Sitting of 27 March 1934

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

TRAMWAYS AND LIGHT RAILWAYS (STREET AND ROAD) AND TRACKLESS TROLLEY UNDERTAKINGS.
Return ordered,
"of Street and Road Tramways and Light Railways authorised by Act or Order, showing the amount of capital authorised, paid up, and expended; the length of line authorised and the length open for traffic, and number of cars owned at the 31st day of December, 1933, in respect of companies, and the end of the financial year 1933–34, in respect of local authorities; the gross receipts, working expenditure, net receipts and appropriations, the transactions in reserve funds, and traffic and operating statistics for the year ended on the foregoing dates, respectively (in continuation of Return to an Order of the House, dated the 28th day of March, 1933); also similar particulars relating to Trackless Trolley Undertakings."—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Cambridge University and Town Waterworks Bill [Lords].

Workington Corporation Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.
Private Bills [Lords] (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, originating in the
1782
Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

Durham County Water Board Bill [Lords].

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolution reported from the Select Committee:
"That, in the case of the Tiverton Corporation [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
Resolution agreed to.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  SCOTLAND.

    HOUSING.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many State-aided houses were under construction in Scotland in March, 1933; the number under construction at present; and what is the cause of the decline?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The number of State-assisted houses under construction by local authorities and private enterprise in Scotland at the 31st March, 1933, was 23,503. Figures for March, 1934, are not yet available. For purposes of comparison I give figures for February of 1933 and 1934. These were 22,315 and 16,446, respectively. With regard to the second part of the question, the hon. Member will recollect that local authorities are at present concentrating upon programmes for slum clearance. These are not sufficiently advanced to be reflected in the houses under construction at 28th February, but the tenders approved for new construction are now showing the effect of this activity, the number of tenders approved for February, 1934, under the Act of 1930 being 1,122 compared with 334 in February, 1933.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress that is being made with house-building in Scotland,

    1783
    seeing that we have tens of thousands of builders unemployed, and tens of thousands of people who want houses?
    Mr. SKELTON: I am satisfied that the State must concentrate upon the most important topic first, and we think that that is slum clearance. We are now considering further efforts with regard to overcrowding. With regard to the ordinary provision of houses, may I say that there has been a continuous increase in the number of unassisted private enterprise houses, the figures being 1,726 for 1932, and 5,570 for 1933. I cannot go further than that.

    WATER SUPPLIES.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities in Scotland have reported a shortage of water supplies; how many villages have no proper supply, even apart from the drought; what action does the Government propose to ensure a supply for all parts of Scotland; and is he aware that in the vicinity of Loch Katrine there are hamlets and villages which have been short of water supplies since last summer?
    Mr. SKELTON: As regards the first two parts of the question, of the local authorities who have so far replied to the inquiry made by the Department of Health in January last, 50 town councils and nine county councils have reported a shortage of water in their areas during 1933. The replies from the nine county councils referred to shortages in 65 special water supply districts and 43 villages without publicly-owned supplies. As regards the third part, the Department propose, immediately the Bill at present under consideration in another place is passed, to invite applications from local authorities who desire to participate in the grant to be made available for the improvement of rural water supplies. As already stated in the House, the Government have under consideration further steps for dealing with an emergency due to the drought should circumstances so require. As regards the last part of the question, I am informed that the only village in the vicinity of Loch Katrine which has been short of water since last summer is Brig o' Turk, and
    1784
    that this case is at present receiving the attention of the County Council of Perth.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does the hon. Gentleman not think it a scandal that even in one place there should be a shortage of water right in the heart of the
    "land of the mountain and the flood." where they are surrounded by water?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has received a very full answer to the question on the Paper.

    MILK PRICES.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action has been taken by the Scottish committee of the Consumers' Council to make representations to the Scottish Milk Board against the decision to charge winter prices for summer milk in an area with over 4,000,000 people; and whether he now intends to take action on behalf of the Government to prevent an increase in the price of milk supplies to infirmaries, poor institutions, mental hospitals, child welfare centres, etc.?
    The Secretary of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): With regard to the first part of the question I am informed that the observations of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board on the complaint made with respect to the proposed milk retail prices for the summer months have now been received by the Consumers' Committee for Scotland and that the Committee are to-day hearing representatives of the board. With regard to the second part of the question I cannot at present add anything further to the answer I gave the hon. Member on the 13th March as to future action.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall a supplementary question which I put to him as to the statement of the convener of the Health Committee in Glasgow that it was going to cost Glasgow alone £16,000 more to supply the necessities of the women and children in Glasgow; did he not say that something was going to be done about it, and may I ask him now what has been done?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I remember vividly the supplementary question put to me by my hon. Friend, but I think the first part of my answer indicates the steps which are now in progress in regard to this matter.
    Mr. BURNETT: How long will it be before this matter is decided?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I assure my hon. Friend that there is no delay whatever in the matter. The procedure which we are following is that laid down in the Act of 1931, and until reports have been received my hands are very largely tied.

    BRACKEN.
    Lord SCONEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is the intention of the Government to make available any grants for the eradication of bracken in Scotland; and, if so, on what terms?
    Sir G. COLLINS: As stated in answer to a question by the right hon. Member for Boss and Cromarty (Sir I. Macpherson) on 13th February last, an investigation is now being made into the possibility of improving existing methods of eradication of bracken. When the results of that investigation are available I shall consider what further action should be taken in the matter.
    Lord SCONE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to when he expects to be able to make up his mind on the matter?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I am unable to make up my mind until I have had the report of those to whom I have referred the matter. I have asked those individuals to investigate it, and I have pointed out to them the seriousness of the question, and when I get their report I assure my Noble Friend that there will be no delay.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman going into the question of bracken disease which is possibly one of the easiest ways of doing away with this pest?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I think that will be considered by those who are investigating the matter.

    SHEEP-STOCK VALUATIONS.
    Lord SCONEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive the report of the Committee on Sheep-stock Valuations?
    Sir G. COLLINS:: I regret that I am not at present in a position to say when this report will be ready.

    EDUCATION ENDOWMENTS COMMISSION.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider the desirability of reaching an early decision as to whether legislation is to be introduced to continue the existence of the Scottish Education Endowments Commission after the end of this year?
    Mr. SKELTON: Yes, Sir, my right hon. Friend is considering the desirability of reaching an early decision on the matter referred to in the question.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: In considering this matter, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the widespread and deep-seated dissatisfaction existing in Scotland regarding many of the schemes submitted?
    Mr. SKELTON: All relevant facts will be taken into consideration.
    Sir IAN MACPHERSON: Will he also bear in mind that this Commission has outraged Scottish sentiment and that the sooner it ends its inglorious career the better?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: And will he see that it suspends its baleful activities in the meantime?
    Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman say what proportion of its work this Commission has carried out?
    Mr. SKELTON: Not without notice.

    EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN ACT.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many education authorities in Scotland have applied under the Employment of Children Act for an exemption from school for a week or a fortnight for the sons of shepherds to assist their fathers during the lambing season; and what has been the response to such requests?
    Mr. SKELTON: I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend refers to exemptions granted by education authorities to individual pupils under the provisions of Section 3 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1901. On that assumption seven exemptions of the type referred to in the question have been applied for this year and none of them has been refused.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman keep his eye on this business,

    1787
    and see that this is not a case of getting cheap labour and of employing these children as shepherds instead of getting the work done in the ordinary way?
    Mr. SKELTON: I think that matter is being kept under observation.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the hon. Gentleman be careful to see that these children do not suffer in their education by taking on employment of this kind when there are so many young fellows already unemployed?
    Mr. SKELTON: Yes, Sir, that is certainly so, but I think the facts show that there have been a very small number of requests of this sort so far as this year is concerned.

    SCHOOL BUILDINGS.
    Mr. MAXTONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new schools have been built in Scotland during the last two years; how many are in course of construction; and in how many schools have extensions or structural alterations taken place?
    Mr. SKELTON: The number of new schools built in Scotland during the two years preceding 31st December, 1933, was 46; the number at present under construction is 35. Extensions and alterations have taken place during the last two years at 215 schools.

    MILK MARKETING SCHEME (APPOINTMENTS).
    Mr. MAXTONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that in September last, in connection with applications for appointments to the principal posts under the Scottish Milk Marketing Scheme, only seven days were given for applicants, and can he state how many applications were received for these posts; whether the applications were acknowledged; and whether similar methods of selection as govern Civil Service appointments were adopted?
    Sir G. COLLINS: Staffing arrangements, including methods of selection governing appointments, are the sole concern of the board administering the scheme, and I have no information on the subject.
    Mr. MAXTON: Would it be out of place for the right hon. Gentleman to try to get information from the Milk Marketing
    1788
    Board, which was set up under legislation passed by this House?
    Sir G. COLLINS: It was decided to make these boards representative of the producers, and we have no power whatsoever to interfere in any question of this sort.
    Mr. MAXTON: Does that mean that they have the power of a monopoly over the milk supply of Scotland and that they can do whatever they like, without interference?
    Sir G. COLLINS: No. I am only referring to the staff arrangements, which was the question put by the hon. Member.
    Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take power to ask whether the appointments made under this board were done with due observance of the ordinary decencies of Government appointments to public posts?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I think it would not be in keeping with the position of these boards if I started to ask them how they chose and whom they chose, which is a matter that must rest entirely on the board.
    Mr. MAXTON: Could the right hon. Gentleman not write a letter to get the desired information?

    FISHERY INTERDICT, RIVER FORTH.
    Mr. MILNEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that, as a result of an interdict obtained in the year 1924 by the proprietors of salmon fishings in the upper reaches of the River Forth and its tributaries, the fishermen in the neighbourhood of Kincardine-on-Forth are prohibited from using the species of nets which are essential for white fishing and, in consequence, are deprived of their means of livelihood, many of them now being in receipt of public assistance; and whether he will take steps to secure that the white fishermen shall be enabled to resume their calling?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I am aware of the interdict referred to but I have no information as to whether any of the fishermen concerned are in receipt of public assistance. I have no power to override a decision of the court, and I can only suggest that the fishermen should approach the district board to see whether any concession is possible.
    Mr. MILNE: In view of the hardship and unemployment which this interdict occasions for so many fishermen, will the right hon. Gentleman explore the possibilities of removing the hardship by legislative action?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The fishermen referred to have their right of appeal to the district board. I am aware that they appealed a few years ago, but, if they appealed again and laid further information before the district board, the present decision might be reversed.

    HEALTH SREVICES, WESTERN ISLES.
    Mr. THOMAS RAMSAYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that there are no hospitals, nursing, or maternity homes in the islands of Harris, North Uist, Benbecula, and Barra, or the smaller islands adjacent thereto, with the exception of a casual sick house in Harris; is he aware that the medical services for the said islands are performed by visiting doctors and nurses; and will he state what provision is made for sudden and serious illnesses, accidents, and maternity cases in these islands?
    Mr. SKELTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The medical and nursing services are provided by doctors and nurses actually resident on the islands named. As regards the last part of the question, arrangements are made wherever practicable for the removal of patients from Harris to the hospital at Stornoway, and from the other islands named either to Oban or Glasgow. Cases from Benbecula are sometimes treated in the private hospitals on South Uist. The doctor at Benbecula was specially selected for appointment because of his surgical knowledge and experience. In urgent cases, as an alternative to the removal of the patient, the surgeon from Stornoway, accompanied if need be by a nurse, may travel to his home.
    Mr. RAMSAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that with seas too rough for small boats, and with no large coastal boat available at the time, a patient becoming suddenly ill in North Uist would require to be conveyed over the island by car, over the four-mile north ford by open boat or pony and trap, over Benbecula by car, over the one-mile south ford by
    1790
    open boat or pony and trap, and finally over the island of South Uist to the hospital by car?

    RATING SYSTEM.
    Mr. HENDERSON STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, since he does not propose to adopt either the majority or minority reports on rating of the Scottish National Development Council, he will consider introducing other legislation designed to remove the burdens now placed on private house building in Scotland through the operation of the present rating system?
    Mr. SKELTON: The relation of the present rating system and the provision of houses by private enterprise is necessarily under close and constant observation, but my right hon. Friend is not in a position to make any statement in answer to my hon. Friend's question.
    Mr. STEWART: Will the hon. Gentleman consider amending the law under which at present factories when working benefit by derating, but when they are not working are rated in the same way as private houses?
    Mr. SKELTON: My hon. Friend's question deals only with private house building, but his supplementary question ranges over other subjects.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    ACCIDENT, PARK COLLIEBY, ASHTON-IN-MAKERFIELD.
    Mr. GORDON MACDONALDasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the cause of the accident at the Park Colliery, Ashton-in-Makerfield, on Wednesday, the 14th instant, which resulted in the death of three workmen?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): This accident occurred at a place where a retreating longwall machine face crossed an old brow, the floor of which had lifted. The face and brow were supported by props and bars closely set, and the roof at the goaf edge was further supported by chocks. At the time of the accident three men were engaged in levelling the floor of the brow and re-arranging the supports to make room for the coal cutter and conveyor.

    1791
    The roof became uneasy and suddenly collapsed over an area 15 feet long by 14 feet wide; one of the men and the deputy, who was close by, narrowly escaped the fall, but the other two men and a coal cutter attendant were killed. I am satisfied that special care had been taken to support the roof closely under difficult conditions, and that the work of re-arranging the supports was done with care and skill under the close supervision of the deputy, but the accident shows the need for still further precautions, and the character of these requires, and is receiving, the careful consideration of the management in consultation with all concerned. The hon. Member will be aware that at the inquest last week the jury returned a verdict of misadventure and attached no blame to anyone.
    Mr. MACDONALD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that as a result of this accident the method of timbering has now been entirely changed, and is he satisfied that as a result of new methods of getting coal the regulations are adequate?
    Mr. BROWN: I am not sure of that, but I would say that the reports show that the accident is a good commentary on the proposition that is frequently made that the safest mode of extracting coal is on the retreating system.
    Mr. MACDONALD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at the inquest the under-manager gave an undertaking that he would change the method of timbering?
    Mr. BROWN: I am aware of the opinion of the divisional inspector that the management did their utmost to prevent an accident.

    DEAD RENTS.
    Mr. MAINWARINGasked the Secretary for Mines if he will prepare and issue a return showing the amount of dead rents being paid in each of the several districts comprising the coalmining industry in England, Wales, and Scotland, and in respect of idle mines and/or coal areas not being actively exploited, and the amount of such payments separately for each of the years 1929 to 1933, inclusive; and whether such payments are included in costs of production at the mines where work is carried on?
    Mr. E. BROWN: The information asked for in the first part of the question is not available. With regard to the second part, certain payments of "dead rent" are included in the costs of production in the returns furnished in connection with the wages ascertainments.
    Mr. MAINWARING: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to take steps to obtain the information asked for in the first part of the question?
    Mr. BROWN: The answer is that it could not be obtained without a special inquiry, and I should not feel justified in making such an inquiry.
    Mr. MAINWARING: Would it be possible to get this information by means of a special inquiry, and will the Department institute such an inquiry?
    Mr. BROWN: One of the difficulties has been hinted at by the hon. Member. It is the fact that it is very difficult to decide whether we should get a genuine result that stands in the way.

    PRETORIA AND STOTTS PITS, WESTHOUGHTON.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the owners have given notice to terminate the engagement of about 700 men employed in the Pretoria Pit, Westhoughton; that owing to water trouble hundreds of men employed at Stotts Pit, Westhoughton, have also received notice; and what steps his Department is taking, not only in connection with safety, but also with a view to the establishment of a co-operative pumping scheme in the mining area in and around Westhoughton?
    Mr. E. BROWN: I am aware that men employed at the Pretoria Pit, Westhoughton, have received notice, but I am informed that this is due to economic causes and not to any difficulties in regard to water. I am also aware that the workings in the two lower seams at Stotts Pit have been abandoned owing to threatened danger from water, but it is hoped that it may prove possible to re-employ some of the men affected by developing a seam at a higher level. His Majesty's inspectors have given, and will continue to give, unremitting attention to the safety aspect of the question, and I am satisfied that there is now no immediate danger. With regard to the establishment

    1793
    of a co-operative pumping scheme, I am afraid that I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 19th December last.
    Mr. TINKER: Could the hon. Gentleman not have a survey made of this district, because of the possible danger of flooding of the mines in the neighbourhood? Is he aware that in my constituency of Leigh the mines are at a lower depth than these mines and that there is a danger of them being flooded unless there is some control?
    Mr. BROWN: There is no trouble about ascertaining the facts. The facts are well known, and the details, but the trouble is as to the powers to deal with them.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to look into this question again, in view of the fact that the whole of this area is liable to be flooded; is he aware that merely because there is a conflict between several colliery companies there is a danger of the district becoming derelict; and will he seek powers to do something in the matter?
    Mr. BROWN: I have discussed this question with the hon. Member and with other hon. Members at length, and I shall be very glad, in view of the new circumstances, to re-discuss it with them at any time.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Will it not be possible for the Secretary for Mines to call on the owners of the district to get together with a view to co-operation?

    ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines if he can give the number of fatal accidents that have taken place at the coal face during the last 12 months; how many of them have been where the coal is machine cut and conveyors used; and how many have occurred where the coal is hand got?
    Mr. E. BROWN: I regret that the statistics# asked for are not available, and I am afraid it is not possible to find any reliable basis of comparison between the safety of machine work and of hand work at coal faces.
    Mr. TINKER: Will the hon. Gentleman consider getting this information in
    1794
    order to find out whether machine-worked coal is causing a greater number of accidents than hand-worked coal?
    Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member knows that statistics are not drawn up on that basis but in regard to classes of work, and I do not think any relevant comparisons can be made.
    Mr. T. SMITH: Does not the hon. Gentleman think, in view of the increase of machine-mining, that the time has come when there ought to be a different classification so that proper conclusions can be arrived at?
    Mr. BROWN: That is a matter of opinion. Of course, there are other factors to be considered as well.
    Mr. SMITH: Why not consider all the factors?

    SCANDINAVIAN AGREEMENTS.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR-WEDDER-BURN (for Lord DUNGLASS)asked the Secertary for Mines whether the Government kept in consultation with the British coal exporters during the negotiations of the Scandinavian trade agreements?
    Mr. E. BROWN: Yes, Sir. The British Coal Exporters' Federation have informed me that they are completely satisfied with the way in which they were consulted during the discussions with the Scandinavian countries, and were kepi; in touch with the course of negotiations. They state that their views were invited on all matters of importance, and, though there were some suggestions which the Government oculd not accept, full find sympathetic consideration was given to the views expressed by the Federation.

  OIL SEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
  Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMANasked the Secretary for Mines whether he will publish the report of the late Lord Cowdray on his search for oil in this country; whether any oil was discovered; and what the search cost the Government of the day?
  Mr. E. BROWN: I am not aware of the existence of any general report by Messrs. S. Pearson and Sons, Limited, who carried out the drilling operations on behalf of the Government to which my hon. Friend refers. An account of the

  1795
  work done was given in the First and Second Annual Reports of the Secretary for Mines on pages 30–33 and pages 24–25, respectively, and I would refer my hon. Friend to these reports. The total cost to the Exchequer was about £570,000.
  Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: Is it not a fact that the report made out that there was practically no oil in the country at all? Has anything happened lately to make my hon. Friend change his mind?
  Mr. BROWN: I have not changed my mind about it at all. If the hon. Member will read the report, he will see that it does not bear out what he says. For instance, on page 25, it says:
  "Operations under the Pearson agreement have consisted in testing the most promising structures by sinking 11 wells, five of which were carried to a depth of over 4,000 feet and three to depths of between 3,000 and 4,000 feet. One—"
  HON. MEMBERS: Order.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    CANADIAN TIMBER.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he has any information with regard to the labour dispute in the Canadian lumber industry; and if there is any present difficulty in obtaining reliable quotations for Canadian timber for shipment?
    The Secretary of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I have no information regarding the labour dispute to which the hon. Member refers, nor am I aware of any present difficulty in obtaining reliable quotations for Canadian timber for shipment, but if the hon. Member has any specific case in mind and will let me have the necessary particulars I will make inquiries.

    SUBSIDIES.
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the President of the Board of Trade which countries grant countervailing subsidies to offset competition from other countries in supplying another market and on what class of goods?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I regret that such information as I have on this subject
    1796
    does not lend itself to being given within the compass of a Parliamentary answer. If, however, my hon. Friend will indicate what particular country or what class of goods he has in mind, I shall be happy to let him have such information as is available.

    IMPORTED HEADGEAR.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of hats, caps, and other headgear in the first two months of the present year totalled 431,000 dozen as compared with 225,000 dozen in the corresponding months of last year; and what steps it is proposed to take to deal with this increase in importation?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the figures to which my hon. Friend draws attention. It is open to the manufacturers concerned to apply to the Import Duties Advisory Committee for an increased duty upon these goods.
    Captain DOWER: Is it not a fact that some foreign countries are subsidising these imports into this country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I shall have to have notice of that question.
    Mr. NORTH: Will my right hon. Friend bring this question to the attention of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, because it is of considerable importance to the industry?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The procedure is perfectly well known, and the approach must be made by the parties interested.

    WHEAT MEAL AND FLOUR (IMPORTS).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the imports of wheat meal and flour from foreign countries during the first two months of this year have increased by 68 per cent. as compared with the corresponding months of last year; and what steps are being taken to deal with this danger to the milling industry?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the position in regard to the imports of wheat meal and flour from foreign countries. My hon. Friend will no doubt have noticed that the Import Duties Advisory Committee who have recently had under

    1797
    consideration an application to increase the duty on foreign flour, have decided not to make any recommendation at the present time in regard to the application.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication why the Import Duties Advisory Committee are constantly turning down what seem to be reasonable applications?
    Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the mills on Mersey-side have had to shut down for a week on that account?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If that be the case, it ought to have been brought to the attention of the Advisory Committee.

    OAT PRODUCTS (IMPORTS).
    Mr. BOOTHBYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government will take immediate steps to prohibit the importation of oat products which are subsidised by foreign Governments?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. I would remind my hon. Friend that the duty on foreign oat products was increased to 7s. 6d. per cwt. as recently as the 13th January last.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the importation of oats and oat products subsidised by the German Government has broken the price of oats and oat products in spite of the duty, and is he not going to take any steps to deal with the position?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The recommendation was made by the advisory committee and accepted by the Government.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Does my right hon. Friend think that in cases where the importation of goods is subsidised by foreign Governments they are matters not for the advisory committee, but for direct action by the Government?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, I cannot accept that view.

    TEXTILES (JAPANESE COMPETITION).
    Mr. REMERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received any reply from the Japanese Government with reference to the breakdown of the negotiations between the Japanese and British textile interests?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As I have already informed the House, I saw the Japanese Ambassador on the 16th March and he intimated that he would communicate with his Government on the position. I have not yet heard further from him.
    Mr. REMER: Is any time limit being placed on receiving a reply?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: While the right hon. Gentleman is trying to get the Japanese Government to do the right thing towards the Lancashire textile industry, is he taking any steps with the textile industry to reorganise itself?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise out of the reply.

    MANUFACTURES (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).
    Dr. HOWITTasked the President of the Board of Trade the percentage by which retained imports of manufactures have risen in the first two months of this year as compared with the corresponding period of last year; and similar information wth regard to the exports of manufactures?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: For the first two months of 1934 the total value of the retained imports of goods classed as wholly or mainly manufactured in the trade returns of the United Kingdom was 25 per cent. greater than for the corresponding period: of 1933; the value of the domestic exports of such goods was greater by 7 per cent.
    Dr. HOWITT: Does not my right hon. Friend think that further steps should be taken to prevent the importation of manufactured goods into this country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: On making an analysis of the figures of these imports into this country, I see that the preponderating part is in materials for use in our own factories.

    ANIMAL FEEDING STUFFS (IMPORTS).
    Dr. HOWITTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the imports from foreign countries of feeding stuffs for animals during January and February of this year have increased by one-fifth as compared with the corresponding period of the year before; and whether he will take steps to remedy this state of affairs?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the figures to which my hon. Friend draws attention. It is open to producers of feeding stuffs in this country who are adversely affected to apply to the Import Duties Advisory Committee with a view to an increase in the rate of duty upon foreign feeding stuffs.

    INDIAN TEXTILE PROTECTION BILL.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that the Government members of the committee dealing with the Indian Textile Protection Act, 1934, have voted against any increase in duties on Japanese cotton yarns imported into India; that cotton yarn is outside the terms of the new Indo-Japanese trading agreement, and that in consequence the proposed quota restrictions may be rendered valueless by increased importations of cotton yarn from Japan; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I have seen no report of the proceedings of the select committee of the Indian Legislative Assembly, to which I assume that my hon. Friend refers. Representations in regard to the duties on cotton yarn have been made to the Government of India on behalf of the Lancashire industry and were considered by the Government of India before the Bill was introduced. I understand that the Indian millowners have also laid their views before the Government of India at a later stage. I think my hon. Friend may rest assured that the Government of India have given careful thought to the possibility to which he refers.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Could my hon. Friend say what was the result of the representations which his Department made to the Government of India on this question?
    Mr. BUTLER: My hon Friend will have seen the Bill which was introduced, and I have said that the representations were made before the Bill was introduced.

    STOCK EXCHANGE RESTRICTIONS.
    Mr. OSWALD LEWISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how soon he hopes to be able to remove the existing embargo on foreign loans with a view to assisting in the revival of the overseas trade of this country?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I fear that it is not possible at present for me to add to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend on the 9th November last.
    Mr. LEWIS: Could the right hon. Gentleman take the House into his confidence so far as to say what is the principal object in continuing this embargo?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should have to have notice of that question.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he may be in a position to make a full statement to the House upon the reasons governing the policy of the Government on this question?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: At a suitable opportunity.

    IMPORT DUTIES (BISCUITS).
    Dr. HOWITTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the import of biscuits into this country is rapidly increasing; and, as many of these biscuits are outside the scope of the Import Duties Act, will he consider the protection of biscuits in his forthcoming Budget?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the first part of the question, there are no strictly comparable figures available. As regards the second part of the question, my hon. Friend appears to be under a misapprehension. Biscuits are goods which it is within the province of the Import Duties Advisory Committee to consider and it is open to the interests concerned to apply to the committee.

    SILK DUTIES.
    Mr. REMERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the fact that the negotiations between the Lancashire and Japanese textile interests have broken down, he will now ask the Import Duties Advisory Committee to proceed with their consideration as to the incidence of the Silk Duties?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As my hon. Friend was informed on the 15th March by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, the two Governments are now engaged in reviewing the

    1801
    situation that arises as a result of the breakdown of the negotiations referred to in the question. In these circumstances, I have nothing to add, as regards the Silk Duties, to the answer which was given to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Lyons) on the 5th December last.
    Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the uncertainty in the silk industry is causing great unemployment at the present time and-would he not do something in order to get finality in the matter?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of all the circumstances.

    INDIAN RAW COTTON.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government are prepared to provide facilities for the purchase of Indian raw cotton; and, if so, upon what conditions?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I see no necessity for the Government to provide facilities for the purchase of Indian raw cotton. As I think the House is generally aware, the question of increasing the consumption of Indian cotton in this country has for some time been under the consideration of the Lancashire Indian Cotton Committee; and, as my hon. Friend himself, I believe, recently pointed out, purchases of Indian cotton by Lancashire have appreciably increased already.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is there any truth in the statement which was recently publicly made that, six months ago, the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to advance the sum of £15,000,000 for the purchase of Indian raw cotton?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no recollection of any such offer on my part.

    PUBLIC WORKS, HONG KONG (BRITISH CEMENT).
    Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that an assurance was given by the Governor of Hong Kong that as much British cement as is possible shall be used on public works there; and will he inquire into the reason why, out of 42 Government jobs tendered for, the Government specified Japanese cement to be used in 30 cases, locally manufactured in nine cases, and mixed cement in two cases?
    The Secretary of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): It is the universal practice of all Colonial Governments to give a preference to British goods when possible. I am not aware of the circumstances referred to in the second part of my hon. Friend's question, but I will make inquiries.

  IRISH FREE STATE (SENATE).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he has any information with regard to the proposal to abolish the Senate in the Irish Free State; whether this would be regarded as a breach of the Anglo-Irish Treaty; and whether the British Government were consulted before the introduction of the Measure?
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I have seen statements in the Press with regard to the introduction of a Bill to abolish the Senate in the Irish Free State, but I have not seen the text of the Bill, and I would prefer not to make any statement until I have had an opportunity of doing so. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. MAXTON: Surely the Irish Free State have the right to self-govern merit nowadays, and does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that they are not entitled to govern their own country in their own way?
  Mr. THOMAS: I have not suggested anything. I have merely answered the question.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Chorlton.
  Mr. MAXTON: Am I not entitled to ask ordinary supplementary questions of the Dominions Secretary that would be permissible in the case of other secretaries?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly, but as far as I can see, the hon. Member received an answer.

  TERRITORIAL ARMY.
  Colonel GOODMANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the present full establishment strength of the Territorial Army?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the information given on page 68 of Army Estimates, 1933.
  Colonel GOODMANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the number of officers and men in the Territorial Army at the close of the years 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933 respectively?
  Mr. COOPER: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

  Territorial Army.

  Strength on 31st December.

  Officers.

  Other Banks.

  Total All Ranks.

  1928

  …

  …

  6,932

  132,444

  139,376

  1929

  …

  …

  6,864

  129,066

  135,930

  1930

  …

  …

  6,784

  127,282

  134,066

  1931

  …

  …

  6,928

  127,788

  134,716

  1932

  …

  …

  6,901

  120,167

  127,068

  1933

  …

  …

  7,015

  125,721

  132,736

  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.
  Mr. RADFORDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to a recent case at Bakewell in which five youths were convicted of cruelty to a donkey; and whether, in view of the fact that magistrates are not at present able to order such offenders to be flogged and of the frequency of these offences, he will take the necessary steps to enable the worst cases of cruelty to animals to be punished by flogging?
  The Secretary of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): The ease referred to had not previously come to my notice, but I have made inquiry and am informed that the youths in question, the eldest of whom was 17 and the youngest 15, injured the donkey by kicking it to make it go while they were riding it. They were bound over for two years and were also fined sums varying from £5 to £2. I do not see my way to initiate legislation on the lines suggested.
  Mr. RADFORD: Did my right hon. Friend also elicit the fact that the chairman of the bench said it was the worst case of cruelty that the bench had had, and that they regretted they were not able to inflict corporal punishment?
  Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of one McGowan, who, according to the evidence given at the Nottingham Police Court, threw his dog into a canal three or four times and, after the animal had made its way back to him each time, battered it several times with a piece of wood and then buried it alive; and whether, in view of this case and similar instances of cruelty to animals, he will consider introducing legislation for the purpose of extending the powers of magistrates to deal with such brutality?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I have seen a newspaper report of the case from which it appears that the defendant was sentenced to seven days' imprisonment and was ordered to be disqualified from keeping a dog or obtaining a dog licence. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: In view of the inadequacy of the sentence imposed, will not my right hon. Friend consider circularising magistrates as to their actual powers in such cases, and their responsibilities as well?

  TRANSPORT.

    EAST LANCASHIRE ROAD.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Home Secretary (1) how many prosecutions have taken place against drivers of vehicles on the new East Lancashire road (Liverpool to Manchester) since the road was open for traffic; and how many convictions have resulted;
    (2) how many fatal accidents there have been on the new East Lancashire road (Liverpool to Manchester) since the road was open for traffic?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The information asked for is not available without obtaining a special return, and I regret that I do not feel able to ask the police to undertake the labour that would be involved.

    FORMS, RULES, ORDERS AND REGULATIONS.
    Mr. McKEAGasked the Minister of Transport how many different kinds of forms have been issued for completion by omnibus operators and others for various purposes under the Road Traffic Act, 1930; how many have become obsolete or have been withdrawn; and how many now remain in force?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): There are 18 standard forms in use in connection with the licensing of Public Service Vehicles, their drivers and conductors, and road passenger services under Part IV of the Road Traffic Act, 1930.
    Special forms are used in London, where certain of the standard forms became obsolete after the passing of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933.
    I may add that the question of forms is kept under constant review with the object of simplification and reduction in numbers.
    Mr. McKEAGasked the Minister of Transport how many statutory rules and orders, regulations, and instructions have been issued under the Road Traffic Act, 1930; how many are now obsolete or have been withdrawn; and how many now remain in force?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: There are 11 sets of rules and orders relating to Public Service Vehicles, many of which have been amended from time to time to meet current developments. This figure omits the Transitory Provisions Orders (since cancelled) and an Order since replaced by the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933. Regulations have also been made with regard to driving licences, Third Party (Insurance) Risks, Speed Limits and Traffic Signs, and instructions issued as to statistical and financial returns. The possibility of further consolidation of the various sets of regulations is engaging my close attention.
    Mr. McKEAG: Is my hon. and gallant Friend satisfied that operators and others affected, particularly the smaller operators, are able to keep abreast of this welter of changing and ever-increasing legislation by regulations?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: As I explained to my hon. Friend, we are keeping
    1806
    these regulations under review, and trying to reduce them as much as we can, and we are also trying to consolidate them; but obviously there are a great many, and it is a difficult matter for people to deal with.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) BILL.
  Mr. HUTCHISONasked the Home Secretary if he is prepared to propose a financial resolution to enable further progress to be made with the Representation of the People (Redistribution of Seats) Bill?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which the Prime Minister gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Mr. H. Williams).

  AGRICULTURE.

    EARLY POTATOES (SUPPLY SITUATION).
    Colonel RUGGIES-BRISEasked the Minister of Agriculture what measures the Government proposes to take to ensure to the potato growers of this country a more reasonable price level both for the main crop now being marketed, and for the prospective new crop, in view of the importations of potatoes from other countries?
    The Minister of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): As my hon. and gallant Friend will be aware, the assistance afforded to the potato industry by Custom duties has been supplemented since August last by voluntary arrangements for regulating the supply of main crop potatoes from foreign countries. These arrangements appear to have been fully observed and to have worked well, and have been generally appreciated by home growers. The question whether similar action should now be taken in regard to the supply of foreign early potatoes has been examined by the Market Supply Committee, in the light of the general supply situation and the low level of prices now ruling. Pending the framing of a permanent plan, it has been decided, after consultation with the Potato Marketing Board, that exporting countries should be invited to help the general situation by securing that their

    1807
    shipments of early potatoes to this market are held at last year's level. The foreign Governments concerned are being approached accordingly.
    Colonel RUGGIES-BRISE: Could my right hon. Friend say what would be the total amount of imports of potatoes from foreign countries under this arrangement during a complete period of 12 months?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid I could not give that figure without notice.

    MARKETING BOARDS (PROPAGANDA).
    Mr. HENDERSON STEWARTasked the Minister of Agriculture if any steps are being taken by the various marketing boards by propaganda to explain their purpose and methods to and extend their good will among the general public; and, if not, whether he will bring to the notice of the boards the importance of this department of business organisation?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Yes, Sir. I am informed that plans of this nature are under consideration. As a first step, the Milk, Pigs, Bacon and Potato Marketing Boards have arranged, in co-operation with the Ministry, to stage exhibits in the Ministry's pavilion at a number of the leading agricultural shows during the coming summer. The Milk Marketing Board have I understand recently appointed a special publicity officer.

    IRISH CATTLE AND FOREIGN MEAT (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).
    Mr. BOOTHBYasked the Minister of Agriculture what further action the Government proposes to take in order to raise the price of beef to a remunerative level?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Having regard to the continual depression in the market for fat cattle, the Government have decided that it will be necessary to maintain during the coming quarter the reduction of 50 per cent. in the supply of fat cattle from the Irish Free State and to stabilise the imports from that source of the other classes of cattle covered by the Cattle (Import Regulation) Order. As I have already informed the House, the rate of reduction in imports of foreign frozen meat in the coming quarter will be increased to 35 per cent. and a somewhat larger reduction will be arranged
    1808
    in imports of foreign chilled beef than in the same quarter of 1933.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: When does my right hon. Friend think he will be in a position to introduce the most effectual remedy of all, namely, a tariff on meat imported into this country?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Naturally I should not enter into controversy with my hon. Friend on this subject by means of question and answer. I would like to have his opinion as to whether it should apply to Dominion countries, or only to foreign.
    Mr. D. GRENFELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered another alternative, such as increasing the purchasing power of the people by restoring the cuts?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Yes, Sir; that is continually in the mind of the Government.

    MILK PRICES (ARBITRATORS' AWARD).
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that at a large meeting of dairy farmers held in Exeter on Friday last it was decided unanimously to collect sufficient signatures to demand a poll for the cancelling of the Milk Marketing Scheme at the earliest possible date, unless the award of the arbitrators was amended, and that in addition a large number of farmers agreed not to sign contracts under present conditions; and whether he proposes to take any steps to amend the award in order that better prices may be paid, that farmers may not be ruined, and that the scheme may not be wrecked?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am aware that dissatisfaction has been expressed by farmers in Devon with the recent award on milk prices, but as I informed my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) on 19th March, I have no power to alter the award as such.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is not the Minister aware that the situation is desperate, and do not desperate situations require special measures for dealing with them? Would he consider asking Parliament to give him power to deal with this situation?
    Mr. ELLIOT: There are various procedures under the Acts of 1931 and 1933, which would need to be exhausted before I could ask Parliament for further powers.
    Major HARVEY: Does the Minister intend to use his powers before absolute ruin overtakes these farmers?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I think it would be inadvisable to discuss by question and answer whether absolute ruin is about to overtake everyone in Devon. The procedure under the Acts of 1931 and 1933 is known to my hon. and gallant Friend. The initiation of such action does not necessarily lie with the Minister.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will arrange for the publication of the cases put forward by the Milk Board and by the distributors on which the arbitrators gave their recent award, in order that this House and the public may be in full possession of the facts of the case?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The question of the publication of the cases put forward is a matter for the parties concerned, and I do not think it would be proper for the Minister concerned to put this forward by way of request.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Have not the Milk Board already published their case; and is there anything in the distributors' case on account of which they need be afraid to publish it? Why should they not publish it?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Clearly, if either party decides to publish its case, it is at perfect liberty to do so. I am only saying that I do not think that it would be proper for the Minister to request either party to publish its case.

  INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Lord President of the Council if, in view of the increasing support in certain industries for a compulsory levy in some form to be used for the purposes of financing industrial research, he will consider the advisability of introducing an enabling Bill dealing generally with the subject?
  The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): About two years ago, steps were taken by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to
  1810
  ascertain the views of the Councils of Research Associations connected with the Department on a proposal that powers should be obtained to require firms in an industry to contribute towards co-operative research where the large bulk of the industry was in favour of such a course. The result was unfavourable to the proposal. Evidence has, however, been received that there may have been some change of opinion in the interval and the Department propose to consult the Associations again on the subject. If it appears that there is now a consensus of opinion in favour of such a Bill and if it is the opinion that a levy for research would be found practicable in a sufficient number of cases and that advantage is likely to be taken fairly generally of the provisions of such a Bill, then I can assure the hon. Member that the whole matter will receive sympathetic consideration by the Government.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT).
  Sir PATRICK FORDasked the hon. and gallant Member for Ipswich, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, if he has any information as to whether the decrease in the consumption of bottled beer, as compared with the increase in the consumption of draught beer in the refreshment department of the House of Commons during the six months following the reduction of the beer duty compared with a similar period in 1932 is due to any inferiority in the quality of the bottled beer supplied?
  Sir PARK GOFF: I have been asked to reply. I have received no complaints on this subject, but have every reason to believe that the bottled beers as supplied to Members still maintain the high standard of quality for which they are noted.
  Sir P. FORD: May I ask my hon. and learned Friend if he can offer any explanation of the increase in consumption of draught and the decrease in consumption of bottled beer?
  Sir P. GOFF: The increase in the sale of draught beer has been in the staff bars, and presumably is due to the reduction of the Beer Duty. The decrease in the sale of bottled beers is presumably due to hon. Members requiring less owing to the increased strength of the beer supplied.

  FOREIGN COUNTRIES (BRITISH INVESTORS).
  Mr. BURNETTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that revision of the tramway and ferry rates of the Leopoldina Terminal and Cantareira Companies has been under discussion for two years; and whether he will ask the Consultative Council of the State of Rio de Janeiro, which has already received the report of the commission of inquiry, why it has not yet been possible to remedy the hardship of British nationals who have invested in the two above-named companies?
  The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir. As regards the second part of the question, the Leopoldina Terminal Company have been consulted. The company are handling this matter direct, and no action on the part of His Majesty's Government is called for in the circumstances.
  Mr. BURNETT: Is the hon. Member aware that the failure of the Brazilian Government to implement the agreement is a breach of faith towards British subjects?
  Mr. EDEN: My hon. Friend will appreciate that we are in touch with the company. The company would deprecate official action, and we do not propose to take it.
  Mr. BURNETTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government proposes to take independent steps to defend the holdings of British private investors in the German (Young) Loan of 1930, in view of the fact that the proceeds of that loan were used by the Exchequer, and the German Government has already defaulted in its sinking fund obligations on this loan?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The German Government International 5½ per cent. Loan, 1930, is an unconditional liability of the German Government, and no liability in respect of it attaches to His Majesty's Government. I assume that the preferential treatment accorded to the loan since July last will, under all circumstances, be continued and that sinking fund payments will be resumed as soon as possible, and on this assumption I do not consider that any intervention on the part of His Majesty's Government is called for at present.
  Mr. BURNETT: Is there not a moral obligation, in view of the Treasury Minute of 1930?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Obligation to do what?
  Mr. REMER (for Mr. CULVER-WELL)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will request the German Government to inquire of the authorities of the city of Hamburg how they propose to make good the default imposed by unilateral action upon the British creditors of the city of Hamburg, in relation to the waterworks loan of the city of Hamburg subscribed by private British investors in reliance upon the good faith of the city of Hamburg?
  Mr. EDEN: It was stated in the official communique issued by the Reichsbank on the 31st January last, and published in the London Press of the 1st February, that it was proposed to convene a meeting of representatives of the bondholders of the German long and medium-term loans (which include the loan to which my hon. Friend refers) early in April, with a view to arriving at a basis for dealing with the debt service which would eradicate the weaknesses of the existing system and at the same time lay the foundation of a permanent settlement. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government do not appear to be called upon to intervene at the present time.

  CIVIL AVIATION (INTERNATIONALISATION).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Prime Minister if persons outside official circles have had an opportunity of presenting to the Government schemes for the inter-nationalisation of civil aviation; and if he will consider the advisabilty of appointing a special committee to hear evidence on the subject from all those interested and to report to the House at an early date?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): There has been nothing to prevent persons outside official circles from submitting to the Government schemes for the internationalisation of civil aviation if they so desire, and any reasoned statement submitted by any responsible body will receive full consideration. I do not think that it is necessary to appoint a committee such as the hon. Member suggests.

  WORLD ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
  Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Prime Minister what body is now in being to continue the inquiries initiated at the World Economic Conference and to prepare the way for a re-assembling conference; if so, on what inquiries it is engaged; and whether any reports have been or will be published by it?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As stated in the answer given to the hon. Members for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander) and Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) on the 7th November last, the continuation of the work of the World Monetary and Economic Conference is a matter for the Bureau of the Conference which appointed an executive committee for the purpose. The executive committee entrusted the further examination of certain questions, mainly relating to the co-ordination of production and marketing of specific commodities, to the Economic Committee of the League of Nations, which dealt with them in a report issued on the 17th November last, and recommended further international discussions which are taking place. Apart from this, the executive committee have not considered that they could as yet usefully engage on any fresh inquiries, but they are, of course, continuing to watch the international situation very carefully.
  Mr. GRENFELL: Would the right hon. Gentleman inform the House when he expects a further report on those discussions?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As soon as economic conditions take a favourable turn.
  Mr. GRENFELL: If economic conditions do not take a favourable turn—what then?

  INCOME TAX.
  Mr. J. P. MORRISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he is aware that a large number of New York Stock Exchange firms have opened branches in London for the purpose of collecting and transmitting orders to New York, and that the commissions earned on such orders are retained in New York; and what action does he propose to take to ensure that British Income Tax is paid on such commissions;
  1814
  (2) if he is aware that, previous to the establishment of branch offices in London of New York Stock Exchange firms, all orders for American stocks and shares emanating from this country were in the main handled by members of the London Stock Exchange; that on the commissions earned on such orders Income Tax and Surtax was paid to the British Treasury; that the system now in operation whereby the said branch offices are not credited with any commissions so earned but debited with all the expenses incurred deprives the British Treasury of a large source of revenue; and what action he proposes to take in the matter;
  (3) if he is aware that London branch offices of New York Stock Exchange firms collecting and transmitting orders to New York are in a better competitive position than London Stock Exchange firms, owing to the incidence of Income Tax and Surtax being heavier in this country than in the United States of America; and what action does he propose to take to ensure that English Stock Exchange firms are placed on an equal competitive basis with American firms operating in this country?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that the commissions to which my hon. Friend refers arise from services rendered outside the United Kingdom by certain concerns which, though they have branches in this country, are not resident in the United Kingdom. To levy United Kingdom Income Tax on such commissions would be inconsistent with the general principle of the Income Tax Acts, under which a non-resident person is liable in respect of trading or professional profits only in so far as those profits arise from the carrying on of the trade or profession within the United Kingdom. I may add that any commissions arising from services rendered within the United Kingdom are chargeable in the ordinary course, and that, in computing the profits from such sources, no deduction is allowable in respect of expenses relating to services rendered elsewhere.
  Mr. SUTCLIFFEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with regard to the re-registration of trade marks, he will state under what statutory authority the Income Tax authorities are now claiming that renewal charges should be written back for the computation of Income

  1815
  Tax; and whether he is aware of the burden which this procedure imposes on firms for the first time?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Board of Inland Revenue have recently had this matter under consideration and, while they are advised that the question at issue is not wholly free from doubt, they have decided, for the future, to offer no objection to the allowance of these charges.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (EXCHEQUER PAYMENTS).
  Mr. McKEAGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contributions have been made during the last financial year to the Government of Northern Ireland, specifying the amounts so contributed under each heading of expenditure?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: During the last financial year (1932–33) the sum of £109,250 was paid to the Government of Northern Ireland in respect of the provision of accommodation for public departments under Section 34 (1) of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920; and £73,698 was spent on the Belfast Supreme Court building under Section 24 (1). Also, under Section 26 of the same Act, the Government of Northern Ireland collected and retained the sum of £658,600 in respect of land purchase annuities in respect of agreements entered into before the passing of the Act, and an equivalent sum was paid as a non-recoverable charge out of the Imperial Exchequer to the National Debt Commissioners.
  Mr. McKEAG: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that these payments, however they may have been allocated, have been of material assistance to the Government of Northern Ireland in giving guarantees to the extent of £12,000,000 to shipowners placing orders in Belfast shipyards to the detriment of the shipyards in this country?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The connection seems to me to be somewhat far-fetched.

  CINEMAS (ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY AND HIRE CHARGES).
  Mr. LECKIEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the percentage of the gross
  1816
  cinema takings throughout the country paid in Entertainments Duty and for foreign film-hire charges, respectively?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I regret that the information desired is not available

  WATER SUPPLIES.
  Mr. CHORLTONasked the Minister of Health if he proposes to set up any conjoint committees to co-ordinate the work of adjacent regional water committees, in view of the advantages that would arise from the further extension of common planning, together with the increased opportunity for interlinking of water undertakings?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): It is the policy of the Ministry to encourage the setting up of co-ordinating committees where this would serve a useful purpose, and the matter is receiving the active attention of the Advisory Committee on Water.
  Mr. CHORLTON: Will there be a coordinating committee set up in the two parts of Lancashire, the South-West and the North-West?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Negotiations are in active progress at the present time, and I would rather not say anything at the, present moment.

  HOUSING.

    BUILDING MATERIALS (BATHS).
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Minister of Health if he has now received any further information from the Committee on the Prices of Building Materials with regard to the rise in the price of baths?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The Interdepartmental Committee on the Prices of Building Materials have conferred with representatives of the trade association concerned, and are now considering the terms of their report.

    SLUM CLEARANCE.
    Mr. WHITEasked the Minister of Health if he is considering any steps to enable the procedure of local inquiries by representatives of the Ministry of

    1817
    Health under the Housing Act, 1930, to be replaced by a speedier system in order that slum clearance schemes may be expedited?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The procedure must be consistent with assurance to all parties concerned that their reasonable interests are fully and fairly considered. Subject to that condition the acceleration of procedure is a matter that receives constant attention.

  INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC SANCTIONS (ENABLING) BILL,
  "to authorise the prohibition of the importation of foreign goods as part of an international sanction under the Covenant of the League of Nations,"
  presented by Mr. Mander; supported by Mr. Vyvyan Adams, Lieut.-Commander Bower, Mr. Curry, Mr. Lovat-Fraser, Mr. David Grenfell, Mr. Law, Mr. Mallalieu, Mr. Molson, Miss Rathbone, Brigadier-General Spears, and Colonel Wedgwood; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 9th April, and to be printed. [Bill 92.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 50.

Division No. 184.]

AYES.

[3.45 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Crooke, J. Smedley

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

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

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

Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Crossley, A. C.

Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

Albery, Irving James

Culverwell, Cyril Tom

Hornby, Frank

Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

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

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

Denville, Alfred

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Doran, Edward

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

Dower, Captain A. V. G.

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

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Duggan, Hubert John

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Blaker, Sir Reginald

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

Knight, Holford

Blindell, James

Eden, Robert Anthony

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Borodale, Viscount

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Bossom, A. C.

Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

Boulton, W. W.

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

Law, Sir Alfred

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Leckie, J. A.

Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Brass, Captain Sir William

Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

Lees-Jones, John

Broadbent, Colonel John

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Lewis, Oswald

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

Liddall, Walter S.

Browne, Captain A. C.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Buchan, John

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Fleming Edward Lascelles

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

Ford, Sir Patrick J.

Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

Burnett, John George

Fox, Sir Gifford

Loftus, Pierce C.

Butler, Richard Austen

Fremantle, Sir Francis

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Fuller, Captain A. G.

Mabane, William

Calne, G. R. Hall-

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

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

Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmiy)

Glossop, C. W. H.

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Goff, Sir Park

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

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Goldie, Noel B.

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

McKeag, William

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

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

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Granville, Edgar

McLean, Major Sir Alan

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

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Greene, William P. C.

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian

Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Grimston, R. V.

Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

Christie, James Archibald

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

Maitland, Adam

Clarke, Frank

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

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

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Martin, Thomas B.

Colfox, Major William Philip

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Colman, N. C. D.

Hammersley, Samuel S.

Milne, Charles

Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Hanley, Dennis A.

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

Conant, R. J. E.

Harbord, Arthur

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Cook, Thomas A.

Hartington, Marquess of

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

Cooke, Douglas

Hartland, George A.

Moreing, Adrian C.

Cooper, A. Duff

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

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

Cranborne, Viscount

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

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

Morrison, William Shephard

Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

Stevenson, James

Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

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

Munro, Patrick

Ruggies-Brise, Colonel E. A.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Runge, Norah Cecil

Sutcliffe, Harold

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

Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

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

Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

North, Edward T.

Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

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

Nunn, William

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

Patrick, Colin M.

Salmon, Sir Isidore

Train, John

Peake, Captain Osbert

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Pearson, William G.

Savery, Samuel Servington

Turton, Robert Hugh

Penny, Sir George

Scone, Lord

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

Percy, Lord Eustace

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Petherick, M.

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

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

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Weymouth, Viscount

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Radford, E. A.

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Whyte, Jardine Bell

Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

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

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

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

Smithers, Waldron

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Ramsden, Sir Eugene

Somervell, Sir Donald

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

Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Womersley, Walter James

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Remer, John R.

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Renwick, Major Gustav A.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

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

Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain Austin Hudson.

NOES.

Banfield, John William

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

Milner, Major James

Batey, Joseph

Harris, Sir Percy

Paling, Wilfred

Buchanan, George

Janner, Barnett

Parkinson, John Allen

Cape, Thomas

Jenkins, Sir William

Rea, Walter Russell

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

John, William

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Daggar, George

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

Smith, Tom (Normanton)

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Thorne, William James

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Kirkwood, David

Tinker, John Joseph

Edwards, Charles

Lawson, John James

White, Henry Graham

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

Leonard, William

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

Lunn, William

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

McEntee, Valentine L.

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Mainwaring, William Henry

Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

Mr. Groves and Mr. G. Macdonald.

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

Maxton, James

STOCKPORT CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to he printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Indian Pay (Temporary Abatements) Bill,
Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Bill,
Mining Industry (Welfare Fund) Bill,
North Atlantic Shipping Bill,
Rural Water Supplies Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Crosby Litherland and Waterloo joint Cemetery District) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Rochester, Chatham and Gillingham Joint Sewerage District) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Wirral Joint Hospital District) Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the law with respect to gas undertakings." [Gas Undertakings Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the West Gloucestershire Water Company to construct new waterworks; to extend the limits of supply of the company; to enlarge their powers in relation to the raising of money; and for other purposes." [West Gloucestershire Water Bill [Lords.]

WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
SOLICITORS BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 9th April, and to be printed. [Bill 91.]
GAS UNDERTAKINGS BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 9th April, and to be printed. [Bill 93.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.55 p.m.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  No less than 89 years have elapsed since Parliament passed any general Act dealing, except in a temporary way, with the relief of the poor in Scotland. The Act of 1845 still supplies practically the whole permanent statutory foundation of the Scottish Poor Law. In the long stretch of years which have passed since then there has been only one change of first-rate importance, when in 1921 the able-bodied poor were for the first time given a legal right to poor relief. The Act of 1921 and the four Acts which have amended it are all temporary in their nature and are only alive to-day because they get an annual inoculation from the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. Therefore, I think we cannot be accused of undue precipitancy if we ask Parliament to-day to turn its attention to this important topic.
  This Bill is only a step, though in our judgment an indispensable step, to a full and comprehensive modern Poor Law Statute. The function of the present Bill is to make amendments of the law most of which are long overdue. Those amendments, I have no doubt, will receive the closest scrutiny in the Scottish Grand Committee. Not until this Bill is passed will the way be open for a general codifying Act. For the purpose of framing such a general codifying Act we propose to appoint a small Departmental Committee, composed mainly of members and officials of local authorities who are in close touch, theoretical and practical, with the Poor Law. At the same time there are some special topics which we are going to relegate to them. We intend that the Bill so drafted shall embody in a complete and self-contained code the whole corpus of Scottish Poor Law, which is at present a conglomeration of Statute Law, Common Law and legal decisions. That cannot be done until the first step which we take to-day and the other step which I will mention presently are taken.
  1830
  While that investigation is proceeding we propose to make an investigation into another subject, namely, vagrancy. It is a separate branch of the Poor Law, and we think it demands investigation. [Interruption.] No, another Committee. The first Committee will be fully occupied. Clause 6 of this Bill deals for the first time with the casual poor, but only when they are accommodated in Poor Law institutions, and its purpose is to secure a certain amount of regulation. In our judgment regulations with regard to the treatment of vagrancy in poor-houses can be passed now, leaving the Committee free and unhampered to go into the general question of vagrancy as a whole. When these Committees report we shall have to consider whether it will be necessary to deal with their recommendations in a Bill on particular topics or whether any suggestions that they make can be incorporated straight off in the general codifying Bill; but that question does not, I think, arise at this moment.
  May I turn to the existing Poor Law. In the first place, in its permanent structure it is a system for relieving, not the able-bodied, but only the poor who from age or sickness are disabled from work, and their dependants. These are in Scotland, as every Scottish Member knows, the ordinary poor. The relief of these is mainly outdoor, while children who are orphans or deserted, or whose welfare demands separation from their parents, are boarded out in suitable homes. With regard to adults and children who receive indoor relief, they are accommodated in poorhouses—I use the old phrase—which still, for the most part, are of a general or mixed type, that is to say, a type where proper separation of the old, the infirm, and the children; of the more respectable—if I may use the word—old people whom misfortune has overtaken and others who are more dissipated or of a less desirable type; and even, in some cases, of the sane from the feebleminded or harmless lunatics, is by no means complete.
  There is one feature of the Scottish Poor Law which I do not think is so familiar as the two I have mentioned, but which one notices as soon as one begins closely to examine the subject. It is this: A very great deal of what has to be done, and what has always been done and what must be done in the day-to-day

  1831
  working of this system, has no statutory foundation at all, but depends entirely upon administrative rules. It is not until one goes into the topic that one sees how far that fact is established. There is, for instance—apart from one general phrase in the 1845 Act with regard to poorhouse discipline that rules may be made for the treatment and discipline of the inmate—no statutory provision at all limiting the powers with regard to such important topics as detention in the poor-house itself, forms of punishment in the case of refractory inmates, and the right of a man to discharge himself from the poorhouse. Even that very well-known feature of our Poor Law, the boarding-out of children, rests upon no statutory foundation at all.
  It might be said that if all this has gone on for 89 years without harmful results, why do we deal with that state of things now? The answer is this—and it is one to which I specially draw the attention of the House—that if you have in charge of an institution one who has got no statutory sanction for discipline, for instance, or for the method of discharge of the inmate, you rely, to a large extent, upon his personal characteristics which may be unsatisfactory; but if everybody concerned knows that there are strict limits to disciplinary measures, and rules for the other subject to which I have referred, you have a system based upon a foundation which everybody understands. I am clearly of opinion, therefore, that the time has come, when we must deal with the Poor Law in any case, to deal with these problems.
  Why are we dealing now with the Poor Law? For this reason. The House is well aware that the Unemployment Bill will remove from the local authorities both in Scotland and in England a large number of the able-bodied who are at present under their charge, and for whom they are responsible. But many will be left out. The House is familiar with the provision in the Unemployment Bill with regard to such subjects as training. The Scottish Poor Law contains no powers to give training to able-bodied unemployed persons, and, further, it has no power at all in individual cases to set a person to work in return for Poor Law relief. The only alternative in Scotland to unconditional
  1832
  poor relief is maintenance in an institution. Now I believe that it is most undesirable that there should be no middle course open. I think that in the case of an able-bodied man there should be an opportunity, where it seems desirable, that proper work should be done in return for relief. I think that that is a much better method of dealing with certain difficult types of cases than the rough-and-ready method of relegating them to the poor-house; and that with regard to training and instruction it should be possible for the local Poor Law authority to provide the means for that. It is absolutely essential, if the able-bodied who remain under the care of local authorities are to receive the same opportunities for reconditioning as those who will come under the Unemployment Assistance Board. It is considerations such as these that make it necessary, in our opinion, to bring before the House of Commons a Poor Law Bill for Scotland to-day. That being so we would, I think, have been open to the charge of being extremely supine if we had not also taken the opportunity of dealing with the other matters to which the Bill refers and to which I now turn.
  Let me first state the main categories into which the provisions fall. First of all, they are either reforms with regard to the able-bodied, or others that are absolutely necessary and have been long overdue for legislation; or they are giving a statutory foundation to things which previously have been left in a much more nemulous state. The topics with which the Bill deals are as follow: First, as I say, the able-bodied poor. I will go into this subject in more detail later. Secondly, the poor-house—discipline, questions connected with discharge, and a novel feature with regard to taking to suitable institutions a certain type of aged and infirm persons. Again, we take the opportunity of incorporating in the Poor Law certain advantages which in one case they have in England and not in Scotland, and which in the other case they have not in Scotland in the Poor Law itself, of having certain parts of their income disregarded for the purpose of the assessment of their needs. Finally, we deal with regulations with regard to the duties of the inspector of poor.
  Let me turn in detail to the first question—the provisions with regard to the

  1833
  able-bodied. These are contained in the first three Clauses of the Bill. The first two Clauses make permanent, though I am sorry to say, for reasons I will give in a moment, only by way of reference, the provisions of the temporary Acts which began in 1921. The only difference between the temporary law as it exists to-day and the permanent law under these Clauses is, that we give to the able-bodied applicant for poor relief, the right which is at present confined to the ordinary poor—the disabled poor—of appealing to the Sheriff against a decision by the Poor Law authority not to give any relief at all. The able-bodied, as the House well knows, have at present the further right of the ordinary poor in applying for poor relief, namely, that if the relief granted is inadequate, then there is an appeal. But the appeal against the refusal to grant relief was in the Act of 1921 not given to the able-bodied poor. We give it to them now by the alterations which we propose in the two Sub-sections of Clause 2 of the Bill.
  Now one word as to why we have proceeded in the first two Clauses by way of reference. We all dislike legislation by reference, and I tried to see whether, in making these provisions with regard to the able-bodied poor at this stage, it was possible to avoid a reference. But the answer was "no," for these reasons. First of all, the Acts themselves are full of references to the Act of 1845; and the amending Acts, that is, the Acts of 1923 to 1927, are full of references to the Act of 1921, and as we looked at it, it became one of those matters which cannot be straightened out until we get our complete code, which means a definite, positive statement of every legal proposition connected with the Poor Law of Scotland. However, for the convenience of members who will be in the Scottish Standing Committee when we come to deal with this Bill, and as I certainly could not ask them to undertake the discussion of Clauses 1 and 2 without more assistance than the Bill itself gives them, we propose to circulate to the members of the Scottish Standing Committee in some simple form a paper giving a synopsis of each Section, so that in Committee every hon. Member without trouble will have the provisions of every applicable Section before him at once.
  1834
  I come to Clause 3, which deals in the first Sub-section with instruction and training. The House will observe that there is no compulsion for instruction or training, and I think that recent experience shows that among the very large number of unemployed and destitute able-bodied persons there is a great desire for instruction. The second Sub-section deals with the power about which I have already said a word, namely, that if the authority consider it expedient in a particular case, they may require an able-bodied person who is being relieved to perform a piece of work. As I have said, I believe that is a most necessary third string to the Scottish Poor Law bow. At present there is only unconditional outdoor relief or relegation to the poor-house. There are many ways in which the grant of unconditional relief, unaccompanied by any provision as to work, is not a blessing to an unemployed man. It really is a disaster. This provision is inserted in order to deal with that type of ease. The language is carefully chosen, so that there is no analogy between this provision and the old-fashioned test work of the English Poor Law. This is a provision to be used only where it will be beneficial to the people with whom we are to deal. Let the House note that, both with regard to the training and the instruction, and the work to which I am now referring, these matters will be subject to regulations made by the Department, and before they come into force, they will be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. That is also true of any regulations to which I shall have to refer in discussing the rest of the Bill. This seems to be a necessary provision where administrative regulations—and these will only be administrative—deal with important points.
  As to the rest of Clause 3, I need only say that powers are given to the local authority to provide and maintain work centres and courses of instruction and training, and, for these purposes, to acquire land, construct buildings, provide and maintain plant and equipment and do such other things as may be necessary. Taking them as a whole, we desire, by the Clauses with which I have already dealt, that the resources at the disposal of the local authorities for dealing with questions of helping, reconditioning and building up these unemployed who come

  1835
  under their aegis, will be as ample and as serviceable to the unemployed themselves as are the resources which this House in Committee has recently put at the disposal of the Unemployment Assistance Board.
  With that I leave the question of the provisions with regard to the able-bodied and come to the general group of questions which deal with poorhouses. The most important of these is Clause 4.
  "A local authority shall, if required by the Department, provide suitable and separate poorhouse accommodation for each or any of such classes of inmate as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Department."
  At the present moment the Department of Health for Scotland, whose services in the guidance of the Scottish Poor Law are recognised by the House as a whole, has no powers definitely of stimulating local authorities to proceed with the work of improving the poorhouses. I must not be taken to mean that Scottish poorhouses as a whole stand in very great need of internal reform in the matter of management, but I do say that modern methods and the modern point of view demand that, where it is possible, there should be proper segregation in their own interests of the classes of people who compose the different types of those requiring assistance. It would be absurd to expect that upon the waving of a wand everything could be put right in a moment, or that Clause 4 would bring about that state of affairs. All I ask Parliament in that regard is that the Department of Health should have the power to see that what can be done, in consonance with the financial situation of a local authority, is done. As far as my right hon. Friend and I are concerned, we shall see to it that sound and active administration will bring about all reasonable improvement as soon as it can be achieved.
  Actual questions of discipline and so on in a poorhouse are touched upon, first of all, in Clause 5. At present the governor of a poorhouse, except for the vague powers conferred upon him by a Section of the Act of 1845, has no statutory power to control the inmates of the institution. That is not right. The giving by Parliament of such a statutory power does not mean that you are to inflict new hardships or anything of that sort
  1836
  upon the inmates of public assistance institutions. It means that those who are in charge of them will have certain powers; but these powers will be limited by regulations, which will be laid before Parliament, and, instead of a nebulous situation, there will be a clear one. What are the powers in Clause 5? I will deal with the second proviso first: No inmate who has been disorderly or refractory shall be confined in a separate room for a period exceeding 24 hours. I will not weary the House at this stage with discussing the actual period, as it is clearly a Committee matter, but I think the House will agree that in principle there should be some statutory power given to a governor of a poorhouse to deal with a refractory person under his charge.
  Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the reference to a separate room means solitary confinement?
  Mr. SKELTON: It means being confined in a separate room, but not, as in the past has been the case, in a cell.
  Mr. MACLEAN: That does not answer the point. Does being kept in a separate room mean solitary confinement?
  Mr. SKELTON: If the hon. Member cares to describe as solitary confinement being kept in a separate room for the maximum period which Parliament allows. I will deal with other matters in the Clause, which says:
  "Rules made by a local authority under Section sixty-four of the principal Act for the discipline and treatment of inmates of a poorhouse may provide for the performance by inmates of tasks of work suited to the age, sex, strength and aptitude of the inmate,…
  Provided that any such rules shall secure that—
  (i) no inmate shall be required to perform a task of work except on a certificate by a medical officer of the authority that he is physically fit to perform it."
  What happens to-day? The House is well aware that in every poorhouse the inmates do perform certain tasks of work. All sorts of things are done in the poorhouse without any authority at all except the vague term of "discipline." Parliament has no power concerning the conditions under which such work shall be performed or, that which I regard as most necessary, of ensuring that the medical officer concerned should see that

  1837
  the people set to work are able-bodied. That is another matter, but, if the House will view it broadly, I think they will agree that it is not right that there should be no statutory foundation at all. Would anyone wish that the people who get relief indoors in a poorhouse should from morning to night do nothing? I do not think so. I think that suitable work is a necessary part of the life of those who get assistance from the poorhouse. Here again I say—and I want it to be clearly on record—that this has nothing to do with the old phrase of "test work." It is simply that, for the work which is done in every poorhouse in Scotland, there should in the first place be, for the first time, a statutory foundation, and, in the second place, proper regulation.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does that not show that you are making provision for a new type of individual who is coming into the poorhouse, because the poorhouse instituted in 1845 was for people who were infirm and past working? You are now of necessity making provision for a new type altogether who can work—the able-bodied.
  Mr. SKELTON: I see the point of the hon. Member, but I am afraid that the facts do not bear it out. We are not making provision for a new type. Legally, able-bodied people have been in the poorhouse since 1921, but, if anyone will glance at the report of the Royal Commission published in 1909, he will see that the skilled investigators who were made use of by the Commission came, even at that time, to the conclusion that the population of the poorhouses in Scotland, from the point of view of whether they were able-bodied or not, were a definite population with which to deal. The fact is that of necessity Poor Law authorities have given relief to the able-bodied poor in Scotland, and the work which they have done for their own sake, in the ordinary way of life, has had no legal foundation and no regulation. I do not believe that the House would have approved of our dealing with the Poor Law, as of necessity we have to deal with it this year, and leaving such a situation unregulated and without foundation.
  I turn to the next matter which is at present in the same anomalous position. I leave Clause 6 at the moment, and come to Clause 7 which deals with the question of discharge. At present there
  1838
  is no statutory provision which either gives or denies to an inmate of a poorhouse the particular time when he can leave the house. The House will readily understand the difficulties of administration which would result if everybody left at the moment they wanted to do so. Therefore, regulation of some sort is necessary, and there has, of course, been regulation without statutory foundation. This Clause deals with what is well known as the "ins and outs," people who frequently find their way, even in the course of one month to the same poorhouse. I will not go into the details of what the period should be before they are entitled to discharge, because these are clearly Committee points. The actual number of hours and so on are clearly matters for the Committee. The principle embodied in Clause 7 is that the more often a man comes into the same poorhouse within a month the less easy it is for him to get out straight away. It is only, in my judgment, a reasonable regulation to deal with the question of the "ins and outs."
  I come now to what is the most important alteration with regard to indoor inmates. Clause 9 provides for the removal, under full and proper safeguards, to a suitable hospital or other institution of aged and infirm, or physically incapacitated persons, who are unable to devote to themselves or to obtain from other persons proper care and attention. No such provision is embodied in the Poor Law of either country, but Parliament has frequently approved under Provisional Orders in Scotland, in the cities of Edinburgh and Dundee, and under many local Acts in England, a wider provision than this, which is based not upon the receiving of poor relief but upon general public health considerations. Clause 9 deals with the case of a person who is aged and infirm and actually in receipt of poor relief, and the procedure will be that on a certificate by a medical officer application may be made by the relieving authority to the sheriff and the sheriff will have to be satisfied that there is a suitable institution to which the person can go. An order can then be made, which in no case lasts for more than three months, for the removal of the aged or infirm person to a suitable institution.
  This matter was dealt with in 1909 by the Royal Commission. What they had

  1839
  then in mind was that in the more remote parts of Scotland, the more sparsely populated parts there were aged people who were struggling under circumstances of life which had become impossible, who had no one properly to look after them and no power properly to look after themselves. It was felt that in the interests of such persons as well as in the interests of the community it was very desirable that they should be properly looked after. This is a matter in which it is most important that there should be full safeguards, and I especially invite the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills to look carefully into the safeguards that we propose. With proper safeguards we can introduce a provision which will be very beneficial.
  Mr. MACLEAN: In regard to the certifying of the individual by the sheriff it is provided that the person in question is not to be detained longer than three months, but the Clause goes on to say:
  "the sheriff may from time to time, upon application by the authority, make orders for the further detention and maintenance of such persons in such institution,"
  provided that the period of detention under each order shall not exceed three months.
  Mr. SKELTON: That is so. The three months provision means that each case will come under the purview of the sheriff.
  Mr. MACLEAN: It may mean for the remainder of that individual's natural life.
  Mr. SKELTON: If it is for their benefit, one would hope so, but if it is not for their benefit application for their removal could be made at once and the sheriff would deal with it. One assumes throughout that the only object in view is the benefit of the person whom I have described. Such a provision, administered well and carefully by all concerned, would humanise and make happier the last years of many old people who are very greatly to be pitied.
  Let me deal now with Clause 10, which gives a new right to the poor of Scotland, namely, that the first five shillings of friendly society sick pay should be disregarded in the assessment of their relief. It also incorporates a provision which the Scottish poor have enjoyed up
  1840
  to now, namely, that the first 7s. 6d. of National Health Insurance benefit shall be disregarded. As the House will know from certain interchanges of question and answer between me and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), certain local authorities have been disinclined, apparently, to apply the rule with regard to the 7s. 6d. in some cases. The argument has been used, highly fallacious though it may be, that because this provision was only in the Health Insurance Act and not in the Poor Law Act, it was not part of the Poor Law of Scotland.
  Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: Can the Under-Secretary say why disablement pensions and old age pensions are not treated in the same way?
  Mr. SKELTON: These provisions are either in other Acts of Parliament at present, as in the case of the 7s. 6d., or enjoined in the English Poor Law but not in the Scottish.
  Mr. MAXTON: Would not the matter mentioned by the hon. Member be subject for an Amendment?
  Mr. SKELTON: Yes, I am only dealing with the Bill as it stands. No doubt such a question as that raised by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) could be raised in Committee and dealt with. I do not think my hon. Friend would expect me to deal in advance with an Amendment which I have not seen. There remains for close consideration Clause 6, which deals with the casual poor. It contains two provisions. The first provision is that a casual poor person entering a poorhouse to receive accommodation must, if he has money on him, contribute to his keep. The Clause also provides for discharge from the poorhouse. I wish to make it clear that this provision in regard to the right of discharge does not mean that a man or woman cannot be discharged earlier, but only that they cannot insist on discharge earlier. Subsection (2) says:
  "A casual poor person shall not be entitled to discharge himself from a poorhouse before the hour of nine o'clock in the morning of the second day following his admission."
  Very often casual poor people come in in the evening and they would not be discharged until 24 hours afterwards, but there is a much more important consideration and that is that in dealing with a

  1841
  vagrant or a casual poor person when they are in an institution opportunity should be taken to cleanse them and their clothing. That is a public health duty and is beneficial to the casual or vagrant person. That is the main reason for the insertion of the provision with regard to discharge on the morning of the second day. I am not going to say more about the casual poor person, because we propose to set up a committee to inquire into the question. The further matter that I would ask the House to consider, in view of the Committee stage and pending the investigations of the Committee of Inquiry, is whether we should deal with the casual poor person at all. I would ask hon. Members to consider the question in the light of these observations. Whatever be the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry, so long as casually poor persons are accommodated in poorhouses regulations such as I have described seem a natural and necessary part of the system. It may be asked why then in this Bill have we introduced this provision with regard to the casual poor. I think I have said enough to enable hon. Members to apply their minds to the matter before we reach the Committee stage.
  I should like to draw attention to Clause 11, under which the Department will have power to make regulations as regards
  "the duties of inspectors of poor and other officers of a local authority in relation to applications for relief, the investigation of the circumstances of applicants for relief, the affording of relief to poor persons pending consideration of their applications by the local authority and the visiting of persons who are in receipt of outdoor relief."
  It may be asked why we have introduced this provision. We have done so because there is a large body of rules, regulations, instructions and so on issued by the Department of Health in regard to inspectors of poor and we think the time has come to reorganise and codify thorn. We wish to reissue them when they have been laid on the Table of the House. But that is not the only reason. Under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, the unit of poor relief was changed from the parish to the county and large burgh and the relieving authority now has at its command a very much greater number of officials of various kind than the parish council, which had practically nothing except the
  1842
  inspector of poor. It is for that reason that the. Clause has been worded as it stands. It is to enable the local authorities legally to make use of other officers for the purposes of poor relief, under the regulations of the Department and with the approval of Parliament. It will mean the legalising of a system which is at present in existence in some areas where actually payments are made not by the inspector of poor, as they very strictly should be under the law, but by the Burgh Treasurer. The Poor Law area is given for administrative purposes a larger staff and larger resources at the disposal of the authorities and this Clause will enable those resources to be made use of under suitable regulations.
  Clause 14 deals with offences by inmates of poorhouses. At the present time except for a breach of the peace, by an inmate of a poorhouse there is no means of bringing him into the purview of the court. We consider that for the purpose of carrying on properly regulated work there should be the possibility of taking a person who is in receipt of relief to court if there is disobedience. Under the summary procedure which will be adopted the maximum penalty is 21 days' imprisonment, which compares favourably with similar penal provisions elsewhere. There, again, the question of the amount of the penalty is a matter for the Committee, but I think hon. Members will agree with me that there should be this sanction at the back of Poor Law administration.
  An HON. MEMBER: It is a crime to be poor.
  Mr. SKELTON: It is certainly not a crime to be poor, but it is a crime for those who have to deal with the poor not to give them every assistance towards their reconditioning and to see that the discipline, which is essential to the administration of any institution, is under proper statutory regulations.
  Mr. MAXTON: When you have been in one of these Poor Law houses for a month you will be glad to get 21 days in gaol.
  Mr. LEONARD: I regard Clause 4 as something of great importance. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will give me one or two points about it.
  Mr. SKELTON: I have already dealt with Clause 4 rather fully, and I do not

  1843
  know how the House would treat me if I repeated my long explanation. I think I have indicated the views in the mind of the Scottish Office in framing this Bill. We have not dealt with the question of settlement and the recourse of one authority against another. We tried to deal with those matters in the Bill presented at the end of last Session, but we found that it was impossible to deal with questions of recourse and settlement unless you put the whole thing in the form of a code. We have, therefore, postponed that question, but I do not think there will be any great misfortune in our so doing, for this reason. Questions of settlement and recourse are primarily questions interesting local authorities inter se, and the Departmental Committee, which I have indicated, might well be given the work of dealing with the amendments which are necessary in the law on these matters. I suggest that they should make an interim report on that topic so that we could see at once whether the provisions with regard to vagrancy and settlement and recourse are such as to require legislation or can be put into a codifying Bill.
  I am satisfied that the work of administration must be founded on a proper statutory basis and that we must see that everything is done to help and assist the reconditioning of those who come under the Poor Law. I am satisfied that the time has come when we must do everything to improve the nature of our administration by affording the necessary segregation, and so on. Perhaps the House will forgive me if I close on a personal note. It so happens that the work of carrying on the Poor Law in Scotland, by administrative machinery only and with practically no statutory foundation to guide the administration, was for the last third of the nineteenth century conducted by my own father. The House will understand, now that I am asking it to give a Second Reading to this Bill, why I recall the famous phrase:
  "The roots of the present are deep in the past."
  4.50 p.m.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I beg to move, to leave out "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add "upon this day six months."
  1844
  The Bill which the Under-Secretary has explained with his usual clarity is one which in the opinion of hon. Members representing constituencies in Scotland might have been introduced in a different form. The Under-Secretary has told us that it is time that the Poor Law of Scotland was codified, and he has promised to introduce a Bill at a later stage as a result of the consultations of the two committees which he proposes to set up to inquire into questions relating to Scottish Poor Law. His last statement was rather an intimation that certain other things were in his mind. He spoke of getting an interim report from one or other of these Committees upon the questions of settlement and vagrancy. I should like to know when he expects to bring in this codifying Poor Law Bill for Scotland, seeing that we are to be asked to await the researches and investigations of these two statutory committees which he proposes to set up. The time they will take is such that he proposes to invite them to bring in an interim report.
  Mr. SKELTON: It is the drafting Committee which we are asking to deal with settlement and recourse quite apart from other matters, and we are hoping that they will be able to give us an interim report on these questions and go on with their main work. I do not think there should be much delay in the Committee dealing with the question of vagrancy.
  Mr. MACLEAN: The Under-Secretary wants the House to believe that the whole question of Scottish Poor Law is to be gone into thoroughly, revised and brought up-to-date, so that the changes which have taken place in modern times will be reflected in the codifying Bill which he intends to introduce. I submit that such a Bill is not going to be brought before us at an early stage because of the questions which will have to be considered, and the Under-Secretary himself, by introducing a Bill of this character, has admitted, I think unconsciously, that it is going to be some considerable time before we get a report from these Committees. In bringing in this Bill the Under-Secretary also has adopted all the old bad principles which all Ministers of State seem to adopt when presenting Bills to this House. He apologised for the fact that in the first two Clauses

  1845
  there are references to five or six other Scottish Poor Law Acts of Parliament, and he hoped that by this Bill there would be no further necessity for legislation by reference. In this Bill he himself is not merely legislating by reference; he is adopting the other bad principle of departments of State in legislating by regulations. There are five important Clauses in this Bill giving powers to the Department to frame regulations upon the particular questions with which each Clause deals, and I submit that instead of bringing in a Bill of this kind and apologising for legislating by reference the Under-Secretary should have brought matters up-to-date and have embodied the regulations in the Bill.
  I have protested on previous occasions against Departments taking to themselves powers by the issue of regulations which this House has no opportunity of discussing or even of rejecting. The worst kind of legislation is legislation by regulations, and I had hoped that the Bill would not have legislated by regulations. I must thank the Under-Secretary for his promise to issue to hon. Members on the Standing Committee a synopsis of previous Acts of Parliament which the Bill seeks to amend. I have protested against legislation by reference, and I induced Mr. Speaker Whitley to make it the right of every hon. Member, when a number of provisions in other Acts of Parliament were referred to, to be able to go to the Vote Office and get the Vote Office to obtain from the Stationery Office sufficient copies of the old Acts referred to to enable hon. Members to follow clearly and intelligently the references in the Bill. That right still holds good.
  I am not altogether certain that the Bill is going to do so many of the good things which the Under-Secretary believes are likely to result. The disciplinary methods provided for in some of the Clauses suggest that the Department of Health for Scotland has obtained a Fascist head, and is seeking to govern those in Scotland who are unfortunate enough to be poor by the worst system of regimenting it is possible to impose by any Department or any individual upon those who are unfortunate. There are all manner of punishments provided for in the Bill, from being detained in the institution, not permitted to get away, and having to give 24 hours' notice to the institution to the provision to impose
  1846
  21 days' imprisonment on individuals who may be refractory and commit breaches of discipline. Why is it that at this hour the Under-Secretary has considered it necessary to bring punishments of this character into the Scottish Poor Law system? Why was it that they were not asked for by previous Under-Secretaries of State? Have the poor of Scotland become so obstreperous, so violent, so undisciplined, that now the hon. Gentleman suddenly discovers it is necessary to obtain powers for all these additional punishments which have not hitherto been in the Poor Law of Scotland? I should have imagined that the Minister would have put before the House some very sound reason why he thought it necessary to have these additional punishments and severe penalties imposed.
  There are other matters to which I am certain a number of hon. Members will desire to take exception. In Clause 3, for example, the Department, subject to any regulations again, is given power, or a local authority is given power to maintain courses of instruction and training for such persons as are mentioned in the Clause,
  "or may contribute towards the cost of the provision and maintenance of such courses by another local authority or by any other body."
  What "other body"? Not a local authority, but some outside body, some voluntary body.
  Mr. SKELTON: The Unemployment Assistance Board.
  Mr. MACLEAN: But that is not stated in the Bill, and that board is a statutory body.
  Mr. SKELTON: Not yet.
  Mr. MACLEAN: It may not be yet, but it will be a statutory board. It will be set up by an Act of Parliament, as much set up by an Act of Parliament as the Department of Health or the office of the Secretary of State, and as such it ought to be named in the Bill.
  Mr. SKELTON: It cannot be at the moment.
  Mr. MACLEAN: If the Government cannot at this stage put it in the Bill the Bill ought to be delayed until it can be done.
  Mr. MAXTON: Legislation by inference, not by reference.
  Mr. MACLEAN: "Any other body" may mean any voluntary body in Scotland which wanted to take up any particular system of training. Then the Department can assist that body in making provision for and maintaining courses of instruction for the unemployed. Scottish Members have no right to permit the control of any training or course of instruction of the poor to go outside the control of the Department. If the wording of the Clause stands as it is the body that will undertake this work need not be the Unemployment Assistance Board. It might mean any voluntary institution. I ask the Under-Secretary now whether that is the meaning of the Clause or whether this power is to be confined entirely to the Unemployment Assistance Board when the Unemployment Bill has passed. If he tells us that we shall know where we are. The hon. Gentleman does not answer.
  Mr. SKELTON: It is a Committee point which I shall deal with when the Bill is in Committee.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I do not think it is a Committee point. It is a Committee point to change the wording of the Clause but not a Committee point to go outwith the scope of Public Health control, to hand over the course of training to any voluntary organisation that may be set up. That is a matter of principle.
  Mr. SKELTON: The hon. Member is making a deduction which I do not think is sound at all.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I think it is sound to any individual who reads the Clause. The Under-Secretary has mentioned only one body, which is to be a statutory body, and not "any other body." The hon. Gentleman is not on very sound ground when he stands by those words.
  Mr. SKELTON: I made my explanation very shortly.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I am certain that the House would have been willing to listen to a longer intervention from the Minister in order to make clear something which at the moment is not clear in the Bill. The Clause also gives power to acquire land, to construct buildings, to provide and maintain plant and equipment. Here we are giving an incentive to a local authority to erect factories, instal machinery and then to put in instructors to
  1848
  train the able-bodied poor. It is going to be one of the most gigantic mixtures that the law of Scotland has ever been landed into. One would have imagined that these facilities and powers would be left in the hands of one particular body in the country. The more the House discusses unemployment, the more it goes into the question of doing something for the unemployed, the more it exhibits its ignorance of the unemployment question. This is really another Unemployment Bill and not a Poor Law Bill at all. It is a Bill to make the able-bodied poor of Scotland like those of England. I would like to know why the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary, instead of coming before a Committee of the House last night with two or three little "tuppenny-ha'penny" Amendments to the Unemployment Bill for dealing with certain administrative matters arising on the Unemployment Bill, did not incorporate in the Unemployment Bill the powers that they now seek in this Poor Law Bill.
  Other matters in this Bill show how far this House is expected to travel with the Under-Secretary. I raised the point whether three months was to be the limit of the incarceration of an individual. That point relates not merely to the aged or the infirm. It may be three months at the commencement, but a recurring period of three months can be imposed upon the individual if the local authority thinks that that is necessary and it makes an application to the sheriff. If the individual is one who wants to be out among his friends, if his friends would like to see him amongst them, he cannot be freed unless a certificate is sent to the sheriff that the particular individual can go out once more. There are various other points in the Bill open to criticism—the regulating of the "ins" and "outs," the classifications under Clause 4, where it is necessary to have suitable and separate poorhouse accommodation, the regulations. We cannot tell at the moment what is to be the method adopted because we have not seen the regulations, and as to the classification one wonders whether it will be such that there will be different grades, such as the labouring or unskilled grade, the tradesman grade and so on right up until there are social distinctions created inside the poorhouse.
  Mr. MAXTON: With a special place for Cabinet Ministers.
  Mr. MACLEAN: One wonders whether there is to be grading on the lines of social distinction. One cannot tell. The methods adopted here give one the impression that the Government do not really know what they are about. I would like to know also whether the work which the local authority can set men to do is to be task work or work which they are to be invited to do, and whether they can be employed by private individuals. The Bill is not clear. It can be inferred that in addition to work which may be done under the particular local authority these people who are in institutions can also do work for outside bodies and firms. If that is so the House has a right to know the extent to which that particular sort of operation is to go. It might mean cheap labour, which could be made use of by certain employers to the detriment of labour outside which is not under the control of the Public Assistance Committee or of the local authority.
  This Bill, I take it, is part of that other issue that has been raised by the Government in the Unemployment Bill, with its Public Assistance Board. The Bill is to place the Poor Law of Scotland upon a similar footing to the Poor Law of England. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Front Government Bench can bear out my statement that hitherto there has been a difference between the Poor Law of Scotland and the Poor Law of England. There was a more humane administration of the Poor Law in Scotland than in England, and when the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary bring forward a Bill, not merely tightening up the Poor Law administration in Scotland, not merely bringing the methods of the English Poor Law into Scottish Poor Law administration, but a Bill actually making the Scottish Poor Law administration even worse than the English system, then it is time for Scottish Members, who have prided themselves in the past on the humanity with which we in Scotland have treated those of our own country, and immigrants from other countries who have come under the Poor Law in Scotland, to protest. We have prided ourselves on the fact that the poor in Scotland were treated more like human beings than the poor in England. In those circumstances are Scottish Members going to permit a Bill of this character to pass in the form in which it is presented to the House?
  1850
  There is another point. A great amount of expenditure will be involved in the operation of the Bill as it is now drafted. The Government are imposing new principles of Poor Law administration on Scotland. Are they prepared at the same time to reconsider the amount to be granted to Scotland in view of the additional expense which a Bill of this character will involve on the local authorities in Scotland? Already in Scotland, on the Minister's own statement, the cost of the Poor Law is rising by leaps and bounds. In Glasgow alone it has risen from £5,000 per week to £20,000 per week in three years. In Edinburgh it is three times what it was three years ago and something must be done by the Minister and his associates when the Government produce a Bill imposing still further expenditure on the local authorities.
  I have the exact figures here showing that in the week beginning 17th May, 1930, the weekly expenditure in Glasgow on the relief of the able-bodied poor and their dependants was £5,705 and on 12th November, 1933, the amount per week was £20,919 or an increase of nearly £15,000 in three years. In Edinburgh the expenditure in 1930 was £1,290 per week and that went up in three years to £3,487. In Lanarkshire from £330 per week it has risen to £1,941 per week and in Dumbarton from £158 per week to £490 per week. In Sutherlandshire on 17th May, 1930, the amount so paid was nothing at all, but there has been a catastrophic increase and in November, 1933, it was £4 per week. While the Minister is wondering about the law of settlement, we are getting people from Caithness and other parts, into Glasgow, and they are being placed upon the rates there. Those figures were given by the hon. Gentleman himself in reply to a question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair). With all these facts before us as to the growing expenditure upon Poor Law in Scotland we are bound to object to a Bill, involving additional expenditure, which seeks to obtain further powers including the power to deal with what are called refractory individuals. They are no more refractory than they were a year ago or 10 years ago, or 20 years ago.
  Mr. MAXTON: Unfortunately.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Unfortunately. When the Government seek such powers and when they propose to add additional expense on to the already increasing expenditure in Scotland then I submit the House ought not to accept this Bill as it is presented to us this afternoon. If the Minister has any real ideas on reform of the Scottish Poor Law let him hold back those ideas until he is in a position to present them to the House in the Consolidation Bill which he has told us he is going to introduce later. Pending such a Measure I ask the House to refuse a Second Reading to this Bill.
  5.23 p.m.
  Sir IAN MACPHERSON: I am sure the House will not begrudge the Undersecretary the legitimate pride which he took in moving the Second Reading of this Bill relating as it does to a work with which he has been honourably connected for a long time. I welcome the Bill and I see in its Clauses a great many ideas which, I am glad to think, have emanated from the county council of Ross and Cromarty and from the public assistance committee there. But I understand the difficulty in which the Under-Secretary finds himself this afternoon. He has made it clear to us that this is an intermediate Bill, and as such it is bound to be in many respects unsatisfactory. This Bill only marks a stage in the progress of the fight against unemployment and as I understand it may not be for any considerable length of time on the Statute Book. The hon. Gentleman today told us of two very interesting facts. The first is, that the Secretary for State is appointing a committee to codify the ancient Poor Law of Scotland. There is no doubt, that that Poor Law requires codification. The second interesting fact is, that he proposes to deal with that curious type of individual whom one finds in every country and particularly in Scotland the vagrant, or casual unemployed person, wandering about the countryside.
  While these two great problems are in abeyance, it would be extremely difficult to bring forward a Bill dealing with this subject which would be in all the circumstances satisfactory, and would deal completely with so large a subject as the Poor Law. What the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) said is right, and it is something which required to be said. This Bill is not an appendix to any English Measure. It is an in-
  1852
  dependent Bill and I am glad of that. The tendency recently in legislation dealing with Scotland has been to make Scottish Bills purely appendices to English Bills dealing with the English system. This Bill however, deals with the Poor Law as we understand it in Scotland. I am glad for another reason that that is so. As the hon. Member for Govan also pointed out, the traditional way of dealing with the poor in Scotland has been the humane way, and the real trouble for the Scottish Office when dealing with this Bill in Committee will arise if they attempt too strongly to defend anything which has the smallest taint of the criminal law in connection with it. That will be the real difficulty and I hope that wherever that taint appears to Scottish Members to exist, the Scottish Office will have none of it. Poverty is no disgrace to anybody. We in Scotland have regarded poverty as a tragedy. It has never been regarded as anything which should cause any man to be held in disrepute. Our greatest poet has sung of honest poverty. That is a tradition of Scotland, and I hope that the Scottish Members when dealing with this Bill in Committee—and I am afraid it will require a good deal of amendment in Committee—will maintain that tradition.
  Let me refer to one or two of the points which will have to be dealt with in Committee. We are dealing here with a problem which has not in the past affected Scotland, as far as the poor-house system is concerned, namely the problem of regulated work. In the old days the poorhouse in Scotland was a country cottage maintained at the public expense for the respectable poor and the aged, and there was no question of regulated work or statutory work. Nowadays a new problem arises. You may have to deal in all these houses with the able-bodied man. You are super-inducing a new life altogether upon these ancient institutions. The new board is not yet in existence, and we have heard a great deal of discussion in connection with the Unemployment Bill upon the rules and regulations affecting work in the proposed institutions or centres. The argument advanced against the drastic, almost penal work proposed in that Bill can be advanced against any attempt to foist such work upon the able-bodied across the Border. I think I observe a sign of approval from my hon.

  1853
  and learned Friend the Lord Advocate in that connection and I feel sure that this question will be approached with sympathy by the Scottish Office.
  There are one or two other small points which may be regarded as Committee points, but I should like the Scottish Office to have time to consider them before the Committee stage. First there is the question of the discharge of the casual labourers or the casual unemployed. Having read the Bill carefully, I am inclined to think that in connection with this question of discharge there is too much stringency and that there ought to be more freedom. I understood the point which my hon. Friend made about the desirability of cleanliness and all that, but you cannot penalise a man merely because he is poor. There should be a great deal of latitude given to the poor man who by accident finds himself in a poorhouse as to when he will be discharged or how he will get the discharge to which he thinks himself legitimately entitled.
  There is the other question of the money which may be taken over from him. I think the Bill is, on the whole, fairly reasonable, but it is unfortunate that there should be a taking over of any money from anybody. If a man finds himself in a very difficult and poor condition, if he finds himself on a cold, wintry night, out of work, with no place to go to, and he happens to have a little money, it may be only a few shillings, it is unfortunate that this should be taken from him in order to pay for what is called his keep. The moment he has finished his period in the workhouse, what is to become of him? He begins again without a penny in his pocket. It is the same old story, and he goes down and down. If he had too much money, a large amount of money, a reasonable percentage might be taken for his night's keep, but to say that if a man goes into a poor-house with a few coppers or shillings in his pocket, on a cold, wintry night the first job, before he is even washed, is to deprive him of his money, is not a thing with which we Scottish Members can on the whole agree.
  One other point arises. We are dealing with the poorhouse as a home for the casual unemployed, the aged, respectable poor, and those who are ill or sick. It so happens that in many parts of the
  1854
  country, where the poorhouse is regarded as a very kindly Scottish home, a great many old age pensioners are very anxious to enter such a home, and indeed those who are interested in them are also very anxious to get them into a home of that kind. There has been no attempt at driving them in, no compulsion, but, if they voluntarily wish to go into such a home, where they are well looked after in their old age, then they should be entitled to go, and, if they go there, they should no longer be threatened with any disqualification either of their pension or otherwise. I am sure that that is something which the Scottish Office would do well to consider. There are a great many people in the North of Scotland, in my constituency, who are in that position, honest and respectable, old age pensioners. They have a struggle to live, but they can be accommodated, very often of their own free will, in the local cottage home, and if they want to go in there, instead of living a miserable existence outside, to have care and attention bestowed upon them by competent hands, I think they should be entitled to go there, and, if they do go there, they ought not to have their pension taken away from them, but to be allowed the additional luxury, for the short time of their life that remains, of being able to use it, and not only so, but to have no sign or taint or disqualification of pauperism attached to them.
  In conclusion, I should like to say that I think this is a bold and a very fair intermediate attempt to deal with a problem which has to be faced, for however short a time, and I think the Bill is adequate for that purpose. It cannot possibly go the whole way that my hon. Friend the Member for Govan would like it to go. We were told that it would be an intermediate Bill for an intermediate stage, and as such it is competent to deal with the situation, but I look forward to the speeding up of these two Departmental Committees to which reference has been made, because the sooner we have a real Poor Law Bill for Scotland, the better it will be for our country.
  5.35 p.m.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I support the Amendment to have the Bill read a Second time upon this day six months.

  1855
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, when he was introducing the Bill, told us a great deal about the Act of 1845. That was when they legalised poverty in Scotland. There had been no system of relieving poverty in Scotland up till then. The last of the collecting boxes is still to be seen in the Nether-gate in Edinburgh. That was how they found the wherewithal to provide for the poor of Scotland up till 1845—the Church dispensed charity—but it is a different state of affairs to-day. In 1845 Scotland was certainly in poverty. There is no doubt about that. Poverty was rampant, and there was a shortage of the necessaries of life. Just 20 years before the introduction of that Act there was what was known in Scotland as the year of the short corn, 1824, and the poor folk of Scotland had to partake of food that was made up more of sand than of meal, as a result of famine being abroad in the land. When that Act was introduced the great power of production to which we are heirs to-day was not there. There was no railway system as we know it; we had none of the great steamboat firms that we have to-day, none of the great Clyde shipyards, none of the great engineering works, none of the great factories Man at that time had only opened the door to this age of abundance in which we now live. There really was poverty, there really was famine at that time, and the law-givers of that day approached the problem in a more intelligent fashion than do the law-givers of to-day, who are still wandering back to 1845 and thinking in terms of the last century, in terms of famine and of shortage, never taking into consideration that this country of ours is part and parcel of a great international development that is taking place. In 1845 we had not the great wheatfields of Canada, and Australia was not able to send us shiploads of dairy produce.
  The legislators of to-day in this country are not facing this problem. They are running away from it. Every other country of any note but our own is trying to get down to this problem. We may differ from Mussolini, from Hitler, from Roosevelt, and from Stalin, but the fact remains that they are trying to get down to the problem. They are men with courage. That is what this country requires, and it is evident that up till now they have not arrived on the scene.
  1856
  The result is that we have the Scottish Office, in keeping with the Cabinet of which they are part and parcel, simply allowing things to drift, drift, drift. They are bringing in this Bill in order to deal with a situation the like of which never happened before. When I interrupted the Under-Secretary of State in his speech in introducing the Bill, it was to draw his attention to the fact that the Bill is not to deal with the infirm, with those who are physically unfit, with:
  "Yonder poor o'erlabour'd wight,
  So abject, mean, and vile,
  Who begs a brother of the earth
  To give him leave to toil."
  It is not that type at all. It is to deal father with "manhood's active might," because until now the individuals who went into our poorhouses were people who were broken, mentally and physically. All the spirit, all the outstanding characteristics of the Scottish race, had been crushed out of them before they went to the poorhouse. I can remember when it was a disgrace for one of my race to go to the poorhouse, and I have known them commit suicide rather than go to the poorhouse, but we have arrived now at a time when the Government realise the fact that those who are not employed are not the old, done men and women, the old veterans of industry, but young men for whom, as long as they work, as they are doing, eight, nine and 10 hours a day, there is no room. There are too many of them. So we have to make provision for them in the same way as Hitler has done, only Hitler is above board about it. He puts them in concentration camps and military camps. That is what this Bill is going to do to them. It makes poverty a criminal offence, because it empowers the Government in certain conditions to sentence men and women to 21 days' imprisoment if they fail to conform to the new regulations relating to poorhouse inmates.
  Under Clause 3 local authorities will be authorised to make detention at these so-called work centres a condition of relief for the person concerned and their dependants. This is being done in the land of the brave and the free. Similarly the local authorities are to be given power to adopt disciplinary rules for the treatment of poorhouse inmates and to compel them to perform task-work in certain conditions. Those who do not

  1857
  conform to discipline may be confined in a separate room in the same way as if they were in prison. Under Clause 15 they may be sentenced to 21 days' imprisonment. The National Government will insist on the local authorities finding 60 per cent. of the cost of the able-bodied relief for the standard year ending May, 1933. The total cost of able-bodied relief in Scotland last year was £1,600,000, and the ratepayers will be saddled with 60 per cent. of that amount for an indefinite period under the Unemployment Bill. The Scottish ratepayers, on this basis, will be called upon to pay approximately £900,000 towards the cost of maintaining the unemployed, some of whom will be kept in concentration camps.
  How will it affect the big industrial areas? How will it hit the Clyde as against places like Caithness and Argyll? It is as well the House should know what is to be done. Clydebank will be asked to pay over £18,000 extra per annum; Hamilton nearly £12,000, Dumbarton £5,000, Glasgow over £400,000 and Kilmarnock just over £600 extra for the maintenance of the able-bodied unemployed. These figures were given by the Secretary of State for Scotland in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I challenged the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter at the time and asked him how much relief would come to my constituency, for all the Tories rejoiced because they thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given us something of a concession. The concession was infinitesimal. Our of his grant of £19,000, Clydebank was getting a concession of £2,000. It did not hit Glasgow at all; they got about £40,000, which still leaves them with over £400,000 which they will have to pay. Kilmarnock, Wigtown, Caithness, Argyll and Clackmannan will remain practically the same, whereas the ratepayers of the Clyde area will have to pay a tax of 10d. to 1s. 2d. in the pound for the maintenance of the unemployed, who ought to be maintained by the State.
  The Under-Secretary made great play with Clause 6, which empowers poorhouse officers to search persons seeking shelter and to take from them any money found in their possession. I think the House will agree with me that that is unashamed confiscation. When we Socialists put forward an idea like this, we are traduced everywhere. All the leaders of the Socialist movement in this House
  1858
  ever since I came here have held up their hands in holy horror whenever we mentioned confiscation, because they said we would never make any headway, as the people of this country abhor the very idea of confiscation. It is only abhorred when we want to confiscate a little from the rich, from those who can afford confiscation, but in this Bill the individuals who are always up against confiscation are going to confiscate from the very poor. They are going to take from the down-and-out. Nobody would dream of going to a house of refuge unless driven to it by sheer necessity, and this is the time when such confiscation is proposed by the Government and the drafters of this Bill. I do not know who or what they are, but they must lack the milk of human kindness.
  Hon. Members may smile as much as they like; it is no smiling matter for the welfare of Britain that we have got to such low depths as to rob the blind man's tin—for that is what it means. It is robbing the blind, the halt and the lame. It is true that it was originally proposed in the first Bill, which was withdrawn, to authorise the officers to confiscate all money found in the possession of a person asking for relief. In the present Bill the power is modified to seize and take from the individual the cost of relief and to hand back any surplus. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean), in moving the rejection of the Bill, asked the Under-Secretary how this cost was to be defined, who was to judge, and whether the work that the individual might perform was to be considered. It had evidently never dawned on the Under-Secretary and the drafters of the Bill that there was something in those points.
  Here we are dealing with a new class in society. Formerly the Poor Law dealt only with the infirm and the veterans of work, the veterans who had produced everything, the people who had made Britain possible. Do not let hon. Members forget that, because everything we have has come from the workers, and nobody else. Labour has produced it all. There is nothing in the Bill to say whether any allowance will be made in respect of the work the man has done while in the poorhouse. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Sir I. Macpherson)—I thought he was going to be with us, as I have thought on many

  1859
  occasions—knows that our poor folk would rather exist in a meagre manner than go into the poorhouse. He appealed to the Secretary of State regarding the man who had just enough money on him to pay the charge which would be laid upon him and wished to go out after having stayed the required time; because, remember, a man will not be able to go in and out as he likes, as was formerly the case. He ceases to be a member of the land of the brave and the free, and becomes a slave when he enters there, surrendering his rights, and surrendering his manhood, the same as a soldier has to do. He is under discipline.
  "Theirs not to reason why."
  Theirs but to do what they are told. When they are turned out of the poor-house they will go out penniless, just as poor as Moses when Pharaoh's daughter found him among the bull-rushes in the night. That is what we are coming to now. That is what the great Government are doing. They think that because they have gone on now for two years with everything nice and quiet, and with no upheavals in this country such as there have been in different parts of the world, that things will continue in that way—that we have managed to round this winter and are all right for another six months, at any rate. But they are making a mistake, because change is taking place, and making conditions worse for those individuals for whom they are providing accommodation in poorhouses and in concentration camps. They have a situation to face different from any that they have had before.
  I turn to Clause 15, and I think I had better read it fully:
  "If an inmate of a poorhouse leaves the poorhouse before he is entitled to discharge himself therefrom, or refuses or neglects whilst an inmate of the poorhouse to perform any task of work"—
  Mark that! Task work—
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Task of work.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Yes, task of work—
  "which he has been required to perform in accordance with the provisions of this Act, he shall on summary conviction be liable to imprisonment for a period not exceeding twenty-one days."
  1860
  I believe this is the first time in Scottish legislation that it has been proposed to treat a man or a woman as a criminal because he or she leaves the poorhouse without the permission of those in charge. It is one of the worst pieces of legislation which have come before this House in my time. This Bill was supposed to ameliorate the condition of the poor, down-trodden unfortunates of this capitalist system of ours, but, instead of easing their lot, it will make it harder. If the Government had only looked beyond the theories and the ideas in which they have been brought up, which have been instilled into them in every institution with which they have been connected, but which are now out-of-date and obsolete, and had faced the situation in a courageous fashion as other countries are doing, they would not have presented us with this little twopenny-halfpenny Measure. Scotland has led the world in many things. I should be out of order in enumerating our contributions to the world, but here are we, we who are the heirs of all that glorious inheritance, not taking that inheritance by the hand and giving our fellows the benefit of it, but using all the power of the State to keep them from enjoying the full fruits not only of their own toil but of the toil of those who have gone before them. I shall certainly oppose this Bill.
  6.10 p.m.
  Mr. MILNE: I rise to support the Second Reading of the Bill. Our Poor Law system is out-of-date and legislation is long overdue, and I think the Govern-meet are to be heartily congratulated on having undertaken a task which their predecessors for so long neglected. I have listened to some of the criticisms passed upon the Bill by the Opposition, and, frankly, they leave me quite cold. One of them, indeed, surprises me. Objection is taken to the proposal that in future an applicant for assistance must do some work in return for the relief afforded. That surprises me, because I have in my hand a copy of the proceedings of the Royal Commission of 1909, our Scottish Commission. There was a minority report, and one of the signatories to it bears an honoured name, a name very well known in this House. One of the signatories to the minority report is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury),

  1861
  whose absence, and the cause of that absence, we very much regret. Here is his considered opinion, expressed in the measured language of an official report. This official report suggests that what he terms training establishments should be set up; and the is not all. Paragraph 15 of the Minority Report recommends that if an unemployed man is guilty of what he terms repeated recalcitrancy or breach of discipline in a training establishment he is to be handed over to the sheriff, and the sheriff will commit him—let me read the language of the report—
  "to a detention colony of a reformatory type there to be compulsorily detained and kept to work under discipline."
  Mr. D. GRAHAM: Read it. Tell us whether the Government accepted the Minority Report.
  Mr. MILNE: I have read it. I was only citing it because of the views, which I value, of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. It may well be that the proposals of the Government in this Bill would not satisfy so stern a moralist as the Leader of the Opposition—there is no word of the sheriff here—but, for my part, I am glad that the Government are content with more humane proposals, or, at any rate, something less than was suggested there.
  I wholeheartedly support most of the proposals of this Bill, but there is one feature of it which deserves very close scrutiny. Some Members on this side of the House who are supporters of the Government are not altogether satisfied with the proposals of the Bill so far as they concern the treatment of the casual poor person, the tramp. Since 1909 there has been no public inquiry into the condition of the casual poor in Scotland. I am sure we all welcome the announcement of the Under-Secretary that an inquiry is to be set up, but I am afraid, if I may respectfully say so, that the Government's zeal has outrun their discretion. I should have thought the proper course would be to appoint the committee of inquiry quam primum and request them to report at as early a date as possible, and then study their conclusions and consider their recommendations. Instead of that, the Government have proceeded to solve the problem by the expedient of uprooting
  1862
  some sections from the English Poor Law Act, 1930, and just planting them in this Bill. I read the English Poor Law Act with interest and with some measure of dismay; with interest because it is the Treasury which the draftsman has ransacked to provide gifts for Scotland, and with dismay because I came across all sorts of strange expressions such as "idle and disorderly person," "rogue and vagabond." Travelling through the Sections of the Act seemed like a prolonged thunderstorm. I am glad that the Act was not passed under the aegis of a Unionist administration. It is only a consolidation Act. The English Poor Law Act is one of the achievements of the late Labour Government.
  I want to be fair about this. I suppose that if the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), who was Solicitor-General in that Government, were here, he would tell us, "It is not so bad as it appears. Those expressions have no particular meaning, because they are merely the language of the criminal law of England." I have no doubt that that is so. We Scotsmen are heirs of the Roman Law, and, accustomed as we are to the urbanity of a more civilised code, those expressions are somewhat disconcerting. If my criticism were only a matter of words it would not carry so much weight, but when I consider the substance of the English Poor Law Act, I find that my fears are not groundless. It is quite fair to say that the disciplinary code of the English Poor Law Act is, I will not say "harsh," but definitely more severe than that to which we have been accustomed in Scotland. Let me give two illustrations. I will content myself with them. There are two proposals in the Bill, both of which are borrowed from the English Act, and one of which is in regard to the detention of casual poor persons. I see that by Clause 6 (3) it is proposed that power should be conferred upon the local Poor Law authority to detain a casual poor person for a period up to the fourth day after his admission, that is four days' detention. Indeed, in the case of the ordinary inmate it is proposed under Clause 7 (2) to confer power upon local authorities to detain those ordinary inmates for 168 hours. If my arithmetic is correct, that means detaining them for a period of seven days—virtually

  1863
  imprisonment for seven days. It may well be that the Government are possessed of information which is not available to me, but I confess that I have some doubt whether there is any general desire in Scotland that such very wide powers should be extended to a purely administrative body.
  My guide in these maters is the Poor Law Report of 1909. When I turn to it, I find that this very proposal was brought to the notice of the Poor Law Commissioners of 1909, and that this is how they pronounced upon it in their majority report:
  "In England, under an Act of 1899, this class of pauper may be detained for a maximum of seven days in the workhouse; in Scotland no similar power exists."
  The report proceeds:
  "We do not agree with the suggestion that the exercise of such a power should be permitted to an administrative body."
  I respectfully agree with the Commissioners of 1909. I ought to have continued by reading these words:
  "The denial of personal liberty should, in our opinion, depend upon judicial warrant, obtained by a summary and a cheap procedure."
  It may be desirable or undesirable to assimilate our Poor Law code to that of England, but if it is to be done at the cost of personal liberty and by a denial of personal liberty, I think that the price is too dear. I have one other illustration. The Bill proposes to confer upon local authorities power to punish inmates by solitary detention. The language of the Bill, in Clause 5, is:
  "confining in a separate room."
  That is no novelty in Scotland, because punishment of the inmates of poorhouses by solitary detention was practised in Scotland in past times. It was entirely ultra vires and, in point of fact, a warning was given to the local authorities that what they were doing was illegal, and they gave up the practice. One might well suppose that when a power like that is exercised by an administrative body it is apt to be abused. Solitary detention is carried out in prison under the careful restrictions and safeguards of the prison regulations, but to entrust this power to an administrative body is a very doubtful proceeding.
  I have here another report, dated 1904, of the Departmental Committee appointed
  1864
  to report upon the medical relief of the poor. A passage in that report arrested my attention:
  "In one poorhouse we found an inmate undergoing 12 hours' confinement in a cell that was not provided with a seat. It was absolutely dark, and without ventilation or heating of any kind. The temperature at the time of our visit was only a few degrees above freezing point. Other cells that we examined were in much the same condition."
  That was in 1904. If abuses have occurred in the past, what assurance have we that abuses might not occur in the future? In England, where for long they have had this power of solitary detention and have practised it, abuses are, apparently, liable to occur. I have here another Departmental Report. I want to make the fact plain that it does not relate to Scotland, but that it concerns the Poor Law system in England. It is dated 1930. Here is the passage from that report:
  "In the first place we find it our duty to record that in a certain number of casual wards the conditions now existing are"—
  mark the language—
  "infamous and intolerable. Some of the members of our committee have visited wards where two men are locked in a small cell that was built for one person, and kept there in darkness for 12 or 13 hours."
  Let me make it perfectly plain that that has nothing to do with Scotland. That is an English report upon conditions in England. My point is that that Was possible in the year 1930. Come down to the present day. What is the position in Scotland? The position, as I think the tinder-Secretary of State told us, is that we have no system of casual wards in Scotland. I think I am right in saying that our practice in Scotland is to hand over our casuals to lodging-house keepers.
  Mr. SKELTON: I made no such statement. I did not go into those details with regard to casuals, but I dealt with general topics. Those details will be considered by the Committee, but I could not allow the hon. Member's statement to pass.
  Mr. MILNE: I stand corrected at once. I do not pretend to have the intimate knowledge of this matter which is possessed by the hon. Gentleman, but my information was that a system of that sort in regard to lodging-houses was not all that it ought to be. The position in regard to that is that in Scotland we have

  1865
  not the accommodation for casuals. It will not be possible in Scotland to detain them for four days, and much less for seven. You cannot put new wine into old bottles.
  The first thing we should do is to set our own house in order. I have unofficial information, but it is from a reliable source, with regard to the condition of our Poor Law accommodation in Scotland. I want to be perfectly fair, and I am making no charge whatever against the administration of our Scottish Poor Law authorities, because I believe that they carry out difficult and troublesome duties with efficiency, zeal and humanity. Nevertheless, they have not the accommodation which would provide the wherewithal for detention, much less for solitary detention. I read in this unofficial report from a well-informed source that some of our poorhouses in Scotland are most admirable. I see that there is an admirable one at Forfar. It is described in the report as a spotlessly clean shelter for casuals. It is stated that the dormitory is in every way excellent, and that the house is run at the lowest average cost of any in Scotland. At Brechin there is another which is also admirable. Here are particulars of one—I am not intending to mention any names. I will call it "somewhere in Scotland." It is described as a small public assistance shelter which has no bath, and where the sleeping accommodation is poor. It is stated that it would be out of the question to require men to spend 24 hours there. Then there is another. Never mind where; I shall not mention names, because that would be most unfair. I will again call it "somewhere in Scotland." The report says:
  "In 1932 I saw a lodging-house where the casuals were sheltered at the public expense."
  I will not read the whole of it.
  "The beds were swarming with vermin…crowded together, and the floor was filthy. Men were passing on their road to seek work at roadmaking further on."
  My point about all that is that we, must, in the first place, set our house in order. We must provide suitable accommodation.
  The Government are to be congratulated most heartily on the zeal with which they have acted in appointing a Committee. They have done what none of their predecessors have done. Labour
  1867
  Governments have taken and have demitted office, and done nothing of this sort. For the first time it has been left to a National Government to face up to the problem, and we thank them heartily for it. It is, however, premature to legislate at this stage. I am quite sure that the one anxiety of the National Government is to do the very best they can by these poor people. I am sure that any suggestion of harshness or injustice would be utterly abhorrent to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. These tramps, these casual poor people, are a much misunderstood class. I am told that the popular ideas about them are in many respects quite wrong. The tramp belongs to a law-abiding class; he is very seldom in the hands of the police. The Act describes him as a destitute wanderer and wayfarer. He has no vote; he has no Parliamentary representative; there is nobody here to ask questions for him. But, although he may be a destitute wanderer and wayfarer, I trust that, in any legislation that we set about in this House, the House will bear in mind that, destitute wanderer and wayfarer though he be, he is, after all, one of the King's lieges, entitled to the same consideration and the same justice as you and I.
  6.31 p.m.
  Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: I would like to join with others who have spoken in congratulating the Undersecretary on the very lucid explanation which he gave of this Bill. It was none too long, but it was long enough to show that the Bill is one of major importance, and it will require, as I am sure it will receive, all the consideration that can be given to it by the House and by the Scottish Standing Committee. I think it is the sort of Bill that should have had some memorandum attached to it. After all, the administration of the Poor Law is very largely a technical question, and Members of the House, if they have not set themselves to master it, or have not had some connection with the administration, cannot be expected to be able to follow it. Therefore, I should have liked to see some sort of memorandum attached to the Bill, and, indeed, I would go further, and say that it is a Bill which requires an explanatory White Paper such as that which was published at the same time as the Unemployment Bill which is at present before the House. The Undersecretary has told us that the Government

  1867
  propose to put forward some sort of White Paper to help us in considering the Bill in Committee, but, as I understand it, that White Paper is merely to give us an idea of the Acts which are mentioned in the Bill. I think we require much more than that, because, as the Under-Secretary himself said, the Bill proposes to alter, not merely the Statute law, but the practice which is at present in force, and we ought to know exactly what that practice is. I hope, therefore, that, before the Committee stage is reached, the Government will seriously consider giving us an explanatory memorandum that will help us in our consideration of the Bill.
  The Under-Secretary went on to defend the adoption by the Government of the old method of legislation by reference, but, in my opinion, his defence there was quite unconvincing. I still think that this is a case in which the Government ought to have been able to avoid proceeding by the method of legislation by reference. We are not dealing with a body of law which goes back for many years. The whole body of law with which we are dealing in Clause 1 of the Bill starts 13 years ago, in 1921, and I feel confident that that is a matter which could have been dealt with quite straightforwardly without proceeding by the vicious method of legislation by reference. Five Acts are mentioned in the first Sub-section of Clause 1, and it takes a skilled person a long time to master what is intended.
  I am glad, of course, that we are making permanent the temporary arrangements in Scotland which deal with the care of the able-bodied unemployed. It has been said that the Poor Law in Scotland is more humane than that of England. I hope it is. But many people have had great difficulty in understanding how it has been possible for the Poor Law of Scotland to be administered for so long a time without the power to give relief to able-bodied unemployed persons. I think I am right in saying that it has been possible to do that simply because the strict law has been ignored, and for many years, although it has not been strictly legal to give relief to able-bodied unemployed persons, in point of fact that has been done. It has been done by indirect, roundabout methods, but nevertheless that has been the result of the
  1868
  practice that has been in vogue for a very long time.
  We are only expected to deal with general points at this stage of the Bill, and I think it is a fair description of the Bill to say that in general what it does is to assimilate the Poor Law of Scotland to that of England. In doing so, it introduces some of the penal provisions of the English law. It introduces the casual ward for the first time, and I am bound to say I look with some uneasiness on that aspect of the question. I particularly regret that it should have been necessary to introduce the casual ward into Scotland. It may be that its ultimate introduction could not be avoided, but I should have thought that the Government would have taken the view that at any rate the present is not the best time at which to introduce it. What is the type of people that are being dealt with by the Poor Law at the present time? There has been an increase recently, and I notice that the last Report of the Department of Health for Scotland gives us an idea of the new people who have come under that Department. On page 135, the report says:
  "An important factor affecting able-bodied relief is unemployment among workers who do not come within the scope of the unemployment insurance and transitional payments schemes, and whose only recourse in necessity is to poor relief."
  It goes on to describe the different classes, and then it says:
  "Another important cause of the increase in able-bodied relief has been the deportation and the voluntary return of Scots families from abroad, particularly from Canada and the United States of America."
  Later on we have this interesting statement:
  "Some authorities attribute a large part of the increse in able-bodied pauperism to the disallowance of persons from unemployment benefit by courts of referees, mainly on the ground that the applicants are not normally employed in insurable employment and that they will not normally seek to obtain a livelihood by means of insurable employment. This factor is stated to account for from 30 to 50 per cent. of the increase in some areas."
  The point which I would impress upon the Government is that there are two Departments of State at the present time setting out to deal with the same problem, and dealing with it in different ways. The Minister of Labour says he is going to mop up all the able-bodied unemployed in the scheme of Part II of the Unem-

  1869
  ployment Bill. That is the intention of Part II—that all the classes of people I have mentioned should come under it; and, if the Minister of Labour and the Government have any confidence in the effectiveness of Part II of the Unemployment Bill, it is right to assume that those people will be dealt with in that way. If they are going to be dealt with effectively in that way, there is no need to set up other machinery to deal with the same people and the same problem, which I suggest is what is being done here. The right hon. Gentleman is setting up a new casual ward system, which I think he himself would rather have avoided; and he is setting it up at the very time when one might have assumed that he would be able to dispense with it.
  There are other provisions in the Bill which, I am sure, Members will not like. There is the provision under which, when a tramp goes for relief and is going to be put into a casual ward, all his money is taken from him, and when he goes he is handed back whatever the authorities think is the proper sum. I do not think that that is a fair provision at all. I think it is taking advantage of the inmate of the ward. I know, of course, that in all these rules you have to give a wide discretion to the authorities, and that, when you give a wide discretion, there is always the possibility of abuse. But I suggest that it should be possible to circumscribe to some extent the discretion that is given in this case, and I hope that that aspect of the matter will receive the attention of the Government. I think it has been mentioned by another speaker that there are very few casual wards in Scotland at the present time. There are many places which have not got them, and I am certain that in many places it would not be worth while to set them up. I do not know whether the cost of that sort of thing has been considered. Taking it altogether I think that at the present time at any rate, this provision is unnecessary, and could be dropped out without really affecting the Bill as a whole. It is not really an integral part of the Bill, and I hope that the Government, when the Bill is considered in Committee, will see their way to drop the Clause altogether.
  I would like to say something about Clause 9. I am not quite sure that I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) on
  1870
  this question. What I said a moment ago about another provision applies in this case also. In the administration of the Poor Law you have to give a wide discretion to the local officers, even although there may be a risk of abuse in a very few cases. It is the duty of the elected members of the local committee to see that there is no abuse. Naturally you have to give the local officers a good deal of discretion, especially in matters like those dealt with in Clause 9. It is slightly different problem in rural districts from what it is in urban districts, because very often a poor person is living apart from others, and it is really dangerous to leave him or her alone. Nearly always they are very obstinate, and very often it is necessary that action should be taken quickly. I made inquiries from my own people, and the comment that I got was that the procedure that was being laid down in the Bill was probably too cumbrous, and not likely to act quickly enough. If you are going to have to give three days' notice, for instance, of removal, it may be that you will be too late.
  I do not like the proposal under which the sheriff is to decide a matter of this kind on evidence supplied to him. It seems to me eminently a case that ought to be dealt with by people who have seen the actual person whom it is proposed to remove. I would put forward the suggestion that was put to me, that it might be necessary to act on a signed order given by two magistrates who have inspected the place where the person in question lived, and had seen him or her and formed their own judgment on the position of things. If necessary, there might be the sort of appeal which is provided for to the sheriff. I think that the interest, probably, of possible inmates of institutions of that kind would be amply safeguarded by such a provision.
  Going back to Clause 3, which provides for the setting up of training establishments, the Governments may have a complete explanation, but at first sight I am rather alarmed at the fact that here we have still another authority taking power to set up training institutions. We are to have the education committee, the Ministry of Labour, the Unemployment Assistance Board, and now the public assistance committees all taking powers to make provision for the instruction and

  1871
  training of different classes of persons. Surely there might be some method by which, I should have thought, the education authority for preference, but, at any rate, one of them, could devote itself entirely to this duty. These are certain general observations of, I think, larger importance, but there are many others which will require careful consideration. I hope that the Government will address themselves to the Bill with a desire to meet criticism and, if they do that, I think they will make some drastic changes in the proposals that they have submitted.
  6.50 p.m.
  Captain McEWEN: This Bill attempts to deal with what is undoubtedly, a very complicated and difficult question. I was particularly glad to hear the Under-Secretary's announcement that there were to be two Departmental Committees to go into the various questions with which the Bill deals and, in particular, I was interested to hear of that which is to go into the question of vagrancy. As far as I understand, the procedure is to be that upon the report of these Departmental Committees a new Bill entirely will be brought in embodying their findings. To anyone who has traversed the roads in recent years, whether in motor car or on foot, as I myself have occasionally done, the urgency of this vagrancy problem must have been painfully apparent. There is a large and, I fear, increasing floating population living entirely oh the roads. Some of them are tramps, some are men, many young men, seeking work, some are what we call "tinkler bodies," and many are entire families unhoused owing to the demolition of condemned houses in burgh slum clearance schemes up and down the country. By the settled population these people are apt to be regarded as a dangerous menace, and they are accused very often of any crime, from the firing of woodlands to the assaulting of individuals, but accused, certainly on the second head, for the most part evidently wrongly.
  It may be for the easing and tranquillity of mind of many perhaps living in lonely parts if I quote an unofficial report regarding the number of these persons in prisons in 1932. A report was received from His Majesty's prisons in Scotland regarding persons answering to the
  1872
  description of tramps, vagrants and persons of no fixed place of residence serving sentences for crime. On 17th February, 1933, no man answering this description was serving a sentence of penal servitude at Peterhead, and there was no record of any such person in recent years. In the large male prisons, persons of this description formed a proportion so small as to be negligible. Reports from all His Majesty's prisons were to the same effect. In respect to the means to be taken to deal with these wayfarers, it must be borne in mind that they are different in England and Scotland, as are also the conditions governing them. In England, I believe, casual wards or lodging-houses are to be found in a network all over the country at no great distance one from another, possibly never further apart than 20 miles. This, however, is not the case in Scotland. For example, from Perth to Kingussie is 81 miles, and there is no lodging-house on all that road, where a needy and not necessarily penniless wayfarer can find a bed. From Pitlochry to Kingussie is 55 miles, and there is no public assistance officer to be found in all the space between.
  To turn to Clause 6, the reason, broadly stated, why it is found to be objectionable is that, in the first place, it contains little that is remedial, and there is no reference at all to the classification of casuals. Of course, after the announcement that has been made about the special Departmental Committee, no doubt that will be removed. In the second place, it is more repressive in its nature than constructive, and might well lower the standard of behaviour and outlook of wayfarers whose objective is, or once was, a search for work without doing anything to discourage aimless wandering. In the third place, it is to be noted that even the extended facilities that exist in England are not having the effect of discouraging the wandering of Scottish men and boys over the Border into this country. Experience is quite the contrary.
  Another point on which I should like to say a word is the overlapping which undoubtedly takes place of the functions of the police and the public assistance officers. For example, it happens occasionally that in a rural area the public assistance officer is working single-

  1873
  handed. In such a case it is usually fairly safe to rely upon the police giving him every possible assistance. The policeman, for example, will act for him when he is off duty or is otherwise detained or engaged. This is very often done, and it very often works with great smoothness, but where either it is not done, or where it does not work smoothly, it has the effect that the life of the public assistance officer becomes a burden, owing to his being detained long after hours at his office by casuals arriving or even calling upon him at his house and sometimes, it is feared, behaving in a somewhat bullying and threatening way, which they certainly would not dare to do in the case of the police. Then in other cases in country districts, where there is no casual shelter or lodging house, the police may often have to deal with unknown destitute men who are rambling about in the dark and in a manner contrary to the interests of the residents whose property it is the function of the police to protect. Cases are known where a village policeman has not only himself erected a shelter for the casual vagrants, but has also given them food for which he has paid out of his own pocket.
  While, admittedly, these two services have worked with great smoothness together, it is obviously desirable that the situation as between them should be straightened out before the introduction of any such regulations as are herein proposed. Presumably this Clause was introduced as the result of annoyance expressed by England at the continuous influx of Scottish vagrants over the Border. It is the decided opinion of those who have for long studied the question that, if time is not given to investigate very thoroughly this matter on the lines of the Phelps Departmental Committee of 1930 before the introduction of the Clause as it stands, there is nothing to be expected in the future except more confusion and further difficulty.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. MAXTON: I join with those others who congratulated the Under-Secretary on his very cool and lucid presentation of his views to the House. There is only one thing lacking from the explanation that those of us sitting here would have desired to have, and that is an explanation of why he is introducing the Measure at all. I think he said it was the best
  1874
  part of a century since we had any Poor Law legislation. I wish I could discover, among the hundred and one things for which Scotland is crying out just now, what were the forces that were brought to bear to decide the Scottish Office in introducing a Measure on a subject which has stood untouched for 90 years. As an earnest student of Parliamentary operations and of the quaint habits of Governments, I find myself, with the best will in the world, unable to understand why the right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary Secretary have picked this out of the basket as the thing that could be most urgently attended to in Scotland at the present time. I hope that I am in touch with the local affairs of Scotland. I think I know representatives of local government work in nearly every part of Scotland; I think I know the poor of Scotland fairly well, but neither from the poor nor from those responsible for administering the Poor Law have I heard any demand for legislation of this kind at all.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman who occupies the same bench with me—temporarily—quoted in support of the Measure from a Minority Report issued in 1909 by a Royal Commission set up by a Liberal Government. This legislation, not required for 90 years, was introduced because a Royal Commission of 25 years ago indicated that certain changes ought to be made. I do not accept either the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition or Mrs. Sidney Webb as my political leaders, but I did have at that time a certain amount of association with them, and I know that on the basis of their Minority Report the Labour movement in this country started a campaign which covered most of England and Scotland, and the slogan of which was "Break up the Poor Law." Here, to-night, 25 years later, we are being confronted with a Measure which, if it has any meaning at all, means a perpetuation of the Poor Law and a perpetuation of its institutional aspect. That is taking us away back to our boyhood itself and the novels of Charles Reade and Charles Dickens, who gave all the best of their genius to rouse a public opinion that would make the institutional treatment of unfortunate sections of the community impossible.
  I put it to the right hon. Gentleman who is now in charge of Scottish affairs

  1875
  that to-night he is proposing to reverse a decent tendency that has been operating in Scotland for many years; namely, the tendency, even by Poor Law authorities, to get every single possible person out of the institutions and leave them with their freedom. Whether they are aged, orphan children, infirm, or slightly mentally deficient, they are taken out of institutions by every decent-minded local authority in Scotland, and have been taken out for the last 25 years. These authorities, moreover, have had a predominantly Conservative political outlook. The attempt of every one of them was to put the person subject to the Poor Law not into an institution but under the care of some decent, kindly, responsible person, a relative if possible. Another tendency has been, where the person was neither mentally defective nor physically defective nor aged, where he was not incompetent in any way, for the local authority to put money into his hands and say to him—or her—"You are just as competent to manage yourself, your home and your children decently as an institution. You are an intelligent human being; given a limited sum of money you are quite as capable of looking after yourself as any institution would be of looking after you."
  I want hon. Members to agree with me that that has been the general tone and tendency in the attitude of Scotland towards the poor during this last quarter of a century. Further, this attitude has worked well. Examine any statistics you like produced by the Scottish Office; look back for years over the statistics produced in the Statistical Abstract. Whatever test you apply, whether it be criminal statistics, health statistics, vital statistics, treatment of children, the school attendance of children—which is a tremendous test of parental responsibility—the result has always been the same. In spite of the fact that the big majority of the people in Scotland have been living for the last 14 years under the most difficult conditions, yet, given a very limited amount of money into their hands through public assistance—always a lesser amount of money than is necessary to maintain the same person inside any institution, whether it is a Poor Law institution, a prison or a hospital—the general tendency of the morale of the people has not been to deteriorate, but in so far as morale
  1876
  can ever be judged by statistical returns of one kind or another, our Scottish people have shown a tendency upwards on this method of treatment, rather than downwards.
  Mr. SKELTON: I am sorry to intervene, but there is nothing in my speech or in the Bill to suggest that there is going to be any larger proportion of Scottish poor in institutions than there is to-day. So far as institutions are concerned, the Bill deals only with improving those institutions which exist.
  Mr. MAXTON: I am afraid I cannot accept that statement. When I talk about institutionalism, I am not thinking primarily of an addition to existing institutions; I am thinking of the mood, the attitude, the temper. The casual ward is an absolutely new institution.
  Mr. SKELTON: I am sorry to intervene again, but the casual ward is not mentioned in the Bill. Mr. MAXTON: The making of arrangements for the treatment of casuals; do not let us quibble about it.
  "A local authority shall, if required by the Department, provide suitable and separate poorhouse accommodation for each or any of such classes of inmate as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Department."
  Then there is the question of training centres, the question of compulsory task work, the question of detention of people who are given casual accommodation over a period of time—over two or three days. There is the question of detaining the regular Poor Law inmate for compulsorily extended periods if he has been an "in-and-out"; the question of putting inmates in prison if they are refractory; the question of getting an order from the sheriff to keep a sick person temporarily in a hospital for three months. All of that is what I call institutionalism: the attempt of the State to go in on the top of human beings who—I can never say this often enough—are not tremendously different from the rest of us who are here in this House. The average man and woman, particularly woman, in this House, who starts telling hon. Members what they have to do finds that there is a kick coming at once and a feeling of resentment. If he or she approaches them as human beings, as some hon. Members are capable of doing who are not entirely

  1877
  lost to the finer feelings of humanity, there is a decent response. If we feel it here we who are not economically dependent for our daily bread or our night's shelter, how much more must compulsion irk the soul of an independent-minded man who is compelled to submit to a series of disciplines, orders, trainings, rules and regulations—and searchings—in order to get a night's shelter? That is institutionalism, and that is the frame of mind which is rampant in this Bill. I am surprised that Parliament is asked to pass this Measure when that frame of mind is behind it, and such excuses as we have heard are made for it.
  The hon. Member who spoke certainly found some points of criticism and hoped that there would be Amendments on the Committee stage. I did not take his speech to mean that he was going into the Lobby against the Bill. I heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman across the way who is always called in a foremost place as one of the representative spokesmen of Scottish Liberalism. He was enthusiastic in his praise of it. I have read the most recent utterance of the Liberal party from start to finish.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I should like to hear what the hon. Member is saying.
  Mr. MAXTON: I was merely remarking—and I can understand you being particularly interested in this, Mr. Speaker—that I had read from start to finish the most recent publication of the Liberal party in the spirit in which I always read anything which is written by my political opponents, believing that they mean it. They told us that in the face of all the interferences with liberty which are taking place all over the world they, the Liberals of Britain, stand above all things for personal freedom. I am glad to hear that. I think it is absolutely necessary that somebody should, in these days, stand up for personal freedom against the infringement and tyranny of one kind of Government and another. I agree with that, but I should like to see it being operated in the practical details of our work here, because, as I see it, this Measure can be used as a tremendous instrument for the taking away of personal liberty. One can see the road along which the unemployed man goes. He is unemployed, exhausts his Unemployment Insurance Benefit, comes under Part II
  1878
  of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, gets across the Public Assistance Board, and is turned on to the Poor Law. The Poor Law give him outdoor relief, and then they put him into the poorhouse. He becomes refractory, which means to say that this fellow who has gone through extended unemployment and has been kicked about from pillar to post, and who has landed finally in the poorhouse, has yet spirit enough to become refractory. He gets three weeks' imprisonment, and, if he is refractory, there he will get six months. The fellow may have only one fault in him, namely, that he has preserved, in spite of all his difficulties, the spirit of Scottish independence.
  This Measure in its inspiration, attitude and contents, aims at re-establishing the institutional way of dealing with the population. The trend of the times has all been against that. The trend of local administration in Scotland and of legislation here has been against it. This represents definite re-action and a stepping back into the past. The right hon. Gentleman becomes the glorified Bumble for Scotland. He is to take the poor of Scotland under his control, and he says, "We are going to house you and feed you when you need it, and, by Heavens, you are going to give us your freedom and your discipline in return for your food and shelter." That is the spirit of this Measure. We shall vote against the Second Reading, and if it passes the Second Reading and the right hon. Gentleman persists in going ahead with it, we shall fight it in every possible detail in the Committee stage. We will do still more. We will try to awaken the people of Scotland to a realisation of what is in the Measure because they do not at present know. When this does get across to the people of Scotland, I am certain that from every quarter in Scotland and from every political angle there will come loud protests against the Measure being completed and put upon the Statute Book.
  7.21 p.m.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: From the description given by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) I think it must be with great difficulty that the Undersecretary of State for Scotland recognises his Bill. I have read the Bill through pretty carefully, and I must say that I did not find all those dreadful

  1879
  consequences or any serious attempt in it to propagate or perpetuate institutions. In the first place, nobody wants that, because as the hon. Member for Bridgeton said, apart altogether from the effect upon liberty, the cost of them is three or four times the cost of letting the men work out their own way. That is what occurs to me in connection with the aged people here. I have often thought that when men reach the age of 80, 85 or 90 years—there are not very many of them, and they are not fit to look after themselves—and have to be taken to those institutions perhaps away from the aged cottage in which they were born and brought up because they cannot afford to get anyone to look after them, it would be a very simple matter to double or even treble their old age pension so that they could at least get some kindly body to stay in the old place and look after them. The total expenditure would be very slight, and the qualification would be "old age." Why, when a person reaches the age of 100, he ought to get £5 a week just to celebrate the occasion. I mean to say he should get at the rate of £250 a year, for it would not last a year in order to have some kind of celebration. That is what might be done here for old people.
  Mr. MAXTON: They might be refractory.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I believe that the older we get the more difficult we are. Clause 9, I think, could very largely be met if the Secretary of State for Scotland could soften the heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer by getting him to put a little Clause in his Finance Bill to the effect that the very old age pensioner should at least get enough to pay some kindly body to come and look after him and his wife if she also survive. I am sure that there are many persons, if they were paid a weekly sum, whose whole aim would be to keep the old people alive as long as possible.
  I do not think that the criticism and eloquent denunciations of the hon. Member for Bridgeton have any justification whatever in fact, and he will find that when the Bill passes and is working it will have none of the effects which he anticipates. I was very glad to hear what the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) said about spending public
  1880
  money in his speech. I remember that many years ago in his constituency, I think, I came across a very large casual ward. It was somewhere in Glasgow down by the river side. I said to the man in charge of it, "The place is very hot. You have it very much centrally heated." He said, "Yes, that is much the best heat for the casual ward, because when these poor tramps come here, they go to sleep very soon, and therefore we have no disorder."
  Mr. MACLEAN: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman sure that it was Govan and not some other place?
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: It was down on the river side. I know that it was in Glasgow. It is a very long time ago, but I remember seeing a kindness which touched me deeply. A newspaper boy came in and laid down a large number of evening newspapers. I said, "This seems to be very generous to the casual ward," and he replied, "It is not us who do it." He told me that it was Tom MacIntyre, who has been gone to rest many years, who had given orders for all those places round about Lanarkshire to be presented with evening newspapers because he thought that some of the tramps, many of whom were bona fide looking for work, might be able to find a job by looking through the newspapers, and also find out what was going on. I think that that was one of the kindest things I ever saw one man do for others.
  I am surprised to hear it said, and it has been repeated and so I suppose that it must be so, that the Scottish Poor Law has been administered much more kindly than the English Poor Law. It may have been administered more kindly, but certainly from a legal point of view it was much harsher. It was only in 1921 that it became legal to give relief to the able-bodied poor. As far back as the time of Elizabeth, after the enclosure of the commons, they mitigated that by having Poor Law relief, but we did not have it in Scotland. How they managed for all those long periods, even before 1845, it is difficult to say. In the seventeenth century one-fifth of the population of the Midlothians, the most fertile part of Scotland, as it is now, died one year of starvation. There they had had three years of bad crops, and there were no capitalists and no capital at that time, not even a co-operative society to bring

  1881
  them any food, and they had to lie down and die. They were decent people. In earlier times before the time of Henry VIII, who, without a general election, in which he would certainly have been defeated, brought about the Reformation and took all the land and scattered it abroad, the poor went to the gates of the monasteries, and they were taken in and given a spade and made to work for a living. That was infinitely better than getting something for nothing.
  One of the main influences in the physical demoralisation of the unemployed is the fact that a man gets something without doing anything for it, and that is what a man does not like. I remember being at one of the large houses in Kintyre where a garden had been quarried out of the rocks. I said to the owner, "I do not think much of your ancestor's business capacity. He could not have had that dug out without the expenditure of a fearful lot of money." He said, "Oh, yes. The position was evidently in this district that they were starving. There was nothing doing and no employment, and after he had made the people do everything he could possibly think of on his estate, and as he did not want to give them money for nothing because it would destroy the mutual respect which each had for the other,"—because they were all friends in those districts and there was no class distinction, and never was in the Highlands—"he employed them all to quarry this big garden out of solid rock and paid them for doing it. It kept them in good bodily condition, and they did not have the feeling that they were accepting something for nothing." At another place going along the road in Mid-Argyll you can see a great avenue more or less quarried out of solid rock, the work having been carried out for the purpose of giving people employment.
  I often think of the sheer barrenness of imagination on the part of the Government when the Labour party was in office or any other party. When a Conservative Government or a National Government are in office, the Labour party say that it is the same. There is never the slightest intuition of anything that is to be done to make work for people. There is no use giving the people the task of making commodities which people do not want to buy, or if they have not the money with which to
  1882
  buy them. This Bill is making an attempt to do something to find work, and I am sure that most unemployed men would prefer to do work than nothing. The tragedy of unemployment is that the unemployed man has so little money, and yet he has so much time in which to spend it. Under a properly regulated social condition the man who is unemployed would have a far larger income than the man who is employed, because he has so much spare time in which to spend his money. What is he to do with his time?
  Mr. MAXTON: Play chess.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: The hon. Member says that he should play chess. I suggest that he might play draughts. The one is a more intelligent game than the other. The hon. Member is an advocate of the less skilful game, but I have no doubt that he could easily acquire knowledge of the other. If we are to solve the problem of unemployment, we shall have to revert to the practice of Elizabethan times. In the old days no man worked unless he had a little bit of land—he tilled his land—and unless we get back to that condition so that when employment conditions are quiet the man can till his bit of ground, we shall not make any progress. One or two intelligent employers of labour are adopting that principle. I know of a shipyard where every man employed is a smallholder. He grows his own food, and he fixes the price with his employer…
  Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the Bill.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I admit that I was straying somewhat. There is an attempt in Clause 3 to get the unemployed man to do something; something in agriculture or something in other useful ways. Our present system of unemployment is quite wrong. Suppose one of our own friends called upon us, and he was in distress. We might give him some temporary relief, but he would be far better pleased if we could give him a job.
  Mr. MAXTON: Suppose you could not do that.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: We could try. This Bill is an attempt to make the unemployed man better fitted for a job. It

  1883
  is not all that one would like, and no doubt we shall have to develop the system of dealing with these people much further. In Scotland we have segregated the respectable poor, generations ago. In Stuart times, in the times of James V, the respectable poor man was given a badge and a little pocket which he carried, and he went round as a licensed beggar. The most celebrated licensed beggar was James V himself. He went round with his badge and his pocket for the purpose of discovering the truth as to what his subjects were thinking. He had no general election, and there were no newspapers, not even Sunday newspapers—
  Mr. MACLEAN: No broadcasting.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: He went round as a beggarman and found out what was going on among his subjects.
  Mr. MAXTON: They would shut him up now.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN:. I do not think it would be very easy. There is a very good description of the licensed beggar in Scott's "The Antiquary." It was only the respectable poor who got his badge and was licensed to beg. I do not think the respectable poor will suffer under this Bill. With regard to the vagrant, if he goes into a poorhouse, he will have to stay 24 hours in the place.
  Mr. MAXTON: More than that; 36 hours.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: He will have to be in at least a day, and the purpose of that is for sanitary reasons.
  Mr. MAXTON: Does it take the hon. and learned Member 36 hours to have a bath?
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: No, but it takes 36 hours to get my things dry if they have been properly cleaned and disinfected. It shows that my hon. Friend has never done his own washing; if he had he would know that it takes at least that time to dry your clothes.
  Mr. MAXTON: I do not pose as a valeting expert, but I see shops advertising that they will do it while you wait.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I do not know what methods of valeting they employ, but they do not say how long you will
  1884
  have to wait. There are certain things in the Bill which I do not like. I think the suggestion of going through the poor devil's pockets and taking his money, is not worth while. What would it amount to at the end of a year? I do not think that for all the Poor Law authorities in Scotland it would amount to more than £100. What is the cost to-day of sleeping in a model lodging-house? The cost used to be 4d., but I think the top price is now 1s. Of course, there may be an eccentric capitalist with a large sum of money doing a bit of hiking as the cheapest way of getting about, and he might go to a poorhouse. If he has a substantial sum of money he will probably hand it over; otherwise, he may be robbed. I think the provision about searching the vagrant for money is silly.
  The Bill is an attempt to get some real way of working on properly regulated lines. I understand from the Undersecretary and the Lord Advocate that various local authorities have been dealing with the poor more or less on these lines for nearly a 100 years and the Bill is to regularise matters and bring them up to date. If I thought that the Bill was as the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) described it, I would not have it nor would any Scottish Member. He may take it from me that the Bill is not as he describes it. Of course, he may use his own description for platform purposes just as he uses a great many things which he does not thoroughly understand, but I think we shall be able to prove to the public that there is no attempt made in the Bill to interfere with the liberty or freedom of anyone.
  7.39 p.m.
  Mr. LEONARD: I was very pleased to note in the speeches real concern at the possibility that anything that may be good in the Poor Law of Scotland as it is at the present time may be lost. It will not be denied that that attitude is very helpful and that it will make for progress when the Bill goes upstairs. The statement was also made that it is not criminal to be poor. While that may be true, we cannot lose sight of the fact that there are many poor people who are deemed to be criminals simply because of their poverty. According to the official figures of inmates of prisons in 1931, over 50 per cent. of them were there, not because of misdemeanour warranting im

  1885
  prisonment, but simply because they had not sufficient money to pay bail, fines, and civil debts. Therefore, I put that qualification on the statement that has been made. While it is not quite true that it is not criminal to be poor, there may be a little disposition to adopt that attitude and to say that it is "criminal," or something approaching to it. That is one of the things that will remain to be seen under the regulations which are to be prepared and laid before the House.
  I was interested in the statement of the Under-Secretary with regard to the difficulties that confront various local authorities when certain types of persons apply to them, and they are in doubt as to their bona fides. The Under-Secretary said that there should be no middle course, and he then referred to the fact that to-day the only test they could give to them was to offer them the poorhouse. Now, as an alternative, according to the Bill they have to be given the opportunity of availing themselves of an offer of work.
  Mr. SKELTON: It was not the middle course in regard to test that I spoke of, but the middle course of work. The hon. Member will see the difference.
  Mr. LEONARD: Yes. I will deal with the work aspect later on, but before doing so there is one point on Clause 1 which I should like to be explained. In Clause 1 there are various provisions covered by various laws which are to be made permanent, but one that is not to be made permanent is Sub-section (4) of Section 2 of the Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1921. I have looked at that, and I notice that that Sub-section states that loans for purposes such as this
  "shall not be reckoned in any calculation of the statutory limit of loans under Subsection (1) of Section thirty-eight of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894."
  I wondered why that is not being made permanent along with the other matters dealt with in Clause 1. In regard to Clause (c) I should like to make one or two comments. If this Bill becomes law there will be under Government jurisdiction four avenues for training and instructing persons. Speaking candidly, none of the four are very competent for their job. Provided that the regulations placed before the Minister by the local authorities are accepted, the local
  1886
  authorities may make provision for the instruction and training of persons for re-entry into regular employment. I do not look upon this particular body if it is created as a competent body for that purpose. There is also the possibility of this work being handed over to what is termed "any other body." I should like the Under-Secretary to inform the House if "any other body" might mean an organisation called the Social Service Council, which functions in various parts of Scotland, or any other body competent to give the instruction referred to. If we are to guide people into employment there should be some regard as to suitability; and not only that, there is no reason why we should create further machinery to get people into employment if industry is not capable of absorbing them. That is just holding out hopes which will not materialise, and the despondency which will attend them will be in much greater degree than it was before.
  In regard to Sub-section (2) dealing with able-bodied persons the same applies: I cannot see that the machinery to be created to provide work will allow the officials responsible to be fair in the matter. To be fair in matters such as this you have to be strict, and if you apply this in a strict sense the number of people may be more than the centres you create for this purpose are able to cope with. If that ultimately is the case then I am afraid methods of selection will be adopted which cannot be countenanced as fair by any right-minded individual. The days referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) when people were taken into monastery gardens and given work are long past. We are assumed to have made progress, but I think that the tendency towards control in matters relating to men who are poor through no fault of their own is not the proper way to proceed. I am sorry that I was not present when the Under-Secretary dealt with Clause 4 and I am sorry that I interrupted him after he had given his explanation. I look upon Clause 4 as a matter of great importance. Apparently the design of the Clause is to provide separate accommodation for separate classes. I read an article in a journal issued from a very respectable section of the House in which there is the assertion that there are 300,000 members of

  1887
  the middle classes who are now subject to unemployment of a rather hectic degree and, therefore, I want to know what are to be the points of distinction so far as these classes are concerned. Are they to be the able bodied as against the ordinary poor, are they to be what may be termed the working classes as against the middle classes, or the manual as against the non-manual worker? I shall keep a careful watch on the suggestion to create separate accommodation in workhouses for these various classes.
  Mr. SKELTON: They are classes of inmates, not classes in the country.
  Mr. LEONARD: I have endeavoured to indicate that the classes of inmates will be representative of the various types in the country and that it is possible there will be a cut out to segregate them in-a manner which would not meet with my approval. The question of discipline has been well covered by other hon. Members, especially in reference to the proposal to have separate accommodation for persons who may be deemed to be disorderly, and I therefore shall not discuss it. I am quite prepared, however, to see these disorderly people taken out of workhouses altogether and allow the police to do their job. Clause 6 refers to the casual poor. I notice that there is an interpretation Clause, and in that Clause the casual poor are deemed to be wayfarers and such people. I am connected with a trade which has a considerable number of people travelling all over the country looking for work. They are chair menders, french polishers and upholsterers, and many of them travel long distances in order to get the wherewithal on which to live. There is a possibility of them going into institutions such as are visualised in this Bill. They will be subject to search, and if they have any money it is to be subject to appropriation by the officials of the poorhouse. It is quite possible that men of that type, and others who may be mentioned, might have a little money, but that money might be the means of getting them to other places where work can be found and, therefore, I cannot, without further explanation and assurance, accept the Bill as it is. I hope great changes will be made in Committee upstairs. I had intended to deal with Clause 9, but that has already been referred to and therefore
  1888
  I will content myself by saying that I do not look upon the Bill as any advance. I think that the good aspects of Scottish Poor Law are going to be submerged, and I feel bound to vote against the Second Reading.
  7.53 p.m.
  Lord SCONE: If one were to judge from the utterances of certain Members of the Opposition one would be driven to the inevitable conclusion that the ordinary workhouse governor in Scotland was a person who would be more suitable as a slave driver. Those who have had any experience of workhouses in Scotland will not agree with that. In my own part of the world no men could be more sympathetic in their treatment of those who happen to be placed under their responsibility for the time being. The allegation that we are going to see our poorhouses turned into something resembling the torture chamber of the inquisition has no foundation in fact. The Under-Secretary has shown an unusual readiness to consider all Amendments that may be brought forward upstairs, and, as the Government have made a most praiseworthy attempt to bring our inadequate and antiquated Poor Law up to date, it would not be grateful on the part of any hon. Member to vote against the Second Reading. If after the Bill has been upstairs to Committee and comes on for Third Reading and they feel bound to oppose it, then there is, of course, no reason why they should not divide against it; but, in view of the amenable spirit which seems to pervade the Government in regard to the Measure, I think we might well wait and see what happens in Committee.
  I should like to see a good many alterations made in the Bill. Like the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten), I do not like the idea that every man entering a poorhouse is to be compulsorily searched like a criminal, and there are various other points of detail with which I will not weary the House at the moment. I have intervened in the Debate really to draw the attention of the House and the Government to the composition of the vast majority of the able-bodied poor in Scotland; those who are most frequently seen tramping the roads. There can be no doubt that the vast majority are not persons of Scottish nationality at all; they are of Irish extraction, very often of Irish

  1889
  birth. I know that in the poorhouse at Perth, on many occasions, no less than six out of every seven of the inmates are Irish. No one wants to see even Irish poor and distressed suffer, but the people in Scotland are beginning to feel that, although they do not want them to suffer, they do not think that the British taxpayer and the Scottish ratepayer should have to pay for their upkeep.
  I suggest to the Government that they should include in the reference to the committee which is to consider the whole question of the able-bodied poor and other cognate subjects, a recommendation that they should study the question of Irish immigration into this country, and what proportion of these immigrants within a year or less become chargeable to the Poor Law. On the Second Heading of the Bill I imagine that it would be out of order for me to go much further, but, even if we got Scottish Home Rule, we could not cure the position ourselves. As long as Scotland remains a member of the British Empire inter-imperial migration and travel must, obviously, be a matter of agreement among all the nations composing the British Empire, and I think that the Government would do well to put the whole question of the movement between various portions of our Empire on the agenda for the next Imperial Conference. I know that in the West of Scotland especially the subject of immigration from Ireland, with the consequent huge accretion of men to the ranks of the unemployed, is causing the greatest concern.
  7.57 p.m.
  Mr. DINGLE FOOT: In introducing the Bill the Under-Secretary told us that we were at some time or another to have a codifying statute dealing with Poor Law in Scotland. I should like him to tell us what time is going to elapse before the reports of these various Committees will be to hand and before this final consolidating Bill is placed before the House. It is rather important for us to know whether we are dealing with a stop-gap Measure, something to last for a year or two, or with a Measure which is to govern Poor Law in Scotland for a number of years to come. Clause 1 makes permanent the obligation to relieve able-bodied unemployed, which was imposed as a temporary Measure in 1921. If the Bill is to continue for a period of years, then surely it ought to be accompanied
  1890
  by some alteration in the law of settlement. If an unemployed person comes into Dundee from one of the parishes outside and is aged or infirm, we are able to send in a Bill to the local authority, but, if the unemployed man is able-bodied, the loss has to be borne by Dundee. If we are dealing with a scheme which is to last for some years there should be an alteration in that respect, otherwise, you will get a further concentration of the financial burden of unemployment in the towns and cities, who have already to bear much more than their fair share.
  In regard to Clause 3 I join with what has been said about the artificial division which is created by Part II of the Unemployment Bill between two classes of unemployed, those who have been in insurable employment and those who have been in some other form of employment. It seems to me that you are going to get a duplication of effort, and consequent waste; that you are going to have training and instruction courses provided on the one hand by the Unemployment Assistance Board and, on the other hand, by the Poor Law authorities. They will be dealing with people who are, in fact, very much the same, and you may have two sets of instruction courses being conducted in different buildings in the same city. The people who go to these respective courses will be neighbours. They will certainly compare notes, and you may get grievances, which would otherwise be unnecessary, because of the difference in the methods used in the one case and in the other.
  The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) laid a great deal of emphasis on the phrase "task work." I do not want to use an epithet of that kind, but I would like to know a little more about the work which is to be done under Subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 3. Is it really necessary that a local authority should have these additional powers given to it? If the local authority has work to offer which needs to be done, work which would be done in the ordinary way, it can offer that work to its unemployed and they have to take it, because a condition of their relief now is that they shall be destitute and unable to obtain work. The objection to work being found in this way seems to me to be two-fold. If the work is necessary work it ought

  1891
  to be done in the ordinary way and paid for by wages in the ordinary way, but if it is unnecessary work which is merely created for the benefit of this particular class, it must in many cases partake of the nature of digging a pit and filling it up again.
  I very much doubt whether that kind of work, created for that purpose, something that is analogous to task work, has any particular moral value for the individual concerned. I quite appreciate that it is possible in some cases and in some districts to find something between the two, work which the unemployed are able to do in the time they have. I have seen it in different parts of the country. On a recent visit to Yorkshire I saw som of the unemployed helping to clear an old Roman road and some old Roman remains, and they were doing it voluntarily rather than remain idle. Other hon. Members have seen things of that kind, which are common in different parts of the country. But surely it is better to keep that sort of work voluntary. I ask the Government whether it is really necessary to introduce the element of compulsion, with all the dangers that it implies.
  A great deal has been said about Clause 6 and the treatment of the casuals. The position is left rather vague by the reply of the Under-Secretary to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). All these special arrangements are being made for the treatment of the casual, but it is not clear from the Bill whether or not there are to be casual wards. Is the casual to be placed in the same building, in the same dormitory it may be, with the permanent inhabitants of the poorhouse? If you have the two classes in the same building, that is to say if you do not have separate casual wards, it seems to me that you are going to have a rather remarkable situation, because you have a strict time-table set out for the casual and a quite different timetable set out for the ordinary inhabitant. You may have the very anomalous situation of two men in adjoining beds in a dormitory one of whom has to give a certain length of notice before he can go out while the other has to give a shorter or a longer notice. There will be all sorts of anomalies unless you have a separate system of casual wards. Perhaps the learned Lord Advocate will Bay whether it is intended to set up a
  1892
  separate part of the building for the casuals alone. Then as regards what was said about the two days. We were told that it was necessary to prevent the casual leaving before the expiration of two days from the time of his admission, in order that the man may be cleaned and his clothes fumigated. Under this system, if he goes from one place to another, he is going to be bathed and his clothes fumigated three times a week.
  I join with hon. Members who have made a protest again Clause 9. It is quite clear that in some cases at any rate a number of old people are going to be removed from their homes against their wishes. I have no doubt that the medical officer or the local authority will be acting with the best intentions in these cases, but you are setting up here a form of paternal despotism. I would like to see the drafting of that Clause altered. Of course if the old persons concerned are in such a state that they are really unable to choose, you might well have machinery in order to deal with them, but where they are in a state to choose for themselves it is far better to leave the matter to their own discretion.
  Clause 11 of the Bill deals with the position of Poor Law officers. It has been pointed out by several speakers that in many respects the Bill follows the example of the English Poor Law. I only wish that the Bill had followed the English example in its treatment of Poor Law officers. In the English consolidating Act of 1930, in Section 10, it is laid down that the Minister may define not only the duties and the mode of appointment of those who are concerned with the relief of the poor, but he may also lay down their salaries and the conditions of their service. There is a statutory protection given in England not only to the presiding Poor Law officer, but to all officers concerned with relief of the poor. In Scotland the treatment does not extend nearly as far. The low seems to be a little obscure on the point, but by Section 32 of the Act of 1845 it is laid down that parochial boards are to appoint the inspector of the poor and to report his name and salary to the Board of Supervision, now the Department of Health. By Section 56 of that Act the dismissal of an inspector of the poor is made a matter for the Board of Supervision.

  1893
  The protection there, if it is protection, is confined to one man in each district, the inspector of the poor, and a deputy or assistant inspector, or the governor or matron of a Poor Law institution, people whose services have become necessary since 1845, have no such protection as under the English law. We might imitate the English law where it goes further than the Scots law and give more protection to public servants, and I hope the Government will be ready to consider an Amendment to that effect.
  My last point is with regard to Clause 15. I am not going to follow what has been said, as to whether there should be a penal provision, because there has been a great deal of eloquence on that subject. But I do put it to the Lord Advocate whether it is reallly advisable that an offence of this kind and offenders of this kind should be dealt with by courts of summary jurisdiction. I have held for some time past that both in Scotland and in England we have gone much too far in putting work on courts of summary jurisdiction. There are certain classes of cases and certain classes of offenders who as far as possible should be kept away from courts of summary jurisdiction. The cases here seem to me to fall into that category. Who are the people who will be charged with an offence under Clause 15? They will be people who have a bad reputation locally, "bad hats," the ne'er-do-wells, the people who, it may be, are notorious or against whom something is known or alleged in the district to which they belong, and the man who is sitting as a lay magistrate may himself be a member of the local authority or may be aware of the reputation which a man bears. Surely where you are dealing with that sort of case, in which it is very easy to have something in the nature of class prejudice, it is far better that it should be dealt with by the sheriff than by the court of summary jurisdiction.
  8.12 p.m.
  Mr. MACLAY: I have listened carefully to this Debate, because personally I am not intimately conversant with the Poor Law of Scotland, and I have to vote on this Bill. I would put one question to the Minister who is to reply. As far as one can judge the Poor Law has worked more or less well for the last 100 years, with the various amending Acts. Why this sudden rushing through of this Poor
  1894
  Law Bill? I may have missed the explanation of the Under-Secretary of State, although I listened throughout his speech. He told us that we are to have a general inquiry, a committee of local authorities set up to inquire into the whole question, and then over and above that we are to have a separate Departmental Committee to inquire into the whole question of vagrancy. I may have misunderstood the whole thing, but Clause 6 lays down definite regulations regarding vagrancy, and it seems to me that this legislation is ahead of the inquiry-What is the reason for the haste? I may be told that this Bill is linked up with or is dovetailing into the Unemployment Bill, Part II. If that is so, would it not be better to wait even a little to see how Part II of the Unemployment Bill is going to work? No one is clear just now as to the ramifications of Part II. I realise perfectly that a great many of the provisions in this Bill will ultimately be necessary. I rose merely to ask for enlightenment as to why there is this hurry before the committee report.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. TRAIN: Like the previous speaker I have some little difficulty about this Bill. While I welcome it as the natural and necessary corollary of the Unemployment Bill, I cannot see that it is of any great moment, because we were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the Financial Besolution in connection with the Unemployment Bill, that the State was taking over 95 per cent. of the expense of the able-bodied unemployed and that only five per cent. would be left to the local authorities. Therefore this Bill only deals with that portion of the able-bodied unemployed which costs five per cent. of the total expense in any area. It is true that the history of the Scottish Poor Law has been a wonderful romance. Many romantic things happened in the parishes, small burghs and large towns of Scotland in the last 80 years. We had many estimable men as clerks of the old parochial boards and parish councils. Now they are to be swept up into what are called public assistance committees. As chairman of a parish council in one of those ancient Royal burghs years ago, I met many of these men. They were earnest men and very sympathetic towards the poor. They had that old Scottish fear which is inherent in Scottish psychology the fear of the poorhouse.

  1895
  Why are Scotsmen thrifty? Why do they succeed in business? Why do they "haud Sooth, and stay Sooth when they come"? Because of the fear of the poor-house. It was impressed on us when we were children. We were afraid lest we should ever be compelled to draw anything in the way of Poor Law relief or go to the poorhouse. Those men to whom I refer used to meet at night in some small room and consider the various cases in the parish, doling out the shillings to the people who needed them and, indeed breaking the law time and again. This Bill, we are told, is a preliminary to a codifying Measure which is going to make legal many things which those earnest men in Scotland did in the past without any authority. For that reason I am glad to see it. I remember a case which came to the House of Lords of the old Royal burgh of Rutherglen against the great city of Glasgow. It concerned an able-bodied man who had a wife living in Glasgow under a separation. The clerk of the Glasgow parish council granted this woman a few pounds and claimed on settlement against Rutherglen but the old Poor Law clerk there held that the grant was illegal. The clerk to the Glasgow parish council knew that the woman needed the money and gave it to her though he was aware of the legal difficulty. The result was that a case went through the various courts to the Court of Session and finished in the House of Lords and it was placed on record that it was illegal to make such a payment. Rutherglen was accordingly relieved of a few pounds but it cost hundreds of pounds to prove that the parish council clerk of Rutherglen was right and the parish council clerk of Glasgow was wrong. That shows the things that were done under the old system.
  There was also the boarding out of children, a very excellent work. Children were brought down to the Ayrshire coast or to the Western Highlands and boarded out with people who gave them the grace of hospitality and treated them as they would treat their own children and had them educated at the same schools. Those children in many cases grew up to be good citizens. There was no Statute under which those men acted in doing such work. They did those things "off their own bat." Now we are bringing in a Bill which is to make all this legal.
  1896
  We are told that it is only a preliminary and for that reason alone as I have said I welcome it. I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. D. Foot) through all the Clauses of the Bill but I must say that I do not like the first two Clauses because I do not like legislation by reference. I was pleased to hear the Under-Secretary say that he is going to issue some information upon this matter and "put us wise" to the effect of all this legislation. I hope we shall have that information available when the Bill goes to Committee.
  Clause 3 deals with the training of and performance of work by poor persons. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) will doubtless tell me that it is always poor persons who do the work but now we are going to set up machinery and acquire land and provide buildings and do all such other things as may seem necessary in connection with this matter. I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) should protest against it. Socialists on local councils are great advocates of direct labour and I think this Clause opens the door wide to direct labour. We are to have training grounds for direct labour and this is a Clause which I shall carefully watch in Committee because I am not a believer in direct labour.
  Mr. D. GRAHAM: Then the hon. Member is opposing it too?
  Mr. TRAIN: I am not opposing it from the same point of view as the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) or the hon. Member for Govan. I am surprised that they are opposing it at all. I am surprised too that the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) is not supporting this Clause up to the hilt. There are however many other Clauses in the Bill which deserve the support of all right-thinking people who want to see the Poor Law of Scotland placed on a sound basis and for that reason I am in favour of the Bill.
  8.24 p.m.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: This Measure has raised considerable controversy and hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that I support its rejection. There are one or two points, however, in which I think it improves matters, and it is as well that we should first see how far there is common agreement. I see only

  1897
  two points of value in the Bill. One is the proposal dealing with the first 7s. 6d. of health insurance benefit in relation to the Poor Law. The other is the exemption for Poor Law relief purposes of the first 5s. of sick pay from a friendly society, and I take it that that will apply equally to trade union payment of sickness benefit. As to the health insurance money it was provided in the 1924 Health Insurance Act that the first 7s. 6d. should be exempted, but from 1924 until recently no Poor Law authority in Scotland, as far as I know, worked that Act. Each one succeeded in defying it. While the Labour Government were in office I had correspondence extending over a long period with the director of public assistance in the City of Glasgow. I wanted the City of Glasgow to do it because it was the law, but I think the director of public assistance—and we are told that these are all fine men—whether he believes in the law or not ought to carry the law out until it is altered. There is no director of public assistance, even in Glasgow, who is greater than the law. But he deliberately refused to do it. I interviewed him and pleaded with him, and he told me, in a most aggressive, cheeky, and impertinent fashion, that he would see the law altered against me.
  He told me in effect that those who were running the Poor Law in Scotland did not understand it as well as he did, and that he would have the law altered to suit him, and he refused to carry it out. I went there to get the law carried out, as I have done, I hope, with the Department officers and local authority officers. I wanted him to carry out the law, and I went decently to interview him, but he said, "No, we are not going to carry out the law in this case," and he started to quibble about a maximum scale and a minimum scale. He said that those things did not matter, that he had instructed his officials in Glasgow Poor Law relief to take the 7s. 6d. Ultimately, after years of negotiation, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland insisted that they were breaking the law and insisted on them carrying it out in the Glasgow public assistance department. Yet that is the type of man we are entrusting with terrible duties under this Bill. We were told by the Noble Lord the Member for Perth (Lord Scone)
  1898
  that these were men of great character, capacity and understanding, yet here was one who deliberately, to a Member of Parliament, defied the law and refused to carry it out, and you are saying to this man, "You defied the law, you would not carry it out for years, but we think so much of you that we shall place in your hands power over your fellow subjects." There is no evidence why that should be done, but bringing the 7s. 6d. within the Poor Law possibly brings it within the range of not being so easily misunderstood. Really, however, the 7s. 6d. is not capable of being misunderstood if the Poor Law authorities want to do their job.
  The other point is the 5s. friendly society matter. This is an improvement, although with some local authorities, more enlightened than others, it is the accepted practice already. Apart from those two points, I have examined the Bill, and I say that it is fundamentally bad. The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Maclay) asked a question. We were told that for 18 years the Poor Law in Scotland had worked exceedingly well, but that there had been many things illegal for 18 years and that they were now to be legalised. Suddenly, in 1934, we start upon the legalisation of that which has been illegal for 17 or 18 years. I should have thought that before introducing a Bill of this kind the Government would have consulted the local authorities, that they would have heard evidence from them, and that they would have had conferences with them. But no, that is not done. They have been doing illegal things, and so, without any evidence at all, they rush in here, to carry this Bill through.
  It is not really because certain things have been illegal for l8 years, for the Government have told us that they are going to codify the law and that they are setting up a committee to inquire into it, so it cannot be for that reason. The reason is plain. The Government have a Part II under the Unemployment Bill, and this Bill fits into the machinery of that Part II. There is less reason for this Bill now than ever, because the illegal things which they are alleged to have been doing apply now only to a very much smaller section of the population than ever before. It is estimated by the Glasgow Town Council that 90 per cent. of the able-bodied poor will pass

  1899
  out into Part II of the other Bill, yet we are now faced with pushing through a Bill to deal with Poor Law matters at the same time as 90 per cent. of the able-bodied poor have been taken from the care of the public assistance department.
  Why is there this rush? It is because under Part II there are certain people who are deemed to be bad people and who, for the purposes of that Bill, will be handed over to the Poor Law authorities, and the Government do not wish the Poor Law authorities to deal with those people kindly. They want them to deal with them with a strong, stern hand, because they feel that it would be bad if somebody passed out of Part II for not being too good and got better treatment under the Poor Law authorities than under the Government Department. So they introduce this Bill to see that those people have no chance of being dealt with decently, lest it might be an attraction for people to come out of Part II by any means at their disposal. That is the purpose that I see in dealing here with the able-bodied poor. It is nonsense to pretend that it is to make things legal, at the very time when you are only dealing with 10 per cent. and when you are setting up two Departmental Committees to inquire into the subject. It would be laughed to scorn in connection with anything but the Poor Law. Before these two committees report, before evidence is heard, you are legislating on the very things with which the Committees have to do. It seems to me that the Government might have had a case for inquiry into Poor Law administration in Scotland, and might have set up a committee to hear evidence, and then legislated as a result of such inquiry.
  One of the questions that are not dealt with in the Bill is that of the children. We hear about the powers of the committee in boarding them out. A man may hand his children over to the Poor Law, as indeed he often does. If he is left a widower, and if he is in a job that takes him out of the city and he cannot watch over his children, he frequently goes voluntarily to the public authority and says, "I will pay you to look after my children," and he makes an arrangement. But once the Poor Law authority have taken over his children, he has no legal right to take them back
  1900
  unless the Poor Law authority gives them back to him. Once children have gone into the hands of the Poor Law the parent can only get them back if the Poor Law consents to give them back, even if the parent has sent them voluntarily. One would have thought that in a Bill of this kind you would have given the parents some right to get their own children back, but they have none. I do not grumble at the Government legislating on these matters, but why do they not deal with the whole issue? There is the question of the care of cripple children. Under the Poor Law and under the education system there is power to deal with the blind, but there is practically no power to deal with the cripple children.
  We then come to the question of the treatment of these people. I was never on a Poor Law authority, but I have been closely associated with Poor Law work for 14 or 15 years. We are told that among the people with whom we are to deal is the casual who, when he goes to the poorhouse, has to be searched and detained. The reason given by people for doing a cruel thing is a benevolent reason. If a man wants to ill-treat his wife, he always gives the most benevolent reason for so doing. He always says, "I whipped her because I wanted her to be good." In the case of the casuals the reason given for detaining them is the necessity for cleaning them and their clothes. If that be the object, it is the worst way of attaining it. If you were a casual tramping from town to town, would you go to the poor house knowing that you may be detained for possibly as long as seven days? It is the last place you would go near. The very person to whom the Government say they are out to do good is the very man who will not go near the poorhouse. He will go anywhere but to the poorhouse.
  Did hon. Members ever see these men going into the poorhouse? I have mixed with them. They are my people, and I know them. I have watched them go in. Cleaning their clothes is a waste of public money in nine cases out of ten. It is nothing but spending public money on their rags. Give them, if you like, clean clothes or new clothes or even secondhand clothes. The idea of detaining them to clean their clothes is nonsense. That is not the reason at all. The fact is that

  1901
  these are men tramping from place to place and the Government feel that they must be stern with them and prevent them tramping about; they must be stationary in their poverty and cause the authorities no trouble. If a man who goes into a poorhouse kicks up a row, he is treated more severely than a Member of Parliament who kicks up a row. We get three days' suspension, and we are supposed to be much above the poor casual. A casual who causes a disturbance has possibly had a drink of biddy before he goes in. It is illegal to drink it, and the only person who is punished is the man who takes it. He kicks up a shindy and for that he is to be subject, first of all, to detention in a room by himself. In effect, it is solitary confinement in a cell. Because he has kicked up a bit of a row he is to be kept 24 hours in this place without any trial. It is the easiest thing in the world to work if a foreman or a manager wishes to pick a quarrel with a man. A casual may come in at a late hour at night. He awakens everybody out of their ordinary routine and annoys them. There is a row, and without any trial the governor can say to him, "Twenty-four hours for you in a cell," and there is no appeal. Even if the man can show that it is wrong, he has no case against the governor.
  This power is given to deal with human beings in that way because they are casuals and tramps. I do not know what the experience of other Members is, but my opinion of the casual and the tramp is one of extremely high regard. Why do they tramp? Generally speaking it is because they are decent men, because they hate showing their poverty from day to day in the same place. They hate the constant scrutiny of their friends. Who has not known a young man go on tramp because he hated coming home each day to be under the scrutiny of his brothers and sisters? The other type of man who goes on tramp is the man who thinks he can pick up a job here or there. Now, without any evidence having been led that the casual has abused his trust, without any evidence that further powers are required, with no evidence to show that these people are bad and abusive, the Government come forward with this Bill: the only reason is that the Government just woke up one day and thought they ought
  1902
  to do it. Would the lawyers in this House, who have some regard for the law, allow any other subject to be shut up for a day without trial and without indictment? Would they give to any man the right to shut up a fellow citizen for a day without trial and for nothing? Is there a court which would listen to such a claim? Then there is the further possibility of a sentence of 21 days if he is a man who is awfully bad, if he is shockingly bad. Here, again, we are handing over to bureaucratic control powers over people which I would not allow anyone to exercise.
  Another matter with which I wish to deal concerns the transfer of the aged. Here we have another of the worst features of the Bill. It is true there is the safeguard of an appeal to the sheriff. In the case of any other section of the community an appeal to the sheriff is very often a real safeguard. Over an experience of many years I have come to have a great regard for the safeguard of an appeal to the court, and that is why I denounced the power we are giving to officials of poorhouses to shut up a man for 24 hours without any right of appeal on his part. An official may do that in a moment of bad temper. Just imagine a man like Beynard of Glasgow, a man that would break the law and defy Members of Parliament, being given the power to shut up his fellow-men; the man who said to me, "I won't carry out the law. You may be a Member of Parliament, I will see the whole law altered before I carry it out." He is a type of man in whose hands I would not trust a wretched murderer.
  But to return to the case of the aged, though an appeal to the sheriff is of value in most cases I think it is of less value and, indeed, of no value at all, in these cases. Who are the people involved? The aged, the very infirm and the partially defective mentally. If they are entirely defective mentally we already have the necessary powers, or if they are diseased there is already every power that is necessary—not merely if they are suffering from infectious disease, but if their disease is a menace to the health of others. What is the value of an appeal to the sheriff to the aged, to the partially infirm and to the partially defective? They are served with a notice, but in 99 cases out of 100 they do not understand the notice.
  Mr. SKELTON: It is not an appeal to the sheriff, but nothing can be done until the sheriff passes the order.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I know that, but the sheriff must deal with the case, the sheriff must say that it is a proper case for action and the onus of rebutting the application by the local authority lies on the poor person, the defender. These old people on whom the notice will be served will not understand it. Very frequently they have no friends and they cannot instruct a Poor Law agent. I have said again and again that I have a great regard for the Poor Law agents and the work they do, but the one class of work with which I am not keen on entrusting them is this class. They will defend a criminal, but when it comes to matters like this they never think so much in legal terms. These old people do not understand and they cannot instruct a lawyer, and the next thing they know is that an action has been taken at court, evidence led, usually in their absence and an order for removal granted.
  This power of removing old people is one that is capable of the worst abuses, and it ought to be removed from the Bill. What happens at the present time? Generally speaking, the old people go to the public hospitals. The chief indictment against our hospitals is that we do not make them attractive. We should start to build decent homes away from the taint of the poorhouse for the old people to live in, and then they will go, and there will be no need to exercise compulsory powers. Give them decent and happy surroundings, and they will go. The hon. Members for Govan (Mr. Maclean), for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham), and Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) knew a man named James A. Allen who was in the Socialist movement in Glasgow and was known as "the millionaire Socialist." He started an experiment when I was a, boy by providing a limited number of homes for old people in one district of Glasgow. He found himself faced with too many applications for them. They were homes where there was complete freedom—nothing of the institution about them, no governors, the right to walk in and out. That is the chief indictment against the poorhouse. Why could we not spend £500,000 or £250,000 on building in Lanarkshire, in Glasgow and in Edinburgh little cottage homes for the people
  1904
  of 60 and 70, homes where they would be free to walk in and walk out?
  I heartily agree with those who have moved the Amendment. The Bill is the worst thing that has been proposed for many a day for Scotland. It gives rights and powers over people that ought not to be given. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Milne), in a very excellent speech, quoted from some report dated 1909. With that I am not going to quarrel. I had neither knowledge nor understanding of things in 1909, but in 1934, an age of enlightenment and reason, to produce a Bill of this character, is setting back the hands of the clock of progress. I have come to regard the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland as possessed of some sort of socially progressive outlook. This is a sickening day when he, as a comparatively young man, is introducing a shocking Measure like this. I can only hope that at an early date he will regret it, and that he will withdraw the contemptible Measure from the records of the House of Commons.
  8.56 p.m.
  Mr. D. GRAHAM: With all that was said by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) I am in complete agreement. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland appeared to be ashamed of the Bill which he introduced. He disarmed criticism to some extent by promising that various criticisms against it would receive consideration in Committee, but he was simply putting off until another day something with which he will have to deal. There are one or two things upon which I should like to be enlightened. I was very sorry that the hon. Member for Gorbals did not pursue his argument on Clause 10, which proposes, in the payment of out-door relief, to disregard the first 7s. 6d. of sick pay under national health insurance, and the first 5s. in the case of those who are members of friendly societies. Is there any good reason why a man who has been disabled by service in the Army during the War, and who is at the present time in receipt of a disability pension, should be differentiated against in this way? Poor Law officials take the whole of the disability pension, and workmen's compensation into consideration. I hope that when we come to the Committee stage the Government will be prepared to consider favourably an Amend-

  1905
  ment to provide that, in the case of men who are able and willing to work but who are dependent upon parish relief and whose disability is due to service rendered to the State, an obligation rests upon the National Government to see that they get equally favourable treatment with any other member of the community.
  I do not propose to go into the various questions which have been raised by hon. Members, but I want to make some reference to the statement which was made by the Noble Lord the Member for Perth (Lord Scone). He made a rather remarkable statement, and I hope that in one of the committees which are to be set up full inquiry will be conducted into the matter. He said that most of the persons who are in receipt of Poor Law relief in Perth are Irish or of Irish extraction. That does not say very much for the employers in Perth, because probably the only reason why they employ Irishmen is that they get them for less wages—if they employ them at all. As one who represents a fair number of employed Irishmen, I want to make my protest against the prejudiced statements that are so frequently made on this matter, upon the assumption that all the virtues of sobriety, temperance and thrift are congregated in the person of the Scotsman, who is therefore something superior to the other members of the population of Great Britain.
  I have as much regard for my native country as anyone whom I have ever met, but I know that the humanity of the Scotsman is not more outstanding than the humanity of the Englishman. If my knowledge of our history is correct, Scottish administrators in the centuries which are past, and prior to the operation of the Poor Law system, were capable of torturing where that would not have been done in England. We have nothing to boast about in that respect. There is nothing human about the Poor Law or its machinery. I have never had experience of being inside a Poor Law institution and I do not wish to be. I have known any number of men, generally men belonging to the ordinary working-class population, who have resented most bitterly the order which sent them to the Poor Law institution. A member of the ordinary working-class who is anxious to earn his own livelihood by his own
  1906
  labour, no matter whether he is given to taking a glass of whisky and cannot be described as a sober person, still has a natural hatred of the Poor Law system in Scotland. One of the objects of the Bill is to bring within the four corners of that rotten system ordinary members of the working-class who are willing but unable to find work, because of the system which is defended by the present Government. We are offering the most bitter opposition to the Bill, and we will go into the Lobby against it. We hope that every man will be ready to cast his vote on this occasion, and that those who profess to be Scotsmen and Scotswomen will be prepared to go into the Lobby with us in order to make clear to the Government that they resent the introduction of a Bill of this character, which is intended to cast a slur on every member of the working-class in Scotland.
  9.4 p.m.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Normand): I cannot agree with much that has been said in the speech of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham). He said that the Poor Law system of Scotland was a rotten system. I say, without fear of contradiction by anybody who knows the facts, that it is the most humane Poor Law system to be found anywhere in the world. I agree with what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Sir I. Macpherson) that in Scotland, in the administration of the Poor Law, poverty has been treated as a tragedy and not as a crime. Whether the Poor Law is humane or not depends in the long run upon the character of those who administer it. Those who have administered it, either from the central body from the time that was instituted or in the local districts, and whether they were people who had been elected by their fellow-citizens or whether they were officials appointed by such bodies, have always, with the fewest possible exceptions, exhibited a humanity and a kindness in the administration of the Poor Law that is not rivalled elsewhere. One thing that should be realised in connection with this Bill is that the Poor Law of Scotland will continue to be administered by the same type of man, responsible to the same elected bodies, as heretofore, and I think I shall be able to show that, in comparison with recent en-

  1907
  actments for which the late Labour Government were responsible, the Clauses which are criticised in this Bill are far less drastic and far less inhuman—to use the expression of the hon. Member for Hamilton and his friends—than some of the Clauses of those enactments.
  While it is clear that the Poor Law of Scotland is the most humane of any law anywhere for dealing with the poor, nevertheless there were important omissions. It was not until 1921 that the law of Scotland permitted relief to be granted at all to the able-bodied poor. Of course, the humanity of those who administered the law largely evaded that, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Banff (Sir M. Wood). Clearly, there was no use in withholding relief from a man because he was able-bodied if the effect was to make him cease to be an able-bodied man, and to make him, therefore, a man entitled to relief. Taking that sensible view, the Poor Law authorities all over Scotland avoided the catastrophe of allowing a man to fall into starvation before he was relieved. The people of Scotland recognised that, whatever were the words of the Act, it must be administered in a humane way which would prevent people from falling into ill-health where that was possible, and prevent hardship; and, for the reasons I have stated, they regarded poverty, not as a crime, but as a misfortune and a tragedy.
  That being the case, in 1921, because of the economic circumstances of the time, an Act was passed, which has been frequently amended by all Governments since, authorising the payment of relief to the able-bodied poor; but it did not completely assimilate the relief of these able-bodied poor to the relief which is granted to the ordinary poor. In one respect, for example, it treated them differentially by refusing them the right of appeal to the sheriff in cases where relief had been refused. Do hon. Members opposite say that the time has not come to remove that grievance? Is it their policy to oppose any Bill introduced by the Government until we are able to deal completely with every problem presented by the Poor Law? That is one of the remedies which we seek to apply. Another important aspect of the position at this juncture is the probable passing into law of the Unemployment Bill. Up
  1908
  to a point the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) was quite correct in pointing out the connection between the two, but he was wrong in what he went on to say, namely, that a certain number of people, whose cases were difficult cases, under the Unemployment Bill would find themselves relegated to the Poor Law, and that the Government had decided to provide for them, under the Poor Law, some form of harsh treatment. There is not a shadow of foundation for that suggestion. By far the greater number of people who, as able-bodied poor, will apply for relief under the Poor Law, will not belong to that category at all. They are people who would never come under Part II of the Unemployment Bill at all, and they far outnumber the very few people who will have to be treated as difficult cases under Part II of the Unemployment Act.
  The most important part of the present Bill is the special provision which provides for them in the future, not by a temporary but by a permanent Measure, the right to relief on the same footing as the ordinary poor, with redress at the hands of the sheriff if that relief is improperly refused, and which also provides for them the advantages of training, which will be provided in the same way as for people under Part II of the Unemployment Bill if that be passed into law. That is why, at this juncture, it is necessary and appropriate to amend the Poor Law of Scotland, which has stood substantially unamended, except for the emergency Acts of 1921 and onwards, since 1845. That being so, advantage was taken of the occasion also to introduce certain Amendments of the law which, after consultation with the local authorities—for I can give an assurance that the Poor Law authorities have been consulted on these matters—were decided to be valuable and necessary. On the other hand, certain branches of the law are left over for subsequent treatment. In the first place, there is the whole question of settlement; and, secondly, there is the question of vagrancy. I think the character of the Bill was accurately described by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Boss and Cromarty as a fair Measure of interim reform. It is necessary to deal with the able-bodied poor, and advantage was taken of this opportunity to introduce certain other necessary reforms. Is it

  1909
  suggested that nothing at all should have been done until we were in a position to codify the whole law relating to the relief of the poor in Scotland? I cannot believe that anyone who understands the problem of the able-bodied poor could seriously make such a suggestion. Surely the time has come when their right to relief should be as complete, and subject to the same right of appeal, as the right of any other poor person whatever.
  If one looks at the other Clauses of the Bill, I do not think there is any that is more important than Clause 4, and I want to remove at once a misunderstanding under which, apparently, the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) was labouring with respect to that Clause. There is not the least intention to depart from the general trend of the Poor Law in Scotland, which is in favour of outdoor relief. That is the first point. The second thing that I want to say about the Clause is that it is abundantly justified by what was said by the Senior Member for Dundee (Mr. D. Foot) and by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Milne), in speaking of the bad accommodation which is to be found in certain places. What is desired is that there should be a differentiation, in the kind of accommodation provided, as between casuals, or children, or people of low mentality, so as to make it possible to provide, for each class of the poor who are receiving indoor relief, an appropriate place to which they can go without being compelled to mix with people whom they would feel it to be in some way a degradation to mix with, or with persons who ought to be treated separately from them. Surely everyone will agree that that, so far from being inhuman, is something that is very desirable in the interests of all poor people who have, unfortunately, to come to the poorhouse.
  Mr. MAXTON: If you want them to have complete detachment, are they not much better in their homes than in divisions in an institution?
  The LORD ADVOCATE: There is no intention of bringing into the poorhouse any person who can suitably be dealt with by means of outdoor relief. There is no reversal of policy whatever. There is no departure from the general principle that outdoor relief shall be given wherever it is practicable. If anyone says this is a scheme for driving the poor into
  1910
  institutions, he is saying something that is not to be found in the Bill.
  Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Has any estimate been made of the accommodation that will be required to be built by local authorities under the Clause? It is the wording of the Clause that gives occasion to the thought that a considerable extension of institutional accommodation is intended.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: Until 1929 it was the parishes that were responsible for the administration of Poor Law relief, and parishes or combinations of parishes provided themselves with poor-houses for the housing of such persons as they were unable to deal with by means of outdoor relief. In 1929 that system was brought to an end, and the administration of poor relief was handed over to the cities and large burghs on the one hand and to the counties on the other. The consequence is that in a great many Poor Law areas there are a number of poorhouses which have become vested in them, and in some of these already this method of allocating special accommodation to each separate category of the poor is in progress. This Clause is permissive and it enables the Department, when it so decides, to bring pressure to bear on local authorities to carry out that process. It is not foreseen that any additional cost will result from the redistribution of the present occupants according to different categories.
  Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Is that correct? In cases that I know where the poorhouse has been centralised under the county council, the old buildings have been sold or disposed of for other purposes. They are no longer available for this purpose.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I would not contradict what the right hon. Baronet says, but I imagine that that is not in areas where there is a large poor population. The Government are fully aware that certain of these Clauses are such as would cause anxiety. I am unwilling to deprive of his freedom any person who is not insane, and I think we should scrutinise with the utmost care the conditions under which such deprivation may come about. Certainly I would most willingly consider any Amendments which might make more secure the freedom

  1911
  which every person, however poor and however defenceless, is entitled to enjoy. The purpose of the Clause is that, in certain very sad and tragic cases where an indivdual is unable to look after himself and has no one that he can call upon to help him, no wife, no relative, no friend, it should be possible to take him away from his home and place him in a public institution. That is going to be done under safeguards, and the principal safeguard is that the sheriff has to be satisfied that it is necessary for the well-being of the person himself. I fully appreciate that in all probability he will not be in a position to instruct a lawyer to contest a motion that may be made by the authorities but, while I am willing to consider any other safeguards, I think the sheriff will be careful not to act except upon the clearest proof of practical necessity.
  Sir I. MACPHERSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the case of an old age pensioner who may voluntarily wish to go to a parish cottage and be kept there and yet not be deprived of his liberty?
  The LORD ADVOCATE: That point shall be considered.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: The Lord Advocate knows that when no appearance is made, the sheriff may decide against the party failing to appear.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: What the hon. Member fears will not occur. It is not really litigation that is taking place at all but an administrative act which the sheriff is to authorise, and before giving his authority he must be satisfied by proof that his authority can properly be given.
  Mr. N. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that, as the Clause stands, it is only if the sheriff thinks fit that he can have a person examined? It is optional. Surely there ought to be something wider than that in order to safeguard the rights of such a person.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I will give the general assurance that if any hon. Member is in any doubt about the sufficiency of the safeguard, the Government will consider the matter, and when an Amendment shall be put down, I will willingly discuss it.
  Other Clauses were criticised; for example, Clauses 3 and 5. I do not think
  1912
  that it has been sufficiently realised that these Clauses authorise the making of rules and regulations under which certain action can be taken. Although, therefore, they may permit that action, they themselves provide the limits within, and the conditions upon which, it may be taken. Many of the things which are regulated there have in past days been done without regulation, and the Government consider not that they should never have been allowed to take place, but that all these disciplinary powers which must exist in some form in the government of a poorhouse should be regulated by rules. That is, for example, the purpose of Clause 5. The remainder of the criticism of these two Clauses may perhaps be left over to the Committee stage.
  Mr. MACLEAN: In Clause 3, do not the regulations govern the Clause, and not the Clause the regulations?
  The LORD ADVOCATE: Clause 3 authorises a local authority to make provision for instructional training and for enabling any able-bodied person in receipt of outdoor relief to receive training only on condition that he does certain work.
  I was pointing out, and more especially in reference to Clause 5, that certain disciplinary action has been taken in the past without regulation, and the Government have decided that in the future that shall not take place again. It is said that the Scots law is being made inhuman by some of the provisions of the Bill, and language of unnecessary exaggeration has been used about them. We were told in 1909 that the Labour party went about the country with the slogan, "Break up the Poor Law." In 1930 a Labour Government consolidated the Poor Law of England, and when I am told that we have taken wholesale Clauses from that Act, I look up that Act and I observe that wherever there is a close connection between the Sections of the English Act and the Clauses of the Scottish Bill, the Bill is far more humane in its outlook than is the Act. For example, if you take the power to confine in a room for misconduct, the English Act gives power to confine for 24 hours
  "or such further time as may be necessary in order to have him brought before a justice of the peace."
  Lest it be thought that there is no humanity to be found in the English Act, the same Section lays down that:

  1913
  "(2) No master of a workhouse shall, on any pretence, chain or confine by chains or manacles any poor person of sane mind."
  This was the Labour Government of 1930.
  Mr. N. MACLEAN: That was a Clause of the Consolidating Act. The hon. and learned Gentleman is comparing with his Bill an English Consolidating Act, which was picking up Poor Law Acts for generations past and pulling them together and taking from them some of the worst features, and the worst features of the English Poor Law are considerably worse than anything we have in Scotland.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: This Government is going to amend the Poor Law of Scotland before proceeding to consolidate it.
  Mr. MACLEAN: It had better amend the Poor Law of England as well; that would be more to the point.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I quite appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Gorbals with regard to the 21 days' imprisonment, but he should remember that it is within the sheriff's discretion whether he shall inflict the full penalty or part of it.
  Mr. MAXTON: That is not optional.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: No; the hon. Member will agree that the option of a fine is not very valuable for a poor person. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. D. Foot) raised the question of the court of summary jurisdiction. The court of summary jurisdiction in Scotland which deals with such things is the sheriff and not the lay magistrate, and is, therefore, free from the kind of influences to which a lay magistrate might be supposed to be subject.
  I do not think it would serve any useful purpose to go through all the Clauses one by one. Something was said about the right to set people to work, and that is perhaps the matter which has been most criticised from the opposite side of the House. In the first place, this power to set to work is qualified by the control of the medical man who is respon-
  sible for the health of the inmate of the poorhouse. In the second place, every hon. Member must be aware that people in poorhouses in Scotland to-day are set to work without regulation. Work is performed both inside and outside the house. The effect of this Bill is to bring all that within regulation. When once that fact is realised, I believe that the hon. Members who are objecting to the power will welcome it when they appreciate that it is better to have regulated than unregulated work.
  I would only say, as I said originally, that if there is any way in which the Bill can be made both more effective and more humane, the Government will welcome suggestions and will consider either Amendments or additional Clauses for that purpose.
  Mr. D. GRAHAM: Would the right hon. and learned Member deal with the position of the single ex-service man?
  The LORD ADVOCATE: The position at the present moment is that, under the Act of 1932, the Transitional Payments (Determination of Need) Act, the local authorities have the power of making the same allowances in granting relief under the Poor Law as they have when they are granting transitional payments. I am not aware of the extent to which that power has been used, but the Government will certainly consider that point, and whether anything ought to be done, and if so, what. But the conclusion of the whole matter is that the attitude of to Government towards the Poor Law is that efficiency and inhumanity do not go together, and that efficiency and humanity are the two things to aim at. This Bill promotes both, and the House would be well advised to give it a Second Reading. In the Scottish Standing Committee we will co-operate with anyone who has the same ends in view and is willing to co-operate with us in furthering the aims of the Bill.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 174; Noes, 30.

  Division No. 185.]

  AYES.

  [9.36 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

  Bernays, Robert

  Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

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

  Blaker, Sir Reginald

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

  Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

  Blindell, James

  Braes, Captain Sir William

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Boothby, Robert John Graham

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

  Borodale, Viscount

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

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

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

  Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

  Buchan, John

  Hume, Sir George Hopwood

  Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

  Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

  Burnett, John George

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

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmiy)

  Jennings, Roland

  Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

  Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

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

  Ruggies-Brise, Colonel E. A.

  Caporn, Arthur Cecil

  Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

  Runge, Norah Cecil

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

  Kerr, Hamilton W.

  Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

  Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

  Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Law, Sir Alfred

  Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Leckie, J. A.

  Salmon, Sir Isidore

  Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Liddall, Walter s.

  Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

  Cook, Thomas A.

  Lindsay, Noel Ker

  Scone, Lord

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Loftus, Pierce C.

  Selley, Harry R.

  Crooke, J. Smedley

  Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

  MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

  Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

  Cross, R. H.

  McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

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

  Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

  Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

  Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)

  Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

  McLean, Dr W. H. (Tradeston)

  Skelton, Archibald Noel

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

  Macmillan, Maurice Harold

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

  Denville, Alfred

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian

  Spencer, Captain Richard A.

  Dickie, John P.

  Magnay, Thomas

  Spens, William Patrick

  Doran, Edward

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

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

  Dower, Captain A. V. G.

  Martin, Thomas B.

  Stevenson, James

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

  Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Elliston, Captain George Sampson

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

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Summersby, Charles H.

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Sutcliffe, Harold

  Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

  Milne, Charles

  Tate, Mavis Constance

  Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

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

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

  Fleming Edward Lascelles

  Mitcheson, G. G.

  Templeton, William P.

  Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

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

  Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

  Ford, Sir Patrick J.

  Moreing, Adrian C.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Fox, Sir Gifford

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

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Fremantle, Sir Francis

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

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Goff, Sir Park

  Moss, Captain H. J.

  Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Munro, Patrick

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

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

  Nall, Sir Joseph

  Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

  Greene, William p. C.

  Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

  Whyte, Jardine Bell

  Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

  Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  Guy, J. C. Morrison

  Nunn, William

  Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

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

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Wills, Wilfrid D.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Pearson, William G.

  Windsor Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Harbord, Arthur

  Procter, Major Henry Adam

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Harris, Sir Percy

  Radford, E. A.

  Wise, Alfred R.

  Hartland, George A.

  Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

  Womersley, Walter James

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

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

  Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

  Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

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

  Worthington, Dr. John V.

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Ramsden, Sir Eugene

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Rankin, Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Ray, Sir William

  Sir George Penny and Commander Southby.

  NOES.

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

  Mainwaring, William Henry

  Banfield, John William

  Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

  Maxton, James

  Batey, Joseph

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Parkinson, John Allen

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  John, William

  Smith, Tom (Normanton)

  Buchanan, George

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Cape, Thomas

  Kirkwood, David

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Daggar, George

  Lawson, John James

  Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Leonard, William

  Dobbie, William

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Edwards, Charles

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Groves.

  Bill read a Second time.

  LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Heading read.
  9.44 p.m.
  The Secretary of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I
  1916
  beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  I am aware that there may be some exception to the Government taking this Bill at this hour, but I would remind the House that there was a very full discussion on the Financial Resolution for some hours last week, and, although the Bill itself was not available in the Vote Office until Friday last, the terms of it are very nearly identical with the

  1917
  terms of the Financial Resolution. I would also remind the House that there was a very full White Paper explaining in great detail the Government policy on this matter which was presented to the House of Commons on the 19th December last, and, especially as there was no division on the Financial Resolution, we ask the House this evening to come to a decision upon the Bill.
  I think it would be for the convenience of the House, seeing that on two occasions within a week I have spoken on this subject, that I should make my remarks to-night very short. That must not, however, be taken as any disrespect to the House. I do not intend to develop the argument for the Bill. I would, however, mention one point which has arisen in the minds of many hon. Members. Exceptions are being taken to the rents—I think the noble Lord the Member for Perth (Lord Scone) is particularly interested—and a comparison is made between the rents which are being charged for these small intensive holdings, on an average of about six to nine acres, and the rent charged for similar holdings in other parts of the country, I submit that it is not comparing like with like to compare the rents of these new holdings, which will have a modern house, with three rooms, a kitchen and a bathroom, and with all the modern facilities, with the rents presently being charged in other parts of the country.
  In that connection before we introduce this Measure we went at great length into the question whether the size of the rent was a determining factor as to whether a man would succeed or not on these holdings. I had very elaborate figures prepared to show what the proportion of rent was in proportion to the outgoings of the holdings, and I think I am accurate when I say that in every case the rent will never be more than one-seventh of the total outgoings and in many cases it will be a much smaller percentage. I will not worry the House with figures on that point, but I thought it was a point that hon. Members were anxious about and I have therefore touched on it in my opening remarks. As I explained earlier, it will be for the convenience of the House if I do not detain it further now but if I endeavour, after a full Debate, to answer any questions which any hon. or right hon. Member cares to put to me.
  9.49 p.m.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: I want to enter a very strong protest against taking this Bill at this time of night. It is supposed to be a great new land settlement programme. It has been boosted as that throughout the country, and yet the Financial Resolution on which we are supposed to have had such a full discussion was brought on as the third Order of the day. Is that the way to treat a great new constructive policy? The Second Reading of this great constructive Measure is brought on at a quarter to ten. That does not look to me as the way in which the Government ought to treat a great constructive scheme. They are burking discussion of this Measure by bringing it on at this time of night. They are relegating it to what I hope to show is its true place, in accordance with its true proportions as a paltry Measure to meet a great demand.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that the scheme was discussed very fully in the Debate on the Financial Resolution and that a very full White Paper had been issued explaining it in great detail. All I can say is that, as a result of the White Paper and of the discussion on the Financial Resolution, a great many questions have been left unanswered. The Secretary of State said he would answer them on some future occasion. I hope that he will answer them to-night and also a number of others that I am going to put to him. I hope he will answer them all to-night. They will certainly be re-echoed in Scotland. The House must have more information than it has yet had about the structure of the Government's plan. According to the White Paper, all the holdings to be constituted under this scheme are to come under the Agricultural Holdings Acts, but the Secretary of State said in his speech that he did not propose to alter in any shape or form the character of the tenure of these holdings so far as the Highlands of Scotland were concerned. Does that assurance apply to all future schemes in the Highlands of Scotland under this Bill? Will the holders in the Highland counties be settled under the Land Acts? On the other hand apparently in the Lowlands the Agricultural Holdings Acts are to apply. Is it the scheme that all holders in the Highlands are to be settled under the Land Acts and the holders in the

  1919
  Lowlands under the Agricultural Holdings Act, or on what principle are the Government going to proceed?
  The White Paper says that rents amounting to 3 per cent. of the capital equipment will be obtained. Are the Highlands to be included in that? Is 3 per cent. going to be expected from the holdings constituted in the Highland counties? Will land settlement be accelerated in the Highlands, where land hunger is keenest and depopulation is the worst, proportionately to the acceleration in the Lowlands under the scheme? In short, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to sketch his scheme to the House in some sort of perspective showing, roughly, the amount of settlement contemplated in the Highlands and Lowlands respectively and the relative proportion of family holdings, full-time holdings and part-time holdings which are going to be constituted under the scheme.
  Many hon. Members seem to find it difficult to understand the importance attached by certain hon. Members and by smallholders all over Scotland to Land Act tenure as opposed to Agricultural Holdings Act tenure. Some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have argued that one of the advantages of erecting holdings under Agricultural Holdings Act tenure is that holders can enter their holdings when they have been fully equipped, and that they can take their holdings on the basis of equipped rent instead of a fair rent, with rights of compensation.
  As regards entry on a completely equipped holding, there is everything to be said for it. At any rate as regards the type of holdings which the right hon. Gentleman has mainly in mind there is nothing to be said against it. Nevertheless, the opposite principle has worked well in the past. It is the principle upon which the great mass of holdings in the Highlands and many of the Lowland counties were made, the holder working himself and getting his neighbours to come to his help; in fact the whole community working to build the house and the steading. That was the way in which the holdings were made all over Scotland in the old times and that is the way in which they are being constituted to-day in the Western Islands, very cheaply and very successfully, and in parts of the Western Highlands. I do not think it
  1920
  works well now in other parts of the country. In Caithness it does not work. People have lost the old habit of getting people to come and help in the building of the house. It was attempted after the War owing to great pressure to get holdings erected quickly, but it would be useless for the kind of holdings which the right hon. Gentleman has mainly in mind. It is far better, and here I agree with the Secretary of State, to have holdings equipped and to let people see them before they take them; but that has nothing to do with the question as to whether Land Act or Agricultural Holdings Act tenure should be the tenure for these holdings. That has been done in the past, and it can be done in the future, on the basis of Land Act tenure.
  So with the question of letting holdings on equipped rents. There is a disadvantage in that system as you remove a big incentive to the tenant to keep his holding in repair. He has no longer to do the repairs, and therefore it is left a good deal to the landlord, in this case the State, to carry on, with improvements for which the tenant cannot look forward to compensation. But, again, this has nothing to do with the controversy between Land Act tenure and Agricultural Holdings Act tenure. It is true that the Nairne Committee devoted nearly all their criticism of Land Act tenure to the letting of bare land to applicants for holdings after the War, on which the holders had to erect buildings and steadings out of money which they got by borrowing from the Board of Agriculture when prices were high. As prices fell the effect of the whole transaction was ruinous in many cases and great difficulties have arisen from that fact. But here again it is no essential feature of Land Act tenure or Agricultural Holdings Act tenure. Holders can be, and have been in large numbers, settled on an equipped rent basis, which I agree in a great many cases has great practical advantages, but under Land Act tenure.
  What then are the essential characteristics of Land Act tenure of which the new holders will be deprived under the Government scheme, and which we wish to preserve. They are three, security of tenure, compensation for improvements on the basis of their value to an incom-

  1921
  ing tenant, and fair rents. New tenants are to be deprived of all these rights; and against that we protest. The first of the Land Acts under which these rights were given was the Crofters Act of 1886, which gave the small tenant security of tenure to the extent that he was entitled to remain there, he and his heirs, for ever if he chose to do so. The fair rent was fixed under that Act not by the landlord or an arbitrator, but by a statutory body, the Crofters Commission, which fixed the rent on what belonged truly as opposed to legally to the landlord. In law, of course, whatever is built on the soil accresces to the owner. The Act also provided that the small man should get compensation for his improvements. In 1911 this system was extended to smallholders who farm less than 50 acres or pay less than £50 per year rent, and on this structure various other Acts were passed, including the important Acts of 1019 and 1931. So there is a steady stream of legislation directed to that end.
  The Government's proposal constitutes an important departure from this historic development of Scottish land legislation, a departure for which no adequate explanation has been offered to the House. For the first time the Government are depriving smallholders of statutory rights higherto accorded to them, and are offering the inferior rights under the Agricultural Holdings Act. Why is this being done? None of the arguments in favour of purchase as against scheduling, of the equipment of holdings before entry, equipped rents, touch the point, because whether the Government's view on these subsidiary points is right or wrong it can find expression under the Land Acts. The question remains, and I press the right hon. Gentleman for an answer, what is the public advantage for which new tenants are being compelled to forego their rights of fair rent, compensation for improvements and security of tenure?
  It may be asked in what respect will the rights of the new tenants be inferior to those of existing smallholders. In the first place there is the fundamental issue of this proposal, that a tenant's rights instead of being statutory will be defined in the lease. What will be the terms of the lease? On that, the House wants more information, and I ask the right hon.
  1922
  Gentleman to give it. What will be the tenant's rights under the lease? The right hon. Gentleman spoke of some standard form of lease; let us know what is in the lease. The amount of the rent must vary according to the character of the holdings, but what are the tenants' rights to be under the lease in regard to the fixation of rent, security of tenure and compensation for improvements?
  Will the tenant, for example, be bound for seven years under his lease or will he be able to throw up his tenancy at any time, as a landholder can under the Land Acts? Will the Department of Agriculture be bound to let him have his holding in perpetuity at a rent fixed by the Land Courts every seven years, or will the Department have the right to determine the lease? Will the continuation of the lease at the end of the seven years' period be at the tenant's option or at the mutual option of the Department and the tenant? Will the new holder enjoy any rights of bequest, and lastly, and by no means the least important of these questions, will the new holder's rights to compensation be restricted to those defined in the Agricultural Holdings Acts? That would be the gravest misfortune of all. The ordinary smallholder is a practical, hard-working man, with little time and even less opportunity for studying the intricacies of Acts of Parliament, even when they touch his own interests. Nor does he employ, as hon. Members do when they take an ordinary lease, an agent to protect his interests. He cannot afford it, he is busy from daylight to dusk working on his small plot of land. If he is under the Land Acts the State and the land court watch over him and see that he is fairly treated and properly compensated for the result of his labours, in so far as they have added to the value of his holding. In practice, therefore, if the landholder finds that his holding wants draining or reclamation or additional buildings or more fences, he does the work, and at the end of the time he goes to the land court and says, "This is the work I have done," the land court values it at its value to an incoming tenant and it gives him whatever is due. But the new holders, if they are to be under the Agricultural Holdings Act, are only entitled to compensation within strictly

  1923
  defined limits, and only in so far as they are aware of and have observed the red tape formulae laid down in the Agricultural Holdings Act. Let us see what the Secretary of State said on this point on the Financial Resolution. He said:
  "The leaseholder, under the protection of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts, can make all but major improvements either without reference to the landlord or by giving simple notice to the landlord, and at his outgoing he is entitled to compensation for these improvements at their full value to an incoming tenant."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1934; col. 1167, Vol. 287.]
  With great respect I must offer to the House a different and, I am afraid, even a contrary opinion. I assert, and invite contradiction of the statement, that under the Agricultural Holdings Acts a tenant gets compensation only for removal of obstacles such as bracken and boulders, for manures and improvement of the soil of all kinds, and for temporary pasture. Every other improvement, such as adding to buildings, making roads and fences, making market gardens and doing drainage, requires prior notice and often prior consent under pain of forfeiture of compensation.
  I ask the House to look at the First Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1931. In Part I of that Schedule there are nine categories of improvements, for all of which, before the work is begun, the tenant must obtain the prior consent of the landlord in writing, without which he receives no compensation whatever. What are those categories? The making of gardens, the planting of orchards or fruit bushes, protecting young fruit trees, making of embankments and sluices against floods; the erection, alteration or enlargement of buildings. The very first is the erection, alteration or enlargement of buildings. So the new holders will have no claim whatever to any compensation for any such improvements unless they can wring from the Department—which will be pre-occupied with its obligations to the Treasury to show a three per cent. profit on the groups of holdings—written consent to these improvements.
  I ask the House to look at Part II of the same Schedule, improvements which must be notified to the landlord before they are begun. They include the provision of electrical equipment other than
  1924
  moveable fittings and appliances. The Secretary of State made great play in his speech on the Financial Resolution with the improving spirit of the smallholder whom he visited, who had electrical appliances on his eight or nine acre holding. Then there are the repair or renewal of embankments and sluices against floods, the reclaiming of waste land, the making or removal of permanent fences, roads and bridges and drainage. Drainage is one of the improvements which require notice, and the new holders will have no compensation unless they give such notice. The ordinary thing is that a smallholder goes to a field to work on the land and prepares it for a crop. He notices a patch which is wet and which can be improved by putting in a drain here or there. But let him beware. Before he takes any steps to do that let him go to his library and get down this book, and let him look up the First Schedule, Part II, and he will find that unless he solemnly sits down and writes a notice to his landlord he will forfeit all claims to compensation.
  Again, if he wants an embankment or sluice to protect him against floods he must get the consent of his landlord under Part I of the Schedule. If he wants to repair a sluice or embankment he must give notice, and if he has only given notice when he ought to have obtained consent his claim for compensation vanishes. Turn next to Part III of the Schedule. Here are the improvements which the tenant can carry out for himself without asking consent or without giving notice. There are 11 of them. They all fall into those three classes which I have mentioned—manuring, improvement of soil with chalk or lime, removal of obstacles and temporary pasture. Even here let him beware of legal pitfalls, because there is one exception that I have not mentioned, one other category. It is repairs to buildings. It is under Part III of the Schedule headed: "Improvements in respect of which consent of, or notice to landlords is not required." Item No. 30 is:
  "Repairs to buildings, being buildings necessary for the proper cultivation or working of the holding, other than repairs which the tenant is himself under an obligation to execute."
  Let him beware again. He must read on:
  "Provided that the tenant, before beginning to execute any such repairs, shall

  1925
  give to the landlord notice in writing of his intention, together with particulars of such repairs, and shall not execute the repairs unless the landlord fails to execute them within a reasonable time after receiving such notice."
  Yet these things come under the heading, "Improvements in respect of which consent of or notice to landlords is not required." These are some of the difficulties with which tenants who are under agricultural holdings tenure are faced. Most of the tenants will be deterred by all these obstacles and conundrums from making these improvements at all. Those who do execute them may well find at the end of the day that they will fall to the Department without compensation to the holders at all. Contrast their position with that of the man who holds under the Land Acts tenure, who requires no consent from the proprietor, who requires to give no notice to the proprietor, who just does from day to day what it seems to be his interest to do, and who receives compensation from the Land Court without worry or bother or forms or formulae for any values which he has added to the holding.
  It may be asked, do farmers, in practice, suffer from failing to get adequate compensation under the Agricultural Holding Acts. I answer "undoubtedly." Many tenants who have spent much money and labour in effecting genuine improvements have been deprived of any compensation on way-going, and the improvement has accrued to the landlord as a windfall because there has been failure on the part of the tenant to notify him or obtain his consent.
  I put this question to a man who earns his livelihood in connection with the management of land. I asked him what number of claims were lost through failure to observe the necessary forms under the Agricultural Holdings Acts. He said that in quantity, though not in value, he thought 50 per cent. of the claims were barred. I do not make myself responsible for that figure, but it is clear that a large number are barred. On the whole, however, the grievance is not very great, because the majority of landlords deal fairly with their tenants. They either make some offer to the tenant or, if there is a dispute, it goes to arbitr-
  1926
  ation. But a Government Department cannot do that. They are bound by statute and by their obligations to the Treasury. The Secretary of State in the Debate on the Financial Resolution said that land settlement was a purely business proposition. If this is interpreted by the Department in a narrow spirit, woe betide the smallholder who has neglected to carry out his statutory obligations. Whatever the statute gives to the waygoing tenant the Department of Agriculture will pay, but where the waygoing tenant has not fulfilled the statutory conditions to the letter, they will reject his claim.
  I give this illustration to the Secretary of State. There is a farm in Caithness the name of which I will mention to him privately if he wishes, but I am sure his Department knows of it, because it is a very recent case. In the case of this farm, on arbitration the Department stood firm on the Agricultural Holdings Act and refused compensation for all improvements for which notice had not been given. The man who gave me that information added that in his opinion these were improvements for which a private landlord would have been willing to make an offer. This is the Department to whose tender mercies, tempered by Treasury control, we are going to commit all these new holders. We are going to hand over these tenants, under the conditions I have described, to the unfettered bureaucratic control of a State landlord who is pledged to Parliament to exact from them rents, higher in relation to the cost of equipment than any landlord in Britain is able to exact to-day. That is the worst and most reactionary type of Socialism.
  The Land Acts gave freedom to the tenant. They gave him the greatest possible incentive to put his whole zeal and resources into the improvement of his holding on the basis of security of tenure and compensation for improvements. It is admitted even by the Nairne Committee that the Land Acts have changed the face of the Highlands. Let the Government hold to the Land Acts, with the statutory right of the tenant to appeal to the Land Courts—a statutory right and not merely one conferred in the lease—with fair rents, freedom in improvement, compensation for improvements which add to the value of the

  1927
  holding and security of tenure. So much for the question of security and compensation.
  I come to the third aspect of this problem, the question of rent, and here again it is important to have further and more precise information as to the Government's policy. There was a great deal of confusion of thought during the Debate on the Financial Resolution as between two conceptions of land settlement. There was my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) who wanted part-time holdings for industrial workers on the Dutch, Belgian and German systems. As I said then, that is a view with which I have every sympathy. It is a most attractive view. It has been adopted in Germany with great success, with the object of doing what the Germans call making their industrial workers crisis-resisting, so that when hard times come they have their house and their bit of garden ground, on which they can eke out a pretty good livelihood, with the help of such unemployment allowances as they may be entitled to.
  The hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scrymgeour-Wedderburn), who made such an interesting speech on that occasion, leaned obviously to this interpretation of the Government's policy, and informed us that models had been prepared in the Scottish Office of houses similar to those let at 15s. a week in urban areas. This fits in very well with a scheme of constituting crisis-resisting holdings for well-paid industrial workers, who, if they have the misfortune to lose their employment, can continue to draw unemployment benefit and to look, if necessary, further for the payment of economic rents, to public assistance committees or to the new Unemployment Assistance Board, because that is what people are doing now who are paying 15s. a week in rent for their houses. When hard times come, they have somewhere to go to get help in paying such rents, but is that what is in the mind of the Secretary of State? Is he constituting part-time holdings, or holdings out of which a man and his family are expected to get their living; and if he is constituting some part-time holdings for industrial workers and some whole-time holdings, roughly how many of one and how many of the other?
  1928
  I think the answer to these questions is important, but even in so far as these holdings are to be part-time holdings, I do not think the analogy of the hon. Member for West Renfrew is altogether happy, because if whereas they should happen to be constituted in the park of Holyrood house or on Glasgow Green, you would expect high rents, the Government have said that these holdings would be erected 10 or 15 miles from a town, and no industrial worker will long continue to pay £24 of rent, plus £l or £2 of rates, plus maintenance and repairs, plus transport charges. What is going to be done about rates? Even under de-rating there will be a good deal to pay on £24 of rent. Presumably the occupier will have to pay the occupier's rates in addition to his rent, and presumably the rent will have to be such as will pay the owner's rates too, and such as to enable the Department of Agriculture to recover the owner's rates from the tenant, or else how will the Department show their 3 per cent. profit to the Treasury? Have they agreed with the Treasury, will the right hon. Gentleman tell me, that the owner's rates are to be a deduction from the 3 per cent. profit? As a scheme for part-time working it may, by its novelty, be attractive, as an escape from slum areas, for a few years, but it will not last long, and it will prove a costly failure.
  If we are to regard this as a scheme for land settlement on wholetime holdings, what are we to think of the development of the ideas of the Secretary of State on the economics of the problem? He starts sceptical of the value of smallholdings at all, but he finishes by believing that a small holder can pay £3 or £4 an acre in rent, plus rates, plus maintenance and repairs. When the noble Lord the Member for Perth (Lord Scone) says that this is a somewhat high rent per acre for the small holder to pay compared with the large farmer, he says, "But remember what a fine house he is going to have, with a kitchen, bathroom and three rooms." But what has that to do with the yield that can be extracted from the agricultural unit. Nothing. If you put a palace on a smallholding it will not make it much easier—it will make it more difficult—to get a living out of it.
  Smallholdings are not supposed to be so economic as large farms, and to com-

  1929
  plete the absurdity—for it really is nothing less—the farmers with much smaller rents, and I should have thought with as good houses as these new houses, are falling in nearly every county in Scotland into bankruptcy. It is ludicrous to suppose these small holders will be able to carry these burdens. The Government are putting forward this scheme in open defiance of the facts of the agricultural situation. It has generally been agreed by agricultural economists that no landlord, even in times far more prosperous than these, can look for more than ½ per cent. on his outlay in creating a farm. Does the Secretary of State dispute that? How many landlords in Scotland are receiving anything like 2½ per cent. to-day 3 Few, if any, and the Secretary of State and the Department of Agriculture know that perfectly well. When they go and buy a farm for one of these smallholding schemes, will they value it on the cost of erecting the buildings less depreciation? Certainly they will not. They will buy on so many years' purchase of the rent actually paid, and if they offer for equipped farms the amount of the insurance on the buildings, they will have hundreds of farms all over Scotland to choose from.
  Few if any landlords are getting rents for an equipped farm equal to 3 per cent. or 2½ per cent. on their expenditure in equipping them, and the Secretary of State is ignoring the lessons of experience in attempting to standardise rent on the cost of equipment alone. I would ask the Secretary of State if this new principle is to be acted upon when renewal, repairs, replacements and improvements have to be provided for. Is the cost to be added to the rent on the 3 per cent. basis, or will the Government at that point abandon the attempt to secure 3 per cent. on their total outlay? The only sound basis for the rent of smallholdings, as all experience has hitherto shown, is the assessment of the value of the buildings for the holding as an agricultural unit, and that assessment should be carried out not by the officials of the Department as hitherto, but by the Land Court.
  The fundamental fallacy of the proposed method of fixing rents is that the Government have adopted the cost of construction basis which bears no necessary relation to the agricultural rent which the subject can afford to pay—not that the
  1930
  Secretary of State will not get his tenants. Men drawn by the natural optimism of human nature, by the lure of a new adventure with a nice tidy home and pleasant surroundings, and driven by unemployment and the dislike of life in the towns, will take a big risk. They will rely upon a sympathetic public opinion to see that they are not made to suffer for the Secretary of State's miscalculations, and will troop into the Department's offices with their applications. The difficulties of the Secretary of State will start in three or four years' time, when he will find himself between a deep sea of smallholders floundering in debt and arrears and the devil of the Treasury holding him to his 3 per cent. bargain.
  The Secretary of State rightly attaches importance to getting costs down. In speaking on the Financial Resolution I said, referring to certain answers which he had given to Parliamentary questions which I put, that his achievements in that respect were disappointing; but I tell the House frankly that I had overlooked a letter which I received only a day or two before that Debate took place, arising out of a somewhat long correspondence which I had had with the Secretary of State on this very subject. That letter shows clearly that the cost of constituting holdings has now been substantially reduced. The Secretary of State now estimates that the cost of constituting a holding of 47½ acres—the average initial net capital cost—would be £1,937, and the average valued net cost £791. In the case of a small-sized holding of 7¾ acres, the average initial net capital cost would be £765 and the average valued net cost only £239. These reductions are, of course, mainly due to the fall in prices and interest rates, but it would be ungenerous of us to withhold our congratulations, which I gladly offer, to the Secretary of State and the officials of the Department for the energy and resource which they have shown in taking advantage of these favourable factors. The truth is that never have conditions been so favourable to land settlement as they are to-day, and they may never be so favourable again in our lifetime. It is the more deplorable that the Government should be throwing away this magnificent opportunity on a paltry scheme of 300 holdings a year.
  In his speech on the Financial Resolution the Secretary of State challenged

  1931
  comparison with the achievements of previous Governments. Let me take up his challenge. He said that the number of holdings created in the great effort after the War was about 275 per year. Under this scheme, if they could secure the land, he said, and the tenants which they aimed at getting, they hoped to create 333 holdings this year, or 1,000 holdings in three years. What are the facts about the previous efforts at land settlement? In 1921 there were 415 new holdings created; in 1922, 435; in 1923, 322. In those three years, 1920–21–22, there were 1,077 holdings created, and, what is more, 701 enlargements. In the three years 1921–22–23 there were 1,172 holdings created and, in addition, 719 enlargements. In the years 1922–23–24 there were 1,026 holdings created and in addition 538 enlargements. The Secretary of State's scheme will produce less even than in any of those periods which I have quoted. Let me ask another question of the right hon. Gentleman, on the subject of enlargements. There is no form of land settlement which is more important to the Highlands than enlargements. We want to get enlargements particularly of sheep outruns. Will those enlargements be of the order of from 200 to 300 a year, as they were in those years with which the Secretary of State invited comparison, in addition to the 300 new holdings which he proposes to constitute every year?
  These achievements which I have quoted, and which are greater than those which the Secretary of State contemplates to-day, were made at a time when costs were from 50 per cent. to 70 per cent. higher than they are now. If land settlement can be carried through on a basis of 3 per cent. profit to the State, the Secretary of State ought to be talking not of 300 but of 3,000 holdings per year. The comparison which the Secretary of State has invited with the achievements of previous Governments is not to the advantage of the present Government's programme. Even if it were, why should the Government rest content with just managing to equal the achievement of some previous Government? The country expects something better than that of the Government, with their great majority and with public opinion demanding action, particularly in the direction
  1932
  of home development and land settlement. With the unique opportunity created by the low level of costs, the Government should be planning land settlement with greater vigour and accuracy than we can find in these proposals. They should be bringing forward something commensurate with the resolve of the Scottish nation to re-populate its countryside.
  10.37 p.m.
  Commander COCHRANE: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), in the cause of his speech, suggested that in his view part-time holdings would prove a costly failure to the State.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must allow me to correct that. I said I was in favour of them, and I said that I agreed with the remarks made by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) on a previous occasion, if it were intended to erect part-time holdings on that basis.
  Commander COCHRANE: I think that I am within the recollection of the House as to what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said. I believe he said that if this scheme were used to provide part-time holdings, they would prove a costly failure to the State. I was going to quote what he said on a previous occasion, but if I am to understand that I have not correctly taken up his point of view, I will not do so, because naturally I accept his correction. In another part of his speech he dealt with land tenure, and he drew a lurid picture of what might happen to the holder of a five-acre holding, because if the holder wished to get possession, he would have to inform the landlord before the construction of bridges or roads. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was doing a little less than justice to the intelligence of this House. We are dealing with very small holdings in this Bill, and to say that it is a hardship on the occupier that he should inform the landlord before he constructs bridges or roads, is not relevant to the question before the House. I would like to go back to the question of part-time holdings, which is of tremendous importance.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: I understand that the Bill is not confined to small holdings. The Secretary of State, in his speech last

  1933
  night said—and in fact this is in the White Paper—that all settlement, including Highland settlement and the fairly large settlement of family farms, is to be conducted on the same basis.
  Commander COCHRANE: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman might be correct, and to the extent to which he is correct I am wrong. About that we need not dispute. Before I come to the subject of part-time holdings, which I say is of some importance, I should like to ask a question in regard to the purpose for which this fund can be used. The Secretary of State will, I think, be aware that at Old Kilpatrick there have been very interesting schemes in existence for some time. The first was one of plots of about 10 to the acre, of which there were over 100. About a year ago, with the assistance of the Board of Agriculture, it was possible to start one-acre plots, of which at present there are 10 or a dozen. But it has been impossible to stock those plots. There is one instance of a man who had a plot of one-tenth of an acre, and who has been able to get one of these one-acre plots, on which he wishes to rear poultry. He has been unemployed for some years, and has no financial resources of his own. Indeed, in this particular case, he started to stock his one-acre holding with a clutch of 14 eggs given to him by a friend. He then made himself an incubator, with a lamp made out of old tins, and he is now trying to stock his holding, but hon. Members will appreciate that it is going to be a long and weary process. I wish to ask my right hon. Friend whether it is possible in cases such as this, of unemployed men who have now either small plots of a tenth of an acre or one-acre plots, to help them to stock their holdings, so that they may as soon as possible do something to support themselves?
  My second point is a similar one. When it comes to choosing occupiers for these new holdings, will my right hon. Friend undertake that these men, who have proved by their personal exertions their desire to be holders, shall have an opportunity? Of course, I am not asking him to pledge himself to any particular individual or anything of that sort, but I would beg him, in view of the great exertions which these people have made, to give an assurance that they will not be ruled out merely on the ground that they
  1934
  have not the amount of cash which is generally considered necessary. If I may put it in this way, I think that the will to make a success of a holding, which these people have proved that they have in abundance, ought to be taken into account as equivalent to £100 or £150 in cash; and I hope it will be possible to do that.
  I would like now to come back to the question of part-time holdings, or rather, to the question what is the purpose of this Bill. I think we must consider it in relation to the general condition of things in Scotland. We have a depopulated countryside, and we have overcrowded towns. Those are the two principal factors which must be taken into account in considering what we should try to do under a proposal of this sort. There is the further factor that, while our views may differ as to the extent to which the introduction of machinery actually throws people out of employment, there cannot, I think, be any doubt that the introduction of high-power machinery has the inevitable effect of increasing intermittent or irregular employment. I would like very much to know whether the Government, with this scheme, are merely trying to continue a long series of attempts to create agricultural smallholdings, or whether they have in mind something greater and, I think, more useful.
  If these are to be purely agricultural holdings, certainly after a period we shall be 1,000 holdings better off, but I think we shall have lost a great opportunity. These holdings, as I understand it, are to be created near towns, and, if they are to be purely agricultural holdings, I think that, instead of doing anything to solve the general problem with which we are faced in Scotland, they may tend to make it even more difficult of solution. If you set up these purely agricultural holdings, as it were, in a belt round a town, you are saying in effect to industrialists employed in the town, "That is your area. Stay in your crowded conditions. It is true that we are setting up smallholdings round the town, but they are nothing to do with you. They are purely agricultural." I firmly hold the view that the rigid demarcation between agriculture and other productive industries has been one of the greatest curses of our country for the last 100 years or more, and I believe that in this Bill there is a great opportunity to do something

  1935
  to break down that rigid division. If it were a fact that in productive industry-to-day there was full time and regular employment, I, of course, agree that the argument that I am putting forward would have so much less weight, but I do not think that anyone would suggest that that is the condition that we have to-day.
  There is the other consideration that the amount of land available is limited. I am not now thinking merely of land close to the towns, because I do not think it is, for the purpose of marketing agricultural produce, necessary to limit yourselves within the immediate vicinity of a town, but, if you take the whole of the Lowlands, and such part of the Highlands as are similar to the Lowlands, there is only a limited amount of land suitable for intensive cultivation. The problem with which we are faced is, in view of the conditions which we know to exist, how we can make the best use of that land. In productive industry to-day it is exceedingly difficult to give regular whole-time employment. In agriculture it has been difficult in the past, but if we set up these purely agricultural holdings, we shall not be employing the largest possible number of people in the production of foodstuffs, which in itself is desirable, and at the same time we shall be refusing to do anything for those people engaged in productive industry whose need to-day is so very great.
  We have all recently read moving accounts of the state of affairs in Durham, which is called a derelict area. We have areas of that kind also in Scotland, though perhaps not to the same extent. I notice that, when a solution is put forward for a derelict area, it is suggested that new industries should come in. An appeal is made even for small industries to come in. I think that is obviously the only way out of the difficulty. If we are to prevent a recurrence of the conditions which now obtain in Durham, is it not clear that we must prevent the population of any particular part of the country being dependent for their whole livelihood on a single industry? If that is to be so, it is essential that we should enable as many people as possible to have a share in the productive industry of agriculture. I mention that for this reason. Recently the Government have intimated to the steel and iron industries that they should reorganise. No conditions have
  1936
  been laid down, but conditions were suggested in this proposed reorganisation which would lead not only to a centralisation of the production of raw steel but also to a corresponding centralisation of those far more numerous industries which are dependent on the raw or semi-finished steel. Then all the efforts of my right hon. Friend would be entirely useless, because instead of dispersing our industry and giving our people an opportunity to be engaged, as they must in these days be, in part-time productive industry and agriculture, we should be making that state of affairs more difficult. That is why I have mentioned this question of the derelict areas and the reorganisation of the steel industry.
  I would appeal to my right hon. Friend to give an indication of the intention of the Government in this matter. I hope that it will be possible for the Government to say that in their view we must do all we can to give as many people as possible, whether they be engaged in productive industry or occupied in any other way, an opportunity of obtaining some part of their income from agriculture or from some other source which is not governed by the same economic circumstances as those which govern the source from which they get the main part of their livelihood. That is of enormous importance. I believe that this Bill gives an opportunity for giving effect to that policy; I believe that the country is willing to consider such a policy, and I most sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give some encouragement to the view that this is the intention of the Government.
  10.53 p.m.
  Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: I am very glad to hear support for the suggestions I offered to the House a few days ago from my hon. Friend on this side and my right hon. Friend opposite. The present scheme does not, of course, meet at the present time—nor is it intended to meet—the need for part-time holdings. In my previous remarks I was stating my view on the general position of these small-holders. Facing, as one must face, not only the possibility but the certainty of the increase of leisure and the shortening of hours it is inevitable that we should tackle this problem of how to create constructive leisure. This, I contend,

  1937
  is one method: by providing these part-time holdings.
  During the Debate on the Financial Resolution I ventured, in about four minutes—which was all the time available—to express approval of the general principles of the Bill. Since then I have made it my business to examine with great care some of the actual holdings which my right hon. Friend has made in the last year or two—some of those, in fact, with which this Bill deals. I come back to this Debate more than ever convinced not only of the necessity for this Measure but of its full justification. Six miles from a great industrial centre I have seen, in the course of the last few days, holdings already created and others being created. I have examined the men's accounts and have seen their methods of cultivation. I wish that all hon. and right hon. Gentlemen could see those conditions for themselves. Especially do I wish that English Members of Parliament could go there, because, sooner or later, England will have to face and conquer this same problem. We in Scotland are acting merely as a pilot engine. The matter has to be approached in a far bigger way in England in the near future. If hon. Members could see those holdings now and see their success they would not be content with speaking in terms of hundreds; it would be a question of thousands, and tens of thousands. I am putting a case which is not very dissimilar from that of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), but which, I hope, is a little more gracious to the Government and recognises more readily the big steps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has taken.
  On these smallholdings of five, six and seven acres homes are being built for the men and their wives and families, where their children can live under comfortable conditions and enjoy a healthy life, and where they can all create within themselves the precious gift of independence which it is not possible to find so easily in the towns. But apart from that these men are actually making a profit. I know of this, because I went into the facts and fully satisfied myself. Men who were idle two years ago are now working. Families, huddled to-
  1938
  gether in town tenements in 1931, are now living in the countryside. To meet these people and to see their holdings has been one of the most cheering experiences I have had for a good many years, and I have returned more than ever convinced of the soundness of the general objects of this proposal.
  But there are two matters in regard to the Bill on which I feel less satisfaction, and to which I should have referred previously had there been time. The first is with regard to the scope of the Bill. It is intended to create 1,000 holdings in the next three years. With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, and recognising the fact that he has broken through the walls of prejudice in the Treasury and elsewhere, 1,000 holdings in the present conditions of the country are quite inadequate for Scotland. I say that in the most helpful spirit. Yesterday I saw settlements of between 30 and 40 smallholdings of this kind. These smallholders are literally besieged nearly every day of the week by miners, artisans, and industrial workers from towns in the neighbourhood asking how such holdings could be obtained. I am advised that in that single district alone there are at least 500 men who would take holdings to-morrow if they were available. That is in one district alone. One knows that on the shelves of the Scottish Office there are some 5,000 unsatisfied applications for holdings. I say that there are 10,000 men in Scotland at this time with capital and experience ready to take on holdings if they were there for them to occupy. Why confine this scheme to 300 a year, or a thousand in three years? We are not justified in saying that we must go slow to see how this particular scheme is going to work. The Department of Agriculture in Scotland has been working this scheme for two years. It began during the regime of my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland. It has been working for 24 months and working exceedingly well.
  How much more test do we want? How many more years are we going to wait until we reach a state when we are automatically or sufficiently satisfied that it is a success? The right hon. Gentleman must know as well as all of us that it is now that these holdings are needed. It is now that money is cheap, building is cheap, and land is cheap. I agree

  1939
  with my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland that such an opportunity may not occur again. In the most helpful and constructive spirit I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that now is the time to prepare a scheme for something greater and not for a comparatively small number of holdings like this.
  The Secretary of State said that no vast scheme of small holdings had ever been a success. That may be right or wrong. But he cannot call this a vast scheme. I know that it is a very good scheme and I recognise it. I have expressed more than once my gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has done, and my recognition of the advance he has made, but I do ask him to do more than he is doing in this scheme. In Germany I understand they are talking about settling 4,000,000 people. That is a vast scheme. A thousand holdings is not a vast scheme. I should like the regime of my right hon. Friend to be more successful than that of any of his predecessors, not only because I am on the side which supports him but because I believe that he has this problem at heart. I want the Government which I am supporting to be a great success. There is a magnificent opportunity now to do something really big. It is an opportunity which no previous Government has ever had. The conditions are infinitely more favourable. We have got over the original financial crisis, we have buttressed the walls, and I ask my right hon. Friend to take his courage in both hands and to instruct his Department to make plans for the creation of 5,000 new holdings in the next five years. I am certain that I speak for the whole House when I say that a proposal of that kind would obtain the vigorous support of the House. There might be a few critics like my hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Lord Scone), but the House would carry such a scheme, because we want an imaginative and courageous policy at this time.
  The second point is in regard to the machinery of this scheme. First, about the houses. The hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scrymgeour-Wedderburn) described the new houses as excellent, attractive and very fine. I understand that he was talking after a visit to the
  1940
  model houses in the Scottish Office. I have not had an opportunity of seeing those model houses, but I have visited new houses that are actually being built under the scheme of smallholdings. They are very attractive from the outside; they look nice; but I wish they were more commodious. You are charging for them 3 per cent. on the capital cost, and yet they are definitely inferior to those built on smallholdings under the other landholder system at the present moment. They are less convenient, and more cramped for space. I suppose that they are up to the standard required by the public health authority, but I should say only just up to the standard, and I hear that one local authority is at least questioning the standard of these new houses. Why should they be below the standard of houses on other smallholdings across the road, and below the Department's own standard? I understand that there will be a saving of £40 or £50: is it worth it? Ought not the Government, instead of being on the border-line of public health standards, to be above it, in advance of the standards? They should set an example to all local authorities in Scotland. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who I know is anxious for the success of this scheme, will give it further examination and see if he cannot remove what is a blot on it at the moment.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Member, but his speech is interesting. When he was visiting these houses built under the Agricultural Holdings Act and under the Land Act, did he inquire the rents?
  Mr. STEWART: I did, and I can give them to the right hon. and gallant Member.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: Can the hon. Member give them now?
  Mr. STEWART: I have not the figures with me. I do not think that it affects my point. I am not competent to speak of the relations of the Scottish Office with the Treasury, although in years gone by one came to the conclusion that they were not very happy, but I wonder whether it is not possible to obtain for these smallholding houses some measure of the subsidy which is given to other kinds of houses. This new smallholdings settlement scheme is different from anything

  1941
  in the past. Other schemes have all been subsidised by the State as to land and equipment. This scheme is different, and it is not apparently subsidised to the extent of a single halfpenny.
  Sir G. COLLINS: It is subsidised to a degree.
  Mr. STEWART: My right hon. Friend misunderstands me. You are here charging the smallholders 3 per cent. on the total capital cost. That is going to give a clear return to the State. I cannot see the Treasury losing a single halfpenny here. It is a new departure. In these special circumstances I wonder whether we cannot obtain for these houses some part of the Scottish housing subsidy. I cannot understand why a roadman's cottage on one side of the highway should receive a subsidy and the smallholder's cottage on the other side should receive none. You are dealing with precisely the same class of person. I imagine that if some kind of subsidy could be obtained it would just about equal the extra cost that would be needed to bring these houses up to the old and good standard.
  As to tenure, again I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not think that I am speaking in any unfriendly spirit. I am speaking with the sole intention of making this scheme not only popular but workable and successful. This new holdings scheme is to be on the basis of the Agricultural Holdings Act. When the Opposition objected to that the other night the Secretary of State said, "Oh, yes, but the holders will have recourse to the Land Court at the end of seven years." Again, with great respect, that is not any answer. Any tenant farmer in Scotland can go to the Land Court, if he wishes, under the 1931 Act. So that there is nothing new, no extension at all. The Bill is only offering what the present Agricultural Holdings Act offers now to any agricultural tenant.
  Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY: The argument on this side was not that this was not new, but that the tenant was to be put in an inferior position.
  Mr. STEWART: I have given some study to this problem as I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend has, but my contention is that under the Agricultural Holdings Act smallholders do not, and cannot, possibly obtain the rights they
  1942
  have under the Landholders Act. There is no answer to that proposition. The Land Court, if employed in that way, is going to act only as arbiter just as any unofficial arbiter would act. I cannot understand why the Secretary of State refuses to give these holders the old tenure. I wonder what is in his mind, what is behind his mind. I wonder why he chooses to reverse the legislation and the custom in Scotland for smallholders for the last 30 or 40 years.
  It is no use saying that the Nairne Committee recommended it. The only man on the Nairne Committee who knew anything about the smallholdings system reported emphatically against a change of the system. Therefore the Nairne Committee means nothing. The suggestion that this landholders' tenure is difficult to work and is not understood by the smallholders in Scotland is so much nonsense. There is nothing difficult or obscure about it. If you go to one of these smallholders he does not talk in terms of two rents and three rents, and so forth. He simply states the amount, and there is no difficulty about the matter. I denounced the Majority Report of the Nairne Committee when it was published, and I denounce it now with still more emphasis.
  What objection can there be to applying the old system to these new proposals? It cannot be with regard to the fixing of the first rent, because it is the Department of Agriculture which fixes the first rent, and the Land Court has nothing to do with it. Nor can it be with regard to security. It cannot be that the old landholders' system is going to give the men too much security, because the Undersecretary assured us that those holders would not be ejected in any circumstances. Neither can it be that the landholders system prevents the eviction of the incompetent tenant. Under the old system you could and still can, eject an incompetent tenant any time by applying to the Land Court and proving your case. It cannot be with regard to compensation for improvements, or the fixing of the second rent or the third rent. We have been assured that there is going to be the right of recourse to the Land Court. On no one of these grounds—and I cannot imagine any other—is it possible to defend this departure from the established

  1943
  tenure of Scottish smallholders. Why is the system altered? What are the real grounds for doing so? The old system is an admirable one and it took years of effort to get it. In many respects the Scottish landholders system is the envy of the world. It is the envy of many tenant farmers in England and in Scotland too. It provides three indispensable conditions of good farming—security of tenure, fair rent and fair compensation for improvements. Because of these three indispensable conditions it provides the most important incentive to improving farming, improving the home, and improving the economic conditions of the man and his family. The predecessors of my right hon. Friend spent some of the best years of their lives trying to get this right for the smallholders of Scotland. Do not let my right hon. Friend do anything which will cause their efforts to have been in vain. Do not let the National Government spoil its reputation by breaking the cherished right of poor men, who are fine citizens of Scotland.
  11.19 p.m.
  Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I wish to associate myself strongly with the protest which has been made against this Bill being taken at such a late hour. The most appropriate comment that can be made on the position is that here we are at almost half-past eleven o'clock, still asking for information as to the purport of the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for Dumbartonshire (Commander Cochrane) made that the purport of his speech, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) asked various questions on the same point. I also wish to ask a few questions, because it is a very regrettable state of affairs that on this, one of the major Measures of the Session, promised in the King's Speech, we are still not knowing what is intended under the Bill. The Bill itself is the most innocent-looking little Measure that can possibly be imagined, a Bill simply for paying a certain sum by the Treasury into a certain fund, but we know that behind that innocent little Bill there lies a very great departure of policy. Will the Secretary of State be good enough to tell us, as far as he can, in what respect this money will be applied
  1944
  to the various categories of holdings which we have been discussing? There is the family holding, in the Highlands; there is the part-time holding, to which the hon. Member for East Fife particularly referred; there is the smallholding of four or five acres in the neighbourhood of big towns; and then there will be the very important question of enlargements. In some parts of the Highlands the question of the enlargement of existing holdings is even more important than the creation of new holdings, and there is also this to be said about enlargements, that for the sum that is necessary for an enlargement the advantage in many cases is far greater than it would be if spent on the creation of a holding.
  I was very glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) speak so strongly on the contemplated change of tenure, and I would like to ask the Secretary of State if he will tell us what is really the reason for the change. I do not know if I am right, but I think I am, in believing that the right hon. Gentleman was in the Parliament which passed the 1911 Smallholders Act for Scotland, and he knows what a fight it was in those days to ensure the passage of the big programme of land settlement and land holdings and this question of land tenure, smallholders' tenure—how fights were carried on with another place—and I would ask him in all seriousness what is the reason for this change now. We know that it has not come from the farmers of Scotland. The National Farmers' Union themselves say they would like to see this system of tenure extended throughout the whole of Scotland, and we have seen by experience that the three great points which are the pivots, so to speak, of this tenure are those which have tended to make smallholdings in Scotland a success, because it is security of tenure and compensation for improvements, with a right to go to the land court to fix a fair rent, that bring out the very best there is in a man to make his holding a success. That being so, and that having been proved by a generation and more of experience, we really want to know some serious reason for the departure from that old procedure, and whether the right hon. Gentleman considers now that it would be more in the interests of the State or of the holdings; or is it because it is more easy for the Department? Those

  1945
  matters were gone into very thoroughly by my hon. Friend opposite, and he showed that there was absolutely no reason why the system of tenure to which we have been accustomed should not be continued.
  It is not a matter of the equipped holding. A great many people have an objection to equipped holdings, an objection which I have not got, and in some cases an equipped holding is undoubtedly the most suitable holding to put a new holder into. But that is no reason why the new holder of that equipped holding should not be in it with the rights of tenure that the land holders are accustomed to in Scotland. The Land Court as an arbiter, as a balancer in disputes between landlord and tenant, as an arbiter with unrivalled experience, commanding universal respect, is a big thing to be put on one side, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would regret if the uses of the Land Court were not availed of and his scheme suffered in consequence. It is true that he told us in his speech the other night that all right of access to the court and the right of compensation would be included in the lease, but he knows perfectly well that that is a different thing from a statutory right. He might include certain covenants to-day for one set of landholders which might not be included by his successor at a later date. The rights to which he referred were the rights of access to the Land Court and the rights of compensation under the Agricultural Holdings Act and not under the Smallholdings Act, where the rights are on a much higher scale.
  We press the right hon. Gentleman most strongly to give us some reason for this departure of policy. This matter has never been discussed in Scotland. It has been brought before the House of Commons before it has been realised in Scotland that there is this big departure in policy. We had a late Debate the other night on the Financial Resolution, and we are having a late Debate again to-night on the Second Beading of the Bill. I am sure that if this matter had been discussed in Scotland and it had been realised there what was the intention behind this Bill, we should have had a great many protests before now. As it is, the Government, without any reason
  1946
  given, are embarking on this new departure in spite of the advantages which we know accrue under the old system.
  The question of rent has been referred to. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the 3 per cent. to which he referred is to be calculated merely on the equipment of the farm or on the equipment plus the cost of the land. That is a matter which is not yet clear. In any event, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will drop this question of 3 per cent. right away. Once the Department gets it into its head that 3 per cent. is to be collected on the equipped cost of the holding, it will try and get it. There is no doubt about that, and I am not sure that it would not be a sort of obligation and a duty on the Department to do so. If the basis on which the holding is being farmed is that 3 per cent. is to be recovered, the Department may, where the tenant has given the necessary notice for compensation, act as an ordinary landlord, and it will be for the Department not to give way but to stand on their rights; and the Treasury would encourage them as the watchdogs of the taxpayers' money and try and get that 3 per cent. by hook or by crook.
  I beg the right hon. Gentleman to give up the idea of the 3 per cent. He will not get it in any event, and it is much better that he should drop the idea at once and see that the Department lays itself out not to collect the 3 per cent., but to make a success of these smallholdings and to see that there is as little friction and as little dispute as possible between them as landlords and the tenants. We know how easy it is for these disputes to arise when there are repairs or small additions to be made and questions of who is to do this and who that, and what is to be the cost. There, again, I hope the Department will get out of their minds that the 3 per cent. has got to be recovered. If they keep the 3 per cent. in their minds it will be a handicap to the success of the scheme. It is not a large scheme, only a very small one—some 300 holdings a year for three years, and that at a time when the whole nation is calling out for something on a very much bigger scale. The Secretary of State would get the backing of the whole House and the whole nation if he went in for something on a national scale. He said he was afraid

  1947
  of doing anything large, anything which savoured of being rash in land settlement. We do not want him to do anything like that, but, at the same time, to grapple with land settlement in a national manner. It will be a good thing if these 300 holdings are created, but the needs of the nation being what they are, and now that we have the advantage of cheap money I beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider land settlement not in terms of tens and hundreds but in terms of thousands.
  11.33 p.m.
  Lord SCONE: Were it not that I feel greatly concerned about this question I should not dream of inflicting myself on the House at this late hour, and I shall be considerably briefer than some of those who have already spoken. Before I make my main point I have one observation to address to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair). He has been grumbling about the lack of time, but whom has he to thank for that, except himself and other Liberals on this side of the House. He and another hon. Member occupied 50 minutes and 30 minutes respectively, and, without wishing to be in any way offensive to the right hon. Gentleman, I suggest that most of his speech was taken up with committee points.
  Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: I would call to the mind of the Noble Lord that while he occupied some 20 minutes in a previous Debate on the same subject I spent only four minutes.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: The point is not the length of an hon. Member's speeches but getting the subject thoroughly ventilated. There are important principles at stake and they ought not to be discussed in the middle of the night, but if the Government insist on taking this Order at a late hour I am not going to be deterred from putting my views before the House. They were not views on committee points but on questions of principle—this important question of the 3 per cent. profit, the question of rents, the question of security—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): The right hon. Gentleman has already addressed the House at very considerable length and has exhausted his right to speak, and he must not make another speech.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: On that point of Order. Is it not a fact that if an hon. Member makes a personal reference to another hon. Member and the latter gives way that the hon. Member is entitled to reply on that personal reference? It was only on that personal reference that I was replying, and I say they were not committee points but points of principle.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to reply that they were not Committee points, but it seemed to me that he was starting a second speech.
  Lord SCONE: I shall not discuss the actual value of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech. As to the observation made by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart), if he will consult the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see that I spoke not for 20 minutes, but for 10. If those who have raised these points could have their way, all the agriculturists in this country, including the smallholder, would have the disadvantages resulting from a Free Trade system. If the fiscal system advocated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland were still in operation, the tenants of these holdings would be bankrupt and starving within a year. I wish to make a point with regard to rent. With great respect to the Secretary of State, I feel that he has brushed aside my objections rather too lightly. He is trying to make out that it is all a question of a new house. That has nothing to do with the matter. These new landholders are not to make their living out of their houses, but out of their land. While I was in Scotland last weekend I worked out figures relating to our problems. At this late hour I am not going to deal with them in detail. They showed that if holdings similar to these were to be set up, the gross return, not the nett, would be roughly 1½ to 1¾ per cent. The nett rent, which is the equivalent of 3 per cent., which the Government hope to get, would be less than ¾ per cent. to 1 per cent. on all agricultural land. The Government expect to get 3 per cent. nett return. That means that, gross, it will have to be 4 per cent. or more, and that means rents up to £32 or £35 for the landholders, rents raised £5, £8, or even more. That is a factor which we cannot overlook, because it would undoubtedly inflict unfair burdens upon this new class of landholder which

  1949
  we are proposing to set up. I know that the Under-Secretary—who I regret is not on the bench at this moment—is almost fanatical in his devotion to the smallholder, and I respect him for that devotion, but his views are not shared by most of the agriculturists of Scotland.
  I do not want to do anything which will stand in the way of getting more people on to the land, but I must confess that this scheme seems to me to be of a rather perilous nature. Some people may ask: "Does it really matter if these holders have to pay £5, £10 or £15? It is an economic rent." Such sums may not be much to the large farmer for the year, but they are a great deal to the struggling smallholder. One must think not of £5, £10 or £15, but of 4s. or 6s. to the man who is likely to be earning only 40s. per week at the best. While I commend the Government for making a spirited attempt to deal with the land problems of Scotland, I hope that they will, before the Bill comes downstairs again, give up all hope of extracting 3 per cent. from the landholders who would have an intolerable burden placed upon them.
  11.39 p.m.
  Sir G. COLLINS: We have had again to-night a full and comprehensive Debate. I will endeavour to answer each and all of the questions put to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair). Let me remind the House that if I do not answer fully, sufficiently or accurately, in the opinion of hon. Members, any questions that have been put to me, there will foe two or three further stages. I think I am accurate in saying that, when the Question on Clause 1 is proposed in the Committee, the whole Debate on this question can foe raised again. My Noble Friend the Member for Perth (Lord Scone) has expressed once again his real nervousness as to the ability of the tenants to pay the rent that we ask for. Naturally, I cannot tell what these men will be successful in paying in years to come; I can only judge the situation as I have found it last year and this year; and from all the inquiries that I have made, as I told the House the other night, I am convinced that the rents asked for under this Bill will not cripple an individual from making a success of his holding. The rent is but one factor in the economics of these holdings.
  1950
  My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) asked me various questions, and also referred to the question of dropping the interest. It would be very easy and pleasant for any Minister of the Crown to stand here, thinking only of the tenant, and drop all thoughts of interest, but I should be false to the duty which falls upon me as regards the spending of the taxpayers' money in future years if I did not try to deal fairly as between the interests of the taxpayer and the interests of the tenant. If experience showed that the rents which we are asking for were excessive and burdensome, then, I submit, the scheme would fall altogether.
  My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) thought that the scheme was inadequate, and took great exception to it on the ground of the tenure which we propose, as well as the inadequate nature of our proposals. I have never submitted or suggested to the House that this was a big scheme. All that I suggest is that it is a step forward, I hope in the right direction, and, if experience proves that the rents we are asking for under this Bill can be secured and paid, then future Parliaments may be enabled to build on the basis to which I am asking the House this evening to assent. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Commander Cochrane) put to me one or two questions regarding the plots—
  Sir I. MACPHERSON: May I ask my right hon. Friend one question, which is very important? I think he said, when we were discussing the Financial Resolution, that the rents, if they were found to be excessive, might be reviewed after seven years by the Land Court. That is exceedingly important. That provision is in existence under the Small Landholders' Act, and it would be well if these people could have the same privilege.
  Sir G. COLLINS: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that point. I was proposing to deal with it comprehensively when I came to answer the several questions put to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland. Undoubtedly, at the end of seven years, the leaseholder under this scheme will be able to go to the Land Court and get the rent reviewed, and, therefore, there will be a fair deal.

  1951
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire asked one or two questions about the plots. He asked whether we could not give further assistance to these plotholders. He will understand, however, that there is only a limited sum available, and, if that sum is utilised to assist some plotholders to a larger extent, then, unfortunately, we shall have less money for finding plots for other people. We have not found on the whole, though my hon. and gallant Friend may have found it in his constituency, that there has been so much difficulty in getting men with a little money to take these plots; the difficulty is rather in getting suitable land near the homes where these people live. If he has any particular case in his own constituency, we will endeavour to find land suitable for these people, for I am convinced that this scheme of a small plot of land near the house of a man who is out of work is not only of some economic advantage to himself but is of greater value in that it gives a man during his weeks and months of unemployment a real incentive to work on the land. I was also asked whether men working on these plots could be transferred in time, if they desired, to small holdings. If anyone at present working on these plots is suitable and is likely to succeed, his case will be favourably considered by the officers of the Department.
  May I now pass to the main burden of the criticism advanced by the right hon. Gentleman? In answer to his first question, all the holdings in the Highlands will be settled in future as in the past under landholders tenure, but all the holdings of this kind in the Lowlands will be settled under Agricultural Holdings Act tenure. Then he asked whether the rents of any properties developed in the Highlands in future years will be on a 3 per cent. basis. No. There will be no change in the policy of the Department so far as rents are concerned. The 3 per cent. refers to the new type of holdings and not to holdings in the Highland area. Then he asked if the tenant will be bound for seven years. The answer is Yes, just the same as if he were a tenant under the landholders tenure, no worse and no better.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: Under the Land Act he can give up his holding.
  Sir G. COLLINS: Not in the first seven years.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: He can renounce it at any time.
  Sir G. COLLINS: I was asked as to compensation, whether a tenant would be any better or worse off under the Agricultural Holdings Act or Landholders Act tenure. I have studied the point and I am convinced that the old Landholders Act tenure created difficulties in practical working in that it created dual ownership, but under the Agricultural Holdings Act tenure, especially so far as compensation for improvements is concerned the interests of the tenants are better provided for than under the Landholders Acts. Under the Agricultural Holdings Act tenure the tenant, if he obtains the consent of the Department, is certain of compensation for improvements at their value to an incoming tenant as fixed by the Land Court. On the other hand, under the Landholders Acts the landholder gets the value of his improvements, fixed again by the Land Court, at their value to an incoming tenant so far as they are adjudged to be suitable to the holding. There is, therefore, real doubt in the mind of the tenant whether he will receive full compensation.
  Then I was asked about bequests. The tenant may bequeath his tenancy to any person. I was asked a question about the break at the end of the seven years. At the end of the seven years, if the tenant wishes, he will go on, and if he desires to have his rent revised, he can go before the Land Court or an arbiter. Then I was asked a specific question about electrical equipment. The answer is that the provision of electrical equipment other than removable fittings or appliances is an improvement in respect of which the tenant must give notice to the landlord in order to qualify for compensation.
  I was also asked whether we were intending to make part-time or whole-time holdings. My answer is that, side by side with the policy of plots for unemployed persons—that is, our scheme for those who are part-time working on the land—is our larger scheme, under which only whole-time workers are included. The hon. Member also asked me several questions about rent. All I can say is that during the last 18 months we have

  1953
  formed holdings on some three or four estates, in one of which there were 12 and in another 32 holdings. A large number of very suitable people applied. I know that the right hon. Member will say, as he has said, that they will not pay their rents to-day. We all respect my right hon. Friend; it is a fair debating point, but he cannot prove it. He will say that I cannot prove mine, but I can assure him from a close study of these men on the holdings in different parts of Scotland that it is true. My study may be inaccurate; the figures I have received may be wrong; the information given me by many of these people may be false. If, however, my study has been right, and if the information which these men have given me is at all accurate, they are able to pay to-day the rents which we are demanding.
  Then my right hon. Friend said, "Surely this is the time of all times for the State to go forward with a large scheme for land settlement." Why? Because the people on the land under the present Government have some confidence that the Government are trying to safeguard their interests. Surely my right hon. Friend would allow that if, on the one hand, he stands for a policy of free imports, he cannot say in the same breath that this is the time, when the produce of the world is at the lowest possible price, for the State to put large sums of money into land settlement. He can have it one way or the other; he can say that the policy of free imports is justified, but he cannot twit me for not going forward with a large scheme of land settlement in these days. I know that he demands action and that the whole resources of the State should be utilised for the policy of public works and land settlement. This evening, in this small scheme, I am asking the House of Commons to face the economic realities of land settlement.
  My noble Friend twits me and doubts its success. Time alone can show, but, first of all, we have endeavoured in this scheme to cut down our costs. I am grateful to my right hon. and gallant Friend for his kindly reference to the efforts of my officers. The costs have come down. We shall proceed, when the Bill is passed, to create these holdings, but in doing so, it would not be right, if faced with a heavy burden, that we should
  1954
  single out 1,000, 5,000 or 10,000 persons and give them an economic advantage over their fellow men. In the policy which we are submitting and asking the House to adopt, we are steering a middle course in endeavouring to secure that, with a reasonable return to the State, a new movement of intensive smallholdings around our large towns may be developed in the immediate future.

  AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT, 1931.
  11.57 p.m.
  Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move,
  "That the Scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, for the regulation of the marketing of milk in Aberdeen and district, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 29th day of January, 1934, be approved."
  I do not think that it is necessary to delay the House long with regard to this Scheme. Hon. Members are very familiar with the draft of the Scheme, which does not present any peculiar features demanding detailed explanation. The House are aware that the Minister in presenting a Scheme has to satisfy himself that the promoters are substantially representative of the interests in the area affected. As far as this Scheme is concerned, the number of promoters represent very nearly half the total milk producers in the two counties concerned—Aberdeen and Kincardine, and as far as the number of cows are concerned, it accounts for well over half the total number. Under the Scheme there will be two classes of milk instead of one. There will be the ordinary basic supplies representing the liquid milk consumed, and the surplus. The effect of that will be that the ordinary producer will not have to pay a levy to support the price of the surplus, but it will be the duty of the board to deal with the surplus as best they can and get the best price for it. This will be an interesting experiment and a variation of other milk schemes, but I do not think that there is any reason to sup pose that any trouble will flow from that difference either to the producer, retailer, or consumer. It may interest hon. Members opposite that in Aberdeen, where

  1955
  the largest amount of milk is consumed, the great bulk of the distribution is done by the Co-operative Society, and I gather that from the opposite side of the House there is not likely to be any suggestions as to whether the distributors' price will be a suitable one or not. It is clear that from the price of milk which has hitherto obtained in Aberdeen, there is no likelihood of there arising there any of the questions which may arise elsewhere as to the retail price of the board, and that there will be no increase of the retail price either in summer or in winter. In view of the familiarity of hon. Members with the details of milk schemes it is unnecessary for me to say more.
  12 m.
  Mr. LEONARD: I do not want to occupy more than a few moments, but there are one or two points which come to the surface. At the moment we can speak with a little experience, whereas previously we spoke mostly from theory. At that time we expressed the opinion that some of the points contained in the report of the Reorganisation Committee should have received attention and we were quite right in saying that the general machinery of the scheme was not capable of performing the task required. I know that in this order there is the possibility of co-ordination, but again all the points made by the Reorganisation Committee in favour of the producer have been taken and the possibility of linking the consumer in some more intimate manner with the scheme has been ignored, as in a previous scheme. The object of the joint committee is to promote harmony. I want to make the simple point that if harmony is to accrue in these matters it will only be if the co-operators in the scheme have an equal status; which is not the case at the moment. The scheme to promote harmony provides that if a grievance does arise there is the medium of a consultant, and failing him a committee of consumers is brought in, but the attitude adopted by the Southern Board when requests have been made to them to apply to the consultant is very dictatorial and they have intimated that even if the consultant is brought in they will pay no attention but proceed to levy prices which they think fit. This attitude of the board is not going to make for
  1956
  harmony in the future. I want to express my regret that this power in excess is being placed at the disposal of producers in this matter. I have not referred previously to the Minister of Agriculture, but he said on one occasion that the person who purchases is the most important person in the whole transaction. I agree with that, but the organisation which represents the consumers are aware that the price of milk is 75 per cent. higher than pre-war, whereas in other items it is only 30 per cent. higher, and they are asking why they should be subject to a further imposition of £2,500 per day if the producers' board puts up the price of milk by a halfpenny. These things are bound to create difficulty and the suspicions of the consumers are not going to be satisfied. There is a minor point dealing with milk policy as expressed by the Minister of Agriculture. I can quote his actual words. He said:
  "If an increase in consumption is to be obtained it must be based on public confidence as to the purity of the supply."
  I have some fears with regard to that because the power is with the producer's board. I have received a communication from a private individual engaged in the milk trade in which he refers to a recent prosecution directed against a fanner, and he says that there are already signs that the producers in their own board may agree to different standards, which have previously been insisted upon. Careful watch will he kept under the Statutes, and if they abuse the power given to them—seeing that hard work and much money has been necessary to bring them up to it—they will find considerable opposition. In regard to the wages paid on the farms, I should like something to be done in regard to the modification of wages upwards in accordance with any advantages that may accrue to the farmers. Something will have to be done to prevent the rent that has to be paid for the farms being increased because of any advantage given to the farmers through the organisation now being given to them. I hope that these two specific points will be borne in mind. We do not intend to vote against the Order.
  12.6 a.m.
  Mr. BURNETT: I have been asked to make a formal protest on behalf of the Aberdeen Town Council. Nothing effectual

  1957
  can be done at this stage. While the Secretary of State for Scotland is the promoter of the scheme there is always the invisible partner who must be referred to but with whom we cannot get into touch. For better or worse Parliament has given up its power to intervene on behalf of either the producer, the distributor or the consumer. At the same time I have to put in this protest against certain provisions of the scheme which will place considerable additional expense on the town council. The Milk Reorganisation Commission provided that those hospitals and other institutions which were receiving a supply of milk at cheaper rates should not be unduly penalised by the scheme; the important thing was that a plentiful supply of milk should be there for these institutions and that the board should see to it that they got it at the lowest possible rates. This was incorporated, though in a modified form, in the scheme; and it was provided that the board if it deemed fit might supply the institutions with milk for charitable and experimental purposes at special rates. In these circumstances the council thought that the position was safeguarded and took no part in the public inquiry. Shortly afterwards the South of Scotland scheme came into force and it was found that under that scheme a large city like Glasgow would have to pay anything from £12,500 to £18,000 yearly additional for milk supplied to institutions within its area.
  This matter caused considerable heart searching and calculations being made, it was found that in Aberdeen the amount might involve £2,000 additional expense in the year, and that this would fall entirely on the ratepayers. In the past it has always been the custom that the money spent on milk and other supplies of that sort should be reimbursed by way of grant but now that the grant is stabilised at a fixed sum for five years and cannot be increased, my council considers it unfair that this additional burden should be placed upon the ratepayers when there is no corresponding grant given. If the grant is stabilised, then this additional burden ought not to be imposed. It is within the scope of the scheme for the board to exempt different authorities and exemptions have been given in the case of hospitals having herds in respect of the supply of
  1958
  milk to inmates and staffs of hospitals. The council thinks that these exemptions should have been put in force in favour of the council. It takes 67,000 gallons in a year, and there has been no complaint made that the price paid to the producers was too small. The producers were glad of the assurance that there would be no surplus milk. There is also widespread complaint since the South of Scotland scheme came into force. The general supposition was that the distributive costs would be reduced by this cooperative trading, but once the schemes have come in large staffs of officials have been appointed, and as a result it seems that the distributive costs, so far from being decreased, have been increased. Shortly after the South of Scotland scheme came in there was a demand from the producers for an additional twopence to pay administrative expenses, and then haulage was charged ½d. to 1½d.
  The biggest blow of all has fallen recently when the winter prices have been continued into the summer. In the summer this means something like four-pence added to the amount to be paid. That will militate very strongly against the idea that we must "drink more milk." It will mean that instead of more milk, less will be drunk, because people cannot afford to buy it, and there will toe more surplus milk. Then the profits to producers will be likely to come down instead of going up, which was the object of the scheme. There is also certain apprehension about the small distributor, who has to pay a penny more for his milk and has to compete against the large co-operative concerns, which are able to give a discount of 3s. 6d. to 4s. 6d. I have put the grievances as shortly as I can. I know nothing can be done here, but I hope that later these things may be taken into consideration. There is machinery for dealing with complaints, but it is considered to be too cumbersome. Meanwhile, the £1,800 to £2,000 is being paid. I hope that these matters may be looked into by the board.
  Resolved,
  "That the Scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, for the regulation of the marketing of milk in Aberdeen and district, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 29th of January, 1934, be approved."

  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday, 9th April.—[Captain Margesson.]

  GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 AND 1929.
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Oldbury urban district council, which was presented on the 13th day of March and published, be approved, subject to the following modifications:

  First Schedule, page 8, after line 19, insert:

  (d) so much of enclosure No. 864 as lies to the north-west of an imaginary line commencing on the boundary of the existing limits at a point 47 yards west of the most northerly corner of enclosure No. 876, and terminating on the boundary of the existing limits at a point three yards east of the said corner.

  Second Schedule, page 8, line 34, leave out "35," and insert "47."

  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Mossley Corporation, which was presented on the 13th day of March and published, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the. Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Watford and St. Albans Gas Company, which was presented on the 13th day of March and published, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Matlock and District Gas Company, which was presented on the 13th day of March and published, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Weston-super-Mare Gaslight Company, which was presented on the 5th day of March and published, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin."]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Sixteen Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.

TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  YARN AND CLOTH MANUFACTURE (COST, LANCASHIRE AND JAPAN).
  YARN AND CLOTH MANUFACTURE (COST, LANCASHIRE AND JAPAN).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  AIR MINISTRY.
  AIR MINISTRY.
  WAR OFFICE.
  WAR OFFICE.
  COTTON MILLS, CHINA.
  COTTON MILLS, CHINA.
  ADMIRALTY.
  ADMIRALTY.
  SCOTTISH OFFICE.
  SCOTTISH OFFICE.
  BRITISH INVESTMENTS, EMPIRE AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
  BRITISH INVESTMENTS, EMPIRE AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
  STAFFS.
  STAFFS.
  BEET SUGAR SUBSIDY.
  BEET SUGAR SUBSIDY.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  SMALL-POX, BLACKBURN (VACCINATION).
  SMALL-POX, BLACKBURN (VACCINATION).
ROYAL NAVY.
  INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYES (SICK LEAVE).
  INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYES (SICK LEAVE).
  DESTROYERS (CONSTRUCTION, PRIVATE DOCKYARDS).
  DESTROYERS (CONSTRUCTION, PRIVATE DOCKYARDS).
  DOCKYARD BURNERS (WAGES).
  DOCKYARD BURNERS (WAGES).
  COAL (STATISTICS OF PRODUCTION, & c).
  COAL (STATISTICS OF PRODUCTION, & c).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS (No. 1) BILL.
Read 2a.
BRIGHTON, HOVE AND WORTHING GAS BILL.
Read 2a.
WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Paper in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended until the House do adjourn for the Recess at Easter.— (Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; and read 1a.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (ACCRINGTON) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WATFORD) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (BOSTON CORPORATION) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

BETTING AND LOTTERIES BILL [H.L.]
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Marquess of Londonderry, I beg leave to present a Bill to amend the law with respect to betting on tracks where sporting events take place, including the law with respect to totalisators on horse racecourses; to authorise, subject to restrictions, the establishment of totalisators on dog racecourses; to prohibit betting on tracks with young persons and parimutuel betting except by authorised totalisators; to amend the law with respect to lotteries and certain prize competitions; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time, and perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say that for the convenience of your Lordships, if you are good enough to give the Bill a First Reading now, copies will be available in the Printed Paper Office at hall past five.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL [H.L.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY or STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to authorise the Central Electricity Board to make certain arrangements with authorised undertakers who are the owners of generating stations which are not selected stations, to authorise the Central Electricity Board to supply electricity directly to railway companies for certain purposes, to amend Sections 11 and 12 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

TITHE BILL. [H.L.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the provisions of the Tithe Act, 1891, relating to the partial remission in certain cases of sums due in respect of tithe rentcharge and to the method of recovering tithe rentcharge, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. I move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Earl De La Ware.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (DOMESTIC PROCEDURE) BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg leave to present a Bill to provide for the hearing of certain matrimonial and other cases by domestic procedure. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a. —(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CROSBY, LITHERLAND AND WATERLOO JOINT CEMETERY DISTRICT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and Passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (ROCHESTER, CHATHAM AND GILLINGHAM JOINT SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WIRRAL JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

SHOPS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Hours of employment.
(2) On occasions of seasonal or exceptional pressure of work at any shop, young persons may, subject as hereinafter provided, and subject to the provisions of any other enactment, be employed about the business of the shop overtime, that is to say, in excess of the normal maximum working hours:
Provided that in the case of any shop—

(a) when in any year there have been six weeks (whether consecutive or not) in which any young person has been employed overtime about the business of the shop, no young person shall be so employed during the remainder of that year;

(b) no young person shall be employed overtime about the business of the shop—

(i) in any year after he has been employed overtime about the business of that or any other shop for fifty working hours in that year;

(ii)in any week after he has been employed overtime about the business of that or any other shop for twelve working hours in that week.

(3) If any young person who is in any week employed about the business of a shop is in that week employed by the occupier of the shop about the business of any other shop or in a factory or workshop, or has to the knowledge of the occupier of the shop been previously employed in that week by any other employer about the business of any other shop or in a factory or workshop, then for the purposes of the foregoing provisions of this section, he shall be deemed to have been employed about the business of the first mentioned shop during the time during which he was employed about the business of that other shop or in the factory or workshop.
(5) In the case of any contravention of the provisions of this section, the occupier of the shop shall be liable to a fine not exceeding ten pounds for every person in respect of whom the contravention occurs:
Provided that in any proceedings for such an offence in respect of the employment overtime of any person after he has been so employed in any year or in any week for the numbers of working hours respectively permitted by proviso (b) to subsection (2) of this section, it shall be a defence to prove that the person charged did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained that the person employed overtime had been previously so employed for the said number of working hours.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved a manuscript Amendment, in proviso (a) of subsection (2), to leave out "any
428
young person has" and insert "young persons have." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like to express my regrets, on behalf of the Department, at the number of what may appear to be rather formidable Amendments at this stage, but your Lordships will perhaps have observed that many of them are in the nature of drafting or consequential Amendments. This Amendment is purely a drafting Amendment. The proviso (a) of subsection (2) of Clause 1 provides that in the case of any shop
"when in any year there have been six weeks (whether consecutive or not) in which any young person has been employed overtime about the business of the shop, no young person shall be so employed during the remainder of that year."
It has been suggested that this proviso as it stands might be interpreted to mean that the limitation of six weeks applies to the individual young person and not to the shop as a whole; that is to say, that so long as there was no young person in the shop who had been employed overtime in six weeks it would be permissible for the shopkeeper to go on using overtime for his young persons. This is not the intention of the proviso, and the object of the Amendment is to make it clear that any week in which young persons have been employed overtime counts as one of the six weeks to which overtime is limited during a calendar year. In other words, the limitation of six weeks is to apply to the shop as a whole and not to the individual young person.
I think it may be wise, as one or two noble Lords have discussed this matter, to say here that if the limitation were applied to the individual young person it would go considerably beyond what was asked for by the organisations representing the shopkeepers. They asked for overtime to enable them to deal with certain weeks such as at Christmas, when they are faced with exceptional pressure, and generally speaking it is understood that they will be satisfied if they can avail themselves of overtime in six weeks in any calendar year in order to deal with these special periods. A limitation for the individual young person would also be undesirable as it would give an advantage to the larger shops with a number of juveniles who would be in a position to avail themselves of overtime in a large number of weeks, while the small shop-

429
keeper with only one young person (for example, an errand boy) would be limited to six weeks and would find it difficult to compete. For these reasons it is considered advisable to make it clear that the intention of the proviso is that the limitation of six weeks should apply to the shop as a whole. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, leave out (" any young person has ") and insert (" young persons have ").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in proviso (b) (i) of subsection (2), to leave out "that or ally other" and insert "the." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of subsection (3) of Clause 1 is to provide for the case of mixed employment; that is, of a young person employed in two shops, or in a shop and a factory in the same week. The clause provides that the employment in the other shop or factory shall count as employment for the purposes of the normal weekly maximum or overtime as the case may be. In view of this subsection the references to "any other shop" in the previous subsection are unnecessary and it is therefore proposed to omit them. This accounts for the first two Amendments on the Paper in my name. As regards the third Amendment, the wording of the existing subsection (3) is somewhat elaborate, and can be put more simply and briefly as proposed in the first paragraph of the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 12, leave out ("that or any other") and insert ("the").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 16, leave out (" that or any other ") and insert (" the ").
Page 2, line 18, leave out subsection (3) and insert the following subsection:
"(3) In determining for the purposes of this Act the number of working hours for which a young person has in any week been employed about the business of any shop, be shall be deemed to have been also employed about the business thereof during any time during which he was in that week employed about the business of any other shop or in a factory or workshop:
Provided that, if in any proceedings against the occupier of a shop in respect of a contravention of the provisions of this Act it is shown that the contravention occurred only by reason of time during
430
which a young person was employed by another employer being deemed, in accordance with the provisions of this subsection, to be time during which he was employed about the business of that shop, it shall be a defence to prove that the occupier did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained that the young person was employed for that time by the other employer."—(The Earl of Feversham)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (5), after "liable," to insert "on summary conviction." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is for the purpose of making it clear that a fine may only be recovered following proceedings and conviction in a court of summary jurisdiction.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 41, after ("liable") insert ("on summary conviction").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The next Amendment, to omit the proviso in subsection (5), is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 1, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 10.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Restrictions on night employment]:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, the Amendment to this clause is similar to the Amendment in Clause 1.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 37, after ("liable") insert ("on summary conviction").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
Special provisions as to the sale of accessories for aircraft, motor vehicles and cycles.
6.—(1) If the occupier of any shop in which there is carried on the business of serving customers with supplies or accessories for aircraft, motor vehicles, or cycles sold for immediate use, by notice to the local authority whose duty it is to enforce the foregoing provisions of this Act within the district in which the shop is situated, given in such form, in such manner and at such time before the notice is to take effect, as may he prescribed, signifies that he elects that the provisions of this subsection shall be applicable to that shop, then, unless and until the notice is withdrawn, in relation to young persons employed in connection with the business aforesaid, the normal maximum working hours shall, instead of being forty-

431
eight working hours in any week, be such number of hours, being neither more than fifty-four in any week nor more than one hundred and forty-four in any period of three consecutive weeks, as may be specified in the notice, and Section one of this Act shall have effect accordingly:
Provided that, while the provisions of this subsection are applicable to a shop, a young person employed in connection with the business aforesaid shall he deemed to have been employed in contravention of the provisions of Section one of this Act, if in any week he was employed overtime about the business of the shop after he had been employed about the business of that or any other shop for fifty-four working hours in that week so, however, that in relation to any such contravention the reference in subsection (5) of the said section to proviso (b) to subsection (2) of that section shall include a reference to this proviso.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved to leave out of the proviso in subsection (1) all words after the first "shop" and insert:
"Section one of this Act shall in relation to any young person employed in connection with the business aforesaid have effect as if in proviso (b) to subsection (2) thereof there were inserted the following additional paragraph, that is to say—
'(iii) in any week after he has been employed about the business of the shop for fifty-four working hours in that week.'"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of the proviso to this subsection is to provide that young persons may be employed overtime where an averaging system has been adopted, but that where overtime is worked the total weekly hours are not to exceed 54. The general effect of the provisions is not altered in any way.
Amendment moved—
Page 6. line 16, leave out from ("shop") to the end of line 26 and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Records]:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (4,) after "liable," to insert "on summary conviction". The noble Lord said: My Lords, This is similar to the Amendments in Clause 1 and Clause 6.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 9, after ("liable") insert ("on summary conviction").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10:
Provisions as to sanitary or other arrangements in shops.
(6) If it appears to the authority whose duty it is to enforce any provision of this section that there has been, in the case of any shop, a contravention of that provision, the authority shall, by notice served on the owner or occupier of the shop, require him to take, within such time as may be limited by the notice, such action as may be specified in the notice for the purpose of securing compliance with the said provision, and if any person served with such a notice fails to comply with the requirements thereof he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds for every day on which the contravention occurs or continues:
Provided that it shall be a defence to any proceedings under this subsection to prove that there was no contravention of the provisions of this section, or that the requirements of any such notice as aforesaid were, within a reasonable time after service of the notice, complied with in so far as they were necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this section.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "to a fine not exceeding five pounds for every day on which the contravention occurs or continues" and insert "on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or in the case of a second or subsequent conviction in respect of the same requirement, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or five pounds for every day since the first conviction in respect of that requirement, whichever is the greater." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in Committee raised the question of the effect of the part of this subsection which relates to the penalties to be imposed for failure to comply with the requirements relating to the health and comfort of shop workers. I explained in reply that the effect of the clause as it stands is that a person who fails to comply with the notice is liable on conviction to a cumulative penalty of £5 for every day on which he makes default between the expiry of the period named in the notice and the laying of the information. If after conviction he still refuses to comply with the notice further proceedings can be taken and he would again be liable to a cumulative fine for the period between the first conviction and the laying of the second information. I agreed, however, at the time that I would consider the provision further before this stage of the Bill.
It is now thought unnecessary and undesirable to provide for a cumulative penalty on the occasion of the initial conviction. The amended provision accordingly imposes, first a penalty of £20 for the initial offence, irrespective of the period over which the default has continued, and secondly in case of an offender who has failed after conviction to carry out a requirement, a penalty on second or subsequent conviction not exceeding £50 or £25 for every day during which the default has continued since the first conviction. I hope that this Amendment will satisfactorily meet the point which the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, raised in Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 41, leave out from ("liable") to the end of line 2 on page 10, mid insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Enforcement]:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, the Amendments proposed to Clause 12 are drafting Amendments and do not alter in any way the effect of the provisions of that clause. It is proposed to rearrange them with the object of making clear the powers and duties of the various authorities concerned and the powers and duties of the inspectors appointed by those authorities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 28, leave out ("and") and insert ("save that").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 34, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 6 on page 11 and insert (" Provided that the said sections shall not apply

(a) with respect to the provisions of this Act in their application to street trading;

(b) with respect to the provisions of this Act relating to ventilation and temperature of shops and to sanitary conveniences ").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 18, leave out from ("shall") to the end of line 19 and insert ("for the purposes of his powers and duties have in relation to shops all the powers conferred in relation to factories
434
and workshops on inspectors by Section one hundred and nineteen of the Factory and Workshop Al, 1901, and that section and Section one hundred and twenty-one of the same Act shall apply accordingly "). —(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 19, at end insert:
(" (4) Notwithstanding that the provisions of this Act relating to ventilation and temperature of shops and to sanitary conveniences are not enforceable by local authorities under the provisions of the Shops Act, 1912, it shall nevertheless be the duty of inspectors appointed under that Act to take note of and if necessary report to the sanitary authority for the district any contravention of the said provisions of this Act, and for that purpose the provisions of Section thirteen of the Shops Act, 1912, relating to such inspectors shall apply accordingly.")—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14:
Interpretation and saving.
14.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:
"Young person" means a person who has not attained the age of eighteen years;
and, save as in this Act otherwise expressly provided, expressions defined by the Shops Act, 1912, have the same meanings as in that Act.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in the definition of "Young person," after "Young person," to insert "does not include a child whose employment is regulated by Section eighteen of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, but save as aforesaid." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to make it clear that in the case of school children whose hours are already regulated by the provisions of Section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, the hours of those children shall be regulated solely by that Act, and shall not come within the scope of this Bill. The Bill defines a young person simply as a person who bas not attained the age of 18. Under this definition as it stands, the provisions of the Bill would, strictly speaking, apply to any school children who are employed in the distributive trades. But the application of the Bill to these children is regarded as

435
unnecessary, and as likely to give rise to confusion and overlapping of the functions of the local authorities concerned. I think there can be no dissension in your Lordships' House that as the regulation of the hours of school children is governed by the Children Act, it is unnecessary to include them in this Bill, and would be redundant. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 10, after (" Young person") insert (" does not include a child whose employment is regulated by Section eighteen of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, but save as aforesaid.")—(The Earl of Ferersham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, after subsection (1), to insert:
"(2) For the purposes of this Act a person who works about the business of a shop for the occupier thereof or in connection with any retail trade or business for the person by whom it is carried on, shall be deemed to be employed, notwithstanding, that he receives no reward for his labour."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to make it clear that any young person who works in a shop will come within the scope of the Bill, notwithstanding that he may receive no payment for his services. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 14, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Feversham)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Application to Scotland]:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, the first Amendment to this clause is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 3, at end insert the following new paragraphs:
"(b) References to provisions of the Shops Act, 1912, shall be construed as references to those provisions as applied to Scotland by Section twenty of that Act.
(c) For any reference to Section eighteen of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1932, there shall be substituted a reference to Sections forty-three and forty-four of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1932."—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, the next Amendment also is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 10, after (" Act ") insert (" and paragraph (a) of the proviso to subsection (a) of the said section shall not apply ").—(The Earl of Feversltant.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

MARRIAGE (EXTENSION OF HOURS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, I beg with respect to move the Second Reading of this Bill, to provide for the extension of hours during which marriages may be solemnized. Its simple, sole and single purpose is to extend the permitted hours during which persons may get married from three o'clock in the afternoon to six o'clock in the afternoon. As the law stands at present it is not permissible for persons to get married after three o'clock in the afternoon. So far as I can ascertain there does not appear to be any valid or good reason why those hours should not now be extended in view of the altered circumstances which obtain. It will be observed that by Clause 2 of the Bill it is not to apply to Scotland. The reason why the Bill is not intended to apply to Scotland is that Scotland already has these matrimonial facilities.
The Bill makes reference to the Marriage Act of 1886, and perhaps 1886 is as far back as I need go now in delving and digging into the past of the marriage laws of our country. Prior to 1886 the permitted hours during which marriages might be solemnized were between eight o'clock and twelve o'clock, but I would remind your Lordships that at that time twelve o'clock was the accepted dinner hour, and it was customary, and on many grounds it was probably convenient and desirable that marriages should not be solemnized after that hour. When the Bill of 1886 was introduced it was originally proposed that the permitted hours should be extended from twelve o'clock to four o'clock in the afternoon. Subsequently, however, when the Bill was passing through Committee, it was considered better that the time during which marriages might take place should be limited more or less to daylight hours, and therefore three o'clock was substituted for four o'clock.
I would in passing observe that in those clays lighting was by no means what it

437
is now, and if there were any need in those days, for that reason, to fix the hour earlier, at any rate now we have flood and other forms of lighting, and whatever need there may have been then for a law which regularised marriages only up to three o'clock has faded away in the light of modern development. I think it is interesting to note that during the passage of the Bill in 1886 the then Home Secretary, Mr. Childers, on the Third Reading of the Bill on the 29th March, 1886, observed:
"There is no objection to this Bill in any quarter of the House."
I hope, therefore, that the attitude of your Lordships in respect to this Bill will be to consider that it is a reasonable Bill and that it should find a place on the Statute Book. I should like to say that the Bill passed through all its stages in another place without amendment, that it was backed by members of all Parties, and that it was unopposed by any member there.
The object of the Bill is, as I have already said, a very simple one. It is not so much to meet the desires, and possibly the wishes, of the residents of Mayfair, but it is to meet the wishes of some working men and some working women, who perhaps, in certain cases, can ill afford to spare the time and face the loss of even a single day's pay to celebrate so vastly important an occasion in their lives as their marriage. I have not myself been able to find or even to think of any objections of substance to this Bill. I have received correspondence about it from various sources. One or two bachelors deplore the provision that there should in future be three more hours during which they may perhaps be persuaded to take the fatal step,' and others makes allusion to one more of their excuses "going west." But as to those concerned with the actual ceremony, I suggest that the hours proposed will not be unduly long for the registrar, and, so far as the clergy are concerned, no complaints have reached me. It may indeed well be that this Bill will simplify their task of solemnising matrimony on bank holidays and on other special occasions and alleviate and lighten the burden thrown upon them by enabling them to spread their hours of duty over a little longer period. This Bill also merits consideration on the ground that it places no obligation on State funds. It has the
438
laudable purpose of encouraging marriage, not by way of bribery, not by way of subsidy, not by way even of a grant, or by pressure of any kind, but by the simple act of removing an old Victorian obstruction. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—.(Lord Eltisley.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I only wish to say that the Government agree that it will be for the general convenience if this Bill is passed. So far as the marriage officers under the Registrar-General are concerned, there will be some slight balance of convenience in their case, as the Bill will extend the work that they have to do more evenly over the day.
LORD PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends I wish to say that we shall certainly support this Bill. I think it will be a great convenience, and I congratulate the noble Lord on introducing it. The danger point of the dinner hour having been avoided, people now will have a choice anyhow of being married after tea, which sounds domestic. I think perhaps we ought to have heard from some members of the Episcopal Benches what the attitude of the Church is on this point, but I should say that the change will be for the convenience of all ministers of religion, as it will certainly be for the convenience of those who wish to be married.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INDIAN PAY (TEMPORARY ABATEMENTS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, and passed.

DYESTUFFS (IMPORT REGULATION) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
GAS UNDERTAKINGS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), Amendments (Privilege) made Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

MINING INDUSTRY (WELFARE FUND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Reduction of sums payable to fund and recovery thereof.
2.—(1) The sum payable into the fund under the principal section as respects the output of any coal mine during the year nineteen hundred and thirty-two and subsequent years shall be a sum equal to one halfpenny a ton (instead of one penny a ton) of the output of the mine.
LORD MARLEY LORD MARLEY moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "three farthings" for "one halfpenny." The noble Lord said: I desire to move this Amendment on behalf of the Socialist Party. The reasons for it have already been given by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi during the Second Reading debate. We realise that with this type of Government there is very little chance of getting the Amendment accepted. Nevertheless I should like to give the general reasons for it. The reduction from a penny to a halfpenny does mean a serious blow to the whole of the welfare work of the mining industry, and we feel that if we could mitigate that blow by reducing the amount of the reduction to a farthing, instead of a halfpenny, it would make less difficult the task of those engaged in organising the welfare of the mining industry. It should be realised that virtually the whole of this cut will fall upon the district funds, because the General Fund is able to secure a continuation of its grants by taking from the district funds the £116,000 odd necessary for keeping the pit-head bath funds going. That means that the district funds are going to suffer a very serious loss.
In the current Report of the Mining Industry Welfare Fund we find, looking at the amounts received by the district funds, that, while they varied from £800,000 to £400,000 and £340,000 in 1932, they faded away nearly altogether in 1933 and only £92 was received. It is
440
quite clear that, as the total amount derivable from the welfare subsidy is going to be reduced by about £450,000 it is the district funds which, in fact, are going to suffer. These aspects of the work of the district funds which are bound to be hit are, curiously enough, aspects which have been directly supported by the Report of the Departmental Committee of Inquiry in 1931. For instance, under "Recreation," which is bound to lose most of the money available, we find that one of the items most likely to be hit will be playgrounds for children, and it is curious that playgrounds for children are strongly supported in the very Report under consideration. They say:
"We have no hesitation in saying that in our opinion first consideration in the matter of outdoor recreation should be given to the children. In the larger urban areas the local authorities have, in many cases, provided facilities for children's recreation, though these are not always adequate for the number of children in the neighbourhood, but in the greater part of the places where miners live there is little or nothing and the children have hitherto had nowhere to play except the streets."
Under this Bill the children will continue to play in the streets because the provision of playgrounds for children will be interfered with.
Similarly, the development of boys' clubs, which I remember was so strongly supported in your Lordships' House two or three years ago, will be hit, and recreation grounds for adults. Again the Departmental Committee strongly supports recreation grounds for adults. They say, on page 32:
"There would appear therefore to be a good deal yet to be done in respect of outdoor recreation, though we feel that the purposes of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, cannot be said to have been met as long as there is not some provision, with due regard to local needs and existing local facilities, for outdoor recreation in every mining community of appreciable size, both for children and adults."
So that recreation grounds will also have to be reduced and the development of them postponed because of the Rill now under discussion. So, of course, with swimming baths, which are perhaps less important, libraries, and the provision of halls. Again, the Report, dealing with the provision of halls, says:
"There should he adequate facilities for indoor recreation and social intercourse at every place where an appreciable number of miners live, before the intentions of the 1920 Act in respect of these matters can he said

441
to have been met, and it is clear that there is still a good deal of work to be clone in this direction."
In the same way we are going to have a hold-up of the development of convalescent homes, of hospitals, and of education and research generally.
It is true that under the arrangements made with regard to the disposal of the proceeds of the halfpenny levy the development of pit-head baths will only be interfered with to a very minor extent, to an extent of something under £120,000 a year less than the amount regularly estimated as necessary; but that is unfortunate because still to-day, despite the fact that other nations are so very far ahead in the provision of pithead baths, in Great Britain only one miner out of every three works in a mine where pit-head baths are provided. It is unfortunate that instead of pressing on with the development arid construction of pit-head baths we should now be making any increase in the rate of providing these baths quite impossible and, in fact, limiting the comparatively small expenditure. It is because we want the recreation, playgrounds, health, convalescent homes, education and research work continued to the utmost possible extent that I beg leave to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 1. line 17, leave out ("one halfpenny") and insert ("three farthings")—(Lord Marley.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The object of the Amendment which the noble Lord has presented to your Lordships is to increase the levy on the output of coal from one halfpenny to three farthings, but it is a suggestion which I cannot accept. This particular point was very fully debated in another place. A great deal of discussion took place on it, and various answers were given as to why the proposal could not be accepted. The noble Lord has dealt at length with practically all the points which were made by the Departmental Committee of Inquiry. He will see on page 72 that they state quite clearly that:
"In all the circumstances we do not feel able to recommend 6e continuation of the levy at a figure less than one halfpenny per ton of coal, and …. we think that in view of the present position of the coal-mining industry and of the fact that this sum will provide in the next twenty years for all the more urgent needs of the mining
442
community the sum of one halfpenny per ton is as much as the industry should be asked to pay."
As I mentioned to your Lordships on the Second Reading of this Bill, the object is to reduce the levy from one penny to a halfpenny and spread the continuation over a period of twenty years until such time as the industry reaches normal prosperity. The noble Lord will remember that there were one or two Minority Reports in the Departmental. Committee's Report, and one by Mr. Smith himself recommends that the output levy should be reduced from one penny to a halfpenny.
His Majesty's Government gave very sympathetic consideration to the whole question before they introduced this Bill, and they came to the conclusion that a halfpenny per ton on the output was all that the industry should be asked to pay. It will have the advantage—this is a very important point which the noble Lord appears to have forgotten—that, although the levy is being reduced, the extension is being carried over a period of twenty years, and it will therefore enable the various district committees to plan their local expenditure with the full knowledge that their plans will in no way be interfered with. That point is made quite plain in she Departmental Committee's Report when they say:
"We think that in view of the present position of the coal-mining industry and of the fact that this sum will provide in the next twenty years for all the more urgent needs of the mining community…."
That point, as the noble Lord will notice, is made in the Departmental Committee's Report. The sum of 292, which the noble Lord mentioned, is not a payment for 1932 at all; it was an odd amount paid in advance in respect of the levy. There is one further point I would like to impress on the noble Lord, and it is this, that while the districts are working on the minimum the whole of this levy is, in fact, paid by the owners, and until the districts come off the minimum that part of the levy will not fall on the mining community.
LORD MARLEY: Did the noble Earl say it is paid by the owners?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I said that while the districts are working on the minimum the greater portion of this levy will be paid by the owners.
LORD MARLEY: By the consumers.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: By the consumers, if the noble Lord wishes. When the districts come off the minimum then the miners will have to pay a certain share, but at the moment that is not done to any great extent. I think I have dealt with all the points made by the noble Lord. As regards the question as to how the districts will be able to spend the money, it will be spread over a period of twenty years, which, in my opinion and in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, is far better than leaving the Fund in the position in which it was before, when money could be expended over a period of five years with the fear that it might be reduced or increased, as the case may be, at the end of that period. I am sorry that the Government are unable to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Purposes for which Fund to be applied]:
LORD RHAYADER: There is one small point, which I ought to have raised on Second Reading, on which I should like now to ask the noble Earl a question. That question is whether the Fund can be applied to the maintenance of schemes. My experience is that schemes which were started with enthusiasm in locality cannot be properly carried on after the capital has been expended. There are cases where recreation grounds and reading rooms have been established, but there is no money to keep them up, though there is still revenue going to the Welfare Fund from the locality. It seems to me a great pity to allow these schemes to fall into ruin from want of help in the matter of maintenance. I do not know whether an Amendment would be necessary to enable the Welfare Fund to contribute to the adequate maintenance of schemes, but it seems to me that it would be a very reasonable thing, when spending capital upon a scheme, to acid a certain sum for maintenance—say, half the amount required for maintenance, leaving the locality to provide the other half. That would enable a great many playing fields and reading rooms to carry on whereas they are now in great danger of breaking down because there is no money to maintain them. I
444
should be obliged if the noble Earl would tell me whether there is power to use the Welfare Fund for maintenance grants and, if not, whether he would accept an Amendment on Report giving power to do so.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I regret that the noble Lord did not put down an Amendment covering this point because the Bill will be put through its remaining stages this afternoon. I will, however, endeavour to answer his question. The answer is that the Welfare Fund as a general rule cannot be used for maintenance purposes. If the noble Lord had given notice of an Amendment I could have gone more fully into the matter, but I hope that he will accept that reply.
LORD REAYADER: I must apologise for not putting down an Amendment. It is entirely my fault. I shall be glad if the noble Earl would pass my question on to the Department, and if there is any power of making maintenance grants hope they will be made.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, and passed.

NORTH ATLANTIC SHIPPING BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Power to Treasury to make advances to certain companies]:
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved to insert the following new subsection:
"(4) Until the sums advanced under subsection (1) of this section have been repaid, two directors of the board of the merger company shall be nominated by the Treasury, after consultation with the Board of Trade."
The noble Lord said: On the Second Reading of this Bill the matter of the non-representation of the Treasury or the Board of Trade or any Government Department on the board of this merger company was discussed at some length and I do not propose to go over the arguments

445
again. I would like to point out, however, that with the exception of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill all the speakers, in whatever part of the House they sit, supported the principle of this Amendment. Since then I have had the opportunity of discussing this matter with a great many experienced business men, including shipowners, men not at all of my way of thinking politically, and I have not found one who does not strongly urge, in view of the large sums of money involved, the Imperial interests involved and the importance of the whole matter, that the Treasury should have a representative on the board, so that, as the noble Marquess; Lord Dufferin, put it, they may know what is going on from day to day.
The noble Earl in the course of the Second Reading debate answered my point that in the case of two other companies the Government are represented. They are represented on the board of the Suez Canal Company and the AngloPersian Oil Company. He pointed out that there were certain Imperial interests involved, and the inference, apparently, was that they are not involved here should have thought that this important. merger in the North Atlantic trade was an Imperial interest. I would like to point out to your Lordships that these great liners automatically come under Admiralty control in time of war. In former days—I do not know what happens in the case of new ships and I am not going to enquire—subsidies were paid in the case of ocean greyhounds, so that their decks could be strengthened to take gun mountings and so that the ships could be used as auxiliary cruisers. In the Great War they did very valuable work. I submit to your Lordships that there is an Imperial interest here. May I cite two other cases in which this principle of Government representation has been accepted? First, there is the case of Imperial Airways, a company whose aircraft traverse foreign countries and which is in much the same position as a shipping company. The Government have representation in that case. The noble Earl did not refer to that. Secondly, there is the even more striking example of the MacBrayne Steamship Company, which runs vessels to the Western Islands and Highlands. The Postmaster-General has power to nominate a director of that
446
company. The noble Lord did not refer to that case.
There is still another direct precedent which I should like to mention—that is, a sister company of the White Star Line, the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company. In this company, which is interlocked financially with the White Star Company, one of the parties to the merger, I find that in the first place the debenture holders have a right to be represented on the board. I believe the noble Earl said, or at any rate it was said in debate in another place, that it is unusual for debenture holders to be represented on the board of a company. There are many cases, I am informed, and I have found a few, where the debenture holders are represented. Here is one. In the case of the Royal Mail the C; per cent. debenture holders are represented by one director and the 5 per cent. by another, and, most striking of all, His Majesty's Treasury is represented on the board of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company by a director.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Will the noble Lord tell us when they appointed directors 7 Was it after the difficulty? because, if so, I can quite understand that then the debenture stock holders would have a representative.
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes, it was after certain difficulties occurred, and the Government had to come to the rescue, and the Government, because it came to the rescue, appointed a director, Sir William McClintock, who represents His Majesty's Treasury. There is a shipping company in very similar case to this particular merger, because the latter were in difficulties for they could not get the finances for building this great Cunarder, and the Government came, I still say somewhat tardily, to the rescue. After a lot of backing and filling, and veering and hauling, they decided to come to the rescue, to the extent altogether, if all the obligations were carried out, of £9,500,000.
Our case, and I think it is the case generally of your Lordships, apart from the occupants of the Treasury Bench, is that in this particular merger His Majesty's Treasury should be represented, and I have said in my Amendment "after consultation with the Board of Trade." The reason for that is obvious. The Board of Trade is the Department most closely connected with shipping. Indeed,

447
on this matter I may answer the somewhat pertinent point put by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, on the Second Reading, as to what kind of directors you would put on the board in a case of this kind. For many years I had the honour of representing a great shipping port in another place, and of being President of the Sea Pilots' Association. Those two offices brought me in much contact with the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, and I was most agreeably surprised to find how well informed they were on all shipping matters. I say I was agreeably surprised, because I came with the ordinary layman's idea that they were utterly inefficient, as most Government Departments are. The senior officials of the Marine Department retire at a fairly early age, and they would make admirable directors of such a merger, and could well represent the interests of the British taxpayers and the Treasury.
There is no black mystery about managing shipping companies. The noble Earl says that this is a very competent board. I have said so. There is no reflection at all, proposed or actual, on the board of this merger, but they are not the only people who can bring useful constructive knowledge to bear on the policy of shipping. There are plenty of business men, or men of the type of retired civil servants that I have mentioned, who could admirably represent the Treasury on such a board. Then there is a grave reason why I must bring this matter to your Lordships' notice. It is within our knowledge that under the proposed merger 38 per cent. of the stock will be held by the American Company that we have been reading about in the newspapers, the International Mercantile Marine Company of the United States of America. They are friendly disposed towards us, but there is nothing at all to prevent that 38 per cent. of the shares being sold to any interest in any part of the world, to any foreign country. I submit that that is a very serious reason indeed why His Majesty's Government should be represented on the board of this merger, and I hope, therefore, that His Majesty's Government will accept my Amendment.
One more point. The noble Earl said that if you put one or two directors on a board of ten they would be out-voted. We all know that that is not how the board of a company operates at all. You
448
do not have voting in an ordinary board of directors, or, if you do, you come to the resignation point. Matters are discussed and settled by logic, but if you have two Government directors, and anything is suggested which would adversely affect the taxpayers, the very threat of these directors to resign would bring the board quickly to their senses, if anything was being done unfavourable to the body politic. These two directors, I suggest, if well chosen, would he of value to the board, and they would be able to see that the highest interests of the nation were safeguarded. I submit, therefore, that this is a very reasonable Amendment to put forward, and that it ought to be accepted. It is not a partisan question at all. It is a non-Party question, and I submit to your Lordships that here, in this revising Chamber, this Bill, the Committee stage of which was taken early in the morning in another place, without, I suggest, its being properly digested and argued, is a very suitable case for amendment and that you should amend the Bill in the way I have suggested.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 15, at end insert:
("(4) Until the sums advanced under subsection (1) of this section have been repaid, two directors of the board of the merger company shall be nominated by the Treasury, after consultation with the Board of Trade ").—(Lord Strabolgi.)
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL STAN-HOPE): My Lords, so far from another place not having properly considered this particular point, or having dealt with it at a very late hour, I may inform your Lordships that there was a debate on an Amendment. of a similar character, except that they proposed one director instead of two. The matter was carried to a Division and defeated by 129 votes to 37.
LORD STRABOLGI: At what. hour was that?
EARL STANHOPE: A little after midnight. Between 12 o'clock and 12.30. I submit it was pretty considerable vote, and showed that another place had very definite views on the question. The matter was also discussed on the Second Reading and was by no means a new matter when it came before another place. If your Lordships will turn to the

449
Agreement you will find on page 9, where the Memorandum is set out on which this whole Agreement is based, that the board is to be constituted as follows:
"After formation of the new Company, the board to consist of ten individuals inclusive of the Chairman; to be nominated six by the Cunard Company and four by the Oceanic Company.''
Your Lordships will realise from that, of course, that if one or two directors are appointed by the Government it upsets the whole Agreement come to between the two companies and His Majesty's Government, and re-opens the whole question, which may entail other claims being made upon the merger company. Inevitably it would delay the beginning of the work of this big steamer, and whether the companies would accept or not I do not know, but let us realise quite definitely that if accepted it means the tearing up of this Memorandum.
The noble Lord opposite said that of course directors do not vote, and that the opinions of the two Government directors would no doubt influence the rest; but he failed to point out to your Lordships that, as I ventured to say in the Second Reading debate, the interests of the Government and the company in this case are one. After all, the interests of the Government are to see that this company is successful, and to see that it succeeds in paying its way and gets back a very large amount of traffic on the North Atlantic. If your Lordships will examine this agreement you will see that no dividend is payable on the shares of the company until a dividend has been paid on the debentures and on the income debenture stock, which belongs to the Government, and therefore the first interest of the ten directors of this company is to see that this company pays its way and eventually is enabled to pay a dividend on its shares. If they succeed in doing that, the interests of the taxpayers are adequately secured, because they have the first claim on any profits which are made, and only after that has been fully met is any dividend available for the shareholders. The board of the merger company is formed by selection from the existing boards of the Cunard and Oceanic Companies, men who have the greatest experience in the North Atlantic shipping trade.
450
The noble Lord opposite says that very much to his surprise he finds that the shipping side of the Board of Trade has very great knowledge of shipping. I have had to answer for the Board of Trade in this House sufficiently to realise that a very long time ago, and I should have thought that the noble Lord might have realised it having regard to the Safety at Sea and the Load Line Convention, which was discussed not only in this House but also in another place with which he is familiar. Anybody who knew of the long dealings of the Board of Trade with regard to that question would know how very full is their knowledge with regard to shipping matters. But that is quite a different story from making a profit in a company which is engaged in passenger traffic. There all sorts of other considerations come into play. I thought that the noble Lord would point out some matter wherein the interest of the Government differed from the financial interest of the company. All he said was that these Government directors should be Treasury watch-dogs, but that conveys nothing at all, because, as I have already tried to point out, if this company succeeds in making this venture profitable, the whole of the interests of the taxpayers are adequately safeguarded, because they have the first claim on any profits.
The noble Lord raised a point in regard to Imperial Airways. There, I think, the House will at once agree that the Government director is of advantage. If you are going to look at Imperial Airways purely from the commercial side, you will concentrate your traffic on the most paying lines, and you will leave out any extension of airways over those long-distance lines which, at any rate for some years, are almost always on a non-paying basis and, in fact, cost the company a good deal of money. From the Imperial side and the Government side it is to our interest to see these Imperial airways extended to the far distant parts of the Empire, and from that point of view alone it is obviously wise to have a Government director. When the noble Lord turns to the other cases he quoted, there I think he will find himself in some difficulty. What happened was this. The London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company and Coast Lines, Limited, set up the company of MacBrayne, and those two companies who formed the

451
MacBrayne Company themselves came to the Government and asked that a Government director should be appointed, and it was for that reason that a Government director was appointed in that case.
There has been no such demand in regard to this merger company, nor indeed, would it be very easy for them to make such a request. As your Lordships know, there have been a good many difficulties in the past with regard to the Oceanic Company, and it was at the request of the Government, and no doubt on behalf of the Government, that the noble Lord, Lord Essendon, became the Chairman of the Oceanic Company. He has therefore been in very close touch with the Government with regard to the Oceanic Company, and again of course in very close touch in regard to the merger company. Therefore if we were considering anyone for appointment as Government director I can conceive of no one whom we should be more likely to appoint than Lord Essendon. Why should not Lord Essendon fill the bill'? Why should he be ear-marked as a Government director? As I pointed out, if he succeeds in making a success of this company, he will automatically cover the whole scope of our security, because remember, my Lords, under the terms of the Memorandum the Government maintain absolute control of the constitution of the company.
For instance, the company must remain under British control. On that point, the noble Lord, I am afraid, was entirely misinformed in regard to the position of the Oceanic Company. As your Lordships know, a claim has been lodged in the Courts by an American Company, but that company only claims shares in the Oceanic Company, and therefore will have only a very small share in the control of it. The actual amount outstanding, I believe, is some £2,350,000, which is not due to be paid for another eighteen months. Of course, I cannot go into that question because it is definitely sub judice, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed another place, when the point was raised, that there was no question whatever that the condition that the company should remain entirely under British control was safeguarded under this Bill, even if the American Company succeeded in winning its case in the Courts. A second point in regard to our control is that the share capital may not
452
be increased without Treasury consent. Thirdly, it is laid down that the articles of association cannot be altered, again unless the Treasury give their consent.
It is, of course, natural that the noble Lord opposite should raise the point that a Government director should be appointed. After all, it is part of the Socialistic doctrine that the Government should interfere in all trade and business and should endeavour to nationalise it where possible. No doubt this is, they think, their maximum effort, and their best chance under present conditions, but of course that is not the policy of His Majesty's present Government. We desire to assist commerce and industry to the utmost of our ability, but we are also anxious to leave the control of that industry and commerce in private hands, because we believe that it is in private hands, and in private hands alone, that the greatest chance of success lies. We are particularly anxious not to interfere in the management of this particular company, and for this reason. It has, as your Lordships know, practically a monopoly of the North Atlantic passenger trade. It will be in competition with an American company or companies, with a French company, with a German company and with an Italian company. Any one of those companies, certainly if they read the speech of the noble Lord, will say: "Here are two Government directors, who are in the position of being able to dictate the policy of this company, and therefore this is not a private British company at all, it is a Government concern. Therefore all the hacking of the British Government will be behind it. We shall not get any question considered fairly between the British and any other foreign company because the British Government is in fact this company."
That is exactly the position that we wish to avoid. Of course, there is competition between British and foreign companies all over the world in every kind of business, but the British Government do not take a hand in the day-to-day management of that business. Points, when they arise, are dealt with by those companies from the commercial point of view, and not from the point of view of Government policy. We were anxious in this case, where there is competition between a British monoply and foreign companies, that the Government should not be considered as taking a hand in it

453
and that all its doings and its business should not be looked on as being part of Government policy, instead of merely a matter which is run entirely from commercial considerations. I hope, from what I have said, your Lordships will realise that the Government cannot possibly accept this Amendment. As I say, it has been already considered and refused in another place, and I very much hope that your Lordships will refuse to accept it.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: We debated this at some length on the Second Reading, and the noble Earl then gave us a reply which he has amplified considerably to-day, and the reasons which he has put forward to-day seem to me more powerful. No doubt special consideration has now been given to the Truatter, but I am still a little troubled by the answer, because in the first place there are precedents. It is true that in some cases there are strategic grounds on which the Government may wish to be represented on a board. But that is not always the case. It may be that there are financial interests which should be watched and protected. There was a Government director in respect. of money which had been advanced in relation to the Royal Mail Company. I quite admit that there are very important differences in regard to the merger company to be constituted. No doubt because of the inability of the Royal Mail Company to meet the debenture interest when the security was in jeopardy the Government did appoint a director. But that was not. a strategic reason.
My difficulty is this. The Government are providing £3,000,000 for the ship and £1,500,000 for working capital, and I gather that the same figures will apply when the advance is made for the second ship. Working capital of £3,000,000 out of 9,500;000 is a very large amount. So, of course, is the £6,500,000 which is to be invested in the ship. I quite follow all that the noble Earl has said as to the protection that is given to the Government in relation to the profits, but it is not as a rule when profits are being made that troubles arise. And when the merger company is able to pay its interest on the debentures and the question arises as to what dividend should be paid to the shareholders, I quite understand. that there need be no serious anxiety about it. That is not the real
454
difficulty. I agree with the noble Earl that the directorate of this company—six members from the Cunard and four from the Oceanic Company—is no doubt a very good working directorate, but that has often been the case in other companies where financial interests have had someone on the board to watch out for them.
The Agreement provides that money paid out of working capital has to be paid as it is required for current working expenses. I agree that you can trust the board, but I should have thought that, for the proper protection of its own financial interest, the Government might have had a representative on the board. I cannot believe that there is any difficulty owing to the agreement between the Cunard and the Oceanic. I should have thought also that neither the Oceanic nor the Cunard would raise any objection to having two more directors, or one more director, representing the Government. It could riot possibly do them any harm; indeed, I should have thought. it would do them good. It would be an advantage to have a Government representative on the board from their point of view. The argument that the noble Earl used last was the one that influenced me most., and that was that difficulties and complications might possibly arise because of foreign influences. I can only conclude that the Government have considered this very carefully, especially as the point was debated and a Division taken upon it in another place, and there has since been the opportunity to consider the matter again. But, as I say, I have been impressed by the last argument of the noble Earl, and in view of these various considerations I shall not myself press this Amendment if the Government maintain their attitude.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I must confess that I was not impressed by the speech of the noble Earl who replied for the Government. The noble Earl said that if the Government had representation on the board other nations would know that the resources of Great Britain were backing up the shipping line. These debates are not held so secretly and the -whole affair has not been so clandestine that other Governments do not already know that the resources of Great Britain are behind this line.
EARL STANHOPE: That is not what I said.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: In that case I will turn to the remainder of the noble Earl's speech.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: If I might intervene, that was not the noble Earl's point to which I alluded in my speech. As I understood it, there were possibilities of difficulties because of foreign complications.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I am obliged to the noble Marquess. At the same time, he will admit that he did not help me very specifically as to what these difficulties and complications with foreign nations may be. I particularly objected to the argument used by the noble Earl that this was n Socialist measure. It is not. a Socialist measure at all. It is simply a measure designed to obtain as many safeguards as possible for the expenditure of public money, and I have always understood that that was one of the credos of the Conservative Party. Although the Division was so decisive, the Government at that time were far from convinced in their own mind that this was a good plan. The Government's representative said:
"I think it is a matter which has to be thought out. Various methods will he adopted, of control or otherwise, whatever may be thought suitable. I do not want to lay down any hard and fast rule, but I think that in this particular instance we have found the best method of control in the national interest."
That is not a very convinced statement. It was not, surely, a matter on which the Government could have made up their mind very definitely one way or the other. The Government obviously at that time were doubtful as to whether they should not have representation on the board.
I quite agree that if this Amendment is passed there will have to be a representative on the board of the merger company. That is why the Amendment is offered. It is surely no argument to come to this House and say: "If you pass this Amendment we will have to alter our proposal." That is why the Amendment was first introduced and is now supported. The noble Earl devoted a great deal of time to explaining how useless a representative of the Government would be on the board, and he then
456
went on to say that in any case these vital functions, would be performed by Lord Essendon. First of all we were told there were no functions to be performed at all, and then that someone was perfectly competent to perform them. I must confess I was very disappointed with the noble Earl's answer. I think it is important for a number of reasons that the Government should have a representative who will be able to tell them how the affairs of the company are going.
For instance, the first duty of the new merger hoard apparently will be to scrap a large number of ships which are being transferred under this agreement as assets. Would the Government not think it a good plan to have someone to represent them when that decision is being taken, to tell them exactly the value of the shipping which is being scrapped and what the remaining assets of the company are going to be? Suppose the board wants more money, would it not be a good thing that the Treasury should he able to consult someone who was in daily contact with the board of the new company? Would it not be better, when the decision has to be taken as to whether the second ship is to be built, that the Government should have at their disposal an accurate and well-informed adviser to tell them exactly what the prospects of the second ship are and what profits it is likely to make? The noble Earl saved a good deal of criticism on the Second Reading when he informed us, as no one else had previously informed us in another place, that these ships were going to be capable of greater speed than any of their rivals. Would it not he a good thing if the Government had someone on the board to tell them from day to day whether these enormous vessels are in fact going to be capable of these very great speeds which are necessary if they are going to make money?
All these numerous questions leap to the mind when one thinks of the enormous amount of public money that is being put into this enterprise. This is not the last time that the Government are going to be asked to put money into private enterprise, and I hope it will not be the last time the Government will agree to do so. The result may be, if this precedent is followed, that you will have an enormous amount of public money scattered in numerous enterprises throughout the country, while the

457
Government are entirely ignorant, except for certain annual or triennial reports, as to how the companies are doing and what prospects there are of getting their money back or their interest paid. From this more general point of view I would ask the Government to consider once again whether, in view of the arguments which have been put forward from all parts of the House, they cannot meet us on this point, and at least have one representative on the board to represent the interests of the Treasury and the taxpayer.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I must confess that, although I was very much interested in the noble Earl's speech in answer to my noble friend behind me, if was disappointed with his conclusions. This is one of those cases where we are unfortunate, because the very fact that an Amendment is moved by one of my noble friends is ipso facto a reason for a great many noble Lords to vote against it. Otherwise, I believe, we should have a good deal of support for this extremely reasonable suggestion. If I had thought of it sooner I should have asked the noble Marquess who has just sat down to put the Amendment down in his name, but unfortunately I did not do that. The suggestion of the noble Earl that we want a director put on this board as an example of our Socialism is, if I may respectfully say so, really rather ridiculous. That we should desire to safeguard the interests of the taxpayer and to look after the interests of the Treasury is, to my mind, a most ordinary and commendable spirit on the part of any political Party. If the noble Earl wants an instance of Socialism he might read the Petroleum Production Bill which has been introduced very rapidly and which is pure nationalisation, but this very tentative and reasonable suggestion that the taxpayer's money should be safeguarded by placing a representative on this board seems to me to be one that should commend itself to your Lordships.
The noble Earl really hardly dealt with the question which must a rise, and which the noble Marquess on the Liberal Benches mentioned. He rightly said that it, is not in good times that difficulties arise but in bad times, and the noble Earl must know that in a big concern of this sort there is such a thing as policy, and it is in connection with, policy that the interested party, the British
458
taxpayer, should have a representative. There might be new inventions, there might be new schemes, there might be great risks that they were prepared to take. Admitting that the interests of the company and of the Government are identical, that does not necessarily mean that the policy they would adopt would be one that would commend itself to His Majesty's Government. Surely in a matter of this sort someone who is watching, someone who has day-to-day contact, would be of use and should be placed there?
When the noble Earl said that if at this late stage a representative of the Government is put on the board it would mean tearing up the Agreement, I really can hardly believe that is the case. I believe, with the noble Marquess on the Liberal Benches, that the company would be only too glad if the suggestion were made by His Majesty's Government and this appointment were made. It seems to me in everybody's interest—in the interest of the company, in the interest- of the Government, in the interest of the taxpayer—and none of the elaborate arguments brought forward by the noble Earl has really moved us at all. I am afraid we shall have to give your Lordships the trouble of a Division.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I had not proposed to intervene in the debate, but the appeal of my noble friend behind me, that the Government should consider this matter again, does induce me to say a few words in answer to the very careful argument he put forward. Let me say at once that neither I nor my noble friend Lord Stanhope asks your Lordships to divide against this measure because it is or is not Socialism, but I think my noble friend was justified in pointing out that the arguments which were adduced in another place were based on the fact that the policy of the Government making advances to enterprises and running them and managing them themselves, was the policy of the Socialist Party, and that this was the nearest they could get to putting it into effect. That argument was—
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBEEDE: May I point out that it was moved by a Liberal?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Yes, but the argument in support of it was put forward by Socialists. In fact, as my noble

459
friend reminded your Lordships, in another place—although it is not very profitable to discuss what happened in another place—there were Amendments by people who objected to the whole Agreement. They numbered thirty-seven at a maximum and thirty at a minimum. so they were pretty well the solid block of Socialists, lessened by one or two who thought that business was coming to their ports and so it would be inadvisable to vote against the Bill. My noble friend said he did not think there was much force in the argument that there was a risk of international complications, because, he said, everyone knows that the Government are entering into this bargain. That, as the noble and learned Marquess opposite pointed out, is not quite the point.
The objection is that there is in the North Atlantic trade very keen competition going on between a number of lines which belong to different countries and in which no doubt very anxious fighting takes place—commercial fighting—between the different companies concerned in order to try to secure what they regard as their fair share of the trade and others regard as more than their fair share of the trade. The view quite deliberately formed after very careful consideration is that whereas there is no harm at all in all the world knowing, as they must know and do know, that the Government are finding money towards this particular ship and we hope later on for a sister ship, it is quite another thing to know that the Government, by their own chosen representatives, are actively engaged in carrying on the business of a particular company and carrying out and giving effect to certain decisions which may be—I hope will not be—resented by foreign lines or foreign Governments.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Will the noble Viscount permit me to interrupt in order to ask a question? There is one point on which I am not quite clear in regard to the American lines which would be in competition. Do the American Government pay a subsidy to those lines? If they do, are they not in just the same way competing with us?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think the American Government do pay a subsidy, and I think that rather strengthens my argument. I see no objection to the Americans or the French or Italians or
460
Germans knowing—because all these lines are involved—that the British Government are going to find money for this company. All the world knows it. We know that many foreign Governments, not only the American Government, have found money to help their shipping lines. But I think it would tend to grave risk of deterioration in international good will and in international relations if Governments themselves were actively engaged in running these lines one against another. I think that might produce complications. It is that risk which was in the mind of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he very carefully reconsidered this matter.
I know from my own personal knowledge that after the Second Reading debate the matter was brought to the personal attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he went into it very carefully with the representatives of the Government in this House. It was only after considering the arguments put forward that he very deliberately came to the conclusion—a conclusion in which the Government concur—that it was inadvisable to accept the suggestion put forward, not because it was Socialism, or because it was proposed by this or that member of the House. After all, it had the support, as has been pointed out, of my noble friend opposite, who has himself been a member of the National Government, and of my noble friend behind me who represents a section of our Party. It was decided on much broader grounds, on national grounds, that it was unwise.
I would like to say in answer to the specific argument of my noble friend when he said that the Government ought to know what was going on, that we ought to know what was happening with regard to the scrapping of ships and to policy generally, that I quite agree that that is important. But there is no doubt whatever that the Government will know exactly what is going on. Not only are there on the board men who are admitted by everyone to be the leading persons and the leading authorities in this particular trade, but we have among them people put on by the Government to represent the Government specially. On the Oceanic Trust Company there is the noble Lord, Lord Essendon. There is no doubt that we shall get from the gentlemen on that board exactly the information

461
we want, whether Lord Essendon is there as representing the Oceanic Trust or is there nominally as the representative of His Majesty's Government. We shall get just the same information as from the person we should have chosen. There is no question of the Government being kept in the dark. If there is a. question of dealing with the trust security on which the debentures are charged, it is specifically provided under the Agreement that the trustees are to be persons approved by His Majesty's Treasury. We have, in regard to the security, selection of the people to represent us and to act as trustees.
It is quite true, as the noble Lord opposite said, that it is perfectly within the power and right of this House to make any amendment your Lordships like in the Bill. Although it deals largely with finance, it is not a financial Bill in the sense of being certified as a Money Bill. If this question had not been discussed in another place, or if the Government had decided without full discussion, I should have thought there was a great deal to be said for the view that at least opportunity ought to be given to the Government to reconsider it and for another place to express an opinion. But that is not what has happened. This matter has been carefully considered by the Government, it has been debated on Second Reading and in Committee and through all stages in another place. On this specific point a decision was taken in another place and, as my noble friend Earl Stanhope said, that decision was against this proposal. It has been reconsidered by the Government and they still regard it as undesirable. Therefore the effect of carrying the Amendment must necessarily be to bring about delay. The matter would be sent back to be reconsidered in another place and I do not think, if my noble friend will forgive my saying so, that, any new questions have been raised which were not raised in previous discussons. Obviously the Bill could not become an Act before Easter, and for how long after Easter I do not know. There would have to be the usual discussions which take place between the two Houses when there is difference of opinion.
I am not sure whether, in a matter preeminently financial, the terms on which a guarantee ought to be given, your Lord-
462
ships would think it right to press your view too far against the decision of the House of Commons. But, assuming that was done and the view of this House prevailed, the position would have to be discussed with the parties to the Agreement, with the Cunard Company and the Oceanic Company. My noble friend said that they would probably raise no difficulty, and I think that is very likely to be true, but still it would take time. It is not merely a case of asking the companies because a great many interests in the companies would have to be consulted. You would delay the operation of this Agreement for a very considerable time with very grave doubt; of any different decision being reached. This is a matter which in the national interest is of very great importance. There has been very long delay. Noble, Lords opposite said it was too long, but I am not going to bandy words about that. I do not agree that the delay has been longer than could have been avoided in the circumstances. Still it is quite true there has been delay in a project which is urgently required from the point of view of employment and a project which is going, we hope, to restore to us that pre-eminence on the Atlantic which has belonged for some little time to other people. Of course a ship started two or three years ago does not wait for ever, although there has been no deterioration so far, thanks to the excellent work put into her. Still it is important from the national point of view, and from the point of view of employment, that this Agreement. should become operative as soon as possible, and the work be continued. Under this Amendment you would get delay which would not be likely to result in an altered position, in order to get something which, when analysed, is not very valuable when you have got it.
I am not saying that there are not cases in which it is important and valuable that the Government should have direct representation. There are cases —as for instance when strategic questions are involved, and the financial interests of a company may be different from the interests of the nation; but in this particular case you have got a board which admittedly consists of the very best people to carry on a, commercial enterprise, and you have an enterprise in which there is no conflict of

463
interest between the Government and the company. You have got actually included in the present board the very people who have been appointed by the Government on one or other of the boards which are going to choose this merger company's directors. Therefore you have got the very first information and the most competent direction. In those circumstances I suggest that it is not necessary to alter the Agreement in order to ensure that the Government shall put on an additional one or two directors, who will not be in a better position to tell them anything than the people already on the board, and will not be more likely to give honest and impartial information than those in whom the Government, and your Lordships too, I am sure, have confidence.

CONTENTS.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Sanderson, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

Rhayader, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Chaplin, V.

Greville, L.

Goschen, V.

Harris, L.

Marlborough, D.

Hailsham, V.

Heneage, L.

Wellington, D.

Halifax, V.

Hindlip, L.

Ullswater, v.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Bath, M.

Jessel, L.

Zetland, M.

Alvingham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Bingley, L.

Middleton, L.

Albemarle, E.

Brocket, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Derby, E.

Chesham, L.

Palmer, L.

Feversham, E.

Clanwilliam, L.(E. Clanwilliam.)

Portsea, L.

Grey, E.

Redesdale, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Remnant, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Cottesloe, L.

Roundway, L.

Midleton, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), L.

Seaton, L.

Munster, E.

Dickinson, L.

Sinclair, L.

Peel, E.

Eltisley, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Plymouth, E.

Elton, L.

Strathcona, and Mount Royal, L.

Stanhope, E.

Ernle, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Templemore, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
EARL PEEL: I would like to put one question which I think is relevant to the first clause. It is in connection with the time which these powers taken by the Treasury are to last. There is power, of course, first to raise the £3,000,000 and the £1,500,000 for the working capital of the new company, and then there is a further power to raise, for another ship or other ships, another £5,000,000. That question comes under review after the formation of the merger company. Then
While not in the least desiring to be doctrinaire, or to lay down the principle that in no case is it desirable to have Government representatives, still I do say that in this ease I do not think it is either necessary or desirable; that you have really good representation and direction, and that to accept this Amendment would be to incur a risk which it would be wiser, if possible, to avoid. In those circumstances I ask your Lordships not to upset the Bill, but to agree with the view which the Government have put forward.
On Question, Whether the proposed new subsection (4) shall be inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents,; Not-Contents, 54.
it rests with the Government in their discretion to decide whether or not they should raise these sums and lend these sums. The point upon which I should like to ask my noble friend for information is this: Do those powers, if they are not used, last, and if so, for how long? Apparently, under the Bill, if not used they seem to last for ever, because for instance a decision may be taken after the formation of the merger company to build one ship or even another ship also, or they may decide against doing so. They need not come to a decision, as I understand it, just after the merger company has been formed. In fact they might come to a negative decision, and

465
then they might come to a decision in the contrary sense in another five or ten years.
I cannot recall any precedent for powers of this kind lasting so interminably as they appear to last under the proposals in the Bill. Of course my noble friend may say: "Well, this fleet has a, monopoly of the British trade on the Atlantic, and it may be useful to hold this power of building other ships in terrorem for many years over the competing fleets in America and France." But of course that argument might also be used against any competition with the British Fleet by Britishships. My noble friend may say that these ships could only be built, not only with the assent of the Treasury but also, I suppose, with the assent of the company, and the company in certain circumstances might say that these ships ought not to be built; but it does seem to me rather a remarkable thing that these powers, if not used, should go on for so many years. Ought there not to be some limiting clause—ten years or something of that kind—within which the powers should be used, failing which those powers should lapse? I cannot think that it is a very good precedent to set in an Act, if I am right in my interpretation of it, that certain powers as regards raising money and lending money should have no termination in time, but if not used should go on for ever and be used at the wish of the Government or of the Treasury of the day at almost any time. I will conclude by asking my noble friend definitely whether any provision is going to be inserted in the Bill which will effectively end in any way those powers which are entrusted to the Treasury by the Bill.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, it is quite true, as my noble friend says, that under the arrangement set out in this White Paper no actual term of years is laid down within which the possibility of raising a loan would lapse. This matter was also discussed, I think, in another place, but with the idea that there should be a time-limit of two years. Quite obviously, two years was too short a period, because, as my noble friend said, the merger company some time after it had come into existence might decide that a second ship of the name type might be required, or might say that it preferred on the whole to have two smaller ships.
466
It would take some little time to come to a decision on that, and perhaps those two smaller ships might be built one after the other. Therefore a period of quite a few years might elapse before a decision could be come to and the actual money expended. I speak subject to correction on this matter because, as my noble friend knows, I am not in the Treasury, but I imagine no actual term of years was put into the Bill because any term of years likely to be absolutely safe might give an entirely false impression as to the length of time within which the money might be advanced to this company.
My noble friend suggested a term of ten years. My belief is that long before that period has elapsed a final decision will have been come to one way or the other; but I think it would not have been safe—and I think he will agree with me —to put any period of less than ten years into this Agreement. As he pointed out, unless the company asked for this money the Government would not, of course, think of advancing it. On the other side, the Treasury has an absolute right at any time to refuse to advance the money, and therefore the Government of the day will come to a decision on that matter. I think that really safeguards the position both from the point of view of the company and from the taxpayer's point of view. We should know fully, of course, if the period was not immediate, what the results had been of the first advance of £4,750,000, and should be satisfied that the money would be well expended if we finally decided to advance the further £5,000,000.
As regards the further point, as my noble friend said, this company really holds the British monopoly of the trade in the North Atlantic, and therefore there is, I think, no serious competition to be considered from a British source. On the other hand there might be competition from other countries. I do not think that no limit was put in for that reason, but really more in order that there should be freedom to the Government of the day to come to a decision on the matter on the results that were obtained upon the first advances. I cannot really believe, however, that any Government would think of advancing this money without coming to Parliament again if there were really any long delay between the first advance and a subsequent one

467
on other ships. I do not know whether I have met my noble friend's point?
EARL PEEL: I am much obliged to my noble friend. As regards a period of ten years, it would be quite easy, I think, to limit the period during which a decision had to be taken to ten years; I am not suggesting that the ships would have to be built within ten years, but if a decision had to be taken within five or six years, I think that would be sufficient. But I leave the point in the charge, as it were, of the noble Earl. If he thinks it advisable or possible to move any Amendment perhaps he will do so—I will not say on the Report stage because I do not think there will be one, but under our beneficent procedure in this House, as he knows, he can move an Amendment on Third Reading. Perhaps he would be kind enough to think the matter over.
EARL STANHOPE: I am hoping to have the Third Reading of this Bill to-day in order to get it through before the Recess.
EARL PEEL: I am afraid the precedent is established.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a and passed.

RURAL WATER SUPPLIES BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, as to-morrow is to be more or less a formal sitting, it might perhaps be for the convenience of your Lordships if I were to ask the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House if he would be good enough to tell us something with regard to business when we resume. There are Orders down on the Paper for Wednesday, April 11, but so far there is nothing down for Thursday, April 12. I would like to ask the noble and learned Viscount if he could tell us on what day the Second Reading will be
468
taken of the Bill which was read a first time to-day on behalf of the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry—a Bill with regard to lotteries. Perhaps he cannot give us a definite date, but, as there is is good deal of public interest in this Bill, I think it would be useful if we could know more or less when the Bill will be taken.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am very glad to have the opportunity of giving such information as is in my power. We are coming back on April 11, when there are two or three Motions which are on the Order Paper. So far as I know there will be no addition to them on that day. On April 12 we are proposing to take the Second Reading of the Electricity (Supply) Bill. On the following Tuesday, April 17, we are proposing to take the Tithe Bill, which has been read a first time this evening. On April 18, there is a Bill in the name of my noble friend Lord Munster for dealing with metalliferous mines. With regard to the Betting and Lotteries Bill, I cannot give a definite date because it is in the hands of my noble friend Lord Londonderry, who, unfortunately, is prevented from being here this afternoon. I rather hope it will be arranged for April 24, but it certainly will not be taken, I think I can safely say, before that date. As regards to-morrow, I understand that owing to the arrangements in another place it will not be possible to have the Royal Commission until a quarter to six o'clock. In those circumstances I suggest that we should meet at the usual time—I do not think the business will occupy us more than a very few minutes—and then have an adjournment during pleasure and meet at a quarter to six to take the Royal Assent. We shall afterwards adjourn until Wednesday, April 11.

  LOCAL DEBTS.
  LOCAL DEBTS.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
Corby (Northants) and District Water,
East Worcestershire Water.
And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the petition for additional provision in the following Bill:
Durham County Water Board [H.L.].
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

DARTMOUTH CORPORATION.
Petition of the Mayor, aldermen and burgesses of the Borough of Clifton Dartmouth Hardness under their corporate seal praying for leave to introduce a Bill to authorise the Mayor, aldermen and burgesses of the Borough of Clifton Dartmouth Hardness to construct new waterworks for obtaining a supply of water from the River Harbourne; to confer powers upon them with reference to their water undertaking; to make further provision for the health and good government of the borough, and for other purposes; together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto: Read, and referred to the Examiners.
SOUTH DEVON AND EAST CORNWALL HOSPITAL, PLYMOUTH, ROYAL ALBERT HOSPITAL, DEVONPORT, AND CENTRAL HOSPITAL, PLYMOUTH (AMALGAMATION, ETC.) BILL. [H.L.]
MANCHESTER EXTENSION BILL.
STOCKPORT EXTENSION BILL.
Reports from His Majesty's Attorney-General received and ordered to lie on the Table.
MIDDLESEX COUNTRY COUNCIL BILL. [H.L]
TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, namely:

M. Ailesbury,

L. Stanley of Alderley,

L. Monkswell,

L. Merthyr,

L. Askwith (Chairman);

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday, the 24th of April next at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.
SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS (No. 1) BILL.
BRIGHTON, HOVE AND WORTHING GAS BILL.
Committed.

SOMERSHAM RECTORY BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
PORT DINORWIC ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1934.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order; that they have considered a Special Report by the Electricity Commissioners under Section 1 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1888, dispensing with the consent of the Gwyrfai Rural District Council; and that there is nothing in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

MATLOCK AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1934.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order and that there is nothing

473
in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
MOSSLEY GAS ORDER, 1934.
WATFORD AND ST. ALBANS GAS ORDER, 1934.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, that they have received and considered Reports from the Board of Trade upon these Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

OLDBURY GAS ORDER, 1934.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order; that they have received and considered a Report from the Board of Trade upon the Order; that they have considered modifications proposed by the Board of Trade and recommend their adoption to the House, and that there is nothing in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.