a Division he might appeal to the Mover of the Amendment to withdraw his opposition.
    Sir G. HAMILTON: I do so with the greatest of pleasure.
    Dr. O' DONOVAN: Then I have the greatest pleasure in concurring with that suggestion, because there are other and constitutional means open to a borough council but not open to a Member of
    512
    Parliament which can be employed to test the feeling of Parliament on this matter. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Sir Dennis Herbert): I beg to move, "That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."
    10.51 p.m.
    Sir W. DAVISON: While I agree with the Chairman of the Committee that it is impossible for the House to go into all the details of such a Bill and that it is more advantageous to everyone that it should be discussed in Committee upstairs, I think that on a Bill of this importance, affecting the interests of so many people in the London area, it was a great misfortune, though no doubt one for which hon. Members themselves are responsible, that we had no Second Reading on it. Though it would have been impossible to go into all the details it would have been advantageous if the principal points had been indicated, so that the Committee should have known the general feeling of the House on them. Not only has there been no Second Reading Debate, but at this late hour it is impossible to have a Third Beading Debate, and therefore this Bill, which vitally affects the interests of Londoners, will pass through this House without Debate except for its examination in Committee. I hope the Government will in future act on behalf of the private Members of the House, and not think only of getting the business through. They should secure to the House time for a general discussion on Bills of this importance, apart from those details which are more fitly dealt with in Committee.
    10.53 p.m.
    Mr. JANNER: I want to say two or three words with regard to the points raised by my hon. Friend and in support of them. We have heard a rather interesting theory put forward to-night which, in my view, ought to be entirely set aside, and I hope that we shall not on any future occasion be faced with similar arguments in support of a Bill.
    Mr. McKEAG: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Mile End (Dr. O' Donovan) and another hon. Member to be engaged in an audible consultation during this Debate?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.
    Mr. JANNER: When we are faced at this late hour with the Third Reading of a Bill of this nature, it is rather important that we should consider the suggestion made to us to-night that because the Bill has gone before a particular Committee, and because they have had the opportunity of hearing and examining evidence presented to them, that any conclusion which that Committee may come to must of necessity be accepted by the House, and that every other Member should be excluded from disputing those conclusions. In my view this Bill has certain deficiencies, which, even though they may have been fully discussed in Committee, should, and probably could, be dealt with by the House itself, and although I do not propose to enter into a similar discussion to that which has already taken place I think it would be entirely wrong for us to accept the views of any Committee unless we were thoroughly satisfied ourselves, after having the opportunity of examining evidence. I may say with regard to the last Amendment that my hon. Friend and myself have examined very closely that point of view. Having examined them from the point of view that the words we were putting forward had been considered very carefully vis-a-vis the statements and the evidence that were given in the Committee, I say that the method which has been suggested to us is an entirely wrong one. I hope that even at this late hour the promoters of the Bill, without having to be pressed to come to certain conclusions in respect of several points that have been raised to-night, will see reason, accept the evidence in its proper light, and on several points come to conclusions different from those to which they came before.
    10.51 p.m.
    Sir GEORGE GILLETT: I should not address the House now if the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner) had not made another speech on somewhat similar lines to one which he made earlier in the evening. On his earlier speech I should have voted against him and forced the matter to a Division, much as I believe in the conduit system as against the over-
    514
    head system. I am, however, one of those who believe that one of the beneficial effects on London traffic of the institution of the new Traffic Board has been that the power of the borough councils has been considerably lessened. In the past, it has been impossible ever to get a real traffic system for London, because we have been constantly faced on one matter or the other by the entirely parochial view of the borough councils. No better representation of that view could have been made than that put forward in the speech of one hon. Member this evening. There we heard a purely local view of this problem, the hon. Member basing all his arguments on what would suit the people of his division.
    The whole of the question, however, hinges on a much bigger problem than that which concerns the hon. Member's division. One of the things, apart from the advice of the hon. Member for Whitechapel on these questions, that the House did when London traffic was handed over to this new body was to place the whole problem in the hands of a body of experts who were able to consider wider questions than those which concern the various interests of one small part of London or the other. I very much hope that when these matters come up—and the conclusion of the Debate provides the best possible illustration of the fact that many hon. Members even now hardly know what the problems are with which they have to deal—the House will follow the general line of safety and take the advice of the experts who are controlling the whole traffic problem of London. We should hesitate very much before we take a deciding line against their opinion.
    10.53 p.m.
    Sir HENRY JACKSON: I do not propose to enter into a discussion of the details of the Bill, but as Chairman of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, I may be permitted to say that we examined this Bill in great detail, and entirely approved its present form. I feel that I must make some protest against the speech of the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), who complained that we had not had a Second Reading Debate. This Bill was put down for Second Reading like every other Private Bill. Full notice was given of the fact, but not a word

    515
    was heard, not a voice raised in protest against the Second Reading. It was passed unanimously by this House. Those hon. Members who are now complaining to-night that full opportunity was not given to them missed their opportunity. It was clearly their right on the Second Reading to protest against the Bill, and it would then have followed the ordinary procedure of being put down by the Chairman of Ways and Means at 7.30, and its Second Reading would have been subject to Debate and examination in this House. The principles of the Bill would then have been examined. That procedure, which the hon. Member seems to think has been taken from him, was in fact lost by the absence of hon. Members. There is no cause for complaint at all; the Bill has followed the ordinary constitutional procedure of this House. The Second Reading was passed without a murmur and unopposed, and the Bill was submitted to a Committee upstairs to examine. The hon. Member for South Kensington, and indeed any hon. Member who complains, have only themselves to blame for not taking their opportunity on the Motion for the Second Reading.
    Sir W. DAVISON: May I remind the hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) has exhausted his right to speak.
    King's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  SUPPLY.
  Again considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]
  Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £13,639,924, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Health, including Grants and
  516
  other Expenses in connection with Housing, certain Grants to Local Authorities, etc., Grants in Aid in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, certain Expenses in connection with the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts, and other Services."
  Question again proposed.
  10.56 p.m.
  Mr. PICKERING: I do not know exactly what my position is in this Debate. There is a good deal that I should like to say, and I do not see how I can say it. I am anxious to see the Minister ginger-up local authorities in the matter of slum clearance, and I would emphasise the point that you cannot separate, as they have been separated to some extent, the problems of re-housing and slum clearance. The law insists that houses shall be found for those who are cleared out of the slums, but even if that were done, and done at a rent which would be within the means of those who were cleared out, that would by no means meet the whole problem, because there are not enough houses. That means that new slum areas are being made by reason of overcrowding. We need new houses, and I hope that the Minister will do all in his power to encourage slum clearance and to encourage local authorities, who already have wide powers, to increase the number of houses.
  The Minister says that he has placed before himself the ideal of getting houses built for an inclusive rent of about 13s. Unfortunately, very few houses have been built to let, and that is one difficulty. It is no use pointing to the fact that many new houses have been built. I see those new houses, and the builders are very busy, but the houses are not being built to let, and, even if they were, a rent of 13s. is too much. It is more than most people can pay. I do not want to trespass beyond the boundary of the Debate, but I want to know how far it is within the Minister's power and ability to encourage a scheme which might lower the inclusive rent to less than 13s., which is far more than the average poor working man can pay. There are those who think that it is possible so to co-ordinate the activities of the Ministry of Health, local authorities, public utility societies and private enterprise as to produce at least 60,000 houses a year, to be let at an inclusive rent of 10s., or with the aid of

  517
  the subsidy, where the subsidy was applied, at 7s. 6d.
  It being Eleven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  LICENSING (PERMITTED HOURS) BILL.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith," put, and agreed to.—[The Lord Advocate.]
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

  LICENSING (PERMITTED HOURS) BILL.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Power of licensing justices to make a direction or decision at a meeting held on requisition within two months after passing of Act.)
    Lords Amendment:
    In page 2, line 36, after "sub-section," insert "in England or Wales."
    11.3 p.m.
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Normand): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment, and the other Lords Amendment, are purely drafting Amendments.
    Remaining Lords Amendment agreed to.

  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1933, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the borough of New-castle-under-Lyme, in the county of Stafford which was presented on the 29th day of May, 1934, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1933, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the urban district of Hoylake, in the county of Chester, which was presented on the 29th day of May, 1934, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1933, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the borough of Wallasey, which was presented on the 31st day of May, 1934, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1933, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of the urban district of Festiniog, in the county of Merioneth, which was presented on the 5th day of June, 1934, be approved."—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1933.
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of Regulations proposed to be made by the Minister of Health under Section 204 of the Local Government Act, 1933, relating to the creation and issue of stock by local authorities, a copy of which was presented to this House on the fourteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  FIRST OFFENDERS (PRESS REPORTS).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
  11.4 p.m.
  Mr. CROSSLEY: I desire to raise the question of sensational Press reports of criminal cases in which the defendant is bound over not to offend again, and, in doing so, I would like to apologise to my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for having used, in giving notice of my intention to raise this question, the form of words:
  "Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply."
  I realise that there was much sympathy in his reply to my question and the real reason why I am raising it further is because the answer was that I could not get from the Government the legislation that I desired to get and I hope very much that he will do some-

  519
  thing by administrative means. Perhaps it would be best to illustrate the case that I have to put to the House, if I were to take straight away an example of what I mean by sensational reports of criminal cases. The week before last a young man was convicted before the Cambridge magistrates for stealing books. He was already a young man of distinguished scholastic achievements and good character otherwise and at the time he was sitting for an examination. He was arrested, charged and convicted and the magistrates decided to bind him over for two years. They adopted that lenient course with the object of enabling him to reform himself, to regain his self-respect, to become a good citizen and to put at the service of the State the great gifts which clearly were his. No one could fail to approve of that decision, which is so cognisant of the humanity that has grown in our law. Only 100 years ago that young man would have been sent to Tasmania to spend the rest of his life in company with criminals guilty of gross offences. Now he is given, according to the intention of the magistrates, a chance to put his crime behind him. Has he that chance?
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted and 40 Members being present—
  Mr. CROSSLEY: That young man who had been convicted, the next morning, gratified as he no doubt would be—
  Sir PATRICK FORD: May I point out that the hon. Member may put himself in a difficult position because he made certain reflections on one of His Majesty's Dominions. He talked about the criminals of Tasmania.
  Mr. CROSSLEY: That is 100 years ago, and since then Tasmania has surely grown in population. Perhaps I need not say any more about it. Let me proceed to my real complaint. On the day after that conviction, the young man in question must have opened his morning paper, as many of us in this House did and, to my knowledge, commented upon it, and found in glaring headlines: "Perfect Boy Turns Thief" and underneath "Parents Who Gave All." I think that the House would be with me in saying that those headlines would merit the words "brutal" and
  520
  "callous" and were against the best traditions of journalism. Underneath was a photograph, which is probably a worse pillory to-day than were the stocks in the old days. Beneath that were the titbits of the sensational report, and beneath that again was an interview with the parents of the boy—an interview which was pathetic in that the parents could not possibly have known to what a monstrous use their conversation with the reporter was to be put. Perhaps the only comment with which I might sum up that case would be to say that, in spite of—as the magistrates intended-being able to add honour in future to the boy's name, by not only loading it with distinction, but also by the additional achievement of putting his offence behind him, if indeed he is ever going to win honour in this country, he has probably got to change that name for another. I apologise to the House for dragging up that wretched case at all. I do not apologise for dragging up the subject. That case is perhaps a worse than typical case; at the same time, there are other cases frequently appearing in which the comment of the Press is not fair comment and actually contradicts the express purpose of the magistrates in their verdict. The aims of our doctrine of punishment to-day are surely not only to protect the community, but to enable the wrongdoer to reform himself.
  I want to ask my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether or not he could do one of three things. The first is—I recognise that there are difficulties in this, and that it may be quite impossible—could he send out a circular to the magistrates drawing attention to the fact that they can guide the Press in cases of this kind, as to whether or not such comment is likely to detract from their purpose in binding over the offender. That may be quite impossible. If not, could he issue a protest from his Department to the Press themselves possibly saying that, if their discretion were not properly used in the future, it might have to be subjected to legislation analogous to that for the suppression of evidence in the divorce court passed a few years ago? Failing either of those two courses, can he tell me whether, in the very remote and improbable odds of a private Member drawing in the ballot the right to

  521
  introduce a Bill, such legislation would be welcomed by his Department? I do not know whether I can get a favourable reply on any of these proposals, but I fell that my right hon. Friend will have sympathy with regard to the case that I am raising, and that he will recognise, as the Home Secretary recognised, in reply to my question yesterday, that such comments do often negative the purpose of the magistrates. I hope, therefore, that he will give me a sympathetic reply on this question. I think my raising the matter in the House and a sympathetic reply from him will do something to check the abuse of an ancient right of the Press, which has lately, and on several occasions, been subject to a gross breach of the spirit, if not of the letter.
  11.16 p.m.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Douglas Hacking): My hon. Friend at the beginning of his speech apologised to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for having said, when giving notice that he would raise this subject to-night, that he did not consider the reply of my right hon. Friend satisfactory. I can assure him that my right hon. Friend will be very glad to hear the apology which my hon. Friend has made to him, and that, in fact, the reply was perfectly satisfactory, so far as a reply given across the Floor of the House on such a case could be. My hon. Friend need not apologise for raising the subject to-night. I know that he feels very keenly about the particular instance which he has quoted, and he naturally fears that there may be other cases of a like kind which would be detrimental to the individuals who had been bound over. My hon. Friend must realise, however, that I cannot discuss this particular case in any detail. It would be wrong and out of order to discuss it or the decision of the court. I have very little to add to the reply that was given by my right hon. Friend yesterday, but perhaps it would be right if I let my hon. Friend know the general principle which has hitherto governed the law and practice relating to criminal proceedings. In the submission of His Majesty's Government, proceedings should take place in open court, and, speaking generally, there should be no restriction on the publication of those proceedings. Certain
  522
  exceptions, as my hon. Friend knows, have been made in the past, under, for example, the Official Secrets Act and for the protection of the interests of the State; but, as regards adult offenders—I am not speaking of young offenders—the general principle is that proceedings should be taken in open court. Perhaps it would be well to refer to a portion of my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend's question where the Home Secretary stated that he recognised that
  "indiscreet Press reports may make it more difficult for a first offender to rehabilitate himself,"
  and my right hon. Friend expressed the view that
  "it is very desirable that those responsible for reporting criminal cases in the Press should bear this point in mind."—[OFFICIAI, REPORT, 19th June, 1934; col. 193, Vol. 291.]
  That answers one of the requests made by the hon. Member in his speech tonight. I hope that the Press will take notice not only of what the hon. Member has said, but also of my right hon. Friend's reply to the question yesterday. The only completely effective protection, however, for the individuals whom the hon. Member desires to protect would be to require that the case should be heard in camera, and there are obvious reasons why it would be impracticable to have cases heard in camera. The court would not be in a position to decide whether it intended to deal with the case under the Probation of Offenders Act or otherwise until it had been concluded. The other alternative to holding the case in camera would be to prohibit the publication not merely of the evidence, but also of the result, and it might be that if the result were published without the evidence a wrong interpretation might be placed on the evidence. In other words, it is possible that the result might give the impression to the public that the case was worse than it was in fact, and in cases where the offence is of a trivial nature it is perhaps in the interest of the man himself that the full facts, and not only the result, should be published. Apart from these practical difficulties, there are two considerations of principle which suggest the importance of proceeding with great caution in the direction suggested by the hon. Gentleman. In the first place, there is no doubt that one of the most effective deterrents against the commission of crime is the

  523
  fear of publicity, and we must bear that fact in mind. Another and equally serious question for consideration is that the hon. Member's proposal might be thought to assist in the hushing up of offences committed by persons who are supposed to be in a position to bring influence to bear. It has been said with great truth that it is of great importance not only that justice should be done but that it should appear to be done.
  Mr. CROSSLEY: Would it be possible for magistrates to be given a discretion to prevent the evidence being published, but not the result?
  Mr. HACKING: I am coming to that point. There is a risk of magistrates being accused. We in this House would probably be prepared to trust the justice of the country. We hold it in high regard. But if certain cases relating to influencial men did not get into the Press, it might be said by other people that the evidence had not been published because the men concerned were influential, or had friends on the bench. That might be an undesirable thing. The hon. Member has put three questions to me. He has suggested that magistrates should have the power to instruct the Press in certain cases that they should not publish the details. The answer I have given shows that that might not be desirable. The hon. Member requests that we should issue a protest to the Press requesting them to use their discretion. I repeat that I hope that not only my hon. Friends's speech but what I have said tonight, and what my right hon. Friend said yesterday, will have some effect in that direction.
  Then the hon. Member asked whether a Private Member's Bill would be looked upon with favour. We must wait some little time before there will be an opportunity for fresh Private Member's Bills
  524
  to be introduced into this House, and I would prefer to see the Bill, before giving a definite reply to that question. I want to assure my hon. Friend that the Home Office has every sympathy with the introduction of this discussion to-night. Although it is not for me to express any opinion with regard to the individual case mentioned, nevertheless I think I can go so far as to say that that case would come within the category in which publication of the full details might be undesirable.
  Having said that, and having indicated that it is desirable that the Press should use their discretion, there is little that I can do, for it is undoubtedly true that without legislation no great power can be used and we are not entitled, I understand, to discuss legislation to-night. So I must leave the matter, I hope not in a very unsatisfactory way, by saying that we have sympathy with my hon. Friend and we hope that the Press will use their discretion in a better way than they have done in such cases in the past. We sincerely hope that, if they do so, few if any cases will arise in the future such as my hon. Friend has brought to the attention of the House to-night.
  11.27 p.m.
  Sir P. FORD: I would merely add to what has been said that I gathered that the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Crossley) was not so anxious to have suppressed the reports of what actually took place as to have some check put upon the type of comment that newspapers make. Surely that might be considered in future. Let us have reported the actual things that take place in the court, but let us have some check on the sort of comment which is made for sensational purposes by certain newspapers.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

UNEMPLOYMENT.
  DURHAM COUNTY.
  DURHAM COUNTY.
  NORTHERN COUNTIES.
  NORTHERN COUNTIES.
  SOUTHERN COUNTIES.
  SOUTHERN COUNTIES.
ROYAL NAVY.
  PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS.
  PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS.
  PERSONNEL (STATISTICS).
  PERSONNEL (STATISTICS).
  PRISON SERVICE, SCOTLAND.
  PRISON SERVICE, SCOTLAND.
  DIPHTHERIA IMMUNISATION, DEWSBURY.
  DIPHTHERIA IMMUNISATION, DEWSBURY.
  CHINA.
  CHINA.
  FASCIST AND ANTI-FASCIST MEETINGS.
  FASCIST AND ANTI-FASCIST MEETINGS.

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The EARL OF ONSLOW on the Woolsack.
The Viscount Hood—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.
The Lord Northbourne—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

SHERIFFDOM OF PERTH AND ANGUS ORDER, 1934.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, at our sitting yesterday my noble friend Lord Strathcona moved that a Select Committee be appointed to consider this Order. The Order came before the Special Orders Committee, who made that recommendation. I therefore beg to move that the Lords whose names appear on the Paper be named of the Committee.
Moved, That the Lords following be named of the Select Committee:—

M. Bath,

M. Aberdeen and Temair,

V. Ullswater,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Mottistone.

—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Committee to appoint their own Chairman.

HOYLAKE ELECTRICITY (EXTEN- SION) ORDER, 1934.
NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME ELEC- TRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1934.
WALLASEY ELECTRICITY (EXTEN-SION) ORDER, 1934.
FESTINIOG ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1934.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, with reference to the Hoylake Electricity (Extension) Order, 1934, the Newcastle-under-Lyme Electricity (Ex-

41
tension) Order, 1934, the Wallasey Electricity (Extension) Order, 1934, and the Festiniog Electricity Order, 1934, I beg to move that the Special Orders reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday be approved.
Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO? VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMA? TION (WEY VALLEY WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO- VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMA? TION (SOUTH MIDDLESEX AND RICHMOND JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LONDON TRAFFIC.
LORD KILMAINE LORD KILMAINE rose to call attention to the congestion of traffic in the London streets. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel I owe the House some apology for introducing this subject of road traffic again after a comparatively brief time. Since the institution of the Traffic Control Board there has undoubtedly been very great improvement in the traffic of London, but I still think there is a very great deal of room for improvement. Going about London in recent months I have tried to discover the cause of congestion and the cause of the frequent and very annoying hold-ups one meets with in different parts of the Metropolis. It seems to me that one cause is the enormous number of huge double-deck omnibuses which run in every part of London, although in the middle of the day and in the evening, apart from the rush hours, these enormous vehicles are practically empty.
I have seen omnibuses in the Hay-market at nine o'clock in the evening practically blocking the street from end to end and the average number of passengers in each omnibus was only four or five. I have noticed the same thing in
42
regard to the omnibuses that go round Lords cricket ground. The top decks of the omnibuses are entirely empty in the middle of the day and there are only four or five or possibly six passengers in the lower compartments. This very day coming from Victoria I was held up out?side the station for ten minutes. I saw five of these huge double-decked omnibuses with no one on the top deck and only five or six passengers below. Because of their enormous size and the space that they take up these omnibuses are a serious cause of delay. I quite admit that in the rush hours of the morning and again in the evening, when workers are coming to work or are being taken home after work, a full number of omnibuses is absolutely necessary, but I think that in the hours between ten in the morning and five in the evening, and again between eight and eleven at night, the number of omnibuses on most of the routes might be considerably reduced. When this subject came up for debate some time ago, before the institution of the Traffic Control Board, we were told that things would be greatly improved as soon as the pirate or independent omnibuses had been removed. So far as I can see they have been removed only to make room for the same number of General omnibuses. I know the omnibuses are very useful, but they cause considerable delay.
Another thing I have noticed is that when there is a hold-up in some narrow street or at a crossing, it is often found to be due to some railway delivery van or a coal merchant's lorry drawn by a horse. The average pace of traffic in London is, I suppose, about twelve to fifteen miles an hour. The average pace of horse-drawn traffic is about six miles. In these days of petrol, horse traffic in a city like London in the middle of the day seems an anomaly. I read with pleasure that horse-drawn traffic has been prohibited entirely in Oxford Street during certain hours of the day, and I certainly think it is time for it to be prohibited in all the main streets, except in the early morning or during the night. Surely, a railway company can afford to run a motor van for delivering parcels, and a motor lorry with two or three tons of coal would be much better, especially in the summer, than a van drawn by an unfortunate horse.
Then I have noticed a great deal of delay at crossings, especially those which run north to south, and it seems to me that it would be perfectly feasible to construct light road bridges over some of the crossings to enable traffic to pass both over and under. In the City of New York they have an elevated or overhead railway running all through the town, and it should not be difficult to erect a few bridges in London. I presume they would be of interlaced steel so that they would not shut out light or air to any great extent. Any disadvantage which might be caused in that respect would be amply offset by the enormous advantages given to traffic in London. I am no expert on traffic control. I simply regard the matter from the point of view of the man in the street. It is with all diffidence therefore that I venture to make these suggestions.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I cannot agree with what my noble friend has just said. So far from congestion being due to the number of omnibuses in main thoroughfares, I think the trouble at the peak hours is largely due to the number of private cars and empty taxicabs. One has only to go along Piccadilly to see the large number of empty taxicabs going along that thoroughfare, east and west. Private cars are not very useful to the persons using them when they want to go shopping as they have to park them some distance away. I am sure they would not lose much by not being allowed to go through main thoroughfares at certain hours. At those hours they should only be allowed to cross main thoroughfares and not go along them. As regards the other suggestion made by the noble Lord about the provision of bridges over crossing places, this matter has been often discussed in the Press. I think the objection to them would be the necessity for a very long incline which would reduce the area of the level part of the street and would thereby lead to further congestion. My view is that the main thoroughfares ought to be closed at certain hours to the users of private cars who are not so numerous as those who use omnibuses. Certainly one sees no empty omnibuses in these crowded hours.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, If you will allow me I will say a few words upon this subject, because for the last fifty or sixty years I have
44
taken a very great deal of interest in the traffic of London, and not only in the traffic but in the roads and all that is concerned with them. I venture to disagree with the noble Lord who raised this question when he says that one of the reasons for the present congestion is horse traffic. I venture to say that horse traffic has very little to do with it. There is not very much horse traffic in the streets, and after all the owners of the horses pay rates and have just as much right to go into the streets as anybody who has a motor car and thinks that the whole place belongs to him.
One of the reasons of blocks—I might almost say the chief reason—is cross traffic. I will take Piccadilly as an instance. If you will go down Piccadilly you will see that there is always a block either at Hamilton Place or at Berkeley Street where there is cross traffic. There always have been blocks where there is cross traffic, but they are much worse now than they were before, because in the old days a coachman was a man with some little fellow-feeling, and if he saw somebody wishing to turn across he would steady and allow the man to do it. But not the motor driver. He will go on even though he only gains six inches. He might have stopped and let the person through who wished to go that way, but no, he will go on until he gets to the point where he has got to stop. The majority of them have not the slightest idea of the rules of driving or coaching. I have been a member of the Coaching Club ever since 1877, so that I have had some experience in these ways.
That is one of the reasons of congestion. Another reason is that the police stop the traffic too long. A policeman stops the cross traffic, and instead of letting two or three go and then letting two or three more go, he holds it up until there is a long line waiting, and that of itself creates a block. Then again, there are too many of these traffic rights in the roads. Take Grosvenor Place; I come there every day when I come to your Lordships' House. Across Grosvenor Place by Hubbard Place you can always get across and you do not want to be stopped. If drivers of motor vehicles would only use a little forbearance, you would get across there without any stopping. On one occasion only last week I got there, and the red light was showing and therefore we had to stop, but within the next two

45
minutes I could have gone across fifty times. There was nothing coming either way, but the red light was showing and therefore I had to stop.
Those are two of the reasons. The third reason is that there are far too many vehicles in the streets. Everybody now seems to think that he must go about in a motor car instead of walking or going in an omnibus, with the consequence that there is such a lot of traffic that the vehicles impede one another. You cannot help that; it is one of the misfortunes that we have to put up with, and so far as I can see there is nothing to be done except to diminish all these red lights, inculcate a little more knowledge of road work amongst the police and also try to make the drivers of motor vehicles cultivate some of the courtesy which the drivers of horse-drawn vehicles always had.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, I quite agree with what has fallen from the noble Lord who has just spoken with regard to the unnecessary length of time which the police very often take in allowing vehicles to pass. Over and over again, particularly along Piccadilly, they let a long line go instead of breaking it up into short lengths, which would enormously relieve the traffic. Instead of that they get one long line, and then traffic accumulates at the next stop and so makes everything almost impossible. Then they carry it, to the other extreme. I was driving down to the City this morning along a street where there was hardly any traffic at all. We came to a cross street, where were some road repairs going on, so they had put a policeman there. The policeman stood in front of us and he stopped us and held us up for a car which I should think must have been three or four hundred yards away—a solitary car. We waited till that had gone past, and then waited for another one which was three or four hundred yards away in the other direction. By then I was beginning to get rather mad, and I am afraid that I made some strong remarks to him. That is the sort of thing that goes on, and it does cause a great deal of annoyance.
I really rose to call attention to another matter which is the result of the awful congestion of the streets, that is to say, the harm which is being done by the poisonous atmosphere. I do not know how many complaints I have heard this
46
year about the increase of the bad atmosphere, particularly from people who come from abroad. They say that the London streets are becoming perfectly poisonous. So they are. There are all sorts of regulations against cars being allowed to emit visible exhaust fumes, but I have never seen a policeman interfere with a smoking car or heard of one doing it. I came down Park Lane a, few days ago and immediately in front of me were four or five cars, each of them emitting clouds of blue smoke which nearly poisoned us, and nobody said a word. What is the use of having these regulations if nothing is done? I can quite understand that there is a great difficulty for the stationary policeman who is regulating traffic, because he does not realise that a car is smoking until it has gone past him. Then he cannot catch it up, and it is a very difficult thing for him to take the number of a car disappearing in the distance.
But what I want to know is, cannot the Police do something in the way of making use of their mobile men on motor bicycles, or even of their mounted men in some places? Can they not do something to round up the drivers of these smoking cars, to take their numbers and "run them in"? If there were a wholesome amount of prosecution and some healthy fines for the purpose of trying to stop this smoking, which can perfectly well be stopped with a proper amount of care, I am perfectly certain that much good would be done. Smoking is generally caused by over-lubrication or by a bad mixture, and I am certain that a great deal can be done with care to improve it. If something of that sort could be done we should have a much pleasanter and much purer atmosphere in the streets. I also suggest that instead of these ridiculous traps which they have in the parks at the present moment, trying to trap cars going a few miles per hour over the regulation speed, they should trap ears which smoke, should take their numbers and prosecute the drivers. I am sure that they could do a great deal of good by that means. I should very much like to ask the noble Lord in charge of transport whether something cannot be done by way of paying more attention to this question of poisoning the atmosphere.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in a debate in which noble

47
Lords have spoken and I am afraid I have not heard the whole of what they have said, but there are one or two remarks that I have heard since I came into the Chamber about which I should like to make an observation or two. First of all, noble Lords who have so far spoken seem to think that the traffic problem of London is more a question of the West End and what we are to do in the West End, than of all the rest of London. We have heard all about traffic in Piccadilly, but we have not heard much about the traffic in the Mile End Road and Commercial Road East and places like that. The noble Lord, Lord Banbury, for instance, said that horse-drawn traffic was no longer a factor in causing delay and congestion. If he would do us all the pleasure of taking a trip down to the Mile End Road or Commercial Road East he would find a state of affairs existing there very different from what he thinks. Undoubtedly horse-drawn traffic is responsible for a tremendous amount of congestion. From time to time you can find in this area quite half a mile of traffic held up behind one big motor lorry. But then, my Lords, on reflection I remember of course that the noble Lord is a director of a very great railway company, and of course it is well known that they are the worst offenders so far as horse-drawn traffic is concerned.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: We consulted the interests of our shareholders and carried on in the best way we could and at the cheapest rate.
EARL HOWE: I listened with very great respect to the remarks which have just fallen from the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh. Lord Denbigh dealt with a matter which in my submission is of great and growing importance. I do not believe it is realised how much the air in the London streets is poisoned by exhaust fumes. So far nothing very much has been done to deal with this matter. I believe the medical profession have carried out tests, and they have found that there is an appreciable amount—I have heard quite high figures—of carbon monoxide in the blood of policemen who are employed in directing traffic. That will show how serious a factor the poisoning of the atmosphere is really becoming. I believe I am right in saying, though I have never been in New York, that there
48
they have attempted to tackle this matter, and attempted to ventilate their streets through the drains and the sewers. I would like to see something of the sort done here. It might easily become a matter of vital and serious importance, supposing we were involved in war and there were poison gas raids on the capital. There is no doubt that we are suffering very much from this trouble at the present time.
Remarks have been made about the policemen who control the traffic to-day. I cannot help feeling that the police deserve our highest praise, and our best thanks, for the magnificent work they are carrying out. I personally would like to see them do a little more towards encouraging all forms of traffic, horse-drawn, motor-propelled, and bicycles, to keep nearer to the proper side of the road. Other things, of course, cause congestion in the London traffic. One of the most potent forms in the West End is the crawling taxicab. There are certain streets in the West End of London which are completely blocked by these vehicles. They crawl round and have a regular circuit, and if you watch you will see a certain taxicab going round a certain area of small streets. I know of a district where sixty or seventy of the same cabs can be seen going round a circuit between five and eight o'clock in the evening. As they have their cab ranks I cannot help feeling that this is not a reasonable use of the streets, and it causes congestion.
There are other points I would like to allude to, such as the insufficient width of the pavements in certain parts of London, which forces the pedestrian to step out into the street. I do not think we pay half enough attention to the pedestrian, or take enough care of him, and I welcome the experiments in crossing-places and other matters. I hope this matter of the London traffic will be considered not in an atmosphere of prejudice but with a view to discovering what is really best to be done. The suggestion is made in various quarters, from time to time, that we ought to bar the private car from using London streets. I do not think we should restrict the use of any form of traffic until we have made certain that we are using these streets to their full capacity. I do not think that we are doing so to-day. I am of opinion that much more might be done. As I have said, I hope we shall

49
not consider this as a matter of prejudice, but that we shall consider what is best to be done. I am perfectly certain that that will be for the greatest good of the greatest number.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I always hesitate to follow the noble Earl, because he generally says everything that has to be said on this subject. I do think, however, that he has rather missed one or two points. Lord Banbury seemed to put half the trouble of our road congestion in one word, "courtesy." If we could only get a little more courtesy on the road between the various road-users we should be able to use our roads to their full capacity. At the present moment the pedestrian does not seem to realise that it is just as discourteous to step in front of a motor car as it is to step in front of another pedestrian. He does not deliberately block the path of another pedestrian. Why then should he do it to a motorist? The same may be said of the motorist. If he would only slow down instead of making the pedestrian jump out of his way it would then be possible for him, instead of having to drive some four feet off the pavement, to drive quite close alongside.
Another point which I think is certainly very material to road congestion is the question of cars pulling up outside shops. They ought only to be allowed to pull up on the near side. The car which crosses the road and pulls up and deposits its occupants on the other side has to stop the traffic, and when it wants to start again the traffic is again stopped. This leads to two blocks, all because the driver cannot be troubled to go round first. That is a question of courtesy again. What is wanted is a return to the old spirit of the road that we used to find twenty-five years ago, when everyone tried to help everyone else. If we could get that spirit back we should get traffic moving at a reasonable speed, and should not spend our time in hearing other people's views.
THE MARQUESS or ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I cannot help saying one or two words, having been responsible for the administration of affairs in London. I wish to ask the representative of the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement explaining explicitly what the new lines and crossings in London really mean. It
50
seems that everybody has a hazy view as to what really are the privileges and penalties attaching to pedestrians at the present time. I have seen that in Regent Street traffic lights were recently installed, and people are hesitating what to do. There are lights, but there are also policemen on duty. I always thought that one of the advantages of traffic lights was that they released policemen for their ordinary duty of protecting people's property, but in Regent Street there seem to be both policemen and traffic lights. The policemen hardly know what to tell people at these crossings. If the noble Earl will tell us what are the privileges of the motorist, and what are the privileges of the pedestrian, I think he will do a great deal to enlighten the public as to what really is the position. Nobody seems to know what it is. Even the Press, in discussing these things, talk in more than one voice, and if the noble Earl will make a statement it will be of great service to the people of London as a whole.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, some eighteen months ago we had a very full debate on this subject of the congestion of traffic in London streets, and I then laid down what I thought were the main causes of that congestion. I have really no reason, after the lapse of this time, to depart from those main principles which I then laid down. We have ranged over a vast number of points this afternoon in the course of the debate, and reference has been made by several of your Lordships to the difficulty caused on our streets by the lack of courtesy shown by motor drivers. I entirely agree with a great deal of what has been said on that point; but I must remind your Lordships that you cannot make people more courteous either by legislation or by administrative action. Therefore I have to confine myself perhaps to the other points which have been raised during the course of the debate, and which are also of the very greatest importance in trying to solve the problem of the congestion of traffic in our London streets.
I think I ought shortly to explain what the administrative position is. In 1924 the London Traffic Act was passed, which conferred on the Minister of Transport a considerable number of powers to deal with all matters germane to London

51
traffic. The London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee was set up under that Act, in order to advise the Minister with regard to those powers which were conferred upon him, but I want to make it perfectly clear that that Committee was purely an Advisory Committee, and had no executive power whatsoever. I think everybody who has studied the subject will agree that that Act has proved of very great benefit indeed. It has proved of benefit in arresting the rapid and irregular growth of omnibus traffic in London. It helped by bringing traffic under proper control and by mitigating traffic congestion generally. This London and Home Counties Advisory Committee have advised the Minister upon almost every conceivable aspect, I imagine, of London traffic. I do not wish to enumerate the many subjects upon which they have given advice to the Minister, but I should like shortly to say something with regard to what has been done as the result of the advice which they have given.
To begin with, regulations have been made with regard to a number of matters—such as vehicles reversing in the street, the conveyance of exceptional loads, the use of vehicles for the purpose of advertising, the collection of refuse and taxicabs loitering in certain main thoroughfares. Those have all been dealt with up to a point, and they are all measures that are in the interests of creating an easy flow of traffic in the London area. Then there are many other things that have been done as the result of the advice of this Committee. During recent years important works with regard to road improvement and road building have been carried out in the London area. I would only refer to the Victoria Dock Road, which is now approaching completion, and, although it does not directly affect the centre of London, it is at the same time of very great importance to traffic in the London area generally. There is also the North Circular Road from Ealing on the west, to its junction with the Eastern Avenue near Ilford.
Another important work which is about to be carried out is the improvement at Vauxhall Cross. I understand the London County Council have settled upon a scheme there—a scheme restricted compared with the scheme which was, I believe, originally contemplated in connection with that particular point, but
52
they have settled upon this scheme, and I understand that work is to commence upon it very shortly. Then there have been improvements in traffic workings secured by the institution of one-way working in 107 streets, and there have been ninety-two junctions which have been laid out for round-about work. Furthermore, regulations have been made under the London Traffic Act, as the result of which some 224 special parking places have been appointed.
Another matter which is of importance is the progress that is being made with the introduction of traffic control signals. As a matter of fact my noble friend Lord Banbury this afternoon said he thought we had far too many of these light signals. I should have been rather interested to hear what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, would have said upon this particular subject, because I remember well that when we last debated the question of London traffic he made a vehement attack on the Minister of Transport for not introducing these automatic light signals more quickly. But I think the general consensus of opinion is that they have done a considerable amount to reduce congestion in London and to create an easy flow of traffic. Although there may be differences of opinion about particular traffic light systems, at the same time I think that, speaking generally, there can be no doubt that they have done something to help.
I should like to say a word about coaches in Central London. As a result of an inquiry over which my noble friend Lord Amulree presided some two years ago, the Minister of Transport announced his decision. The general effect of that decision is that coach operation in the inner area of London has been considerably curtailed, and a great many urban services are now routed around the inner area and avoid turning into the centre of London. As opportunities arise of trying new expedients they are taken. For instance, quite recently the experiment has been tried of waiting in Jermyn Street unilaterally, that is to say, making it permissible for motor cars to wait only on one side of the street. I think the net result of all this administrative action has been, generally speaking, to improve the position. I am quite prepared to admit that the position is by no means satisfactory, but if we recognise the fact

53
that traffic in London has increased enormously in recent years I think we shall all agree that the improvement is one which, although not entirely satisfactory, has shown that the measures which have been taken have been effective. I should like also to take the opportunity of associating myself with what my noble friend Lord Howe said—namely, that much of the improvement is due to the great efficiency and courtesy of the London Police.
Certain matters have been raised today, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kilmaine, who initiated this debate, for giving me notice of those which he intended to raise, which are no doubt very important. But I should like to make it clear, to begin with, that the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee have, I can assure your Lordships, at one time or another considered all the matters which have been referred to in the course of the debate. One matter of which Lord Kilmaine made a considerable amount was the fact that at certain times there were a number of empty omnibuses upon the streets which did a great deal to congest traffic and to make movement difficult. We must remember that the London Passenger Transport Act has only very recently come into operation, and that measures for the co-ordination or curtailment of redundant services, as far as the London omnibuses are concerned, can only come gradually. But I want to make it quite plain that there has been no increase in the number of omnibuses on the London streets, and that, if anything, there has been a certain reduction already.
But this matter of empty omnibuses is not really so simple as would appear at first sight, because there are a number of matters to be taken into consideration which I think are very often ignored. I agree that to the ordinary person it does seem that there are a considerable number of omnibuses on certain main London streets which can be removed and at the same time leave ample accommodation for the passengers who have to be carried during those hours. There are all sorts of things one has to remember. In the first place there is the point that the peak traffics of London occur at different times in different places. For example, one of the principal causes of difficulty in the City of London is the existence of a mid-
54
day peak in the Whitechapel area to the east. Another point which creates difficulty is the fact that the number of localities in Central London suitable for omnibus turning points is very limited, so that there is no alternative but to allow omnibuses to run through empty. All these various considerations affect in their turn the arrangements of the staff, and it is recognised that a steep grading of services between peak and what are called valley periods would give rise to difficulties in arranging a reasonable rota of duties that cannot be left altogether out of account. I have no doubt that this problem of empty omnibuses at certain times of the day is engaging the attention of the London Transport Board, but I think it would be idle to expect any immediate or drastic action in connection with this particular matter.
We have had references by a number of speakers to horse-drawn and slow-moving traffic. This is a question which we debated at length on the last occasion on which we dealt with this matter in your Lordships' House. I can assure your Lordships once again that the Committee have given constant thought to this particular problem, but in 1929 they came definitely to the conclusion that they were not warranted in advising the Minister to make drastic regulations regarding horse-drawn or slow-moving vehicles by which these vehicles would be prevented from using particular streets all day or at particular times. The Minister agreed with this view, and he has said so on a number of occasions in another place, and I understand the Advisory Committee still adhere to the view they held then. The fact is that not only the railway companies but a number of private traders still use horse-drawn vehicles for the simple reason that they find that form of vehicle the most economical for short journeys.
It is perfectly true that limited restrictions have been imposed in the case of Oxford Street. There is a limitation at certain times of the day on through traffic in Oxford Street, but I should like to point out that if any prohibition of this character was made general it would really have the result of keeping horse-drawn vehicles off the streets. If you were to impose restrictions on horse-drawn vehicles in regard to all the main thoroughfares of London it would really

55
become impossible for them to get from one part of London to the other. I can only conclude by saying that the Minister at present is not prepared to do this and, speaking personally, I am rather doubtful whether horse-drawn vehicles do as much harm as some people would like to attribute to them. At any rate, the number of horse-drawn vehicles upon the streets is decreasing very rapidly. The figures are very striking—I am not going to quote them this evening—but there is no doubt they are decreasing very rapidly, and it is therefore quite clear that this problem is a diminishing one. The Advisory Committee are still watching this particular matter, and they are continuing to make investigations, but, as I said, the Minister at the present time is not prepared to take any drastic action with regard to it.
The noble Lord who opened this debate suggested that we might get over some of our difficulties at traffic junctions by means of over-bridges. This is another matter to which the Advisory Committee have given careful thought. In theory there is no doubt a great deal could be said for over-bridges, but in practice it is found they are almost invariably impracticable. There is this to remember: at a four-way junction there are twelve possible movements of traffic. I think people are inclined to overlook that fact. There are two possible movements between north and south, two between east and west, four right-handed turns, and four left-handed turns. If you want to avoid cutting across through traffic, and it is essential you should avoid doing that if this is going to have any effect whatever, it would be necessary to construct four slip-roads, one at each corner. The round-about systems which have been introduced in various places in London go a considerable way to relieve congestion at cross-roads, and they do so at far less cost than would be entailed in building over-bridges. It is estimated that to construct an over-bridge with four slip-roads, apart from the acquisition of land, would cost nine or ten times more than a roundabout, and for such a scheme, I am told, four acres of land would be required. It is perfectly clear that in Central London such a proposal is quite impracticable. The Advisory Committee have examined all these possibilities, and if they have not been put into operation I can only con-
56
clude that it is because in their considered judgment—and no people have a greater knowledge of the problems of London traffic than the members of that Committee—these proposals are either impracticable or ineffective.
Reference has been made to other subjects this evening. The noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, referred to the evil of the fumes emitted by motor vehicles in the London area. I agree with him up to a point. There are regulations dealing with this subject, but it is extremely difficult to make them effective. As a matter of fact, I do not entirely agree with him, for I myself was in a car, not my own motor car but a taxicab, the driver of which was taken to task for emitting fumes; but at the same time I agree it is difficult for the Police to make these regulations effective. I undertake to bring this matter to the notice of the Minister, and I feel certain he will give it his consideration.
The noble Marquess referred to the question of the new pedestrian ways that have been instituted in London recently. This is not a matter which directly affects the question of congestion of traffic in London, but it has of course an indirect effect upon it. I do not think this is an occasion upon which it would be proper for me to make any authorised statement on the subject—in fact I have not been authorised to do so—but I would like to point out one or two facts to your Lordships in connection with this new system. There is really no reason at all why this new system should fail. It is an experiment of course, but it is an experiment which has been tried in other places—in Paris, for instance—and proved to be of very considerable value. It has not been possible, of course, to operate the system here in quite the same way as it is operated in Paris, for the simple reason that at present these crossing places for pedestrians are very limited in number, and it therefore would be impossible to prevent pedestrians from crossing roads at other places. It would be impossible, because they are so few, to limit pedestrians to the authorised crossing places.
I conclude by saying that if there still exists any doubt or misunderstanding with regard to what procedure should be followed at crossing places, I feel certain that the Minister will consider the advisability and the necessity of

57
issuing a further statement to resolve any doubts that might exist. I feel that it is an experiment with which we must go through, and I am confident myself that, as a result of our experience, we shall find that crossing places of this kind will be of extreme value in lessening the danger to pedestrians upon our London streets. I have dealt with most of the points that have been raised, and I hope that what I have said may have gone some way to satisfy noble Lords on this particular subject.

RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THE HOUSE.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD had given Notice that he would move to resolve, That in the opinion of this House, and particularly having regard to Standing Order No. VIII, it is undesirable and irregular that any person, not a member of the House of Lords, should have right of access during the sittings of the House to the Chamber itself, other than the officials of the House and Government Office officials, Privy Councillors, the eldest sons of Peers, and others privileged to sit upon the steps of the Throne, and the personal private secretaries of the Leaders of the three Parties; and that the right of access to the Library during the sittings of the House should be confined to Peers and members of the House of Commons and such other persons as shall have received special leave from the House of Lords Offices Committee.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think it will be necessary for me to detain your Lordships at any undue length in moving the Motion upon the Paper, and also I am happy to think that I need not make a controversial speech. The Motion does not deal with a Party matter; it deals with something about which I should hope general agreement can be reached, and I shall in the course of my observations put forward proposals in the hope of achieving that end. The Motion which I have put down, if I may say so, is not a personal Motion of my own. It has been put down by me after prolonged consideration on behalf of myself and a number of noble Lords who feel strongly about the matter in question. In order to make clear the precise object of the Motion I do not think I can do better than begin by reading to your Lord-
58
ships certain words of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, to which he gave utterance in the course of a speech on the 19th December last. The noble Lord was speaking upon the Bill introduced by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, for dealing with the House of Lords, and in the course of his remarks my noble friend Lord Ponsonby referred to a certain group of Peers.
He said:
"I discovered that they"—
that is, this group of Peers—
"were served by a very skilled high official. I tried to find out exactly who this skilled high official was, because he was allowed not only into the libraries, not only into the tea rooms, not only into the Prince's Chamber, but into the House itself, and not only was he allowed into the House but he was allowed a chair in the House, the only other chair here besides that on which His Majesty sits. I found in my researches that there were eight authorities here responsible for the various arrangements and appointments in your Lordships' House. Some of them I found it was not necessary to approach, but I approached those who, I thought, would give this very high privilege to an individual, and I asked exactly who had given him permission. There was blank astonishment on all sides. It was as if I had asked who had given authority for the Woolsack to be placed there."
To any one who knows the House of Lords the meaning of Lord Ponsonby's words is obvious, and the object of this Motion is to debar from the use of the Library and from access to the floor of your Lordships' House and also from access to the Prince's Chamber of the individual to whom Lord Ponsonby referred.
Throughout my observations I will refer to this individual as an expert. I believe that this expert has been accustomed to go where he does and to do what he does for a long term of years, but, whatever may have been the considerations which led in the past to the granting of these tremendous privileges, circumstances are quite different to-day. There are now three Parties in the State as compared with two Parties years ago. With your Lordships' permission I will deal with the Library first. The Library is being more and more used and it will be increasingly used. Let me deal with the access which this expert has to the Library. Not only does he go into the Library and remain there for hours together, even when the House is sitting, taking up room in the Library, especially

59
as he, naturally enough, in the discharge of his duties often has a large number of papers spread about, and when the House is busy there is inadequate table space in the Library. Not only does this happen, but the conversations which this expert frequently has with Peers in the course of his duties are destructive of the close concentration which is needful for political work. Surely it must be agreed that the Library is not the place where this kind of thing should be going on, is not the place for such conferences, consultations and talks. In point of fact I have been compelled on occasions to leave the seat in the Library where I like to work because of the activities of this expert, and have had to seek refuge in some remote and less convenient spot but where, at any rate, I could be quiet.
Let me take a further point. As your Lordships are aware, private talks are an essential part of political work and life, and again and again I have been compelled to ask some colleague either to come out of the Library or to go to another part of the Library in order to get out of ear-shot of this expert. It is, of course, true that on certain occasions I have had, just as other noble Lords have had, to take the same steps with regard to Peers, but surely this kind of thing ought to be reduced to a minimum, and that cannot be done if this expert is allowed to do what he does and to go where he does. I want to make it perfectly clear that I have no personal feeling whatever against this expert. So far as I know he is a gentleman of ability and character, but that does not alter the fact that in the Library he is an inconvenience, nor does it alter the fact that he has somehow or other, and from somebody or other, obtained amazing privileges which, if they were extended to other experts, would soon bring about an impossible state of things in your Lordships' House.
Consider the difference between the practice in this matter in your Lordships' House and what happens in the House of Commons. I can speak on this point as it happens from personal experience. Two or three years after I had, owing to ill health, resigned my seat in the House of Commons, I was for a time in a voluntary capacity doing my best to help the Parliamentary Labour Party in exactly the same way as this expert
60
helps this group of Peers. I was doing what I could to assist them with notes for speeches. For this purpose I used to work in one of the small rooms allotted to the Labour Party near the Terrace. This room had a fair number of books of reference—the OFFICIAL REPORT and so forth—but from time to time other books were required from the Library in order that certain work might be done. In general when those books were required from the Library they were borrowed from the Library by the Labour member himself in whose interest the inquiries were being made. That was not a very convenient arrangement because the member himself was not always about. Therefore it was suggested that perhaps I might secure permission to go, not into the Library itself, but into what I may call the entrance Library—it is well known to most of your Lordships—not to remain there, not to work there, not even to sit there, but to ask the Librarian for such and such a volume of the OFFICIAL REPORT or for some other book of reference.
That seemed a very modest request and that request was put forward not on behalf of a group, it was put forward on behalf of the Opposition, of the whole Labour Party, put forward officially by the Chief Whip, Mr. Arthur Henderson. It was definitely refused. It was pointed out that I had, until quite recently as it happened, for many years been a member of the House of Commons. Nevertheless, no encouragement whatever was given to the suggestion because the desired permission would have been contrary to the rules of the House of Commons Library. I say that what this expert does in your Lordships' House is contrary to the rules of the Library here. Just contrast the practice of the House of Commons in regard to this matter with the privileges which this expert enjoys in your Lordships' Library. Not only does he go into the Library hut he remains there for hours together, day after day, even when your Lordships' House is sitting. That is a definite contravention of the Resolution which was passed regarding the Library many years ago by the House of Lords Offices Committee.
So much for the Library. I now pass to consider the right of access which this expert has to your Lordships' House itself. He has the right to come—or at

61
any rate he does come—into the Chamber itself. Not only so, he actually occupies a chair immediately in line with the chairs upon which their Majesties sit and the chair upon which His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales sits. These almost incredible privileges are entirely contrary to the spirit of Standing Order of the House No. VIII. Standing Order No. VIII is as follows:
"No person shall be in any part of the House during the sitting of the House, except Lords of Parliament and Peers of the United Kingdom, not being members of the House of Commons and heirs apparent of such Peers, or of Peeresses of the United Kingdom in their own right, and such other persons as attend this House as assistants."
I need scarcely tell your Lordships that the word "assistant" there has no kind of relation to the kind of assistance given by this expert to a group of Peers. The "assistants" of the House referred to in the Standing Order are the Judges, the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General, and such members of the Privy Council as are called by Writ from the Crown to attend.
I believe as a matter of strict interpretation this Standing Order relates to what is technically known as the House itself, and that a certain portion of the floor of the Chamber is not deemed to be within the House itself. That part of the floor known as below the Bar is not within the House and there is no suggestion that there should be any interference at all with the admission of strangers below the Bar. Again, I understand that even the Woolsack itself is not technically within the House. Similarly, the chairs on which their Majesties sit and on which His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales sits are not within the House. Therefore, I suppose that applies to the chair on which this expert sits. I have, however, no manner of doubt that it was never the intention of those who framed this Standing Order that any individual from the outside should be allowed to come day by day on to the floor of the Chamber in the way this expert does and to sit where he does. The Motion does not actually mention in words the Prince's Chamber, but this expert also uses the Prince's Chamber.
I should like to observe on this point that I attach much importance to the words in my Motion, "right of access." There is, I submit, a vast difference between right of access and simple access.
For instance, certain persons have a right to pass through the Prince's Chamber, and as regards the Library permission is given in rare instances I believe by the Librarian for a stranger to enter the Library for some purpose or other even although the House is sitting. Obviously, there is no objection to that. But, all such happenings are very different from a definite right of access at all times and for any length of time. These words in my Motion "right of access" have an important connotation. If I took up your Lordships' time to the extent of analysing every syllable of the words in my Motion I could not claim, and I do not claim, that they cover every conceivable point and contingency in this somewhat complicated matter. I doubt whether finality of that kind could be secured by any Motion. Whoever framed such a Motion I believe it would still be possible for someone with a high degree of ingenuity to cavil at some of the verbiage employed. I do not contend that my Motion can be submitted to critical analysis syllable by syllable, but the general meaning is perfectly clear and the Motion should serve to raise the whole question and to lead to a settlement satisfactory to all concerned.
It may be asked whether it was necessary to proceed in this matter by way of Motion at all. After long deliberation and numerous consultations among my noble friends with whom I am acting in this matter, we were driven to the conclusion that the method of a Motion was the only effective way of dealing with the problem. Despite diligent and persistent endeavour it was not found possible to locate the authority or authorities responsible for granting these privileges, assuming they all have been granted. So I have resorted to the method of a Motion in the House. May I observe that I have declined to discuss this Motion with the representatives of the Press or with anybody outside your Lordships' House, but it has come to my knowledge that in some quarters there is a doubt as to whether the Motion has not reference to members of the House of Commons. I should like to state emphatically that nothing is further from my mind than that, and I should have thought that that was clear from the terms of my Motion if they are carefully read.
As your Lordships are aware, an Amendment to my Motion appears on the Order Paper in the name of the noble

63
Lord, Lord Hastings, to the effect that there is no sufficient reason to alter
"the present practice of the House as regards right of access to the Chamber and the Library."
Surely the contention in this Amendment is one very difficult to maintain. First of all, may I say that I observe the precise words of the Amendment with considerable surprise, because they amount to a direct negative, and speaking with a now fairly long Parliamentary experience, I say that it is most unusual to meet a Motion of this character, for which at any rate there is a great deal to be said, with a direct negative. The Amendment refers to the "practice of the House." I submit that in this matter there is no practice of the House. So far as the House is concerned there is a clear declaration in Standing Order No. VIII which is entirely at variance with what is going on. There is also the Resolution to which I have referred of the House of Lords Offices Committee which debars this expert from using the Library in the way in which he does use it. Therefore it is surely a bold claim to cite the practice of the House as authorising this expert to do what he does.
My submission is that there is no practice of the House in this matter. It has never been considered by the House until to-day. I further submit that it would be a wholly unsatisfactory result of this discussion if the noble Lord's Amendment were put to a Division and carried. There could be no finality in a proceeding of that kind. If those of us who feel strongly upon this matter and have, as we hold, an impregnable case are to be met only with this direct negative of the Amendment, and voted down by Peers many of whom do not use the Library or do not work in the Library, and therefore have not been subjected to the inconvenience which I have already indicated to your Lordships—if that is to happen, quite clearly that will not by any means be the end of this. Surely it would be much better all round to try to get some agreed settlement of the problem; and that is what I am about to propose. I believe that it can be done.
Let me observe first that it really is not necessary for this expert to have these privileges. No case whatever of necessity can be made out for what has been happening. Other arrangements in your
64
Lordships' House can be made for him to serve the group of Peers whom he does serve. I respectfully urge upon your Lordships that the best way of dealing with this problem is to submit the whole matter to the House of Lords Offices Committee, upon which all Parties and interests are represented, with a request that the Committee endeavour to make arrangements to meet the difficulty. I am satisfied that other accommodation can be found within the precincts of your Lordships' House where this expert can work, and also where other experts can work and give assistance to Peers. Up to the present time, apart from the members of this group, other Peers who want expert help (as we all do at times) have to arrange for it to be given outside your Lordships' House. That is often a very inconvenient way of doing things. In my view the time has come when one or two rooms within the precincts of your Lordships' House should be set aside for experts to work in; and also one or two rooms are needed, and badly needed, where Peers can interview callers. Unquestionably there is accommodation in your Lordships' House which could be allotted or found for experts and other purposes, and I am convinced that the House of Lords Offices Committee could provide a solution of all these difficulties.
I have done my best not to offend any susceptibilities and to put forward a constructive proposal to deal with the situation. It seems to me that in a matter of this kind, where it has not proved possible to locate the authority and responsibility, I am well in order in making an appeal to the Leader of the House, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. He is in a special degree the guardian of the rights and privileges of the House and is in a peculiar degree concerned, I say, to see that the rules of the House are carried out in the letter and in the spirit; and that is far from being done if this expert is to be allowed to continue his activities in the way in which he has been acting. I would therefore appeal to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. I appeal to him not as a member of the Government, because this is not a Government matter; I appeal to him not as Leader of the Conservative Party in your Lordships' house, because this is not a Party matter; I appeal to him as the Leader of the House, with the special duties and responsibilities which that

65
position entails, to help us to get a settlement of the matter. I ask him to support the proposal that the whole question be referred to the House of Lords Offices Committee or else to make some alternative suggestion which seems likely to lead to a settlement of the difficulty. That, I submit, is a reasonable appeal for the acceptance of a most reasonable proposal, and if the noble Viscount will respond I will willingly withdraw my Motion.
What valid objection can there be to the proposal which I put forward? Surely this matter does want investigating and probing, and we want some better way of dealing with the position. It appears to me that no objection of substance can be made to the proposal that the whole matter should be referred to the House of Lords Offices Committee. I do not propose to say very much more because I do not think it is necessary to do so. In my submission the case for some action is overwhelming, and what is happening ought to be stopped, otherwise a position of extreme difficulty and delicacy will arise. If this expert is to be allowed to continue to do what he does, other groups of Peers will claim similar privileges. For instance, some of my noble friends have one or two gentlemen who have for some time been anxious to help them in the work here, and the zeal of those who are desirous of having such a position will certainly not be lessened if an individual from outside is to be allowed to come into your Lordships' House, into the Library, day by day and hour by hour, into the tea room, into the passages, into the Prince's Chamber, on to the floor of the House itself, and occupy a chair in line with the chairs occupied by Their Majesties and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.
It may perhaps be suggested in the course of this debate that an equitable solution of the problem would be to allow other experts for other groups of Peers to do what the present expert does. I think a little consideration will show that any such plan would be impracticable. Let me emphasise that the present expert works for a group of Peers, not even for a Party, and groups of Peers can be, and are, multiplied indefinitely. I have already spoken of the great inconvenience of having only one expert in the Library, but what is going to happen if
66
that inconvenience is to be multiplied two-fold, five-fold, ten-fold or even more? That is a problem from which my mind turns away absolutely baffled. The simple truth is, my Lords, that the table space in the Library will not permit of such encroachments. There is not enough of it. That is so quite apart from other objections. On what I may call physical grounds no such plan would work; the limited space in the Library, the Chamber and elsewhere rules it out. So that a grant of these privileges to other experts would not be a solution of the difficulty; it would really rather be au aggravation of the difficulty. I am sure that some other way out must be found and can be found, and that the House of Lords Offices Committee can find it.
I again very respectfully urge upon your Lordships that the whole problem should be remitted to the House of Lords Offices Committee or to some equivalent body. If that is not done, if this very reasonable proposal is rejected, if the present state of things is to go on, if those of us who are in favour of this Motion are to be voted down, that can only lead to a feeling that inequitable, unfair, and indefensible privileges obtain for a certain section of your Lordships' House, and I am quite certain that that is the last thing that your Lordships would wish to come about. The last thing that you would wish to do would be to give any ground for any ideas of that kind. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House, and particularly having regard to Standing Order No. VIII, it is undesirable and irregular that any person, not a member of the House of Lords, should have right of access during the sittings of the House to the Chamber itself, other than the officials of the House and Government Office officials, Privy Councillors, the eldest sons of Peers, and others privileged to sit upon the steps of the Throne, and the personal private secretaries of the Leaders of the three Parties; and that the right of access to the Library during the sittings of the House should be confined to Peers and members of the House of Commons and such other persons as shall have received special leave from the House of Lords Offices Committee.—(Lord Arnold.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, perhaps it might be convenient if I said a

67
word at this juncture, because when I saw the Motion put down on the Paper I was careful to ask my Department to go into the question and examine the history of the whole matter. As Lord Arnold has said the Motion which he has put before your Lordships has been raised by the presence of a gentleman who has acted for a great many years as adviser to a group of your Lordships. Perhaps I may just explain exactly how that came about. Although I was not a member of the House at the time I happened to know a good deal about it as my father was then Chairman of Committees and was also an active member of that particular group of Peers. It was during his administration that it was suggested that the gentleman in question should have the advantages which have been accorded to him. I looked into the Minutes of the House of Lords Offices Committee to see whether there is any record of that being done. I cannot find any. I do not know whether the matter was referred to them. What really happened was this. The gentleman in question received regularly a permit from the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod and Secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain, Sir Thomas Butler, to attend. I understand that no objection was ever taken to his presence and this permit was never refused. I believe that in recent years it has not been considered necessary to issue him a special permit, the acquiescence of the House to his attendance having been informally recognised.
I am informed with regard to the question of the control of the admission of strangers and other persons to the precincts of the House that it rests primarily with the House itself. I do not think that I need refer to authorities. It will suffice to say that in 1901 the Joint Committee on the Presence of the Sovereign in Parliament reported.
"The relation of the House of Lords to the Lord Great Chamberlain has not, as far as the Committee knows, been found inconvenient in practice: his undoubted authority when the House is not sitting, and their obvious and inherent right to make regulations as to the use of that part of the building which they occupy, have been exercised apparently without Friction."
I think that recognises the fact that your Lordships have control over this matter. In 1849 the House agreed by Resolution to arrangements for the accommodation
68
of strangers who were admitted, and again in 1850 for the accommodation for the diplomatic body.
With regard to the question of the admission of other than those mentioned in the noble Lord's Motion I have made inquiry into this matter and I find that on previous occasions other groups of Peers who have been interested in special subjects have been able to enjoy the advantage of the presence of an adviser when required. For example, I am told, that when the Home Rule Bill was before this House a draftsman was engaged by Peers interested in Ireland and attended regularly during the debates on that question. Again, I am told that some thirty years ago a gentleman who is now a member of your Lordships' House acted as adviser to the right reverend Prelates who were interested in an Education Bill. He drafted the Bill and attended here behind the Woolsack, and he advised those Prelates and others who were interested. I do not know of any other instances at the moment though I dare say your Lordships' recollections may be able to supply them, and if the matter is gone into more carefully I have no doubt we should find that it is not a very uncommon thing for your Lordships to obtain the assistance of advisers.
I would proceed to another question. I speak from my own recollection but I think I am right when I say that the late Lord Curzon when he led the Opposition had his private secretary in attendance in the House in the same way as he did when he was Leader of the House. If I am not right in that I am at all events sure that the late most reverend Primate, Dr. Davidson, did have his private secretary attending and assisting him in the House. I remember that quite definitely. As regards the attendance of assistants to individual Lords, I am informed on good authority that when they had to make a speech they have been able to have the attendance of a secretary or adviser to assist them as required. I presume that when they had to attend they obtained a permit. I cannot find any exact recommendation of the House of Lords Offices Committee, but I imagine that if there was any doubt it would be referred to them. The Offices Committee do not meet very often and I do not think it would be possible for that Committee to grant individual ad

69
hoc permits for a day or a longer time without a considerable amount of alteration of the present procedure. It seems to me from researches that the practice of the House has been to allow any of your Lordships who wish to have assistance in the way that has been described by Lord Arnold to have that assistance, but whether it has been actually granted formally I do not know.
LORD ARNOLD: May I ask the noble Earl one question? Is it not the case that these permits were for special cases and special Bills, and also do not apply to the Library?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I have been trying to answer that question. As I said I do not think any formal request had been made, and therefore if no formal request has been made I do not think that formal permission has been granted. What has been done is that application has been made to the Yeoman Usher for admission and that has been afforded in the cases I have mentioned. It must have been, for those individuals who came into the House would not have been able otherwise to come in. With regard to the Library it is rather difficult to ascertain what happened in the past because the late Librarian, Sir Edmund Gosse, is dead, and he was the person who dealt with the matters of which I am speaking. Without referring to him—and that is impossible—we cannot arrive at a definite position. I think I am right in saying that the Library Committee as a Committee is of recent formation since the War, and therefore if formal permission had been granted it would have been granted not by the Library Committee but by the House of Lords Offices Committee itself. I think that is the answer to my noble friend, but the actual method has been that where any group of your Lordships' House or individual members of your Lordships' House desired the attendance of anybody they applied to the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod and got a permit from him. I do not think any formal permission has been asked for from the House of Lords Offices Committee. At least I cannot find a record.
But my researches lead me to this conclusion, that in coming to a decision as to the admission of persons other than Peers the House has been guided by the recommendations either of a Select Com-
70
mittee or by the general recommendations of the House of Lords Offices Committee themselves. Naturally the general recommendations of the House of Lords Offices Committee are more negative than positive and there has really been no objection to the course which has been followed in the past. I think that as far as I can see the House of Lords Offices Committee made no particular recommendation. I hope I have been able to shorten your Lordships' deliberations. I have done my best to find out what the history of the case has been and to put it before your Lordships.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS had given Notice of an Amendment to leave out all the words after "That" in order to insert "this House sees no sufficient reason to alter the present practice of the House as regards right of access to the Chamber and the Library." The noble Lord said: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, first rose he undertook not to make a controversial speech and, judged by certain standards, he kept his promise except in two small particulars, to which I will draw attention. He repeatedly referred to the august seat beneath that canopy as a chair. May I remind him that in this House it is known as the Throne? But there was another matter. He attempted to establish an analogy between the practice of the House of Commons and this House. Another place has never governed its practice by the practice of the House of Lords, and it is unusual to require the House of Lords to govern its practice by that of another place. In those two matters alone the noble Lord stepped into controversial areas.
The noble Lord has assured us that he has put down his Motion in no spirit of personal objection to the gentleman of whom he spoke always as an expert. May I assure him that I have put down my Motion in no spirit of personal objection to his Motion? I have put it there because the body which has enjoyed for twenty-eight years the services of the expert whose presence is objectionable to the noble Lord has done me the honour of electing me as its Chairman, and it is therefore my duty as well as my wish to establish the continuity of the right of the expert to enjoy the privileges which have hitherto been afforded to him. The noble Lord did not

71
touch at all in the course of his speech on the desirability or otherwise of organisations existing within the House. If he had done so he would have given me an opportunity of controverting what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, as to that body being one which was composed of Conservative diehards who existed for the purpose of driving the Government in a more Conservative direction than the Government itself wished to proceed. That is an entirely false conception either of the reasons for the existence of that body or of its practice. In point of fact, the body which is known as the Independent Peers' Association comprises the greater number of those noble Lords who accept the Conservative whip who attend with reasonable regularity to the business of this House; and, far from being a hatchery for diehards it is a place where many diehards have received sad reminders that their view is not going to predominate in the debates which are about to take place. That body exists for the purpose of expediting and assisting the work of this House, and I beg leave to state that, under Chairmen far more distinguished than I, for the past twenty-eight years it has most effectively assisted all the Governments to get through their work in this House efficiently and expeditiously.
The noble Lord referred us to the speech which was made by the Leader of the Opposition on the occasion of the First Reading of the Parliament (Reform) Bill in December of last year. Unfortunately, I could not be in the House on that occasion. But, having had the privilege and good fortune of hearing the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on other occasions, notably when he addressed the House on the Second Reading of the Bill, I can well believe that the perfection of phrase and dialectical skill which he then displayed was used with the greatest effect on the occasion of the First Reading. But when I read the speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT I came to the conclusion that what he had to say and the caustic comments he had to make upon the Independent Peers' Association and its draftsman were merely the ornamental trimmings to the solid material of his speech. Not so the noble Lord, Lord Arnold. The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, had no doubt whatever that what
72
Lord Ponsonby said he meant; and hence the Motion which we have before us.
I wonder whether it was really worth while to bring this matter to your Lordships' notice. The noble Lord has queried my procedure in moving what he is pleased to call a direct negative, and in upholding that argument he said it was no use referring to the present practice of the House, as the House has no present practice. There is no great value in that. You might say there is no use in paying any attention to the Constitution of Great Britain because there is no Constitution. In the same way this House has been in the habit of adapting its procedure to the convenience of the time, and it seems to me that if a Motion of the kind tabled by Lord Arnold were to be passed he would instantly debar himself and all other Peers perhaps in a week, perhaps in a month, perhaps in years to come, from enjoying certain advantages which they ardently desire at that moment to enjoy, but which they would be debarred from enjoying by reason of the noble Lord's Motion. It is a dangerous thing putting into concise terms what may or may not be done. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, speaking from beside the Woolsack, told us that the House of Lords Offices Committee have from time to time negatived various things which have been proposed, but that there were no records of any of the things that were permitted.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: What I said was that there has never been any affirmative Resolution. I said it was more of a negative authority than a positive one.
LORD HASTINGS: I should be very sorry if I in any way misinterpreted the noble Earl. I certainly did not misunderstand him, but my means of expressing what he said were not perfectly at my command. What it means is that if a thing is done of which you disapprove you say you disapprove of it. If you wish it to continue you do not necessarily put it on paper, but you allow it to go on until you desire to stop it; and that is rather a favourite way of carrying on business all through England. The noble Lord quoted No. VIII of the Standing Orders, and I really do not understand for what purpose because his own Motion has really no relation to

73
Standing Order No. VIII. As he himself correctly said, if Standing Order No. VIII were to be applied nobody would have any right whatever in any portion of the floor of the House except Peers themselves, the Judges and certain other functionaries whom he correctly mentioned in the course of his speech. No Government official, no private secretaries, nobody of any kind would adorn those boxes where we are accustomed to look for assistance in the course of our debates. They would not be there; the noble Lord's Motion would debar all such from attending in this House. Unless he was very careful he would be quite certain to omit the very persons who in a week or two he would like to admit, and the Motion as it stands would be an unwise one to pass.
I was sorry to hear the noble Lord say that the expert whose services as draftsman the Independent Peers' Association have enjoyed for many years had in any way interfered with the convenience of members of the House in the Library or elsewhere, not intentionally of course; but I cannot think he could have, in the extreme discretion he has always displayed, at any time interfered with the liberty of members of the House. The noble Lord qualified his remarks at a later stage by saying it was just as dangerous to hold private conversations in the presence of other Peers as it is in the presence of this expert. No doubt the Library is full of Peers of persuasions different from that of the noble Lord, and I can understand, when he has private conversations on political subjects, he will desire to retire to the uttermost corner of the Library for the purpose of not being overheard, but I can hardly believe that the expert who has been serving the Independent Peers has contributed very largely to that particular necessity which the noble Lord has found pressing upon him so heavily. I am very glad to think that.
For twenty-eight years this particular body which has endeavoured, and I think endeavoured successfully, to expedite and make efficient the work of this House, has enjoyed the services of this particular individual, and I beg leave to state that unless the privileges which during twenty-eight years have been accorded to him are continued it will be impossible for that body to continue to
74
function in the way it has done in the past. Lord Arnold may think that is a very good thing, but I do not think the House itself will think it a good thing. It is of immense value that an opportunity should be offered to Peers to get together other than on the floor of this House, for Peers, after all, do not attend debates with the regularity that members of the House of Commons do, and must do. They come to the House with preconceived opinions, and it is not possible for them, unless an organisation of this kind exists, to acquaint themselves with the views of others and accommodate those views to a condition that makes it possible for them to conduct debates in this House with reason and judgment. That is what this Association exists for, and the Peers require the assistance of a draftsman in order that they may put intelligible and intelligent Amendments, initiate debates, and acquaint themselves with what has passed in previous debates dealing with the same matter.
It is necessary that they should have a draftsman to assist them in this way. It is necessary that that draftsman should have access to Statutes, to the OFFICIAL REPORT, and other books of reference in the Library. It would be impossible for the Association to which I have referred to function at all without their draftsman, and it would be impossible for the draftsman to function without the privileges accorded to him in the past. That is why I have put down a Motion suggesting that the present practice of the House should be maintained. Unless the Leader of the House, in response to the noble Lord's appeal, has some suggestion to make which will make it possible for the Independent Peers to continue to function and for the draftsman to continue to do his work effectively—until such an alternative suggestion is made, of which at present I am not aware, I shall certainly stick to my Motion and invite the House to vote upon it, and I trust it will take the place of the Motion which stands in the name of the noble Lord. If I am in order I desire to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all the words after ("That") in order to insert ("this House sees no sufficient reason to alter the present practice of the House as regards right of access to

75
the Chamber and the Library.")—(Lord Hastings.)
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I hope as the result of this debate it will not be found necessary for the noble Lord to insist on his Amendment or for the noble Lord who has moved to persist in his Motion. I would make an appeal which has been already made, I think, by Lord Arnold to the Leader of the House to assist us in this matter. It has been stated quite correctly that we are not in any way concerned with a Party question. I am not even going to refer to the gentleman who has formed the subject of so much discussion and who has apparently had certain privileges for some twenty-six or twenty-eight years. But I should have thought that this must stand out as the result of this debate: that there is not one of your Lordships in this House, not even including my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House, who can tell us really what the practice is. There is the difficulty, and I should have thought it does become desirable that we should have some better intimation of what the practice of the House is to be.
May I just indicate for a moment the difficulties that occur to me? I am in some embarrassment in speaking of it because I say at once I have not been conscious of this difficulty or awkwardness created, inasmuch as I have not found any inconvenience in the Library; neither was I aware, I must admit, that there was a gentleman who had a right to sit, and who did sit, on a seat which was in such close proximity and almost in the same rank as the seating accommodation of noble Lords. The reason for that is, unfortunately, I much regret to say, that I am not able to attend much in the Library; my time does not enable me to do it, and therefore I do not speak from any personal experience. I do attend in this House as your Lordships are aware, and I have no doubt I have seen the distinguished gentleman who has been referred to sitting in the House. All I desire to say with regard to that is I did not realise at the time that he was assisting any particular section of the House or Party in the House. I assumed he was one of the officials of the House or was assisting the Government. I was quite unaware that it was possible to have such assistance in this House.
76
I heard the noble Lord who spoke last expatiate very eloquently on the value of the assistance of an expert draftsman, a learned gentleman, who can assist in regard to Bills and Amendments and in the preparation of speeches. I assure him I have been very conscious of it. At times I have had to employ persons outside to assist me. I never had the idea that it was possible for one of them to enter this House and to sit here and listen to the debate and give his assisttance after he had heard the discussions which had taken place. I am sure those who are Party Leaders in this House will agree that it is inconvenient to attempt to explain exactly what it is that will be required of the person who is assisting them if that person is outside the House. All I would say with regard to it is this, that as I understand my noble friend Lord Arnold's Motion it is that private secretaries to the three Leaders of Parties in the House should have the right which is at present enjoyed by one person. I gather that the noble Lord's Amendment—I am sorry the noble Lord is not present at the moment—would negative that. I cannot understand why.
A NOBLE LORD: No.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I dare say it is not intended to do so, but I myself certainly so understood it. That is why I made the observation I have just made. I do not think for a moment your Lordships would take that view, but I rather understood that the object of the Amendment was that the present practice should continue. The Party I have the honour to lead does not wish it to continue if it is to be confined to one group of Peers alone, neither does the Labour Party. I assume that whatever privileges are open to one side of the House or one section of the House must be open to the other side and to other sections. I certainly thought that the Amendment was open to the objection that the privilege was to be continued for one section only. The moment you arrive at that it must be obvious to your Lordships that we are in some difficulty in knowing exactly where we should be. I would beg your Lordships not to think that I am trying to make difficulties. I have no feeling in this matter one way or the other except that I think whatever opportunity and facilities are given to

77
one Party or to one group of your Lordships' House should be equally given to other Parties and to other groups.
I hesitate to say how many groups are in the Party which I have the honour to lead in this House because I do not know, and I have purposely avoided enquiring. I am not even sure that I should succeed in learning how many sections or groups there are in the small Party which I have the honour to lead. There is a smaller number of members of the Labour Party in this House than of the Party which I lead, but so far as I know, from what I hear from them in debates, and from what I read of the proceedings in the other House and of what takes place at various conferences and councils, there does not seem to be entire agreement among them and there are sections in that Party too. Obviously in every Party there must be groups of Peers. Noble Lords will understand that I do not wish to create any difficulty for the group which has had this advantage for a number of years. All I want to impress upon my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House is that we should like his guidance and assistance in the matter. I wish, as far as possible, to be guided by him.
The suggestion has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, I understand, that this matter should be entrusted to a Committee of this House for the purpose of that Committee dealing with it. I think the suggestion made by Lord Arnold was that it should be referred to the House of Lords Offices Committee. That seems to me a sensible and reasonable suggestion. When that Committee made its Report of course it would be open to your Lordships to raise the question again. If that course were adopted it would get rid of such questions as have arisen with regard to the gentleman who has had the opportunity of being in this House for twenty-six or twenty-eight years. I am only concerned with trying to get some kind of regularity in practice. After listening to the noble Earl on the Woolsack, I do not know by what authority the gentleman in question is sitting in this House, neither do I know whether the person who is supposed to have given him authority had the right to give it to him. I do not know whether any of your Lordships could answer that question.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: May I intervene in order to get this clear? I am relying on my own personal recollection, for I was not at the time a member of your Lordships' House. My father occupied the position I have now the honour of filling, and he told me that he and certain other noble Lords were instrumental in founding this Association, and he took steps to obtain the privileges which were enjoyed by the expert in question. The outward and visible sign of what was done was the granting of the usual permit. I have not been able to find in the records of the Offices Committee any formal statement on the subject. I do not think, from my own knowledge, such a matter would be likely to be included in the records of the Committee because it would not be considered of sufficient importance. It happened a long time ago and I do not know if any members of the Offices Committee of that day are still with us. It may have been done originally with the permission of Black Rod, and it has not been discontinued, and I suppose it has not been thought necessary to ask for a renewal of the permission.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: The only point I make is not one of criticism. My desire is to get guidance from the Leader of the House. I gather the effect of what the noble Earl has said is that the privilege was granted years ago by the Yeoman Usher. I am not sufficiently versed in the procedure of your Lordships' House to say whether it is open to the Yeoman Usher to give such a privilege or not. I do not discuss it from that point of view. But since that time this gentleman has been in the habit of attending in this House without apparently going through the formality of getting the permission renewed. I make no point of that. What I desire to do is to ask the Leader of the House, who is the person to whom we must look in this matter for guidance, to consider whether it can be left where it is. I am not objecting to it if others are allowed the same privilege. The only thing I am saying is that there must be somebody who is to exercise an authority of this kind, otherwise we shall be in some danger of falling into chaos. I do not suppose there will be any difficulty in regard to the number of chairs, but there will be difficulties in regard to the Library. I do not want to multiply the

79
difficulties, but obviously they must arise if we are to have more representatives of this kind given similar privileges. The Party to which I belong naturally wants to have someone to assist it and I assume the same thing applies to the Labour Party, consequently the matter becomes more important from the point of view of the difficulties than it would be if there were to be only one person with this privilege, as at present.
For myself I am going to submit entirely to the guidance of my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House. He will be speaking in virtue of the position he holds and he will tell us what he thinks is best to be done in the circumstances. I am quite sure that with the courtesy and consideration which always distinguishes your Lordships there will be every wish to give effect to the possibility of other Parties having the same advantages as hitherto have been enjoyed by one section. I suggest to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that he should take into consideration the question of allowing this matter to be dealt with by the House of Lords Offices Committee.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, perhaps I might be allowed to add a word to what I said just now. I think that it was the practice in those days invariably to consult the Lord Great Chamberlain, the late Lord Lincolnshire. I imagine that was done in the cases which I mentioned to your Lordships.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say a few words before the noble Viscount the Leader of the House replies to the appeal made by the noble and learned Marquess. I need not tell the noble Lord opposite, Lord Arnold, how much we all regret any personal inconvenience to which he may have been subjected. He is a very attentive member of your Lordships' House and he is entitled to every consideration in his efforts to do his work. I am quite sure we should all desire to assure him of that fact. But the matter really turns upon a momentary mistake into which the noble and learned Marquess fell just now when he said that my noble friend's Amendment would prevent the officials of the Government from attending on the floor of the House on the right of the
80
Throne. Of course we at once corrected him. That was not intended.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: If the noble Marquess will forgive me, I never said that and I never suggested it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have no desire to misrepresent the noble and learned Marquess. As my noble friend Lord Hastings has already pointed out, these assistants of the Government who attend on the floor on the right of the Throne are essential to the conduct of the business of the House. If the rigid doctrine of the noble Lord were to be employed they would all be excluded.
LORD ARNOLD: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Marquess, but this is really an important matter. As I understand the rules and practice that would not be so. I pointed out in my speech that technically the House itself is a limited part of the floor of this Chamber and that technically the Standing Order did not apply to this expert and would not apply to the officials of the Government. That is why I said my Motion is not syllable proof.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am obliged to the noble Lord, but I am not proposing to deal with a mere technicality. He is right in saying that that area is outside the House technically. The point I want to make is that the Government could not do their work properly unless they had experts there. What is true of the Government is true of noble Lords, and it is the case, as the noble Earl now sitting on the Woolsack has pointed out, that certain persons have been accorded from time to time the privilege of attending there. I have some experience in this matter because I was for many years connected in an official capacity with this organisation of Unionist Peers. During the time when Mr. Lloyd George was Prime Minister I think the principal part of the Opposition to the Government was conducted from that Bench or rather from this end of that Bench by those who represented this very Association of Independent Unionist Peers. All the debates were originated from that source. Most of the Motions put down were contrived by those Peers. Amendments to Bills were also moved by those who belonged to the Association.

81
We contributed in the highest degree to the business of the House, and what could be more insane for a practical Assembly than to say that those Motions should be made and those Amendments should be written without being properly drafted and properly written in a proper form to become part of the Statutes of this country? I cannot imagine anything more unwise than that noble Lords, who with all their great skill are amateurs, I say it with great respect, in drafting, should have no draftsman on whom they could depend. Even the noble and learned Marquess with his immense legal experience admits, I understand, that a draftsman would be very useful to him. If that is true of the noble and learned Marquess it is perfectly true of the great majority of your Lordships. If we must have a draftsman a draftsman must be where he can be got at. I am speaking to a practical Assembly. The noble Lord said that was not allowed in the House of Commons. Poor House of Commons! I am sorry for it. It appears to me that the House of Commons might in this respect learn a little from your Lordships' House. Why should we be deprived of assistance which is obviously in the interests of the country because the House of Commons does not do the same thing? I am quite sure that your Lordships will think that if it is proper that there should be a draftsman, it is proper that that draftsman should have access to a place where he can hear the debate and where noble Lords can find him.
I go a step further. He must have access to books of reference. He must not be in the position of the noble Lord when he was a member of the House of Commons running from corridor to corridor, and room to room, to try to find the necessary works of reference. That is not the way to do business. That is not the businesslike way of legislating. What you want is to have everything to your hand. In a strictly practical Assembly like your Lordships' House, when you have a body such as this Association—I think it numbers 130 Peers now, a very large element in the working body of your Lordships' House—it cannot be imagined that they should be deprived of the services of a draftsman, or that the draftsman should not be allowed to have access to what is required for the use of the House and for the proper
82
drafting of legislation. It seems to me that that is a proposition which cannot be defended. I hope therefore that the practice which has continued now for nearly thirty years will be allowed to continue.
Of course there is no desire to treat any section of your Lordships' House with unfairness. Even if we were able to do so, which we are not, we would not want to do so. If the noble and learned Marquess wishes to follow our example we should be very much flattered—imitation is the sincerest form of flattery—and if he wishes to have a draftsman and that that draftsman should be in attendance, none of us on this side of the House would wish to prevent him. And what is true in the case of the noble and learned Marquess is true also in the case of any other organised body in the House. Let us be quite practical. The noble and learned Marquess says he wishes he could find out the actual state of the case. I admit there is a certain amount of mystery about it. It is very difficult ever to find out the precise reasons for the provisions under which we are governed. I have no doubt the House of Lords Offices Committee is the proper authority to solve these problems if there is any difficulty. For my part and so far as my humble voice has any influence I should be delighted to learn that the House of Lords Offices Committee were going to consider this subject. Whatever they recommend to your Lordships your Lordships will no doubt consider and will probably consider favourably. But that does not prevent me from saying that in my humble judgment, and I believe in the judgment of many of my noble friends, the arrangement which has continued for the best part of thirty years is a very good and practical arrangement, an arrangement thoroughly becoming to a practical Assembly, and I earnestly hope that it will not be disturbed.
The noble Lord opposite seems to be rather burdened by a feeling that he has not been properly treated. Let me once more assure him that there is no intention whatever in any quarter of the House to treat him or any other noble Lord except on exactly the same footing as we would treat one of ourselves, and hope that he will co-operate with us in carrying out what I believe to be the true spirit of the House of Lords, which is

83
that whether we belong to one side or the other we should help each other so far as we possibly can to carry out the work of the House and of the country.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: My Lords, I should like in a sentence or two to make an appeal to the Leader of the House in support of that which has been made by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. I do not think that the line which has been taken by the noble Marquess who has just spoken can really be defended. It is not applicable to an Assembly of this sort. Supposing every Party in this House were to make the claim which he has made on behalf of the 130 independent Peers, and supposing that every Party in the House numbered 130 (which it does not), there would then be at least six Parties all of whom were asking for the privilege of a secretary who was to use the Library, the tea room and the Prince's Chamber and to have a seat on the floor of this House. That really is an impossible situation, and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, is asking for something which is impossible. I therefore suggest quite humbly that the only solution that can be arrived at is one which has been considered, the pros and cons of which have been weighed, and where investigation has been made into the possibilities of the accommodation of the Houses of Parliament. That could be done by a specially appointed Select Committee or by the House of Lords Offices Committee. As to the Independent Peers, I am afraid I know very little about them. I always thought when I came into this Chamber that the only independent Peers were those who sat on the Cross Benches.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, I have listened with great respect and interest to the discussion which has taken place, but even the eloquence of the noble Marquess and of the noble Lord who moved the Amendment has left me in a condition of some doubt as to the present position. I venture therefore to ask the guidance of the Leader of the House. The Standing Order to which reference has already been made says:
"No person shall be in any part of the House during the sitting of the House …"
That seems to be very clear. It is, I understand, true that the Standing Order was made some 140 or 150 years ago and that since then Parliament has been burnt
84
down and rebuilt. That may have some bearing on the Standing Order; but in the course of this debate it has been brought out that apparently the House and the Chamber are not the same thing, and that while strangers are excluded from the House, strangers need not necessarily be excluded from the Chamber; and that while your Lordships have control of the floor of the House at certain times, the Lord Great Chamberlain at other times has control of the House and of the Chamber.
In fact the whole position appears to be very obscure, and I would ask for guidance as to the interpretation of the Standing Order which is printed and circulated for the information of members of the House. There seems to be very little evidence to uphold the suggestion that the House and the Chamber are not the same thing. Is it not conceivable that those who preceded us and who framed that Standing Order had wider considerations in mind and desired that "the House" should mean the Chamber, the Library, the Lobby, etcetera? Perhaps they had had experience of lobbying; perhaps they thought that it was in the best interests of Parliamentary Government that as far as possible only members and officers attending the House should be permitted access to the Chambers of this House. Whether that is or is not the right interpretation of the Standing Order, at any rate the position is so confusing now that I would venture to suggest that it should be reconsidered.
Whatever is done in the matter, it is desirable that all Parties and all sections should receive the same treatment. I desire to lay stress upon the point that if one group is to be allowed to have special privileges, then all groups must be allowed those special privileges. Again I would venture to ask what is to be the definition of a group? Is it to be the National Party, Conservatives, Liberals and Socialists? If so, why not Communists with their chair and their representative? And why not Fascists, who presumably would not want to sit down if they were in their uniform? Those are, I venture to suggest, practical points to which we inevitably get driven when we consider this matter. Surely the position is most anomalous. Some are to be admitted because there is now room for them; others in the future are to be forbidden because there will not be room,

85
although their claims to admission will be quite as good as the claims of those who are already admitted. I venture to urge that the Chamber and the floor of the House should be kept for members of the House and those who are given special passes on special occasions for special business. May I very respectfully support the suggestion which has been made, that this matter should be referred to some special Committee with authority to see what is really the test course to pursue for the government of this House?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I should like to say a word upon a point which has arisen during the debate as to the desirability of referring this question to a Select Committee. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, said that investigation of this problem was the only solution. The only solution of what? The only solution of what the practice of this House has been as it has grown up during the last two or three hundred years. The noble Lord who has just sat down has perhaps interpreted this problem, rather like Lord Ullswater, in the light of his experience in the House of Commons. Whatever the House of Commons may think about its own procedure, I think the general view of the country as a whole is that it is so tied up by its procedure, so much bound by its Standing Orders and by its formidable code of precedents, that it frequently finds itself quite unable to move in the direction in which it desires to go.
As soon as you refer this question to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, or to any other Committee that you like to refer it to, you will find yourselves involved in any number of queer technical problems. What is the House? Does it begin at the feet of the noble Earl sitting upon the Woolsack, or at the Mace behind him? Does it extend six feet behind the seat occupied by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, or does it extend three feet, five feet or six feet behind the place where the noble Lord, Lord Daryngton, is standing now? Those problems immediately arise. Every kind of problem of authority will immediately arise. What is the authority of the Lord Chairman when half a dozen members say to him: "We have got a Bill upon which we desire help; may we have assistance?" The status of the Serjeant-
86
at-Arms and of Black Rod immediately arises.
It is useless saying that this is a thing which can be sent to the House of Lords Offices Committee. I do not know whether the noble Lord has ever served upon that Committee. I assure him that that Committee, of which I am a member, could never solve these archaeological problems. The very questions of the geography of this House and of the definition of the House are almost insoluble. When the problem arises, I undertake to say that your Lordships are perfectly capable of settling it. If the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, and his friends desire help, or if the noble Marquess opposite (who has been so little incommoded by this that it was I think quite unnecessary on his part to ask for a Select Committee) wants help, let them ask for it, and I undertake they will be able to obtain it without any difficulty.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: The solution which was in my mind was of the difficulty of finding room, and what was in my mind was that the Select Committee, which had a plan of the Houses of Parliament and could investigate the rooms which were available, would be a body which would be able to assign to the secretary of Independent Peers and the secretary of other Parties in the House rooms which could be used by them for the purposes required.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, the noble Lord who moved this Motion said quite rightly that this is a matter which in no way concerns the Government, and it is not in any sense as a member of the Government that I am addressing you this afternoon. Both he and my noble and learned friend Lord Reading appealed to me as Leader of the House, and therefore I am in a peculiar position of responsibility in giving advice to the House on a matter of this kind—to act as custodian, I think Lord Arnold said, of the letter and spirit of the Standing Orders, and to find a solution of the difficulties which were alleged to have arisen. Let me first of all say that I do not think any one would seriously suggest that it is either my responsibility or for the convenience of the House that the letter of the Standing Orders should be carefully observed or maintained.

87
I do not need to go through them all, but one of the first of them provides that the Lords are to sit in the same order as is prescribed by the Act of Parliament. The Act of Parliament is a Statute of Henry VIII, and it enacts that the Dukes, Marquesses, Earls and so forth are to sit in their order of precedence, the Dukes sitting where the noble and learned Marquess, Lord Reading, is sitting; the Marquesses coming where the Front Opposition Bench is, and I think I am myself sitting in a comparatively junior part of the House. Obviously in the course of centuries these things have largely fallen into abeyance, and we only remember which is the Barons' seat when a formal introduction to the House takes place. Similarly, questions have arisen as to what exactly does or does not constitute the actual House within the meaning of Standing Order No. VIII. We all know that it is laid down that the Woolsack on which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor usually sits is outside the House, and it is on that account that he has to take the traditional number of steps to the left before he can address your Lordships, and a Commoner can sit on the Woolsack, as I sat, before admission as a Peer. Then it is said that the Standing Order provides that nobody except Lords of Parliament and Peers, and Judges and others, technically described as assistants, shall be present in the House.
Lord Ponsonby made great play with the fact that there was only one chair, except that which he described as a chair but with which we are more familiar as the Throne, which was within the House. There are two Thrones, and there is the chair which His Royal Highness occupies. There is, apart from that, the chair which is much in debate, to the right of the House, and anybody who takes the trouble to look will see a corresponding chair to the left of the House. The noble Lord has passed it often on coming into the House, and it is generally occupied, I think, by the secretary to the Lord Chancellor. Then there is the chair upon which the Lord Chairman sits. There it is, plain to see, and if we look beyond the Table we see chairs occupied by those who are doing very important work and who take down what we have to say. It is a complete breach of the Standing Order. These are chairs
88
which Lord Ponsonby can hardly fail to observe, and on one of these there is sitting a gentleman who is not a member of the House, in flagrant breach of the Standing Order.
I could pursue the Standing Orders at greater length, but it is not profitable to the subject that we are discussing, because in the course of centuries changes have taken place in the habits of the House. The Standing Orders lay down the general principle on which we act, and we do conform to the spirit which animates the Standing Orders. The difficulty I feel in responding to the appeal of Lord Reading is that his suggestion implies that difficulties have arisen and that the Committee shall examine into the existing privileges in order to consider whether they shall be withdrawn. My hesitation about this is that I doubt whether there are any real difficulties which have arisen. There are difficulties which may arise—
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I raised no question with regard to the gentlemen who have been sitting here. I was calling attention to what must arise now.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: There are difficulties which may arise, and if there was any serious problem to be dealt with, a real difficulty which showed itself, I agree with my noble friend that the House of Lords Offices Committee would be a convenient body to deal with it. In fact this question of access to the House of Lords and the question of who shall control the right of access, have already been the subject of consideration by a Select Committee appointed on the recommendation of the Offices Committee less than thirty years ago. Its Report was made in 1906, which I gather was coincident with the admission of the gentleman who has been referred to as the expert during this discussion. A Very influential Select Committee was appointed, with the Lord Chancellor presiding over it, and I see that Lord Onslow's father was a member of it. That Committee enquired into the power and authority which the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod exercised in order to determine, no doubt, some question which had arisen as to the right of decision on such a point as is raised this afternoon.
That Committee in 1906 made a very detailed and careful Report to the House, and I cannot help thinking that before

89
pressing me too far to ask the House of Lords Offices Committee to investigate these possible difficulties, it would be worth while to look at the Report, which I think contains rather useful material. There was a careful examination into the question as to where the custody of the Palace of Westminster legally resided, and the Committee resolved after careful inquiry that:
"The Palace of Westminster is in the custody of the Lord Great Chamberlain, who is an hereditary Great Officer of State, receiving no salary and in no way under control of the House. When Parliament is not sitting the Palace of Westminster is under his management."
The Committee went on to report that:
"Each House, while in occupation of the part assigned to it, has the custody and service of that part; this control was exercised through officers placed by the Crown at the service of either House, viz., in the Lords, through the Gentleman Usher, in the Commons, through their Serjeant-at-Arms, officers attending personally at all sittings of their respective Houses, appointing all their own subordinates and liable to removal, for
misconduct. …"
The Report goes on:
"All questions relating to the disposition of the Lords portion have been dealt with from time to time by the House of Lords Offices Committee and its predecessor, the ' Committee on the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod '—so called after the two Chief Officers responsible to the House in their respective Departments which comprise the whole machinery of the government and management, of the House."
That Report, accepted twenty-eight years ago, I think does define the authorities through which such points as have been indicated in this afternoon's debate can be resolved.
That is to say, if there were a question of the allocation of rooms, that is a matter which obviously does not only arise when Parliament is sitting, and is a matter which in practice, to my knowledge, is dealt with by the Lord Great Chamberlain. When I was Lord Chancellor, as not infrequently happens in Government Departments, I thought I was not getting enough rooms for the adequate discharge of the duties of my Department, and I had to go to the Lord Great Chamberlain—with much less success than I had hoped—in order to try to get an increase of the rooms allotted to me. Similarly, when there is a question of admitting any particular person to the precincts of the House what
90
happens is that a permit is issued by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, permitting a particular person to have access to the House, either on a particular occasion or during a particular Session. No doubt, if any question was sought to be raised as to the propriety of the action of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, that is a matter which would be referred to and would be considered by the House of Lords Offices Committee, who would, if necessary, make a report to your Lordships' House.
The fact is that the control of this House whilst it is in session rests in the House itself, and I think one of the differences between the practice of this House and the practice of another place is that in our House, both in the conduct of our debates and in the ordinary regulation of our affairs, we act with a greater elasticity and with less regard to the strict letter of regulations and Standing Orders than has been the practice elsewhere. I am not going to discuss which is the better course. I have no doubt that the House of Commons has the rules which it thinks best for the conduct of its own business, but I am profoundly convinced that in this House the rules and the methods under which we work have conduced to a very dignified and orderly conduct of affairs, and I should be very sorry to see us attempt to follow the more rigid procedure in another place.
Now I come to the particular case which has given rise to the present discussion—I do not say it is the subject of the present discussion, because the discussion has taken a wider range. The facts, as I understand them—I do not think they are in dispute—are that there is a group in your Lordships' House which I think is called the Association of Independent Unionist Peers. I may say in passing that sometimes the Government notices their independence more plainly than their Unionism. But it is a body which comprises a very large proportion of those of your Lordships who take a regular part in the conduct of the legislative business of this House. I wish that were not so. I wish very much that there were more Peers who regularly attended and regularly assisted in our discussions; but in fact the Independent Unionist Peers are a body which comprises in its hundred odd members—130, I think, is the number—the bulk of

91
those who, at any rate on this side of the House, take a regular part in our debates.
That body was formed some twenty-eight years ago. It was formed in order that those on the Unionist side who were taking a regular part in the political discussions here should have an opportunity of consulting together, of making up their minds about various measures which came under discussion, and of framing Amendments and bringing forward their particular points of view. I gather that for the more efficient discharge of those duties they have at their own expense employed a very eminent expert to advise them on legal matters, and I suppose on matters of procedure, and to assist them in drafting Amendments and in finding the necessary technical phraseology for the views which they desire to see embodied in Acts of Parliament. He has apparently habitually for twenty-eight years enjoyed the privilege of attending in the Prince's Chamber, of having access to that part of your Lordships' House which is used by officials and by secretaries and assistants of Ministers, and has also had the advantage of attending in the Library.
My noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees has given us such information as he has been able to collect as to the precise way in which those privileges originated. But it is worth noticing, I think, that they originated twenty-eight years ago under a Liberal Government, that they have continued under Coalition Governments, Conservative Governments, Labour Governments, and now under a National Government. I was very sorry to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, that in some way the presence of this gentleman in the Library had caused him inconvenience. I am quite sure that that must have been unintentional, and I am quite sure that every effort would be taken to avoid any such inconvenience.
But, apart from that complaint, which I learnt this afternoon, I have never heard that the presence of this gentleman has given rise to any inconvenience or trouble, to any member of your Lordships' House, or has in any way interfered with the efficient conduct of our business. On the other hand, we have been told—and one can well understand—that his presence has been of material assistance to that very large body of Peers who
92
belong to the Association, and who habitually, I am glad to say, come and assist in our deliberations. Now, I do venture to think that in those circumstances it would be a mistake for your Lordships to pass any Resolution which would seem to suggest that there was any question of the withdrawal of those privileges or the alteration of that practice. I do not think any case has been made out for any alteration in that regard. But I recognise that, apart from the particular instance brought forward, questions may arise, and the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, brought forward one or two of them with regard to which it may be said that difficulties may be created.
Lord Arnold told us that he would like to see one or two rooms allotted for the use of experts whom various members of your Lordships' House might wish to consult, or as rooms in which members of your Lordships' House might interview callers. I can quite sympathise with the desire for more accommodation, but I know that it is a very difficult question. I know the difficulties which arose in my own case when I tried to invite the assistance of the Lord Great Chamberlain, and I know also that when I was performing judicial duties in your Lordships' House and was to some extent responsible for the efficient conduct of that business, there was very great difficulty in finding rooms for the Law Lords and those who habitually attended for judicial work. We had actually to put two Law Lords in one room, which was obviously—I do not say a dangerous, but at any rate an inconvenient practice. There is a real difficulty with regard to that: we have not got anything like the accommodation which they have in the other House, and it would be a very great advantage if some arrangement could be made to meet that point.
My doubt regarding the suggestion made by my noble and learned friend the Marquess of Reading is that I do not think concrete difficulties have arisen which require to be sent to a Select Committee. I cannot help thinking that such a point as that which Lord Arnold has raised might well be considered by the proper authority if it were merely a matter of the allocation of rooms. The proper authority in that case is the Lord Great Chamberlain. If it is merely a matter of somebody attending to give advice or assistance to a group of your

93
Lordships or to an individual Peer, there is no difficulty in asking the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod for the necessary permits, and I have no doubt at all if it did happen that that privilege were too largely availed of, and there was any danger of congestion or inconvenience, the matter could be considered by the House of Lords Offices Committee, but I doubt very much if that is ever going to arise. I am told that it is the practice for the private secretary of the Leader of the Opposition or of any Cabinet Minister to get; a permit as a matter of course. We were told than the private secretary of the most reverend Primate, Dr. Davidson, habitually attended with such a permit. It obviously might happen that there were too many people, and there might be unseemly crowding or jostling or interference with the liberty of access to your Lordships' House. If anything of that kind arose it would obviously be right that such a problem should be dealt with by the House of Lords Offices Committee and brought if necessary to the notice of your Lordships' House; but it has not arisen and, with great respect to my noble friend, I doubt very much whether it will arise.
I do not think we shall find in practice that so many people want to have their experts or private secretaries here that there is likely to be any such interference as the noble Marquess fears. My own personal feeling—and I hope the Opposition will believe I am not consciously swayed by any Party bias in the matter—is that it would not be unreasonable to affirm that we are satisfied with the existing practice, and at the same time we should make it clear, as I am endeavouring to make it clear, that if any difficulty arises at any time then the accustomed officers of the House, whose functions and decisions have been already plainly delimited and set out in. the Report of 1906, should understand that it would be their duty to deal with any such question and bring it to the notice of your Lordships' House. The reason why I am suggesting that the existing practice should be affirmed is that the particular case that has arisen does seem to be one that has been thoroughly thrashed out and with regard to which no substantial case of difficulty or inconvenience has arisen, and, if it is a precedent, it is a precedent which has
94
been repeated over and over again and with regard to which in practice no difficulty has hitherto arisen. If we were not to affirm the existing practice it would look as if we thought this particular gentleman ought to be excluded, and I do not myself consider any case has been made out for an alteration.
I suggest, therefore, the convenient course would be to accept something in the form of the Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Hastings. In accepting it we should make it quite clear that we continue the present practice, that we are satisfied with the administration of the present high officers, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod in the one instance and the Lord Great Chamberlain in the other, and are confident that if any difficulties arise in the future regarding any application either for accommodation in the way of rooms or for accommodation in the way of facilities for access to the House, these difficulties will be dealt with by the officers concerned and, in any case of doubt, will be brought to the notice of the House of Lords Offices Committee, which I quite agree would be the appropriate body to deal with the matter. The only difference between myself and the noble Marquess is that he feels there will be a difficulty and that the House of Lords Offices Committee should consider it now, whereas I for my part very much doubt whether a difficulty will actually arise, and unless one arises I do not see why we should refer a hypothetical problem which may never arise to the Committee to deal with.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Arnold replies to the debate I should just like to say a few words. To begin with, I wish to express my regret that the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House has not responded to the appeal which my noble friend made, and which was supported by the noble Marquess on my right and by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, both of whom have had a very considerable experience of Parliament. We are now confronted with what we hoped would not be the result of this debate, which is a direct negative by which the small body to which I belong are going of course to be defeated. In the course of the debate I have learned a great deal. I am afraid

95
it was some phrases of mine in a speech I made last December which has caused all the trouble. But I noticed the individual in question when I first came into the House. I did not notice him particularly, because I am afraid there were a good many noble Lords whom I did not know by sight. I thought he was a Peer. He seemed to be where all other Peers were. Then after a time I was on the Government Bench, and I realised he was the adviser to the Opposition, as I thought. I thought it was perfectly right and natural he should be the adviser to the Opposition and that the Opposition should have an adviser who has access to the various parts of the House and can be ready at hand to advise them. Then, when in 1931 I crossed over to this side of the House, I saw he was still there and I asked some noble Lord on the Government Bench if he were an adviser to the Government. He replied: "Oh, not at all," and then I discovered he was advising a certain group. That does really make a very great difference.
This question of advising a group does open out the whole of the ground which has been covered during the debate. I personally have no intimate knowledge of this Association of Independent Unionist Peers, of which the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, is Chairman, and I think the noble Lord is perfectly justified in coming to your Lordships' House to stand an for the activities of his Association and to insist on the privileges which have been got for it. I did not know that this body existed for expediting and assisting business and the Government. In fact some of the opinions with regard to that body I have heard expressed do not seem to convey that impression to me at all; but, however that may be, the result is that this body which I described not rhetorically but very accurately in my speech in December last is here for the purpose of giving a very strong Conservative bias to everything that is done, and they have got this very able adviser who on occasions floods the Order Paper with Amendments, and very good Amendments too, with the result that the Government themselves are embarrassed. But the present Government would rather be embarrassed by the extreme diehards than that these diehards should renounce their present privileges.
96
When the Leader of the House gets up and says: "There is not going to be any other case, so we are going to keep our man," he knows that my noble friends and I cannot afford to have secretaries who can spend their days here. We have not the money, and it is impossible. Other noble Lords will probably be able to produce experts who can attend here. I do not know, but perhaps they will as a result of this debate. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House looks upon that prospect with complete indifference so long as we keep the present practice that there shall be one expert for these 130 Peers, and that that one expert shall be in the Library and in all the corridors and rooms of this House as if he were a member of the House itself. If the noble and learned Viscount consented to put this matter before the House of Lords Offices Committee I am perfectly certain that some arrangement could be made by which accommodation would be found for advisers. I know the official answer about accommodation—there is never any accommodation. But it is marvellous what they can do when they are forced to. There are a thousand rooms in this building, and if they are properly adapted they can accommodate the right number of people. Moreover, the judicial business of the House is never concurrent with the Parliamentary business of this House, and there is no reason why certain rooms should not be used for a double purpose. That could be gone into by the House of Lords Offices Committee. This is a matter that can be easily adjusted.
Nobody wants to deprive the 130 noble Lords of their adviser. We only ask that he should give his advice in a way that is less disturbing to other Peers. My noble friend Lord Arnold has said that he has been disturbed in the Library. I am perfectly certain he is not the only noble Lord who has been disturbed. I have seen, when we were discussing Bills in which the 130 Peers have been specially interested, Peers sitting round in a ring with the expert holding forth. Nobody can do any work when that sort of thing is going on in the Library. And his zeal is such that no doubt he accomplishes his purpose and does his business with the utmost efficiency. But really these are matters which should be adjusted in an impartial way. It is extremely disappointing to come down to your Lord-

97
ships' House and after a speech delivered in such a calm and moderate tone as my noble friend's was, to be simply met by the Leader of the House with a direct negative, with the statement that Lord Hastings's direct negative is the only way out of this question. That attitude leaves us not only disappointed but with a certain feeling of unfairness in the treatment of this question which we had not expected. However much we have tried hitherto to prevent publicity being given to this question, I am afraid publicity will be given now, in view of the way the Leader of the House has treated the question this afternoon. I do not know what my noble friend feels, but I should certainly advise him to go to a Division.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I should like, if I may say so, to endorse what my noble friend has just said. It is most unfortunate that a matter like this should be forced—that is what it comes to—to a Division by the attitude taken by the Leader of the House and by other noble Lords. I put forward a most reasonable proposal which was supported, and I thank him for it, by my noble friend Lord Reading, who has great influence in your Lordships' House, and also by the great authority of the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, who very rarely intervenes in the debates of this House but when he does I think his words should always receive the very greatest possible consideration. Despite this we have in fact been met, as my noble friend said, by a direct negative. That is what it comes to. In those circumstances I do not know that there is very much point in continuing the debate further. The chief criticism I think by Lord Hastings of myself was that I referred to the Throne as a chair. In that regard I was following my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, who was born in Windsor Castle while I was born in a suburban house in Cheshire. I thought he was more likely to be right about these things than myself, but in future I shall have to be more careful and be sure of my phraseology in regard to these august matters. But I was quoting the words of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby.
The noble Viscount the Leader of the House referred to precedents and so forth. The permissions which have been given for experts to go on to the floor
98
of the House have been given for special purposes, when special Bills were being discussed. On no other occasion, as far as I know, has such a permission ever been given to any expert to go into the Library. The noble Viscount, if I may say so, is not quite right in his facts. It is not many years ago since the secretary, I think to the Leader of the House, was not able to go into the Library. I think the noble Viscount will find that it is correct to say that the secretary to the Leader of the House had no official permission to go into the Library. Is it really seriously proposed, as apparently it is if we are to meet with this direct negative, that if any group of members—and there may be any kind of definition as to how many there are in a group—is to put forward an application for an expert to come and help in the work here, then that expert is to have the same privileges as the present expert has? It is true, as Lord Ponsonby has said, that certain members of your Lordships' House are not as well off as others, though many of us are not on the bread line, but there are plenty of experts who are willing to come and work for nothing, and they will be only too pleased to come and work for nothing if they are to have the right to go into the Library and into the tea room and on to the floor of your Lordships' House.
This is an impossible position. No adequate reply whatever has been given by the noble Viscount to the suggestion that alternative accommodation should be found to suit this expert. I do not want to take his position away from him. I am sorry for him. What we say is that there is a way to deal with the matter. There is accommodation in your Lordships' House. The noble Marquess says: "You must have someone to help you to draft Amendments." Very well; have your expert; but take him out of the Library and put him into some other room or rooms. There are rooms which are never used in your Lordships' House. That is a fair proposal and it ought to be accepted. It is no reply for the noble Viscount simply to get up and say nothing need be done as there is no real difficulty, and that we should continue the present practice. It has been suggested that I am the only Peer who has been inconvenienced in the Library. That really is not so. The noble Viscount

99
says that if I have been inconvenienced, it has been done unintentionally. It may have been unintentional, but it is unavoidable. It is absolutely impossible for the present state of things to continue. If we are to be voted down, as apparently we are, that is not an end of the matter. In a sense it is really only the beginning of the matter. I am very sorry indeed that the debate has had to end on this comparatively controversial note, but we have no responsibility for it.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend the Leader of the House a question. Assuming that the Motion is withdrawn, and consequently the Amendment also is withdrawn, nothing would happen. We have had a statement from the Leader of the House for our guidance in the future. It was really the suggestion I was making, although I did add that the matter should be referred to a Committee. I understand what the noble and learned Viscount said about that, and have not a word to say about it. I accept what he said in regard to it. What I do ask him is whether, in the circumstances, if my noble friend Lord Arnold is willing to withdraw the Motion and the Amendment also is withdrawn, that is not the right way out for all of us?
LORD HASTINGS: If the noble Lord withdraws his Motion I shall regard it as necessary that I should also withdraw.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: May I point out to the noble Lord that his Amendment comes first? His Amendment is before the House and it is on that that voting will take place, and the noble Viscount the Leader of the House advises your Lordships to vote for this Amendment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: There is a Motion before the House and an Amendment. I was stating what I thought was the right thing to do upon this Motion. It seems to me that if the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, does not wish to press his Motion and is satisfied to leave things where they are, my noble friend Lord Hastings, if he will take my advice, should withdraw his Amendment.
LORD ARNOLD: If I may be permitted to intervene I should like to say that I think it is most undesirable that there should be a Division on this matter.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD ARNOLD: If the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment I will withdraw my Motion and then the matter will be left open for the future.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, Lord Arnold has made a long second speech, but I am not going to follow his example, although I have the right to finish the debate. I was awaiting my opportunity to do so. However, the noble Lord is good enough to say that he proposes to withdraw his Motion, which as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, pointed out comes second, as the Amendment comes first. I am certainly willing to follow the advice of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and to follow what I think would be common-sense procedure—that is, to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that no vote is taken. The result would be that we continue the status quo and that no alteration in the present practice would occur. Does the noble Lord give an undertaking not to proceed to a Division?
LORD ARNOLD: I have given an undertaking that I shall not proceed to a Division but the interpretation placed on the position, which will then emerge, will vary in different quarters.
LORD HASTINGS: In view of that undertaking I ask permission to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ARNOLD: I ask permission to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS (SPECIAL INVESTMENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I hope that the business which I now have to bring before your Lordships will not take so long as the business which we have not succeeded in transacting in the last three hours. This Bill consists of only two clauses and I hope that your Lordships will treat it as non-controversial as has been the custom with legislation in the past dealing with trustee savings banks. This Bill deals with the special invest-

101
ment departments of these banks. I may explain to your Lordships that trustee savings banks are the oldest and indeed the original savings institutions in this country. All of them have an ordinary branch, but a great many of them have two blanches. The ordinary department accepts deposits up to £500 a year from any one individual at a fixed rate of interest of 2½ per cent. Both in regard to capital and interest the deposits are guaranteed by the Government. In regard to the special investment department which some of these banks have, deposits can be accepted up to £1,000 provided the depositor has £50 in the ordinary department. In that case neither capital nor interest are guaranteed by the Government and the interest varies in accordance with the transactions of the Bank. In most cases now it varies between 2¾ per cent. and 3 per cent.
The Government for many years have exercised control ever the investments in the special investments branch. In the ordinary departments the whole deposits go direct to the National Debt Commissioners, but in the special investment branch the Government exercise control and the type of investment has to be approved in accordance with legislation which has long been in existence in this country. The main purpose of this Bill is to enlarge the powers of investment which these banks now have. What has happened is that these banks have made most of their special investments in mortgages raised by municipal authorities. Owing to the low rate of interest on capital in general many municipalities have been converting their mortgages and funding them at a low rate of interest and of course for a long period of years. These trustee savings banks have to keep their money in funds which can be readily realised if they should require to call on capital. Therefore it is now proposed to give these banks rather wider powers of investment.
Perhaps it will be sufficient if I put the matter briefly by saying that the term of years is somewhat lengthened in regard to some of these investments. The Bill enables investments to be made in the funds of municipalities with a population of over 50,000 and also in Government securities which have rather a longer life. Your Lordships may be surprised
102
to hear how great is the extent of the funds of trustee savings banks in this country. It is a very remarkable story. At this moment there are exactly 100 banks with 538 offices. There are no fewer than 2,024,000 active accounts in the ordinary department and there are 304,000 in the special investments department. The bank year for these trustee banks ends on November 20 and the deposits at November 20 last in the ordinary department amounted to very nearly £88,000,000 and to £82,000,000 in the special investments branch. The actual amount has increased very materially in the past two years owing to a variety of causes—to the conversion of the 5 per cent. War Loan and for other reasons. It has increased in the ordinary department by no less than £10,000,000 in the last two years and by £17,000,000 in the special investment department. It now amounts, as I have said, to the enormous sum of nearly £88,000,000 in one branch and £82,000,000 in the other.
The purpose of Clause 1, as I have stated, is to increase the investments in which these banks can invest their special investment funds. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 is intended to make it more easy to start a new bank. They have to keep a good deal of their money liquid but they want to earn such interest as is possible. They will be entitled under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this subsection to put their money into other banks and obtain interest on it. They are limited as to the amount they can put into another bank and they are also limited in regard to the proportion of their funds which they can put into another bank. In regard to subsection (2) (b), that makes it clear that the National Debt Commissioners can order these funds to be withdrawn from another bank if they see fit to do so. Subsection (3) of Clause 1 is to make it clear that trustee savings banks have the right to open an account for their special investment branch in any other bank, not being a trustee savings bank. That has, as a matter of fact, been the habit of banks for a great number of years. It is not quite clear that they were in fact entitled to do so, and therefore the power is given to them by this Bill.
The whole of this legislation has been asked for by the Trustee Savings Banks Association, which is the central body of trustee savings banks, and the pro-

103
posals in the Bill are such as the Association have approved. The application from the Association was considered by the Government, who thought that it was a very legitimate one, and that is why it appears in this Bill. I do not know whether there is anything further that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, would like me to say on the Bill, but perhaps I may be able to answer him if he has any point to raise. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Earl Stanhope).
LORD STEABOLGI: My Lords, I want very briefly to comment on this Bill on behalf of my noble friends, and the first thing to say is that this is a shockingly bad example of legislation by reference. In the discussion during the last three hours (to which the noble Earl referred as ending in nothing) we heard a great deal about drafting. Here is an example on which that expert we heard so much about earlier in the afternoon might have been set to work. I defy anybody to understand this Bill without going through five Acts of Parliament. Again and again it refers to Acts. The first one is the Trustee Act, 1925; then we come to the Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1921; then we come to the Trustee Savings Bank Act, 1918; and then we come to an Act which does not exist, for there is no such Act in existence as the one which is referred to in line 18 on page 2 of the Bill as the Trustee Savings Banks Act, 1863. At least I have not been able to find it in the Library, with the very able assistance of the courteous officials in the Library. What no doubt is meant is an Act of 1863 which is called the Savings Banks Acts Amendment Act—nothing about trustee savings banks. Then, to continue, it is necessary to refer also to the Savings Banks Act, 1929.
Those are five separate citations, and it is impossible to understand this highly technical Bill, dealing with a subject which is in any case a difficult one for the ordinary layman, without referring to all those different Acts. I would appeal to the noble Earl, and I would appeal if I may to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, on this matter. This is a Bill originating in your Lordships' House, and I repeat that without being armed with five Acts of Parliament, one of them going back seventy years, it
104
is impossible to understand it. It may be all right for the bankers themselves, but we have to think of the many hundreds of thousands of trustees, solicitors and ordinary depositors who may have to refer to this Bill in the future when it becomes an Act of Parliament. Surely the time has come when it is possible to draft Bills to become Acts of Parliament in language which the ordinary layman can understand, and when it is necessary to cite old Acts, to give extracts from them—rubrics if you like, or something of that kind—in the margin explaining what they are. This is really a very serious matter, especially in view of the amount of legislation which has been turned out by both Houses of Parliament during recent years, and it does really need most serious attention. I am sorry to make this complaint, but I do assure the noble Earl that if this matter could be gone into and remedied, it would be of great advantage to the ordinary public.
With regard to the material of the Bill, speaking on broad lines my noble friends and the Party to which we belong are very anxious to see better control over the use of other people's money by trustees or anybody else. We welcome anything which prevents the dissipation of the people's savings by incompetent or careless persons to whom it is entrusted. This Bill simply widens the field of investment, but nevertheless there are very stringent safeguards remaining, and needless to say we offer no opposition at all. But on those broad lines, may I point out to the noble Earl—or rather remind him, for he knows this very well— that the habits of the people have changed a good deal. Whereas in the past the small man invested as a rule only in a savings bank, there has now grown up a class of business known as investment trusts, which take small men's money and invest it on the whole very soundly and very efficiently. The majority of them that survived the recent slump are efficiently and honestly managed, but there are others which have not been honestly or efficiently managed, and people's money has been lost.
While we are talking of the safeguarding of the investor and saver, the Party to which I have the honour to belong believes that this matter should receive equally close attention, and that when you are legislating for the better control

105
of savings banks—and the legislation has been going on for nearly a hundred years—the time has come when the Treasury and the Government should turn their attention to the other form of encouraging saving by the people and the investment of money—namely, the investment trusts. Only a small minority, I repeat, need special attention, but that is always the case. In the old days it was only a small minority of banks that needed special attention in this country, fortunately; but that is why we have the present Bank Acts.
This Bill, I understand, does not apply to the Post Office Savings Bank, and I am therefore spared the necessity of making a few caustic remarks about the use made by His Majesty's Government to-day of Post Office Savings Bank funds, and the extremely unscrupulous scares which were raised at the last General Election. I need not refer to those matters now, although there may be another opportunity; but I would like to ask this question: Are the restrictions which are contained in the Bill, such as those for instance in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of Clause 1, where it is provided that the total liabilities in respect of moneys received in respect of special investments shall not exceed £20,000, and paragraph (c) of that subsection, which provides that the amount which the trustee savings bank may deposit with other banks shall not exceed £5,000, intended in any way to hamper the future development of municipal banks, on the lines of the Birmingham Bank and others?
I would be very glad if the noble Earl would give an assurance on that point, perhaps at a later stage of the Bill if he has to look up the information. That is the only matter about which we think some assurance is needed, because we do not want to support anything which will hamper the development of municipal banks, especially with all the safeguards which exist under the various Bank Acts. I apologise for these few remarks and for delaying your Lordships at this late hour, but this is an important subject, it deals with a very large branch of banking and affects many thousands of people, and my noble friends thought these few remarks were necessary.
EARL STANHOPE: I can assure the noble Lord opposite that the powers re-
106
ferred to in subsection (2) of Clause I have, of course, no connection whatever with municipal banks. As I stated, this Bill deals entirely with the special investment branches of these trustee savings banks, and with them only, and therefore nothing in this Bill would have any connection with municipal banks, which are a different thing altogether.
LORD STRABOLGI: Or with co-operative banks?
EARL STANHOPE: Or with co-operative banks unless they are in fact trustee savings banks. I am not clear as to what a co-operative bank is. Some of them are possibly on the same lines as these, in which case, of course, they would have to come under the ordinary law affecting trustee savings banks.
LORD STRABOLGI: There is only one, I think. I believe that the Co-operative Wholesale Bank is the only one.
EARL STANHOPE: That would come under the same law as all other savings banks in the country. These regulations are put in only because the Treasury and the National Debt Commissioners think they are advisable. Of course, there is no question of restricting banking at all. In fact, we are anxious to increase thrift, but to see that its funds are properly safeguarded. As regards the second point, the noble Lord may be interested to hear that I asked this morning whether there had been any failures with regard to these banks. I understand that although in some cases they had to close their doors, in every case they paid the deposits in full and always with interest as well, having a balance in hand. These banks have very large reserve funds, amounting to over £9,000,000. Therefore, they axe in an extremely safe position.
The complaint he made that this is legislation by reference is one that I am afraid people who stand at this Box hear on almost every occasion, to whichever Party they belong. I admit that perhaps it is rather a bad case, but I understand that the whole of this legislation for trustees savings banks has gone on for so many years that it has a phraseology peculiar to itself, and several instances have been pointed out to me in this Bill of language not usual in legislation in these days. Of course the Bill will not

107
be construed by the ordinary depositor. It is of no interest to him to know that the bank puts money into this or that. The only people who have to deal with it are accountants, who go through the funds and audit, and see that the investments are made in accordance with the Acts of Parliament in force, and to some extent the trustees and managers, who get guidance from the National Debt Commissioners.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (CRUELTY TO DOGS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
COTTON MANUFACTURING IN- DUSTRY (TEMPORARY PROVI- SIONS) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
STATUTORY SALARIES (RESTORA- TION) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 33:
Provisions in the event of postponement of coming into operation of Part I.
33.—(1) If this Tart of this Act is not in operation on the first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, the following provisions shall have effect: -
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ROCHESTER)THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ROCHESTER) moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "If this Part of this Act is not in operation on" and insert "Whereas this Part of this Act will not, save as therein otherwise expressly provided, come into operation until after". The noble Lord said: My Lords, both of the Amendments to be moved to this Bill at this stage cover the same point, and they will ensure that Part I of the Bill will come into operation, except as otherwise expressly provided, on Thursday, July 26. As I explained oil the Committee stage, that was the date we in-
108
tended, but there was a little difficulty in establishing it definitely because we did not know the date on which the Bill would receive the Royal Assent. Therefore, we are putting in these words so as to leave no doubt.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 14, leave out from the beginning to ("the") in line 15, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Rochester).
LORD STRABOLGI: Before this Amendment is put may I ask whether there is going to be any special national celebration to welcome the Bill and make public holiday?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: NO, I think the gratitude of those who come under it will be sufficient celebration.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 34:
Commencement, extent and citation of Part I.
34.—(1) Save as therein otherwise expressly provided, this Part of this Act shall come into operation on the fifth Thursday after the passing of this Act.
LORD ROCHESTER LORD ROCHESTER moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "fifth Thursday after the passing of this Act" and insert "twenty-sixth day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-four." The noble Lord said: My Lords, This is the same point exactly, and is simply complementary to the other, in fixing the actual date.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 37, leave out ("fifth Thursday after the passing of this Act") and insert ("twenty-sixth day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-four").—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

LICENSING (PERMITTED HOURS) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments (according to Order), and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  WATER SUPPLY.
  WATER SUPPLY.