Sitting of 3 May 1934

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Walthamstow Corporation Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Cambridge University and Town Waterworks Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the Third time.
Workington Corporation Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Chailey Rural District Council Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next, at half-past Seven of the clock.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a notice was issued, on 5th December, 1933, to reserve pay cases in the county of Durham, notifying them that when they received reserve pay on 1st January, 1934, it would be treated as wages for that week and no transitional payment would be paid; whether the reserve pay was received by the applicant or any member of the household; and will he take steps to introduce legislation to put an end to this system?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Bettorton): I understand that it is the practice of the Durham Commissioners to treat reserve pay paid quarterly as if it were wages for the week in which it is received. Ordinarily, but not invariably, this means that there is no transitional payment for that week, and any cases of hardship receive special consideration. The effect of the practice
    452
    is to leave out of account a substantial portion of the reserve pay. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. BATEY: Then we are to understand from the reply to the last part of the question that the Government have no intention of trying to remedy this state of affairs, but that it is their intention to impoverish this class of people as much as they can?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The hon. Gentleman is now raising a point which we discussed at considerable length in Committee the other day. I have nothing to add to what I said then.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour the amount of transitional payments in the county of Durham, excluding the boroughs, since October, 1931, and the amount which would have been paid if no means test had been in operation; and can he give the amounts for the same period for the county of Durham including the boroughs?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Since November, 1931, a total of approximately £12,502,000 has been paid by way of transitional payments at Employment Exchanges situated in the county of Durham. This sum is exclusive of amounts paid through associations of employed persons. It is not possible to furnish figures excluding boroughs, as no records are kept at local offices distinguishing payments to applicants according to whether they reside in borough or county areas. As regards the amount which would have been paid if no means test had been in operation, I regret that it is not practicable to maket a reliable estimate for particular areas.
    Mr. BATEY: Is the Minister not able to give an estimate? Have we not had estimates already of the amount that would have been paid, if the means test had not been in operation?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: We have had an estimate for the country as a whole, but that has been done by certain statistical methods which would not provide reliable estimates for each district separately, because the margin of error might be so great.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Minister of Labour whether he will state

    453
    the regulations under which local authorities determine the amounts to be paid to claimants for transitional payments?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The principles on which local authorities are to proceed in the assessment of transitional payments are determined, not by regulations made by me but by the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance (National Economy) (No. 2) Order, 1931, as modified by the Transitional Payments (Determination of Need) Act, 1932.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that the operation of these Acts is by means of regulations issued by the right hon. Gentleman?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir, the only regulations issued by me deal entirely with administrative procedure and machinery. They do not deal at all with the point raised by the hon. Member.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that in the National Economy Act no details are set out as to the manner in which this particular provision is to be applied by the local bodies?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes, Sir, but it is a matter for the local bodies themselves and not for me.
    Mr. MACLEAN: In what part of the Act is there power to carry out this particular function?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Act, he will see.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour if he will consider the advisability of suggesting to all public assistance committees that they should re-examine all cases during the first week in July, with a view to bringing them into line with the change in unemployment insurance benefits?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I assume the hon. Member refers to applications for transitional payments. The local authorities are, I think, fully aware of the proposed changes in the benefit rates. I will, however, issue a circular to them drawing their attention to these changes in good time before they come into force.

    TRAINING CENTRES.
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir ARNOLD WILSONasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the improved prospects of employment now apparent, he proposes to utilise the eight training centres under his control to their full capacity?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The number of places provided at Government training centres has always been related to the absorptive capacity of the respective industries as far as it is possible to judge it. Increases in the numbers of men accepted for training will certainly be made as occasion offers.
    Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Would the Minister not only give facilities but encourage hon. Members of this House to visit these centres?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I would not only encourage such visits, but I would express the hope that as many hon. Members as possible will visit as many centres as possible and as often as possible.
    Sir A. WILSONasked the Minister of Labour what percentage of men who have passed through training centres during the past 12 months have passed into employment; and what proportion of men so trained in previous years remain in the employment for which they were trained?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: 5,409 men were admitted to Government training centres during the 12 months ended 26th March, 1934. 4,510 completed a course and of these 4,041, or 89.6 per cent., were placed in or found employment. No figures are available to answer the second part of the question.
    Mr. G. NICHOLSON: Do not these figures show that there is very little saturation in those trades for which the men are trained, and, therefore, that there is greater scope for these centres than the Minister seems to imagine?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I think these figures are highly satisfactory, and I am fully alive to the possibilities and the advantages of these centres.
    Mr. NICHOLSON: I only meant that they could be extended.

    STATISTICS.
    Sir A. WILSONasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons of both sexes who, on 20th March last, had been on the register as unemployed for less than one month and less than three months, respectively?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply is somewhat long and contains a number of figures, I will if I may circulate it in the OFFICIAI, REPORT.
    Following is the reply :
    The numbers of applicants for insurance benefit and transitional payments at 19th March, 1934 (including wholly unemployed, temporarily stopped and casual workers) who had been on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain for less than three months were 806,358 males and 182,585 females. Statistics with regard to persons who had been on the registers for less than one month are available only in respect of applicants wholly unemployed; of these 211,999 males and 35,675 females had, at 19th March, 1934, been on the registers for less than four weeks. At the same date there were 317,425 male and 87,365 female applicants, who were either temporarily stopped or normally in casual employment; the great majority of these had probably been on the register for less than four weeks. Corresponding figures are not available in respect of unemployed persons on the registers who were not applicants for benefit or transitional payments.

    SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons supplied through the Employment Exchanges for hoeing, singling and harvesting sugar-beet for the years 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933; and if he is able to give the total number of regular and casual workers employed in the sugar-beet industry during those years?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The numbers of engagements made through the Exchanges for this work during each of the years 1930 to 1933 were 5,923, 3,407, 3,367 and 5,469 respectively. I regret that information is not available regarding the second part of the question.
    Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these figures may not give a correct record of the numbers employed in this industry, as many of them have been engaged in other ways?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I have no doubt that that may be so, but I have given the figures asked for in the question. The question, of course, deals with engagements made through the Employment Exchanges.
    Captain HEILGERS: Is the Minister aware that a great number of regular workers only retain whole-time employment on farms in East Anglia and other parts of England on account of the work which sugar-beet growing entails?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I have no doubt at all that, prima facie, what my hon. and gallant Friend says is true.

    BENEFIT CLAIMS (PROSECUTIONS).
    Mr. HICKSasked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of persons prosecuted during 1931, 1932, and 1933 for knowingly making false statements or false representations for the purpose of obtaining unemployment benefit and transitional payments, showing, for each year separately in respect of benefit or transitional payments, the number fined, imprisoned, bound over or admonished, charge proved but summons dismissed under the Probation of Offenders Act, and summonses dismissed and summonses withdrawn, and distinguishing for each year direct claimants from indirect claimants who made claims through associations having arrangements under Section 17 of the Act?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The Ministry of Labour Report for 1933, pages 71 and 75, gives all these statistics except the separate figures for indirect claimants. These latter figures are being separately extracted and I will send them to the hon. Member as soon as they are available

    DISTRESSED AREAS.
    Mr. GROVESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the alarm expressed by the Conference of Distressed Areas at the prospect of the appointed day for the operation of Part II of the Unemployment Bill being fixed later than 1st July, 1934, and the burden of unemployment relief which has

    457
    been left to be borne by the distressed areas for so long a period, he is prepared to make provision whereby, in the event of the appointed day under Part II of the Bill being fixed for a date later than 1st July, financial assistance will be provided for the distressed areas as from that date equivalent to the relief contemplated by the Bill?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): As my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary explained on the 23rd April in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne), I gave full consideration to representations made to me on behalf of the distressed areas before announcing on the 27th February last that the special grant to distressed areas would be continued until Part II of the Unemployment Bill comes into operation. It would not be possible to anticipate the relief which local authorities will receive under the Bill.

  WAGE BATES.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour, in view of the facts, as disclosed by the Ministry of Labour Gazette, that the changes in weekly wages of workpeople continue to show a net decrease during the first three months of 1934 against a similar period in 1933; what steps the Government are proposing to take to reverse this process?
  Sir H. BETTERTON: While the general level of wage rates, in the first quarter of this year, appears to have been slightly lower on average, than in the first quarter of 1933, the downward tendency which was in evidence in the early months of 1933 has, in fact, been reversed in recent months, with the result that the average level at the present date is slightly higher than at the beginning of May, 1933. Moreover, actual weekly earnings have increased, on average, to a greater extent than rates of wages, owing to the improvement in the state of employment during the past year.
  Mr. MANDER: Does not the Minister agree that the situation is still far from satisfactory when wages continue to decline?
  Sir H. BETTERTON: I have just pointed out that wages are not continuing to decline.
  Mr. MANDER: But am I not quoting from figures given in a reply by the Minister himself?
  Sir H. BETTERTON: I have not the slightest idea from what the hon. Gentleman is quoting.
  Mr. PIKE: Can the Minister say how the figures of wages compare with the figures of earnings?
  Sir H. BETTERTON: No.

  SHOPLIFTING.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the increase of women shoplifters, any special steps are taken to investigate these cases from a pathological standpoint; and whether he will equally reconsider the law allowing shoplifters to keep the articles they have stolen?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I know of no ground for thinking that any increase in offences of this type is due to pathological causes : but if in any case of shoplifting there is evidence that the offender is suffering from any mental illness, such evidence is given due consideration by the court. The law does not allow shoplifters to retain stolen property, and I do not know what is the point which my hon. Friend has in mind. Perhaps if he is aware of a difficulty in some special case, he will communicate the particulars to me.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: In view of the fact that so many of these cases are of women in a comfortable class of life, does not my right hon. Friend think it is more a mental than a social problem, and that some sort of investigation should take place, as I have suggested?
  Mr. LOGAN: Will consideration be given to this matter, and will the right hon. Gentleman remind the shopkeepers in the large establishments that it is necessary to have more assistants attending to the stocks that are displayed, instead of having people walking about examining the stocks without supervision?
  Mr. PIKE: Would not the shopkeepers take umbrage at that suggestion?

  MONSIEUR LEON TROTSKY.
  Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Home Secretary whether an application has been received from or on behalf of M. Leon Trotsky, alias Bronstein, to reside in Great Britain in view of his recent expulsion from France?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: An application has recently been made on behalf of Monsieur Leon Trotsky for permission to enter the United Kingdom, and it has been decided not to accede to his request.
  Mr. McGOVERN: Can the right bon. Gentleman give any reason why so many Nazi revolutionaries are allowed to enter this country, and why Trotsky is excluded?
  Mr. SPEAKER: This question deals only with one man.

  CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
  Mr. DIXEYasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the number of cases of capital sentences and the question of reprieve which may arise, he will consider the desirability of instituting an advisory committee in connection with the same?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir : I do not think that a committee would be advantageous for this purpose.

  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (PUNISHMENT).
  Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been directed to the opinion recently expressed by the chairman of the Eastbourne magistrates' court, when passing a sentence of three months' hard labour for cruelty to an old pony, to the effect that he hoped legislation would soon be introduced giving magistrates the power to inflict flogging in such cases; and, in view of this confirmation of the views expressed by other benches, will he consider revising his recent decision on this subject?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I have seen a Press report of the case referred to in this
  460
  question. The answer to the second part is in the negative.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: As these cases are increasing rather than decreasing, and penalties of imprisonment with hard labour and fines are equally inadequate, will my right hon. Friend find some other means of enforcing adequate penalties on these people?
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider re-introducing the art of flogging in the Army?

  POLICE SPORTS (INJURED COMPETITORS).
  Captain FULLERasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that men of the military forces who are injured while participating in organised games recognised by authority are considered as on duty and treated accordingly when questions of pensions or compensation arise; and if he will consider the desirability of extending this practice to the members of the Metropolitan Police Force?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The conditions of service of soldiers and constables with respect to pensions are regulated by quite different provisions, but I do not think that it can be said that in this respect the constable is less favourably treated than the soldier. Under the Police Pensions Act the grant of special pensions is limited to cases of injury on duty, but any constable who is incapacitated by injury is entitled to an ordinary pension (i.e., on a lower scale) or gratuity, although the injury may not have been received on duty, and this applies in the case of injuries received while taking part in games.
  Captain FULLER: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that all the forces of the Crown should be treated in the same manner?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Not necessarily.

  TRANSPORT.

    POLICE PATROL CARS.
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Home Secretary what steps are being taken to make police traffic patrol cars more readily recognisable by the public?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: In the Metropolitan Police, saloon cars used by the patrols have been fitted with "Police" signs which are ordinarily displayed in front and at the rear of the vehicles; in open cars the officers' uniforms are easily seen, and I do not think any further provision is necessary.
    Mr. PIKE: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that in the majority of cases these cars travel so fast that the "Police" signs are not observable to the ordinary public?

    BUILT-UP AREAS (SPEED LIMIT).
    Sir GIFFORD FOXasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that the Royal Commission on Transport, 1929, in their report on the control of traffic on roads recommended against a speed limit in built-up areas owing to the great difficulty of defining these areas, he ordered a survey to be made of typical areas in the country before deciding that a system of street lighting should be adopted as indicating a built-up area as is proposed under the Road Traffic Bill now before Parliament?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): No special surveys of typical areas were made, but technical officers of my Department were consulted, with the result that provision is included in the Bill which will make it possible to exempt from the operation of the speed limit the roads in built-up areas upon which, for special reasons, restriction seems unnecessary, and to bring within the operation of the restriction populated areas which have no street lighting.

    ARTERIAL ROADS (RIBBON DEVELOPMENT).
    Sir PERCY HURDasked the Minister of Transport if he has taken into consideration the effect of ribbon development on arterial roads as a cause of road accidents, and the fact that such development, if allowed to continue, will defeat the object for which these roads have been constructed at great cost; and what, action is proposed to meet the difficulty?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am aware of the unfortunate results of "ribbon development" along certain roads. The recent Town and Country Planning Act
    462
    has given the authorities further powers designed to prevent objectionable forms of "ribbon development," and it is hoped that full use will be made of these powers. In a circular issued to all local authorities in February last, my hon. Friend repeated certain previous recommendations as to the construction of parallel "service-roads" along arterial routes, with a view to promoting the safety and convenience of traffic.
    Sir P. HURD: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the operation of the Town and Country Planning Act is not bringing about the results which he thinks desirable, and that some further measures will have to be taken in order to check this ribbon development in relation to transport?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Has my hon. and gallant Friend's attention been drawn to the action of the Hertfordshire County Council in deliberately selling building sites along their new arterial roads?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: My hon Friend himself brought it to my attention this morning.

  EDUCATION.

    SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, with regard to the request made to the Board of Education from the Lancashire County Council and Lancashire county boroughs to meet a deputation to consider the raising of the school age, if he has met the deputation; and is he in a position to make a statement?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): My Noble Friend has not yet received any such request.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: In view of the growing volume of opinion in the country in favour of raising the school-leaving age, will the hon. Gentleman and his chief look into this problem?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: We are constantly considering the question.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Having regard to the fact that there is a reputed shortage of juvenile labour in many parts of the country, will my hon. Friend leave the matter alone?

    EMPIRE DAY.
    Mr. DENVILLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if he will introduce a Bill to give all school children a holiday on Empire Day?
    Sir WILLIAM WAYLANDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will consider bringing in a Bill to make Empire Day a general holiday in all the national schools, the day to be named Empire Day and to be celebrated by the saluting of the Union Jack and the giving of an address to the children on the greatness of the British Empire?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The closing of schools on particular days has always been regarded as a matter for the discretion of the local education and school authorities. Legislation of the kind suggested would be likely to be resented as an unjustifiable interference with this local discretion, and its enforcement would prove difficult. The proper observance of Empire Day needs the full co-operation of the teachers and the school authorities, and is far more likely to be effectively secured on a voluntary than on a compulsory basis. My noble Friend therefore does not consider that any useful purpose would be served by introducing legislation in the matter.
    Mr. DENVILLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the leader of the London County Council has stated definitely that he intends to abolish Empire Day in every school in the Metropolitan area?
    Mr. McGOVERN: Quite right too.
    Mr. DENVILLE: In these circumstances, what steps does my hon. Friend propose to take?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I have no information on the matter except what I have seen in the Press. According to the information there contained, the proposal appears to be to change Empire Day to Commonwealth Day. It would certainly seem that a proposal of that kind is somewhat academic and doctrinaire, but from what I gather there is no proposal to make any alteration in the ordinary form of observance.
    Sir W. WAYLAND: Will the Minister suggest to the education authorities throughout the United Kingdom, and
    464
    especially to those in the Metropolis, the undesirability, in the interests of the children, of changing the name of the day?
    Mr. MANDER: Would not this proposal be very inappropriate in view of the anti-Imperial policy of the Government in connection with New Zealand?

    CHEAP MILK SUPPLIES.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can take any steps which will ensure that the new arrangement for supplying an increased quantity of cheap milk to school children shall be in operation during the forthcoming summer?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The arrangements referred to in the reply which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries gave to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Johnstone) on 26th March, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy, are progressing, but I am not yet in a position to make any further statement on the matter.

  HOUSING.

    SLUM CLEARANCE.
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that in the rebuilding plans proposed for the Collyhurst, Manchester, clearance area, less than one-eighth of the number of shops now existing are being provided for the dispossessed small shopkeepers; and what he proposes to do in the matter to overcome the risk of hardship?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): No, Sir. I understand that the rehousing proposals for this area, including the question of the number of shops to be provided, are still under the consideration of the City Council.
    Mr. CHORLTON: Can my right hon. Friend take any steps to prevent what is really a very deserving class, the class of small shopkeeper, being driven out of existence?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I think my hon. Friend will see that it would not be right for me to make any answer, pending the consideration of the matter by the City Council.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that in all slum clearance schemes the local authorities themselves make provision for any small shopkeeper who happens to lose his business?
    Sir H. YOUNG: In general, the local authorities have the power to do so.

    HOUSES FOE LETTING (SUBSIDY).
    Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Health (1) whether he has considered the resolution passed by the council of the County Borough of West Ham and the Dudley Council with regard to financial assistance to local authorities to make it possible for houses to be built for letting at rents which the working classes can afford to pay; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    (2) whether he is aware that the West Ham County Borough Council has passed a resolution that, in view of the serious overcrowding which still exists and the waiting list for houses, the council notes with alarm that private enterprise is failing to build houses under the 1933 Act for the purpose of letting to the working classes at reasonable rents, and urges therefore the Minister to re-introduce financial assistance to make it possible for houses to be built for letting at rents which the working classes can afford to pay; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I have considered the resolutions referred to, and I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) on the 1st February last, of which I am sending him a copy, but I may observe that, although final figures are not available, over 110,000 houses have been provided by private enterprise during the half-year ended 31st March, 1934.
    Mr. GROVES: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that sufficient?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I consider that it is a large number.
    Mr. PIKE: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, before taking any steps in this matter in respect to the corporations and authorities concerned in these two questions, houses originally intended for the working classes are not let to friends and relatives of Socialist councillors?
    Captain FULLERasked the Minister of Health if local authorities acting under a clearance order or compulsory purchase order include in the compensation which they have to pay such items as goodwill in the case of a business and the repayment of mortgages where they exist; and what instructions have been issued by his Department in this matter?
    Sir H. YOUNG: No, Sir. Local authorities are, however, empowered by Section 41 of the Housing Act, 1930, to make allowances in respect of removal expenses or loss due to disturbance of business or trade, and their attention has been drawn by circular letter and otherwise to the existence of this power. The matter is not one in which I have any authority to issue instructions.
    Captain FULLER: Is there no means of giving compensation for goodwill?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The only powers are those to which I have referred.
    Mr. CHORLTON: Does that not refer also to the ordinary householder who is dispossessed and who may have lived there for some 40 years?

  INFANT MORTALITY, KENSINGTON.
  Mr. WESTasked the Minister of Health if he will state the infantile mortality rates in South Kensington, North Kensington, and the Norland Ward of Kensington during 1933?
  Sir H. YOUNG: The Registrar-General has no statistics for separate parts or wards of a metropolitan borough, but I understand that the figures for which the hon. Member asks will be published in the Annual Report of the Medical Officer of Health for 1933.
  Mr. WEST: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that these figures have been given in this House on several occasions for previous years, and what prevents him giving similar figures for 1933?
  Sir H. YOUNG: I am afraid I must call the hon. Member's attention to the terms of my answer, namely, that there are no official statistics available.
  Mr. WEST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures have been published and that the death-rate in the

  467
  Norland Ward of Kensington is 140 per thousand, or twice as high as that of Poplar?
  HON. MEMBERS: Then why ask?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is giving the information for which he asks.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    DEATH DUTIES (AGRICULTURAL LAND).
    Lord SCONEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state, for each of the last three financial years, the yield of Death Duties levied upon land of a purely agricultural nature?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Death Duties paid in respect of agricultural land are not recorded separately, but it is estimated that the Estate Duty paid in 1931–32 and in 1932–33 was £1,700,000 and £1,991,000 respectively. The figure for 1933–34 is not yet available. The annual receipt of Succession Duty is in the neighbourhood of £235,000 to £250,000.
    Lord SCONE: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask if he does not consider, in view of the comparatively small sum involved, that it would be a good thing, in the interests of preventing a further breakup of estates and the consequent reduction of employment, if this tax were abolished with regard to agricultural land?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It would be a good thing if this and many other taxes were abolished.

    BEET-SUGAR SUBSIDY.
    Mr. MOLSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will amend the terms of reference of the Sugar Industry Inquiry Committee so as to permit them to recommend that all State aid be withdrawn, even though such withdrawal would entail the extinction of the industry?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I see no reason to make any alteration in the terms of reference given to the Committee, which are very widely drawn.
    Mr. MOLSON: Do I understand the Chancellor to say that it will be possible for the Committee to arrive at the conclusion
    468
    that this is an uneconomic industry and should not be assisted in any way by the State?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not say that, but I think it would be possible for the Committee to say that.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the suggestion in the last part of the question were adopted, it would throw many agricultural labourers out of employment?

    LAND TRANSFERS (REGISTRATION).
    Captain DOWERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can now state to what use it is intended to put the information obtained by the registration of transfers of sale of land, the granting of leases and transfer of the sale of leases, under Section 28 of the Finance Act, 1931 (Land Value Tax)?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given on the 16th of May last to the hon. Member for North Lanarkshire (Mr. Anstruther-Gray), of which I am sending him a copy.
    Captain DOWER: As this Department was formed for one purpose, namely, land taxes, and now apparently fulfills another, surely my hon. Friend knows that we got on quite well before it discovered its new indispensability?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That is not the case, as the answer to which I have referred makes plain.

    TRADE FACILITIES ACTS (GUARANTEES).
    Mr. MALLALIEUasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the total sum repaid by the Treasury in respect of loans guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Acts on behalf of either or both of the Anglo-Scottish beet-sugar corporations?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It has been the invariable practice to treat as confidential details concerning particular guarantees under the Acts, if they relate to companies engaged in active business and are outside the scope of the information which the Acts themselves require to be published.

  INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  Mr. RHYS DAVISasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the temporary employment of certain ex-service men in the Inland Revenue Department terminated last December; that although there is pressure of work resulting in overtime there appears to be no prospect of their early re-engagement; that if they are not re-employed by August next the seniority they have earned lapses, with consequent loss of increment; and whether he will state the intentions of the Government regarding these ex-service men who are unable to find employment elsewhere?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The temporary employés in question were engaged by the Inland Revenue Department for periods varying from four to eight weeks for routine work of a seasonal nature. When that work came to an end there was no other work on which they could be employed. The overtime at present being performed in tax offices is on work of a technical nature, such as claims for repayment of Income Tax, on which untrained staff cannot be employed. The Government cannot regard itself as being under any special obligation to absorb into permanent employment men who are engaged to perform purely temporary work for short periods, but ex-service men in general, provided that they are competent to do the work to be performed, are given a preference over others for temporary employment in the Government service.

  AGRICULTURE.

    ALLOTMENTS, WOLVERHAMPTON.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Agriculture the present position with regard to the difficulties of the Woden Allotments Association, Wolverhampton, in obtaining allotments; and what steps are being taken by purchase, or otherwise, to supply the urgent demand?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have been asked to reply. An officer of the Ministry is co-operating with the borough council with a view to securing the more adequate provision of land for permanent allotments in the borough. Concrete
    470
    proposals to this end are being examined and efforts are being made to obtain further land suitable for the purpose. It is hoped that these steps will lead to a satisfactory solution of the association's present difficulties.
    Mr. MANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the borough council is doing all that it can to provide allotments?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am given to understand that they are.
    Mr. MANDER: Will an inspector keep in touch with the developments?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That is dealt with in my answer.

    WHEAT DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Minister of Agriculture the approximate difference between the amount actually received by the British farmers during 1933 for wheat and the amount they would have received had they been paid the prevalent world price for that commodity?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As stated in the reply given to a similar question by my hon. Friend on 16th April, the figure asked for, as regards the cereal year beginning 1st August, 1932, is represented approximately by the deficiency payments to registered producers under the Wheat Act which amounted to £4,510,946.

    MILK MARKETING SCHEME.
    Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Minister for Agriculture whether steps are being taken to give the consumer more confidence in the milk supply by incorporating in the present scheme an accredited herd system as recommended by the Milk Re-organisation Committee; and, if so, when will the details of that system be available so that the producers can take advantage of it in their next contract?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I understand that the Milk Marketing Board has for some time past been actively engaged on working out a scheme of the nature to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, and that it is hoped to bring the scheme into operation as from the 1st October next. The details will be published as soon as possible.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: Does the Minister of Health approve the proposals which have been brought forward?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not know.

    FEEDING MIXTURES.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been drawn to an article in the Journal of the Ministry of Agriculture for April recommending the substitution of wheat meal for ground oats in certain feeding mixtures owing to the rise in oat prices; and if this article was sanctioned by him before publication and meets with his approval?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The hon. Member no doubt refers to a paragraph entitled "Wheat v. Oats in a Laying Mash" which appeared in the April issue of the Journal, and of which I am sending him a copy. The "Notes on Feeding," of which the paragraph in question forms part, are contributed by the Principal of the Moulton Farm Institute, Northampton, and are intended to assist producers in effecting improvements and economies in farming practice. This paragraph recites experience gained at the institute's farm by the substitution of wheat meal for ground oats in the feeding ration of laying birds. It is made clear in the Journal that the Ministry does not accept responsibility for the views expressed or the statements made by contributors.
    Mr. WHITE: Is it not the case that two different policies appear to be advocated by the Ministry, one to raise the price of oats for the benefit of certain interests, and another to keep the price from rising?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not think that you can erect the scientific notes of a research institute into a policy.

    HEAVY HOESE BREEDING.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the purchase from Canada for Glasgow of 20 Percheron mares and geldings which has been negotiated between the authorities of the Glasgow and Canadian Department of Trade and Commerce; and whether he is satisfied that the existing grants given by his Department for the encouragement of breeding heavy horses in Great Britain
    472
    are sufficient to enable adequate supplies of draught horses to be available within this country?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: My right hon. Friend has no information respecting the transaction referred to in the first part of the question; as regards the second part of the question he is satisfied that the provision for the encouragement of heavy horse breeding in England and Wales is sufficient.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Will my right hon. Friend draw public attention to the fact that most admirable heavy draught horses are available in Scotland for Glasgow and any other large city, particularly in Ayrshire.

    IRISH CATTLE (BORDER PRICES).
    Sir G. FOXasked the Minister of Agriculture the price of cattle in the Irish Free State and in Northern Ireland respectively, and the difference in price which is obtained by smuggling the cattle over the frontier and disposing of them in Northern Ireland for ultimate re-sale to this country?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am advised that on 16th April the following prices for cattle ruled at the fairs near the border at Naas in the Irish Free State and Camlough in Northern Ireland respectively :

    Calves under 9 months

    30s.

    105s.

    Yearlings

    50s.

    140s.

    Six quarter olds

    95s.

    170s.

    Large stores

    110s.

    230s.

    Fat cattle over 18 months

    150s.

    270s.

    I have no information concerning the second part of the question.
    Sir G. FOX: Will my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of taking steps to stop the great amount of smuggling that is going on at the present time?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I understand that an answer was given in the House by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury informing the House of the recent augmentation of the Customs staff.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: If my right hon. Friend has no information that this smuggling is going on, will he inquire of anybody who lives on the borders, and will not the Government

    473
    take some steps to stop this scandal, to which I called attention some six months ago?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOBE: I have no doubt that the Customs Department and the Government of Northern Ireland are doing all that they can. All I can say is that, as First Commissioner of Works, I have no personal knowledge of this matter.

  FISHERY STATION, ALRESFORD.
  Major MILLSasked the Minister of Agriculture if the Ministry's experimental fishery station at Alresford, in Hampshire, is still in existence; and, if so, what additional expenditure would be required to enable the naturalist in charge to examine samples of fish suspected of being infected by furunculosis?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; with regard to the second part, the examination at the Ministry's station at Alresford of samples of fish suspected of being infected by furunculosis would involve the appointment of a bacteriological assistant and the purchase of additional scientific apparatus, the total cost of which would amount to about £250 per annum, excluding any extra cost which may be involved for accommodation.

  SCOTLAND.

    FARM HOUSE SANITATION.
    Mr. LEONARD: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the farm of Pitmaduthy, Kildary, Ross and Cromarty, was the subject of a complaint to the local authority on 14th August, 1928, upon which no action was taken, and a similar complaint being sent to the Department of Health on 12th November, 1930, some patching was done in 1931, but the houses were still damp and there was no proper drainage, and that two subsequent inspections by the Department have supported the complaint; and if he proposes to take steps to remedy these defects of over six years' standing?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The answers to the first and second parts of
    474
    the question are in the affirmative. With regard to the last part of the question, I am informed that the proprietor is now taking steps to have the works recommended by the Department's housing inspector carried out.
    Sir IAN MACPHERSON: May I ask whether it is not a fact that the proprietor and the appropriate local authority are taking action in regard to this particular case; and in his investigations will the hon. Gentleman find out whether any representations have been made in this House recently or at any time about the appalling housing conditions on the well-known farm of Cowcaddens, St. Rollox, Glasgow?
    Mr. LEONARD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this farm has had standing complaints pending against it since 1928 and that in so far as that locality's representative in this House is concerned no complaint was reported?
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the farm of Broomhill, Muir of Ord, was the subject of a complaint lodged with the local authority on 23rd December, 1931, a copy of which was sent to the Department on 19th January, 1933; that on 20th March, 1933, the local authority decided it was not reasonably practicable to introduce water into the houses or provide water closets; that on 29th December, 1933, the Department's engineering inspector decided it was practicable to introduce water and provide water closets; and what action does he propose to take to require the local authority to carry out its statutory duty?
    Mr. SKELTON: The answers to the first three parts of the question are in the affirmative With regard to the last part, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the concluding sentences of my answer to his question of the 1st instant.
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the farm of Poyntzfield, Muir of Ord, was the subject of a complaint lodged with the local authority on 13th September, 1932, and a copy sent to the Department of Health, that on 20th March, 1933, the county council decided that it was not reasonably practicable to introduce water into the houses or to provide water closets; that the Department

    475
    sent its inspectors to report in September, 1933, and that on 29th December, 1933, the Department intimated that in the opinion of its inspectors it was reasonably practicable to introduce water and to provide water closets, and that other works should be carried out to render the houses fit for habitation; and if he proposes to require the local authority to make the houses fit for habitation?
    Mr. SKELTON: The answers to the first two parts of the question are in the affirmative. With regard to the third part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the concluding sentences of my answer to his question of the 1st instant. I am informed that the necessary works, other than the introduction of water and the provision of water closets, are now being carried out.
    Mr. LEONARD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Department agreed upon test inspections being made in Berwickshire and Ross and Cromarty as far back as October, 1931, and that an inspection was carried out, apparently, in Berwickshire, but no test inspections have been made in Ross and Cromarty, and will he now take steps to see that such inspection does cover the localities not already covered in the question asked?
    Mr. SKELTON: I do not think that question arises out of the question on the Paper. There have been surveys in Berwickshire and, although I am not prepared to say that there shall be a survey in Ross and Cromarty, I am prepared to consider it.

    OATS (PRICES).
    Lord SCONEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the price of Scottish oats has again fallen to less than 15s. per quarter, mainly owing to Russian oats being landed at a price of 5s. per quarter; and if he will state what action he proposes to take to prevent the duty of 9s. per quarter, lately imposed on imported oats, from being thus nullified?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I am aware of the situation on the oats market. The matter is engaging my attention on representations received from agricultural organisations in Scotland,
    476
    but I am not in a position to make any statement at present.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: In view of those figures, will the right hon. Gentleman, for the benefit of Free Traders who are interested in the subject, make inquiries as to how the consumer pays the tax in this case?

  IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.
  Dr. HOWITTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the suggestion by the Right Honourable Stanley Bruce in Australia that an Imperial Conference should be held in London next year for the consideration of defence and of economic policy in the light of the results of the Ottawa Agreements, he will give sympathetic consideration to the proposal?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): No suggestion of this kind has been brought to my notice as having been made by Mr. Bruce. As my hon. Friend is aware, the question of the date for an Imperial Conference is a matter for discussion and arrangement between all the Governments concerned.
  Mr. PIKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that, if arrangements are ultimately arrived at, any conclusions that may be reached at such Conference shall be strictly adhered to by all parties concerned?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will remember my hon. Friend's point.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    RUBBER INDUSTRY (REGULATION SCHEME).
    Mr. GUYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is satisfied that uncertainty in regard to the future price of rubber will not act detrimentally against the development of new uses for rubber on which the prosperity of the industry must ultimately depend; and what steps His Majesty's Government proposes to take to ensure that under the restriction scheme regular supplies will be maintained at fair and stable prices?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): One of the main objects of the scheme

    477
    for the regulation of the supply of rubber is to maintain a fair and equitable price level, and I think it will be generally agreed that stability of price is most likely to be secured by a regulation scheme which is flexible enough to adjust supply and demand. My hon. Friend will also recollect that the scheme contains an express provision for associating representatives of consumers with the International Committee which will administer the scheme.
    Mr. GUY: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, does he realise that manufacturers, as consumers, may be seriously prejudiced if, owing to any scarcity in the commodity, the price of rubber goes to an artificial level?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In the first place, there is no intention of putting the price of rubber to what my hon. Friend calls an artificial level. It is just as much in the mind of the framers of this scheme as it is in anybody else's that it is desirable to have the maximum amount of rubber consumed. In the second place, it is an essential part of the scheme that all consumers shall be treated alike.
    Sir WILFRID SUGDENasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the proposed rubber restriction scheme will contain any provisions to compel the International Rubber Regulation Committee to accept the advice of the advisory panel of manufacturing interests in the event of the committee proposing or taking any action which appears to be detrimental to their industry?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Clearly the responsibility for decisions must rest with the committee which will be appointed by the respective Governments.
    Sir W. SUGDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind how some foreign countries are exploiting the distressed industries of this country which require special consideration?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not sure that I see the connection. What is important here is that the distressed industry of rubber should be enabled to recover its position and be a purchaser from the distressed industries of this country.
    Mr. LEVYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the price of rubber under the Stevenson restriction scheme rose as high as 4s. 8d. per lb.; whether he will see that the rubber regulation scheme now proposed will contain provisions to safeguard consumers of rubber against excessive increases in the price of the commodity; and whether, in the interests of consumers of rubber, he will arrange that the International Rubber Regulation Committee shall include members representative of rubber manufacturers?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the wide fluctuations in price which took place during the currency of the Stevenson Scheme. The present agreement is expressly designed to avoid such fluctuations. I have already drawn attention to the provision in the present scheme for associating representatives of consumers with the International Committee.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Lieut.-Colonel TODDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that the industries of this country are at present operating at far below their actual capacity, and also that both production and potential consumption are available, the Government will take immediate steps to investigate the possibilities of making this potential demand effective by introducing a scientifically devised economic system whereby the purchasing power of the community may be equivalent to its producing power?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I am in some doubt as to the nature of the remedy which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind, but, in any case, such wide issues cannot usefully be dealt with by question and answer.
    Lieut.-Colonel TODD: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the present system is working in the interest of British industry?
    Dr. BURGIN: I think I should want a good deal of definition of what the hon. and gallant Member means by "the present system."
    Mr. LOFTUS: Is my hon. Friend aware of the increasing demand by chambers of commerce in this country for an inquiry

    479
    into the whole monetary system, and will he recommend that such an inquiry should be held?
    Dr. BURGIN: The monetary system is another question and not that which is asked on the Paper.

    RETAINED IMPORTS.
    Mr. ALAN TODDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the retained imports of wire rods during the first quarter of 1934 amounted to 25,232 tons as compared with 8,422 tons in the corresponding quarter of 1933, an increase of 199.6 per cent.; and whether, in the circumstances, he will take immediate steps to protect the employment of British wire-rod makers?
    Dr. BURGIN: I am aware of the fact to which my hon. Friend draws attention. Any question as to the duty payable on these goods is a matter for the Import Duties Advisory Committee in the first instance.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is the case that the Government have entirely abrogated any responsibility for the level of tariffs in this country?
    Dr. BURGIN: I say nothing of the kind.
    Mr. TODDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the retained imports of carpets in the first quarter of 1934 were 60 per cent. higher than in the first quarter of 1933; and whether he can give an estimate of the amount of employment to British carpet makers which this volume of imports represents?
    Dr. BURGIN: I am aware of the increase in the retained imports of carpets to which my hon. Friend refers. While it is not possible to relate the figures of imports directly with the statistics of unemployment, I am informed that the number of insured persons in the carpet manufacturing industry recorded as unemployed on the 19th March was less than half the number so recorded a year ago.
    Mr. L. SMITH: Seeing that the growth of the export trade must naturally be somewhat slow, is it not extremely important
    480
    that we should retain a larger proportion of our home trade?

    IMPORTED BUTTER (PRICES).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade the average c.i.f. value of butter imported from New Zealand and Soviet Russia, respectively, during March, including in the latter the amount of duty payable on importation?
    Dr. BURGIN: During March, 1934, the average c.i.f. value per cwt. of imported butter consigned from New Zealand was £3 10s. 8d. and from the Soviet Union (including import duty of 15s. per cwt.) £2 19s. 11d.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the discrepancy between these figures and those given by the President of the Board of Trade on Tuesday in respect of the same commodity?
    Dr. BURGIN: I know of no discrepancy at all.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Having regard to the fact that the figures given on Tuesday differ by only 1s. a cwt. and these differ by 12s., can the hon. Gentleman explain that difference?
    Dr. BURGIN: What I would like to tell the House is that the quantity from the Soviet Union was £30,000 and the quantity from New Zealand was £1,270,000.
    Sip G. FOXasked the President of the Board of Trade the present price of New Zealand and Danish butter, c.i.f., landed here and the equivalent wholesale price for consumption of such butter per cwt. in New Zealand and Denmark, respectively?
    Dr. BURGIN: During March, 1934, the average c.i.f. value per cwt. of imported butter consigned from New Zealand was £3 10s. 8d. and from Denmark (excluding import duty of 15s. per cwt.) was £3 13s. 7d. No information is available as to the actual wholesale price of butter in New Zealand, but I understand from the High Commissioner that prices in New Zealand are based on the London quotations. The minimum price of butter for consumption in Denmark is fixed by law at 215 kroner per 100 kilogrammes, or about 97s. 6d. per cwt.
    Sip G. FOX: Can the Minister explain why there is a discrepancy compared

    481
    with the figures given on Monday, when it was said that the price in regard to matters raised by my hon. Friends will Denmark was about 54s. per cwt.?
    Dr. BURGIN: I think that the price given on that date was probably an export price. The matter is being investigated. The Danish minimum price of 97s. 6d. per cwt. to which I have referred was fixed in December, 1933, at a time when the price in London was 114s. 6d. per cwt.
    Sir G. FOX: Were the figures correct with regard to the price of butter in Holland?
    Dr. BURGIN: That is quite another matter.

    HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS (CUSTOMS DUTIES).
    Mr. PETHERICKasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give figures showing the increase in employment resulting from the protection afforded by the Horticultural Imports Act; and if he will, during the forthcoming negotiations for a trade agreement with Holland, keep in mind the case for continued tariffs on horticultural imports?
    Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The information asked for is not available, but the matter to which my hon. Friend refers will be borne in mind in connection, with the forthcoming negotiations with the Netherlands.
    Mr. PETHERICK: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman make any statement to allay the growing alarm among fruit, vegetable and flower growers in this country at the negotiations with Holland and France?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: No, sir, I can make no statement during the negotiations except that which I have made, that the matter to which my hon. Friend refers will be fully taken into account.
    Mr. EVERARD: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that if the duty were reduced it would cause consternation and enormous unemployment among people who have been put into work by the recent duties?
    Mr. L. SMITH: Before any concessions are given in this connection will it be ascertained that the balance of trade is either equal or in our favour?
    Lieut.- Colonel COLVILLE: The matters raised by my hon. Friends will be borne in mind.

    SUPPLIES OF HAMS.
    Mr. WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the inadequate supply of hams for processing in the Liverpool area under the present quota system has led to higher prices, loss of export trade, and loss of employment; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this situation?
    Dr. BURGIN: Representations received from the Liverpool Provision Trade Association in regard to supplies of hams have been referred to the Market Supply Committee, who now have this question under consideration.

    EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD.
    Dr. HOWITTasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in view of the satisfactory state of the country's finances, he will allocate a sum towards the re-establishment of the Empire Marketing Board?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The question of continuing the Empire Marketing Board, as such, was not decided with reference to financial considerations. Its termination resulted from the acceptance by the Governments concerned of the recommendations in the Report of the Imperial Committee on Economic Consultation and Co-operation which met last year. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have always favoured the continuance of the board, and would welcome its re-establishment if it were supported by the Dominions generally. As I explained, in reply to the hon. Member for Kirk-dale (Mr. Rankin), on the 1st May, a number of the services previously performed by the board are still being carried out.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    RETIRED OFFICERS (COLONIAL POLICE APPOINTMENTS).
    Major Sir HERBERT CAYZERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what prospects there are for short-service or medium-service Royal

    483
    Air Force officers on retirement from the active list obtaining appointments in the Colonial police through the agency of the Air Force Officers' Employment Association; and how many of these officers have received such appointments during 1933 and the first three months of 1934?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Close liaison has existed for many years between the Air Force Officers' Employment Association and the Department of the Colonial Office responsible for recruitment for the Colonial Service. A certain number of ex-Royal Air Force officers were selected for Colonial police appointments before the commencement of the present period of financial stringency, and the claims of such officers will continue to be given careful consideration whenever opportunity occurs in the future. No ex-Royal Air Force officers have been appointed during the period referred to in the second part of the question.

    OFFICEES' EMPLOYMENT ASSOCIATION.
    Sir H. CAYZERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether short-service or medium-service Royal Air Force officers on retirement from the active list are compelled to register with the Air Force Officers' Employment Association?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The officers are under no obligation to register with the association, but it is very desirable, in their own interests, that they should do so.
    Sir H. CAYZERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will state how many of the 65 short-service or medium-service Royal Air Force officers out of a total of 153 who retired during the year ended 30th September last have since obtained employment through the Air Force Officers' Employment Association; how many have retired since that date; and how many of these have obtained employment through that association?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The precise information which my hon. and gallant Friend desires in the first part of the question is not readily available, but the following information may serve his purpose. On the 1st October, 1933, there were 42 retired short-service or medium-service
    484
    officers registered with the association as still requiring employment. Of these, 26 have since been found posts by the association and nine have found employment independently. Since 1st October, 1933, 88 such officers have left the active list at varying dates. Of that number, 43 have registered with the association, many quite recently; 13 of them have been found posts by the association and two have secured employment otherwise. Twenty-five of the others are under consideration by prospective employers.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.
  Mr. DIXEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the changed conditions in Europe and the uneasiness created thereby as to the food supply of this country, the Government are considering taking any special measures in this matter?
  Dr. BURGIN: My hon. Friend's apprehensions are, I think, groundless, but I should be glad if he would let me know more particularly what he has in mind.

  DIVORCE LAW.
  Mr. ANEURIN BEVANasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to a recent case in which it was ruled that a British-born woman married to a citizen of the United States of America could not bring an action for divorce in this country, on the ground that she had no legal domicile here; whether he is aware that there are many cases of this kind; and whether he will take steps to secure an alteration of law so that such anomalies may be removed?
  Major GEORGE DAVIES (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. and learned Friend has seen a newspaper report of the case referred to. There are many difficulties in the way of legislation to enable the wife of a person domiciled in another country to petition for divorce in this country. The Government do not think that it is practicable to alter the general principle upon which the present law is founded.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    EXPLOSIONS.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines if he is now in a position to

    485
    make a further statement on the explosion which took place on Monday morning, 30th April, at Bickershaw collieries, Plank Lane, Leigh?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I have been asked to reply. My hon. Friend has not yet received a full report on this explosion, but I am now able to say that it occurred in a small district which was being opened beyond a fault, and appears to have resulted from an ignition of firedamp during shotfiring operations at the end of the nightshift. The shotfirer and his assistant were killed, and also three men of the dayshift who had reached the district on their way to the face. There were no other casualties. Investigations are still proceeding.
    Mr. TINKER: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman convey to the Secretary for Mines the information that the explosion took place on what is called the hack shift at night, and that two previous explosions in Lancashire were on the back shift; and will he ask his hon. Friend to pay close attention to that point when he inquires into the recent explosion?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I will see that my hon. Friend is made aware of those facts.
    Mr. GRUNDYasked the Secretary for Mines the number of explosions in mines in 1932–33 and the last available date; the number of persons fatally injured by such explosions; the number of prosecutions against the management, directors, or owners, respectively; and the result of each?
    Lieut-Colonel COLVILLE: The number of fatal accidents caused by explosions of firedamp or coal dust in the year 1932 was 13 causing 69 deaths. In 1933 there were eight accidents and 35 deaths; and in the first quarter of 1934 there were four accidents and eight deaths. In one of these cases proceedings were taken against the owners, agent, manager and under-manager, who were charged with contraventions of Section 29 and Section 34 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911. The charge against the owners under Section 29 was dismissed and the other charge was withdrawn; the agent and manager were convicted on both charges and were each fined £10 with costs; and the under-manager (who pleaded guilty) was dismissed
    486
    under the Probation of Offenders Act on payment of costs.
    Mr. GRUNDY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that if Section 29 of the Coal Mines Act of 1911 were carried out, the ventilation in the mines would render harmless the inflammable and noxious gases and that there could be no explosions, and does he not think that the time is overdue when further prosecutions should take place after all these explosions which must result from a breach of Section 29 of the Act to which I have referred?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Where there is evidence a prosecution is instituted.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is every precaution being taken that can be taken in order to avoid the terrible disasters which are far too common in our mines?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The hon. Gentleman should address that question to the Secretary for Mines. I believe that every possible precaution is taken in the mines.
    Mr. GRUNDYasked the Secretary for Mines if he will bring in legislation to make it a criminal offence against the management, directors, and owners where an explosion takes place in any pit they are connected with?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: No, Sir. Every explosion is investigated, and prosecution is undertaken where the investigation indicates that an offence has been committed justifying a charge and where evidence can be produced.
    Mr. GRUNDY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the fact that there is an explosion proves the contravention of the Act, and does he not think that the time has come when legislation should be brought in to make prosecutions compulsory against the people responsible?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I reiterate that where there is evidence a prosecution is instituted.
    Mr. PIKE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say how many such explosions took place under the Socialist administration?

    WAGES.
    Mr. DAGGARasked the Secretary for Mines the total amount paid in wages in the mining industry in South Wales

    487
    and Monmouthshire for each year since 1919?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: As the reply involves a statistical statement, I will with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPOET.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman be good enough to give us the figures for 1919 and last year?
    Lieut-Colonel COLVILLE: I shall circulate the full figures in the OFFICIAI, REPOBT.
    Following is the statement :

    South Wales and Monmouthshire.

    Year.

    Estimated Total Wages Bill (excluding the value of allowances in kind).

    Average earnings per annum per person employed (excluding the value of allowances in kind).

    Thousand £

    £

    1919

    53,243

    219

    1920

    65,636

    252

    1922

    28,839

    127

    1923

    32,961

    136

    1924

    33,333

    139

    1925

    29,641

    139

    1927

    23,754

    124

    1928

    20,666

    126

    1929

    22,514

    129

    1930

    20,038

    117

    1931

    17,767

    115

    1932

    16,087

    113

    1933 (provisional).

    15,791

    114

    Note.—The particulars for the years 1927 to 1933 relate to the years ended 31st January, 1928 to 1934, The figures for the years 1920 and 1930 were affected by disputes which lasted about three weeks in erch case.
    The years 1921 and 1926 have been omitted as they were affected by prolonged national disputes.

  DARDANELLES.
  Mr. LEVYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the fact that Turkey intends to demand at Geneva this month the modifications of the Lausanne Treaty to enable her to fortify the Dardanelles; and will he state the attitude of His Majesty's Government on this matter?
  The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part does not, therefore, arise.

  NAVAL ARMAMENTS (WASHINGTON TREATY).
  Commander MARSDENasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to give notice before 31st December, 1934, of its desire to terminate the Washington Limitation of Armaments Treaty of 1922, in accordance with the provisions contained in Article XXIII of that Treaty?
  Mr. EDEN: It is not the present intention of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to take steps with a view to the termination of this Treaty.
  Commander MARSDEN: In view of the fact that the London Treaty automatically terminates at the end of 1936, would it not be far better that the whole question of limitation of naval armaments should be reviewed, rather than only a portion of it?
  Mr. EDEN: My hon. and gallant Friend will be aware that there is to be a Naval Conference before very long.
  Commander MARSDEN: May I point out that this question was originally addressed to the Prime Minister, and I wish he would answer; but, as the reply has been given by the Lord Privy Seal, may I ask my hon. Friend if he will ask the First Lord of the Admiralty about the holding of such a Conference?

  BRITISH SOMALILAND.
  Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. LUNN)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many schools for Somali children (whether elementary or secondary) there are in British Somaliland; how many children attend them; where these schools are situated; what fees, if any, are paid; and what proportion of the cost is provided by Government funds?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There is one elementary school at Berbera, attended by about 120 boys. The cost of this school, amounting to £ 100 a year, is borne entirely by a Government contribution. In addition the Government provides £100 a year as subsidy to various Koran schools in the Protectorate, and £300 a year to pay for the education of selected boys at the Gordon College Khartoum.
  Mr. SMITH (for Mr. LUNN)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is considering any schemes of economic development, particularly in the matter of water conservation and irrigation, in British Somaliland; and whether he will consider the advisability of sending an expert commssion to study the possibility of such development on the spot?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Water boring operations have been in progress in British Somaliland since 1930, financed by grants from the Colonial Development Fund. A new supply has been discovered in the coastal plain at Sillil, and in places the existing supply has been improved; but in other places the work of the boring party has not met with success. I am awaiting a final report on the operations, which will shortly be concluded. Mineral surveys have on several occasions been conducted in various parts of the Protectorate, but the prospects do not warrant the sending of a further expert commission to study development.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: Monday : Supply (4th Allotted Day), Dominions Office Vote.
Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday : Unemployment Bill, Report stage (3rd, 4th and 5th Allotted Days).
Friday : Government business will be taken—the Committee stage of the Palestine Loan (Guarantee) Money Resolution.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders may be taken.

COTTON MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL,
"to make temporary provision for enabling statutory effect to be given to rates of wages agreed between representative organisations in the cotton manufacturing industry; and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid," presented by Sir Henry Betterton; supported by Mr. Runciman and Mr. R. S. Hudson; to be read a Second time upon
490
Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 111.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A : Mr. Ban-field, Lord Dunglass, and Mr. Maclay; and had appointed in substitution : Viscount Elmley, Mr. Dingle Foot, and Major Milner.

  STANDING COMMITTEE D.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee D : Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Major Sir Herbert Cayzer, Mr. James Duncan, Sir Francis Fre-mantle, and Sir William Jenkins; and had appointed in substitution : Mr. Banfield, Mr. Horobin, Mr. Lewis Jones, Mr. Soper, and Lieut.-Colonel Sir Arnold Wilson.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee D (in respect of the Gas Undertakings Bill [Lords]) : Dr. Burgin, Mr. Clarry, Sir George Clayton, Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. James Duncan, Mr. R. T. Evans, Mr. Oswald Lewis, Mr. Pike, Mr. Raikes, and Mr. Ross Taylor.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Amendments to—
County Courts (Amendment) Bill, without Amendment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [2nd May] on Consideration of Bill, as amended (in Committee and on recommittal) [2nd Allotted Day].
  UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Provisions as to rates of benefit.)
    Amendment proposed: In page 5, line 35, to leave out the Clause.—[Mr. A. Bevan.]
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    3.46 p.m.
    Mr. T. SMITH: The Debate yesterday took rather a wide turn on the proposal to leave out Clause 5. I do not intend this afternoon to continue in the wider sense, but I want to deal with one or two matters arising out of the Clause. The Minister of Labour yesterday, in replying to the Debate, rather expressed surprise that any Amendment of this kind should be moved from this side of the House. He told us that on every possible occasion for more than two years we had pressed for the restoration of the cut in unemployment benefit. That is perfectly true. We have always felt, as we felt in 1931, that the unkindest cut of all was that inflicted on the unemployed. We never believed that it was necessary to reduce the unemployment insurance benefit to the people who were out of work, and the Amendment to leave out Clause 5 was not put down because we were opposed to the Clause. As a matter of fact we are in favour of Clause 5, but we think it is inadequate.
    We are glad to see that the Government, at long last, have decided to restore the cut to the unemployed, or, at least, a portion of the unemployed, and I am certain that, whatever hon. Members may think to the contrary, there was general approval on the part of hon. Members in the House when the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in the course of his Budget statement on the 17th April, that the unemployed should be considered first, and that, whatever might be the sufferings and hardships of those whose incomes had been reduced, their position
    500
    would still be preferable to that of the unemployed, who had practically no income at all. But we were sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the cut had to start from the 1st July. We felt, and we still feel, that in common fairness and common justice to the unemployed, that restoration should have taken place earlier than the 1st July. The unemployed have been passing through extremely hard times, and we feel that it could have been made operative in April or May. Last night we were told by the Minister of Labour that the real reason why this restoration could not come into operation earlier than the 1st July was that, in the first place, it would need a new Bill; but I feel bound to repeat that, if a Bill were brought in in this House to restore the cuts either in May or in June, there would be no opposition to it at all from any section of the House. It would get through without the slightest difficulty. I do not think that reason is a sound one.
    The other statement, that it would make it administratively impossible to pay back money because it would cause confusion in the Employment Exchanges, appears to be more of an excuse than a reason why the action should not have been taken. If there be a desire to do a thing, you can get it done and, if there had been a desire on the part of the Government to make this operate sooner than 1st July, I am satisfied that the Minister could have overcome all the difficulties. Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman in consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or even with the Cabinet, to make the provisions of the Clause operate, say, either in May or in June? If that could be done, I am sure it would meet with general acceptance, and it would confer a real benefit on those in Unemployment Insurance. The right hon. Gentleman said yesterday that the effect of passing the Clause would be to give a man with a wife and one child 28s. a week as against 25s. 3d. The extra 2s. 9d. will be welcomed in the homes of the unemployed, but, when they have the full 28s., they will not have adequate maintenance, and men who have been out of work for three, four or five months are not able to meet all the liabilities of carrying on a home as most Members would like to see it carried on when regard is had to rent, rates, clothes

    501
    and all that is required for a family. If the Government could see their way to make the Clause operate in May or June, there is no difficulty that could not be surmounted, and it would be conferring a real benefit on the unemployed which would meet with the full approval of all parties in the House.
    3.53 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I want to reinforce my hon. Friend's arguments in favour of expediting the restoration of the cuts. I did not think the Minister's arguments against last night were very strong. Let me take him to something that is even more complicated than unemployment insurance—national health insurance. There are 17,000,000 workpeople within the national health insurance scheme, and 12,000,000 in the unemployment scheme. There must be tens of thousands of cases of benefit withheld under national health insurance, and moneys are accumulated in respect of those insured persons and the approved societies have to pay away accumulations on occasions up to £50. It is not uncommon too in respect of our other social schemes. Take widows' and old age pensions. It is quite possible on many occasions for a man or woman to apply for this benefit and for the claim to be held up for technical reasons sometimes for three, six or nine months, and the person entitled to benefit in the end receives it in a lump sum. Consequently, I do not see much honest argument against bringing back these payments to the date that we are now suggesting.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members must realise that there is an Amendment down to this Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) which proposes to leave out July and insert May, and that it was ruled out of order because it would create a charge. Now the hon. Gentleman is taking advantage of the Amendment to leave out the Clause in order to concentrate on the very Amendment that was ruled out of order. That does not seem to me to be right.
    Mr. LAWSON: Will it be possible to discuss at ail the point that the Minister made himself, that it would need a
    502
    money Resolution and a new Bill to go through all its stages in order to antedate this restoration?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Debate last night was described by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) as very wide. I should have called it nearly all out of order. The Minister replied to questions put to him on the very Amendment that was out of order, but hon. Members must not concentrate on the Amendment when we are discussing the whole Clause. I believe it was laid down quite early in the Debate that it would not be permissible to deal with Amendments that were out of order except by way of reference.
    Mr. DAVIES: I will only say that the-feeling throughout the country is very definite on the point that these proposals are unfair, inasmuch as they are going to be brought into operation in July whereas the Income Tax payer is getting 6d. off his Income Tax in April. May I touch upon one or two points which have not been raised before on these new benefits called standard benefits? The first thing that troubles me is where the word "standard" has come from in this connection. In relation to National Health Insurance, they are called statutory benefits, and those benefits are unalterable except by an alteration of the law. The different words must mean something to Ministers, and we ought to know exactly what. The right hon. Gentleman said last night that the Debate was very unreal and he twitted us with washing our dirty linen in public. I think the Tory party can compete successfully with us on that score, because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and the Secretary of State for India cannot agree among themselves on anything, and we find them quarrelling in the open from time to time. I will leave it at that.
    Then the right hon. Gentleman on one point did not make himself clear at all. When we asked him to say—and I only mention this in passing—whether transitional payments would be equal to standard benefits, he rode off by saying——
    Mr. SPEAKER: Transitional payments do not arise on this Clause.
    Mr. DAVIES: I come back to the real point at issue—that the people covered by these new benefits are to be put in a class of their own. They are, I am told, in spite of the restoration of the cuts, to be dealt with within a sphere of their own, and only a section of the unemployed will get the restoration of the cuts. I have followed some Debates on this Bill, and particularly on this Clause, and I am still in a quandary as to what proportion of the unemployed will be covered by the restoration of the cuts under this Clause. The hon. Lady the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) raised a question last night which, I think, was a little out of order, because she touched upon transitional payments. I think, however, that I am in order in asking what proportion of the total number of persons unemployed will receive the restoration of the cuts under this Clause. Will it be 25 per cent., 50 per cent. or 75 per cent.? The right hon. Gentleman knows exactly how many will get the restoration of the cuts, and I think, therefore, that we are entitled to ask that question.
    I have said more than once that the Tory party is a very cute and clever party. When it wants a Minister to say nasty things in a nice way, it picks out the right hon. Gentleman to d oit. Last night, in saying that he was achieving a great thing, he said that they were in this Clause paying the highest rates of unemployment benefit in any country in the world Of course that is true, but then, this is the richest country in the world.
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): What I said was that the rates of benefit restored by this Bill, having regard to the cost of living, were higher than at any stage in this country.
    Mr. DAVIES: Really the right hon. Gentleman must not use that argument about the cost of living quite so glibly as he does, because he takes the average of the cost of living for the whole community. The cost of living must weigh more heavily upon a person with a smaller income than upon a person with a larger income. It is common knowledge that in the purchase of commodities the rich people buy their goods very much more cheaply than the poor people, because they can buy very large quantities at a
    504
    time. [HON. MEMBERS : "NO!"] May I ask those who are not familiar with that kind of domestic economy to ask their wives, who will not deny what I have said. I repeat that you can buy a hundredweight of sugar more cheaply than you can buy it in separate pounds. I have been in this House for 13 years, and I never thought the House would be quite so ignorant.
    Mrs. COPELAND: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he knows of many houses where they buy a hundredweight at a time?
    Mr. DAVIES: If rich people go about buying their sugar in separate pounds I do not think very much of their intelligence.
    Mrs. COPELAND rose——
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot enter into a domestic discussion.
    Mr. DAVIES: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I want to keep in order. I say, therefore, that when we are restoring these cuts, the right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to argue about the cost of living as glibly as he does. The unemployed, owing to the fact that their income is so limited, must buy in such small quantities that the cost to them is higher than it is to people who are able to buy in larger quantities. It is commonly known that what we are doing in this country now is to turn the shop into a pantry. The people in receipt of small unemployment benefits can only afford to buy enough for their immediate needs. Might I ask, once again, that the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to pursue that other point, which has been ruled out of order, by the way. I feel sure that if he desires to bring a Bill before this House to meet the arguments which we have put forward, and which are supported by voices and speeches on all hands, he will succeed. I am, however, old enough a politician and a Member of this House to understand that speeches from supporters of the Government are seldom put into concrete form in the Division Lobby.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: If the hon. Member were by chance to move an intelligent Amendment, he might get some support. This Amendment is to leave out the whole Clause.
    Mr. DAVIES: The trouble is that the hon. and gallant Member himself wants to determine what is intelligent, and any Amendment I might move would not be regarded so by him, although I regard everything he does as very intelligent. We are putting forward a very serious proposition, and we shall expect at about 5 or 6 o'clock the Minister to be good enough to stand up and give his reply to the proposal we have made, to restore the cuts very much earlier than is proposed in the Clause.
    4.9 p.m.
    Mr. COVE: I want to controvert entirely the assumption that the unemployed are better off now than they ever were. I totally deny that the rates of benefit, including the restoration, put the vast mass of the unemployed in a better position now than they were hitherto. The fact is that masses of our unemployed have not only used up their own resources, but have used up the resources of their friends. If hon. Gentlemen opposite would go down to their constituencies or to mine, where masses of men have been unemployed for a number of years, they would find that all the resources have been used up, and clothing and household things cannot be replaced. I remember being in one part of my constituency some time ago and being told there that even a frying pan was being used in several houses because it was impossible to replace anything costing a few shillings. As a matter of fact, the rate of unemployment benefit which has obtained for a large number of years has provided no margin at all for re-equipping the home. If hon. Members will go to some of these houses they will find that bed-clothes have been supplemented by newspapers to cover the bed to keep the people warm in the depth of winter, because they cannot, out of the rates of unemployment benefit, re-equip the home. I have read most of the memoranda and the inquiries conducted by the Royal Commission. One investigation was made into this very problem, and they came to the conclusion in their report that the poor were so poor that none could help each other, everything having been used up.
    I, therefore, want to protest against the idea that the unemployed are better off now than ever before simply because of the restoration of the cuts. I think it will be agreed that in the past the
    506
    unemployment rates of benefit were not regarded from the point of view of being a sufficient amount to keep these people. They were regarded as an assistance towards maintenance. I understand that the Government spokesmen have said that it did not necessarily follow that the rates of benefit in the past were sufficient to provide for all the needs of life. We know from our experience that they have not been sufficient, and, therefore, for the Minister to ride off by saying that they are better off now than they were, is totally untrue. I hope that I may be allowed to say that if the Minister would only consider bringing back the increase which is being made in the standard rates to May or June, these people would have some little lump sum whereby some of the actual needs for the re-equipment of the homes might be met. Not only would they be able to spend more money on food, but, speaking from my own experience—and I am sure hon. Members will agree—a few shillings of back pay, as it were, coming like this would be a god-send in thousands and thousands of homes.
    I ask the Minister to look at the problem from that point of view, and not to indulge in a smug self-complacency. Do not let us think that, because these cuts are being restored to the degree they are, we are getting rid of the anxiety and meeting the needs of these homes. A great deal more than we are doing is needed to put the homes into anything like the standards they had before the great depression. I know in my own area, from personal knowledge, that homes have been depleted of the necessaries of life. Therefore, I am asking the Minister to look at the problem as a whole, and not to be satisfied with a mere statistical restoration, but to say that the needs of these homes demand that this should be done as quickly as possible.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: In making the fourth consecutive speech from this side of the House on this very issue one is tempted to ask whether Members in all parts of the House are fully satisfied that the Clause represents all that should be done in the circumstances, and whether they fully appreciate the full significance of what is being done? Questions were put last night to the hon.

    507
    Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary and to his Chief, and they were not adequately answered. The House has not been given a full explanation of the effect of the Clause now before the House. The language of the Clause suggests that very much more is being done than is actually the case. The Clause has been referred to by speaker after speaker, and by the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary as the restoration of the cuts. The Clause says :
    "As from the first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, article two of the Unemployment Insurance (National Economy) (No. 1) Order, 1931, and the Second Schedule to that Order shall cease to have effect, and benefit shall be at the rates in force immediately before the coming into operation of that Order;"
    and so on. That gives the impression to the average man that the benefits are to be restored in full to the position at which they stood before the Economy Act was passed in 1931. That is an assumption which should not be allowed to remain in the House without some further explanation or more definite announcement. A declaration has been given that full restoration is to be given.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The hon. Gentleman cannot be referring to me. I would point out that I have not spoken on the Clause, and therefore he cannot attribute anything to me.
    Mr. GRENFELL: I have heard several speeches from hon. Members on that side and on that bench on that matter. In 1931 it was decided to try and make the fund self-supporting. After the Act of 1929 was passed, the contributions were not equal to the expenditure, and it was decided in 1931 that the fund should be made self-supporting and that the income should balance the expenditure. That could be done in two ways; by adding to the income or by reducing the expenditure. In fact, both ways were adopted. Under the Act of 1931 the contributions were increased and the benefits were reduced, and the period of benefits was reduced at the same time. By the passage of the Act of 1931 it was anticipated that an unemployment figure of somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3,000,000 might be carried; that contributions would be sufficient to carry a volume of unemployment higher than
    508
    ever previously known in this country at approximately 3,000,000 persons. Happily those figures were never reached, though they reached a figure approaching that great total. In the last 12 months, to the very great satisfaction of the Government, and not to the displeasure of any part of the House or any body of people in the country, the figures of unemployment have been decreasing and the numbers of employed, and therefore of contributors, have been increasing in the same period.
    The fund was to be made self-supporting by the enormous addition to the contributions. The contribution in respect of the person in employment in 1931 stood at the figure of 1s. 10½d. a week, or just less than £5 per annum for an adult person making the full contribution, but in order to provide Unemployment Benefit for the larger number in prospect, the contributions were increased by 33⅓ per cent., and the contributions in respect of each person rose from 1s. 10½d. to the record high figure of 2s. 6d. per week, which amounts to £6 10s. per annum. All the persons contributing are not male adult persons. There are some women contributors who pay less than the full contribution, and there are juveniles, but the average contribution, adults and juveniles, runs to nearly £6 per annum for each person employed. When we remember that the average number of persons in employment has not been below 9,500,000, and now stands at 10,000,000, we realise the enormous strength of this fund to which these generous contributions are being paid.
    The Government made an estimate in 1931, which provided for the maintenance of benefit of a number of people as standard beneficiaries, derived from the total volume of 3,000,000 unemployed, but they over-estimated the depth of the depression and the volume of prospective unemployment, and as soon as the maximum figure of unemployment had been reached we found that the fund was more than sufficient to meet the demands upon it. Having shortened the period of standard benefits and reduced the benefits by 10 per cent., and having transferred a number of people from the responsibility of Part I of the fund to the responsibility of the Government in Part II, we found that the fund was more than adequate to meet all the demands upon it. The significant fact is that for the last 12 months

    509
    the fund has been showing a large surplus week by week.
    I will give the House the latest figures in order that they may know from whence the restoration is to come and the additional benefits are to be derived. I find in the Ministry of Labour Gazette for April, 1934, that there are in employment in this country 10,058,000 persons, which is the highest figure we have known for a considerable time, for twelve months at least. The contributions made in respect of those 10,000,000 people, made up of £19,600,000 paid by the employed people, £19,600,000 by the employers, and £19,600,000 by the Treasury, amount to nearly £60,000,000 a year. The fund is now making, because of the inadequate and imperfect estimates of the right hon. Gentleman and those responsible for the 1931 Act, a surplus of more than £1,000,000 a month which is not being absorbed in benefit. In addition to the higher contributions required, there is the return of prosperity, for which the Government take credit, and, if employment continues to improve, there will be an increasing number of people paying contributions at the higher level, thus adding to the surplus to which I have referred. It is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer of 1934 whom we have to thank for the restoration of the cuts, or the right hon. Gentleman with all his sympathy, but it is the fund itself. Something must be done with the surplus. The surplus demands that a higher benefit should be paid to all the people who are unemployed in this country.
    We are not especially grateful to the right hon. Gentleman or to the Government for this restoration of cuts. We make the allegation here and now that there need not have been any cuts in unemployment pay. It was scandalous that in this country it should have been done. It will be a standing blot on this House that we condoned the thing after it had been done. We shall never be able to excuse ourselves for what was committed two or three years ago. The restoration which the Chancellor of the Exchequer says is costing £5,500,000 is not absorbing the whole of the surplus, and, if conditions do not change, he will have a greater surplus in his pocket for which he can find no use, unless he shows greater generosity than he is doing at the present time. Unfortunately, the number
    510
    of people receiving transitional payments is greater than 12 months ago, and very much greater than two or three years ago.
    Let hon. Members in all parts of the House remember that this concession has nothing to do with Part II. Part I stands independent of Part II. Part II has nothing at all to do with the fund. There is an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman's generosity in Part II. He has no opportunity for generosity in Part I. Part I looks after itself. The Statutory Committee will determine what Part I shall be doing from time to time. What shall be done to improve the benefits and to lessen the contributions falls under the purview and authority of the Statutory Committee. The contribution fixed in 1931 was to last apparently for all time. There is an opportunity for the Statutory Committee. There is the surplus in Part I, which has now been made a very handsome sum of money, standing at the disposal of the unemployed. It has been collected from people in employment for the benefit of those who are unemployed. But under Part II, which is the part which falls directly upon the Treasury, all the support and assistance comes from the Treasury. The Government are responsible, except for a small contribution made by local authorities. Those who come for transitional payment will need to be sustained by the direct provision made for them by the Treasury. A little generosity from the Minister to these people will not be ill-placed. He need not go to the Treasury for one single penny. He can go to the fund and ask that the surplus now accruing shall be handed over to Part II so that the Public Assistance Board can administer transitional payments at a higher level, and not with the destitution test that has been established since 1931.
    If we are to have restoration of the conditions of 1931, let the Government say so. Let them bring forward a Bill with that object to-day, to-morrow, this week, and we promise on this side of the House that there shall be not one word of opposition offered, and not one minute's time lost in obstructing the Bill. We will accept it and acknowledge it, if the Government will give to the unemployed people on standard benefit and on transitional payment, without distinction, a restoration of the position of 1931. If they will not do that, then let us here

    511
    and now face the situation. Do not let us pretend. Let us fight out the issue at the by-elections and at the General Election. We complain that the unemployed are not being treated generously. We offer that as a challenge to hon. Members. Why perpetuate the injustices imposed in 1931? If the Government wish to remove those injustices and not to condone them, let them do so, and then they can go to the by-elections and speak with freedom. Let the Minister bring forward a simple, practical straightforward Bill to restore in full the cuts and to restore the conditions that prevailed in 1931.
    Mr. LAWSON: Are we not to have an answer from the Government in reply to the case made by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) and others?
    4.33 p.m.
    Mr. HUDSON: I did not want to intervene until I was sure that all the hon. Members who wished to speak had done so. I do not wish to detain the House very long, except to answer a few of the points that have been made this afternoon. The hon. Member for West-houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) is not in his place, but no doubt someone will tell him of my answer. He asked if I could give any estimate of the numbers of people who will benefit by this Clause. It is obviously impossible to make any exact estimate, but in the Second Reading Debate I gave a figure of 87 per cent. of the total insured population who would have the whole of their unemployment risks in the year covered by the insurance scheme when the Bill goes through. The whole of those persons will benefit by this Clause. In addition, there will be an indeterminate number of other persons who will benefit, but what the exact figure will be it is impossible to say.
    The hon. Member also called in question a statement of my right hon. Friend yesterday that the new rates of benefit under the Bill were very substantially in excess so far as purchasing power is concerned over the rates in existence in 1831, and he went on to justify his criticism of my right hon. Friend's figures by pointing out that the poor cannot purchase on such advantageous terms as the rich. His conception of the
    512
    well-to-do man's purchases caused a certain amount of amusement. His criticism was entirely misconceived, because the Ministry of Labour Cost of Living Index, on which my right hon. Friend's calculations were based, is the result of investigation into working-class expenses. Therefore, the hon. Member's criticisms were entirely out of place.
    I cannot allow the speech of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) to go without some comment, because, unknowingly, it was full of inaccuracies. He started by saying that in 1931 we set out with the intention of making the Unemployment Insurance Fund solvent and self-supporting. His dates were a little wrong. That was done by his Government in December, 1930, when they set up a Royal Commission with that object as one of its terms of reference. The present Government, in 1931, by the Economy Order did not profess to make the fund self-supporting. They took steps to try and see as far as possible that the fund should balance.
    Mr. D. GRENFELL: That is the same thing.
    Mr. HUDSON: It is not the same thing. They made provision for the case, which was foreseen, of the fund not balancing. They allowed the debt to increase up to £115,000,000, but they provided that when the debt was in excess of that figure any deficiency should be made good by the Treasury. That is a very different matter from making the fund solvent and self-supporting. The hon. Member went on to say what had happened since. Any hon. Member listening to him might have been under the impression that the whole of the advantageous circumstances in which the fund now finds itself are due to the increases of contributions levied on the workers. He said that the rates of contribution were unexampled in history. That is not so, because on previous occasions since the War the rates of contributions have been in respect of certain parties as high as they are at the present time. Without meaning it, the hon. Member gave a totally wrong impression. The rates of contribution have been as high in the past.
    Mr. GRENFELL indicated dissent.
    Mr. HUDSON: The hon. Member shakes his head. He will find the full

    513
    figures in paragraph 28 of the Royal Commission's Report. In 1921, the employer's contribution was as high as 10d. Therefore, the contribution has been as high in the past as now. The only novelty in the present circumstances is the exceptionally high rate of contribution paid by the Exchequer, and I suggest that one of the reasons for the present flourishing state of the fund is not the increased rate of contributions paid by the workpeople and the employers but the high and unexampled rate of contributions by the taxpayer. In addition to paying these exceptionally high rates the Exchequer has also paid in the last two years considerable sums on account of the deficiency in the fund. The debt amounted to £115,000,000 in 1932 and between March, 1932, and the time when the fund started to balance the Exchequer made very considerable payments into the fund by way of deficiency grants. All these things have to be taken into account when we are considering how it is that the fund is in its present position.
    The hon. Member also said that we were not making use of the whole of the existing surplus for the benefit of the unemployed. He suggested that the surplus amounted to £12,000,000 a year and that as the concession will only cost £4,000,000 we are left with a surplus of £8,000,000 a year. He has forgotten that in this Bill the unemployed are being granted very considerable concessions in addition to the increase in the rates of benefit. They are being given the concession of additional days of benefit, and those additional days of benefit are calculated to cost in a year something like £8,350,000. Therefore, they have not merely a concession in the increase in the rate of benefit but a very valuable concession as to the period during which they can draw benefit, and that will absorb the whole of the surplus.
    Mr. GRENFELL: No. The Bill was based on an unemployment figure of 2,500,000. The hon. Member prides himself on the fact that the unemployment figure is now 2,250,000. The surplus is greater than he bargains for.
    Mr. HUDSON: I am showing how inaccurate the hon. Member was. He said that we had a surplus of £1,000,000 a month, or £12,000,000 a year. The fact is, that the new expenditure is in excess of £12,000,000 a year and that we shall be
    514
    spending at the rate of more than the whole of that surplus. If any additional surplus arises then it will be open to the Statutory Committee to suggest means of disposing of it, whether by increasing benefits or reducing contributions. Far from taking the surplus for our own purposes we shall have distributed practically the whole of the surplus that has accrued this year, and if any other surplus accrues it will be at the disposal of the Statutory Committee.
    Mr. T. SMITH: Will the hon. Member deal with the point as to whether the Clause can be made to operate sooner than the 1st July.
    Mr. HUDSON: Mr. Speaker said that that would be strictly out of order. My right hon. Friend referred to that point last night.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Amendments as to the meaning of unemployment.)
    4.48 p.m.
    Miss WARD: I beg to move, in page 6, line 11, to leave out Sub-section (1).
    For the purpose of clarity, may I remind the House that the statutory holiday and the recognised holiday which count for the waiting period and continuity of unemployment are governed by an Amendment to the Fourth Schedule of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927, and by the First Schedule, paragraph 4, of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1924. It has been customary to count these statutory holidays for the waiting period and continuity of unemployment, and the intention of the new sub-section introduced by the Minister is to delete that practice for the purpose of calculating the waiting period and continuity of unemployment. The effect of the Amendment is, I believe, to return to the status quo. As I understand it, the intention of the Minister in introducing this particular sub-section in Clause 6 was to prevent people obtaining benefit illegitimately at a period earlier than they were entitled to do. That was a most commendable intention, because the aim and object of everybody is to ensure that the fund shall be used by those people who are legitimately entitled to draw upon it and shall be preserved for

    515
    their interests as well as the interests of all concerned in the industrial world in the future.
    But, as very often happens in life, when one tries to remedy an injustice one quite inadvertently creates other injustices. I should like the Minister to reconsider his decision to include this particular Sub-section in the Bill, in the light of one or two points and examples which I should like to bring to his notice. Take, for example, a year when Christmas Day and Boxing Day occur on Wednesday and Thursday. A man may work on the Monday and Tuesday; he is idle on the Wednesday and the Thursday. Under this Clause he will not be allowed to count them for the waiting period. He is idle also on the Friday and the Saturday, works again on the Monday and Tuesday of the next week; and, in my part of the country, the North-East Coast, where we get the advantage of the Scottish holidays as well as the English holidays, and consequently have New Year's Day as a recognised holiday, he is idle on the New Year's Day and in many instances is also idle on the Friday and Saturday in the second week. None of these days count for the waiting period. In the third week he works again on the Monday and Tuesday, and is idle on the Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday. He may work on the Monday and Tuesday of the following week, but it is only in the fourth week that he will complete the six days which have to elapse before he is entitled to draw standard benefit.
    I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give some consideration to this matter, because such a man will only be able to get two days wages in each of the four weeks, all the rest of the time, owing to the regulation that wages are not to be subsidised out of public funds, he will have to depend over that long period of time on two days wages in each of the four weeks. In many industries wages are extremely low, and, therefore, such a man will indeed feel the pinch during that long period.
    The second point I desire to make is in connection with the vexed question of what are termed recognised holidays as distinct from what we know as statutory holidays. In my part of the country we have a recognised holiday which is
    516
    known as Race Week, and in other parts of the country you get the Glasgow Week, the Edinburgh holiday and the holidays in Lancashire, all of different periods and subject to the decision of the Umpire as to whether they count as recognised holidays or not. I am sorry to be so local, but I must illustrate my point from my own constituency, where a shipbuilding yard has got the whole of Race Week, under an Umpire's decision, recognised as a statutory holiday. Immediately adjacent but in another shipyard and in another constituency, which works on the same kind of ships, the Umpire has given a decision that only three days in the Race Week are to be counted as recognised holidays. You may have a case like the one I brought to the notice of the Minister in order to get a decision, of a man working in the other shipyard, but living in my constituency, who is able to draw his unemployment benefit at an earlier date than the man who lives in my own constituency and works in the shipyard in my constituency.
    The fact is that if the Clause remains in the Bill you will get a great variation in the holiday periods all over the country and, in consequence, a very great variation in the period of time, so far as days are concerned, during which an unemployed man will have to wait until he qualifies and is able to draw his standard benefit. The right to draw standard benefit under the conditions laid down in the Bill will depend to a large extent in what period of the year unemployment mostly falls. Let me put it this way. There are some industries in which the slack period always comes nearer to the holiday period than is the case in other industries. It is difficult, of course, to get any accurate information as to how the Clause will operate, but you may get one industry where the period of slackness always comes during the holiday period, in which case men will have to wait considerably longer than groups of men in other industries and, therefore, you may impose a serious and grave injustice on large classes of the community. The right hon. Gentleman in his desire to see that the fund is protected from illegitimate claims has not taken all these facts which I have given him into full consideration, possibly because all the local customary

    517
    holidays throughout the country are not very well known in London. We have decided that the period which used to be known as the gap shall be six days. It is a little hard, even with the best intentions in the world, to lengthen that gap, particularly as it will fall only on certain men and not on the whole of the community. I know it is the desire of the Minister to make the administration of the Bill fall as fairly and as justly as possible on all sections of the community, but I feel strongly that unless I can persuade him to reconsider his decision we may have injustices cropping up.
    May I put one further point. I believe that the Bill is going to be of real value to everybody concerned. Hon. Members above the Gangway take exception to that statement, but I have lived long enough in political life to know that I would rather wait until I see the effect of a Bill before coming to a decision. I am not yet certain how the administration is going to work out, but the general principles of the Bill commend themselves as being of real value to the unemployed and I am prepared to allow the unemployed themselves to give their decision on the Measure in the years to come. Leaving out hon. Members above the Gangway because they are bound to oppose the Bill, although they know that there is a great deal of good in it, those who are supporting the National Government honestly believe that it will be of great benefit to the country and to the unemployed, and, therefore, it seems a pity that we should run the risk of allowing injustices to creep in which may tend to destroy the broad principles embodied in the Bill, in which we sincerely believe. With all the power I possess I ask the Minister to graciously consider the points that I have put forward. If he can give us this concession I know it will be warmly welcomed by those who support the Bill as a measure of real benefit to the nation.
    4.54 p.m.
    Mr. MARTIN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The hon. Lady has put forward the reasons for it so lucidly that there is very little left to say, but I should like to add one or two remarks to help the Minister to arrive at a decision on
    518
    matter which is of great moment to the people on the North East Coast. In the coal industry a great deal of short time is being worked in the pits, and this particular provision will lead in its operation to one of those pin-pricks which irritate people who are working on short time and perhaps antagonise them to the general principles of the Bill, which, throughout the North East Coast, whatever Labour Members may say, is claimed as something which will afford them real help when they are unemployed. Take the case of a man who works short time for three days in any week. He works on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday in the pit, and it then becomes idle. That may happen through a variety of causes; some salesman on the quayside plays one of the tricks well known to the coalowner and evades the Mines Act of 1930 in such a way that an order is or is not placed, according to the agility he shows in evading the Act. Some other coalowner has a representative who is perhaps more pushing or intelligent than his neighbours in a different part of the county, and he gets an order, which means that the neighbouring pit is unemployed for the remaining three days of the week.
    All these causes are outside the lives of the men working in the pit—sometimes miners are apt to forget how much work has to be done before orders can come in. But for three days at the end of the week he has no employment. Then during race week it is a whole week's holiday, and should it intervene he will not be allowed to count any one of the days in race week as waiting days for the purpose of unemployment benefit. That means that he will receive half a week's pay for half a week's work, he will be unemployed for the rest of that week and for the whole of the next week, and he must go into the middle of the following week before he is entitled to apply for unemployment benefit. The man will approximately have to go for a fortnight with only half a week's pay to support him and his family. I appreciate the effort the Minister of Health is making to abolish a certain evil which has cropped up, but I feel sure that he did not intend to perpetrate this further injustice which I think is bound to arise if the Clause is left in. Many other hon. Members agree with our point of view,

    519
    and although some may appear now to be doubtful, yet we think it is worth while to press this point, because we think the Clause may operate to the detriment of many people whom the Minister has no desire to hurt. If the Amendment is carried it will bring us back to the present practice, and a man in the middle of a recognised holiday such as race week could say that he has been unemployed for three days at the beginning of the week and three days in the previous week, and thus establish his claim. When a man finds that he is able to do that, I think he will be in a much better frame of mind to admit all the benefits the Minister his given him in the rest of the Bill.
    I am sure the Minister had no intention of spoiling the general effect of the Bill, which the majority of the people in the industrial areas proclaim as a great benefit to industry and the unemployed generally. It would be a shame to spoil that opinion by the small feeling which would come into the lives of a percentage of the men, and which would be broadcast as one of the terrible things which the Labour party had brought up against the Bill. I therefore hope that the Minister will see his way to accept the Amendment. I know that if he does he will receive the acclamation of all those people affected by statutory holidays who might possibly be injured by the Clause as it stands.
    5.2 p.m.
    Mr. LAWSON: It is not very often that I find myself supporting an Amendment moved in the quarter from which this one has been moved. We had a similar Amendment on the Paper. We are very pleased indeed to find ourselves in common agreement with other hon. Members on this Amendment. It can be said that the hon. Lady who represents Wallsend (Miss Ward) argued her case extremely well. The illustrations she gave could be multiplied from various parts of the House. What the Government have done is to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission which stated :
    "A difficulty of minor importance arises with regard to customary holidays."
    I do not agree that it is a difficulty of minor importance. It is not a small matter at all. It concerns hundreds of
    520
    thousands of people. It covers people who are very often working intermittently, and who, as a result of the operation of this particular Sub-section, would be deprived of the few days that are much needed, particularly during these holiday breaks. The Royal Commission also stated :
    "It has been the rule of practice that days of customary holidays, although not counting for benefit purposes, may count for the purpose of preserving continuity of unemployment and as waiting days."
    Further on, the report states :
    "It has been held that this provision did not abolish the rule of practice that days of customary holidays should count for preserving continuity and as waiting days. In our view, such days should be regarded for all purposes as days on which the claimant does not satisfy the second statutory condition."
    That means that the umpire has moved that these customary holidays should count for waiting or continuity purposes. If anyone has had wide and diverse experience over a number of years, far wider than that of the average member of this House or of Members of the Royal Commission, and wider even than that of industrial members, it is the umpire because he has had multitudes of cases put before him. What he has done in these cases is not that he has been merely lenient. That is the implication in the Commission's statement—that there has been a sort of loose ruling upon this matter. The umpire does not rule loosely. As a matter of fact those who have been before the umpire know that he is a man of experience of the world at large, an able interpreter of the law, whose decisions have come to have practically the standing of law as decided by judges. I do not think there is any more careful judge than the umpire.
    The customary holidays described by the hon. Member for Wallsend are one kind. But customary holidays differ in different parts of the country. He would be a bold man who would describe what the term "customary holidays" means, say, in the great shipyards on the Clyde and in the engineering works. Although I have had to deal with this matter I shall not attempt to go into it in detail, because it is so difficult that I am sure I would stumble in making an explanation. But the umpire has given a ruling. It does not mean that benefit is given for these holidays. It does mean that

    521
    the days count for waiting and continuity purposes. I am rather surprised that the Royal Commission did not argue the case and give some reasons for it. Of course there was some evidence given upon the matter, but I think the House would be ill-advised to take the course laid down in this Bill.
    When I saw this Sub-section I was really alarmed. I was perturbed when we did not get an opportunity of discussing the proposal in Committee, and I am therefore glad that we have that opportunity to-day. The Sub-section will cover an alarmingly large number of people. It will cover just those people who need most consideration because of short time or intermittent work. We know the regular practice of some firms. Suppose that Christmas Day falls on a Wednesday. There are two days after that. There have been times when there was a doubt whether those days after Christmas Day counted as a holiday or not. That is the sort of difficulty that the umpire has been up against. It is not only that the Sub-section covers a large number of people but that it hits basic industries like shipbuilding, engineering and mining, which are governed by old-time practices. It hits those industries in which the employers have been in the habit of declaring certain days as holidays. In the Scottish area there are the summer holidays. They do not call them wakes, but fairs. There has been a considerable amount of trouble because the holiday is nearly a week in those cases. The umpire has had considerable difficulty in deciding whether those were customary holidays or not. The Minister of Labour in this Sub-section has sought to carry out the Report of the Royal Commission.
    Mr. MARTIN: When I used the word "minor" it was not because I disagreed with the Mover of the Amendment on the importance of the Amendment, but that this was a matter of minor importance in proportion to the great good that the Bill as a whole does.
    Mr. LAWSON: The average Member of the House will see most clearly what affects his own particular constituents and will not see the effect of the Bill as a whole. I am sure that the Minister will admit that this Clause is a much bigger matter than appears on the surface.
    522
    I appeal to him to reconsider the matter, and to make a concession by withdrawing this Sub-section.
    5.13 p.m.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: In order that the harmony of the House may be complete I have much pleasure in joining whole-heartedly in the coalition between the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) and the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) as the representative on this occasion of the Merseyside area. I believe that this is the first attempt to deal with the question of customary holidays by Statute. The fact that some 20 years of experience have been gained without such an attempt having been made illustrates the extraordinary difficulty of reaching any satisfactory solution of the matter. In a way this is one of those questions which is hardly suitable for discussion across the Floor of the House. It is an extraordinarily complicated question. It was described by the Royal Commission, as has been said, as a matter of minor importance. It may be a matter of minor importance in comparison with the major structure of this Bill, such as the setting up of the Statutory Committee or the Unemployment Board, or matters of that sort. But it certainly is a matter of major difficulty. In fact the speeches already made indicate quite clearly how complicated the matter is.
    The Mover of the Amendment quoted cases of difficulty which had arisen in her constituency, and the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street hesitated to embark on the matter at all. I will endeavour to illustrate what happened in my own constituency and the adjoining constituency last year. I think I shall convince the Minister that the rigid words which he has in this Clause will perpetuate rather than clear up the difficulties. I take the case of two shipyards within a few hundred yards of each other. In Shipyard No. 1 the customary Easter holidays were Good Friday, Saturday and Easter Monday. In Shipyard No. 2 the customary holidays were Good Friday and Easter Monday. In this Sub-section there is one word—"employed"—which makes it unworkable. The Sub-section states that a man shall not be deemed for the purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Acts to be unemployed on any

    523
    day which is recognised as a holiday at "the factory at which he is employed." In the case of these two shipyards, however, you would have a man who ceased work on the Thursday evening in the shipyard where the two holidays were recognised, but who resumed work after Easter in the other shipyard. It is frequently the case that people resume work after a holiday, not at the factory where they left off work but at an adjoining factory because they are employed from day to day.
    No regulation which the Minister could devise, could possibly fit in with the different conditions in different types of factories and in different areas. If a set of men left off work on Thursday evening in the factory in which the three days' holiday were recognised and resumed work on the following Tuesday morning in the other factory, they would receive benefit for the three full days. On the other hand men who left work at the same time and who did not resume work at the same factory at which they were employed, on the Tuesday, the Wednesday of the Thursday or within any part of the 12 days' signing period, would lose their benefit for the full period of the holiday. Not only that but a man who in his keenness to get a job did half a day's work in one of these places during the period of the holiday would find that his effort to obtain work for one half-day had deprived him of benefit for the full period of the holiday. As this system is now working and as it would remain stereotyped by this arrangement, it is a definite discouragement to men to look for a day's or a half-day's work during the period when the holidays are approaching.
    Having given this matter some consideration I think the words proposed in the Bill would be dangerous. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) referred to the hardships suffered by many of these men. In normal times it might not be a matter of much consequence, but many of them are in urgent need at the present time and to use a grim expression which has obtained currency in my district, they are "sold down to the last chair." The unfortunate occurrences which happened last year there by which considerable bodies of men were either deprived of a payment to which they thought themselves
    524
    entitled, or saw their neighbours getting better treatment than they received, created an unfortunate feeling and led to considerable hardship. If there is any question which would justify the setting up of a statutory committee to consider difficulties arising under this Measure and to consider carefully information collected from all the different districts, it is a question of this kind. It is difficult to concentrate upon it in a discussion across the Floor of the House of Commons, but I join in the appeal which has been made to the Minister that he should not continue this Sub-section at this time.
    There is machinery upon which he can rely for getting fair and impartial evidence from each district in the country. There are in these districts local advisory committees composed of employers' and workers' representatives and others and a body of that kind could draw up a fair and just scheme which would satisfy its own particular district. But any attempt to deal with the matter by Statute, must create hardship in one district or another, and while it might work successfully in and suit one district it would be bound in other districts to be profoundly unsatisfactory. Anything in the nature of an attempt at settlement of the question on national lines at the present can only lead to further hardship and confusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) has done well to bring this Amendment before the House, and I hope that the Minister will see his way to agree with it.
    5.20 p.m.
    Miss HORSBRUGH: I am in entire agreement with the last part of the speech of the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White). The more we consider this matter the more we must realise that there are difficulties connected with the different districts in the country and that before any definite change is made in the present scheme the Minister ought to have further information as to how the holiday arrangement works in the various areas. This has been described by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) as a very large and complicated problem. As he pointed out the term "customary holiday" is not defined. Some of us are inclined to think that it cannot be defined. I find that many hon. Members hold an entirely different view from any that I have ever heard of

    525
    before, as to what is a customary holiday. There is an idea, apparently, that a customary holiday includes even extra days taken before or after Christmas and on such occasions.
    Many hon. Members have referred to various districts in England. May I draw the attention of the Minister to some of the districts in Scotland where the idea of a customary holiday is quite different from that which prevails in England? In Scotland the customary holidays are not Good Friday or various single days or two days, at different seasons such as Christmas and Easter. In most cases in Scotland there is one week's holiday, generally in July. As hon. Members have alluded to definite cases the House will excuse me if I give an illustration from a trade which I have mentioned in this House before and of which I have some knowledge. I refer to the jute trade. The jute trade is governed as to its conditions by a trade board. There is a week's holiday in July and all the jute mills have to close down during that week. If that week is not included for continuity and waiting period purposes what will happen? For one week the mill-worker, naturally, during the holiday does not draw pay. If that week does not count for continuity or waiting period purposes he will go on to the end of the next week and he will then not draw pay but will have to wait a third week and then he must either go to the public assistance committee or presumably come under Part II of this Measure.
    That is a clear statutory holiday during which, as I say, every mill must be shut and it might be possible to frame some provision to deal with that type of holiday, which is regular, which occurs at the same time every year and which is always of the same duration. The difficulty arises where the customary holidays in different parts of the country are not regular in recurrence or duration, depending rather on such matters as the day of the week on which Christmas Day or Boxing Day will fall. But we do not want any scheme for including such holidays as waiting period or continuity, to be used by industries in order that they may turn off their people knowing that those people will be kept at the expense of the fund. That is an important point which has not, I think, been brought out yet. We do not want to
    526
    saddle the fund with an additional charge simply because an industry thinks that it will take the opportunity to rearrange a certain amount of its work, and that is the great danger which would arise if we were to withdraw this Subsection and do nothing.
    At present we have not sufficient information as to the different types of holidays in different parts of the country. I see a difficult and complicated situation disclosed by the various instances which have been mentioned and I agree with the hon. Member for East Birkenhead that this is a subject which ought to be referred to the Statutory Committee or on which further information ought to be obtained from the districts. It cannot be treated as one problem. It is a complicated diversity of problems and there are certain dangers to be avoided especially that to which I have drawn attention of the fund being used by certain industries in the way indicated. I suggest that it might be possible not to alter the present law at the present time but to refer the matter to the Statutory Committee or else to get further evidence upon it with a view to making quite clear what a customary and statutory holiday is, in order both to protect the fund and to see that the worker, who at the end of the time is simply turned on to Part II of the Measure or public assistance, is allowed to come back on to the fund.
    5.27 p.m.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I join in the appeal to the Minister that he should not lightly turn down this Amendment. This is a very serious matter as far as shipbuilding and engineering and particularly repairing are concerned. It affects not merely the Clyde and the Tyne but the whole industry all round the coast. It affects engineers who go on board ships at Falmouth and Plymouth and Portsmouth and all round our shores for the purpose of doing repair jobs. They are going to be handicapped unless this Amendment is accepted. We want these men to be able to do these jobs at the holiday times. It is all right for those who in normal circumstances can make preparations beforehand for repairs that have to be done either in the works or by marine engineers on the ship, but there is the case of a small repair, which is only going to occupy a man for a day.

    527
    If men take jobs of that kind in the middle of a holiday, it means they are going to be cut off. The Amendment would enable them to do such jobs without being penalised, and I hope the Minister will keep in mind cases of that kind when he replies.
    5.29 p.m.
    Mr. CROSSLEY: After that double dose of Scotland, may I bring the House back to England where we suffer from the same trouble and the same fear about this particular Sub-section? I take it that the intention of the Sub-section is to restore the status quo which existed before the Umpire's decision of 1930. But I am not certain that the Umpire's decision was not perfectly logical. I think it was logical for this reason. Clearly, it is not right for a man to draw benefit during a customary holiday provided he has not been out of work immediately before the holiday. Nevertheless, for purposes of wages, if he does not go back to work during the week after the holiday, he has then had to do 12 consecutive days of actual unemployment, even if the first six do not count as statutory unemployment. During those 12 days he has received no wages, and he would have to go, as the hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) said, to the public assistance committee or, in future, to the Unemployment Assistance Board.
    In Lancashire we have the system of wakes weeks. Immense sums of money are saved up during the year, and it is all spent in that one week, mostly at Blackpool. A very large proportion of the population in my constituency still go to Blackpool or the Isle of Man for that week. But there is a large number of people, unemployed for different periods during the summer, who are not able any longer to do that, but who stay in the towns and, because they have not enough during wakes week, have to go to the public assistance committee. Then the cotton mills, in times of depression, close down for an extra week to unburden themselves of some of their surplus stock. If those second six days in fact only count as waiting days, the men unemployed during that temporary period have to go to the Unemployment Assistance Board under the Bill, and surely it is that sort of weekly unemployment for
    528
    which Part I of the Bill, the insurance scheme, is drawn up, to cover periods of unemployment between periods of employment. It is for that reason that I, with other hon. Members who have spoken, would ask the Minister to consider again if it is not really logical to uphold that Umpire's decision and if the state of affairs previous to that decision was not really the illogical state of affairs.
    5.33 p.m.
    Mr. McENTEE: We have had a striking consensus of opinion from speakers representing all political parties in the House, except that which is now called the National Labour party, that if the Clause is passed, the condition of the unemployed worker in certain circumstances will be worsened. Is it the Minister's intention that the unemployed worker in the circumstances covered by this Clause shall be worse off? I hope he will be able to say it is not, and I think he has had evidence from all parts of the House to-day that the operation of this Clause will definitely worsen the condition of unemployed men and women in certain circumstances. I do not profess to have had any intimate experience of the working, on the administrative side, of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, but I think I am right in saying that if any firm closes down at the present time for, let us say, Easter Monday and the Tuesday and Wednesday following, according to a decision given by the Umpire the man who is unemployed for those three days can in fact draw benefit for the Tuesday and the Wednesday, although he cannot draw benefit for the Monday, which is the customary holiday. If this Clause is passed in its present form, that condition will be altered, and instead of the unemployed man or woman being able, as now, to draw benefit for the Tuesday and Wednesday, having been unemployed for the three days including the Easter Monday, he or she will not be able to draw those two days' benefit in future. In that case, therefore, the condition of the man or woman who is unemployed would be worse than it is now.
    There is another case, however, in regard to which I am not sure how the Clause would operate. Christmas Day and Boxing Day are customary holidays, and if they are followed by 12 working

    529
    days' unemployment, the person who has been unemployed for those 14 days would in fact get 14 days' pay, which would include Christmas Day and Boxing Day, but I think I am right in saying that under the Clause, in similar circumstances, the man or woman similarly unemployed for 14 days would only get 12 days' unemployment pay, and if I am right in that, then again the condition of the man or woman would be definitely worsened. I do not think there is any doubt about it with regard to the case of the Easter holiday, but in the second case I am not quite sure whether my interpretation of the new Clause is accurate, and I should like to have an assurance from the Minister on that point.
    5.38 p.m.
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) began by stating that he thought this topic was one that was unsuitable for discussion, but I can assure him that there is nothing improper about it at all. On the other hand——
    Mr. WHITE: My right hon. Friend does not suggest that I was guilty of saying there was any impropriety in this topic. Far from it. What I meant to convey was that this is one of the cases where Parliament sometimes draws a hard and fast line which does not correspond to the conditions in the country.
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I am very glad the hon. Gentleman has now made his somewhat equivocal remark quite plain, but I can assure him that, even on his own interpretation of what he meant by unsuitable, I entirely differ from him. I think this discussion during the last hour has been one of the most instructive that we have had on this Bill. It is a highly technical question, as everyone agrees, but, on the other hand, it is a question of great importance and one on which we have had the benefit of the experience of hon. Members representing almost every part of England and Scotland; and in addition we have had this matter put before us in a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) which, for its fairness and clarity, I do not think has been surpassed during the whole course of these Debates. Therefore, I approach this matter with the feeling that it is one which we have done well to spend some time in discussing.
    530
    The hon. Member for West Waltham-stow (Mr. McEntee) raised a point which has not been raised before. If I understood him rightly, he was right on his first point, but I do not think he was quite right on his second. The history of this matter is this. For many years, as he said, this question of customary holidays has been governed by a whole series of Umpire's decisions, and the Umpire himself stated that where a person has been finally discharged from his employment before the holiday, the holiday is treated as a day of unemployment for all purposes, and benefit may be paid for the holiday. It frequently happens, however, that a customary holiday is extended. It may be extended because of stocktaking, it may be extended for the purpose of the overhauling of the machinery, or it may be extended because trade is bad. The Umpire has held that where the extension lasted for as long as 12 working days—and that is the point of the hon. Member for West Walthamstow—in addition to and consecutive with the holiday, the applicant is treated as though he had been discharged before the holiday and may be entitled to payment of benefit for the holidays. The Clause with which we are now dealing does not alter that practice in any way at all. What it does affect, of course, is what is known as the continuity rule. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) referred to the report of the Royal Commission, and I will read shortly what the Royal Commission said on this subject, in paragraph 421:
    "A difficulty of minor importance arises with regard to customary holidays. It has been a rule of practice that days of customary holidays, although not counting for benefit purposes, may count for the purpose of preserving continuity of unemployment and as waiting days."
    Then it quotes the Acts of 1924 and 1927, and it goes on to state :
    "It has been held that this provision"—
    the provision, that is, of the Act of 1927—
    "did not abolish the rule of practice that days of customary holidays should count for preserving continuity and as waiting days. In our view, such days should be regarded for all purposes as days on which the claimant does not satisfy the Second Statutory Condition."
    The present law then is that holidays are not counted for benefit, but they are

    531
    counted for continuity, and the effect of the Sub-section which we are now discussing is to bring the law into conformity with the recommendation of the Royal Commission and to put benefit and continuity on the same footing, and that means that there will not be the advantage that there is now in respect of the continuity rule. This proposal was not put in the Bill, I need hardly say, without a good deal of consideration and without taking into account a good many of the points which have been urged to-day. As stated in the report, there was an attempt in 1927 to remedy the position by providing that a customary holiday should not count for continuity purposes except when a man had been discharged or suspended for 12 days or more, but although it was clearly the intention in 1927 to alter the law as interpreted by the Umpire, it was frequently found that the amendment did not achieve the purpose for which it was made, and the law remained unchanged.
    The second consideration that occurred to me in drafting this Bill is that on the face of it it is inconsistent that there should be one law for the payment of benefit and another law for the continuity rule. Therefore, if you look into this matter merely as a question of consistency, clearly there is something to be said for treating them both alike, that is, either for treating the customary holidays as days on which benefit can be paid and counted for the continuity rule, or doing the opposite and saying that both in respect of payment of benefit and of the continuity rule, they shall not be counted. It is true that holidays are arranged for the mutual convenience of employers and workers, and in the ordinary sense a man cannot be regarded unemployed on a customary holiday any more than on a Sunday.
    These are the considerations, combined with the recommendation of the Royal Commission, that induced us to put this Clause into the Bill. On the other hand, it is true, as the hon. Member for West Walthamstow said, that the existing law without amendment on this point has existed for a good long time, and it worsens the position of the applicant if this Sub-section is included. Therefore, the answer to the question the hon. Member put, is clearly that it is a curtailment
    532
    of the rights which the applicant now enjoys.
    There are, however, further points that one ought to take into consideration, and they are all points that have been put by different Members according to their experience in different parts of the country. The conclusion that I have come to after listening to the Debate is that this Clause, if passed into law, would act unequally throughout the country for the reason that there are different customs in different localities. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) gave his experience, speaking from his own knowledge of the customs in the shipyards on the Clyde, of how it will affect them. An hon. Friend gave his experiences of what would happen on the North-east coast, where they have different periods of the year which are regarded as customary holidays, which may not be the same as those on the Clyde; while another hon. Friend gave the custom in Lancashire, where the Wakes may be extended, for reasons I have given, for two or three weeks, and where in many cases the habits and customs are not the same as those on the Clyde or on the North-east coast. After having given the best consideration I could to this question, and having listened to the Debate with special attention and with an earnest desire to do what I believe to be the right thing in this matter, I have come to the conclusion that, on the whole, I should be justified in accepting the Amendment.
    Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: Do I understand that means the withdrawal of Clause 6?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: We are discussing only Sub-section (1).
    Miss WARD: May I thank my right hon. Friend very warmly for his kind consideration and for the great satisfaction he has given to those of us in all parties who have been associated with the Amendment. It gives us a great deal of satisfaction to know that he feels the same as we do.
    Amendment agreed to.
    5.42 p.m.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
    I hoped that the Minister would indicate that he intended withdrawing Subsection (2), for it seems to me that it

    533
    ought not to be left in the Clause now that Sub-section (1) has been omitted. The two Sub-sections cover different points, but many of the arguments which have convinced the Minister that Subsection (1) should be withdrawn are equally applicable to Sub-section (2). It deals with a class or shift or a grade of persons who might be employed in a factory, workshop or mine, and whose customary working week is less than six days, and may be five or four days, and who are paid a full week's wages for that smaller number of days so that the other days in the week cannot be counted for continuity purposes. At the moment they are counted in many instances for continuity purposes. In the South Wales coalfield they have afternoon and night shifts; that is to say, men who are engaged at work in the afternoon and men who are engaged at work at night. Those men work five shifts a week and they are idle on Saturday as a general rule. The Saturday counts for continuity purposes, and in many instances enables the men engaged upon the shift to qualify for unemployment insurance benefit.
    As was evidenced in the last discussion, this is an extremely complicated matter. Before I came to the House I had the task of interpreting this Sub-section to thousands of workpeople, and complicated charts had to be drawn up because a man might be working on an afternoon shift one week, a day shift the second week, and a night shift the third week. In circumstances of that kind the continuity period would be unequally distributed over different shifts. It would add to the colour of my vocabulary if I said what some of the men said about the continuity rule, but I remember vividly how on many occasions I saw the faces of some of the men light up when I was able to show that owing to the operation of the continuity rule they were able to qualify for benefit, whereas otherwise they would not have been able to do so. The Minister might say that this has become an established custom and that a man upon the sixth day of the week is not in fact continuously unemployed on that day, which is I think the second statutory condition. The Royal Commission reports on this matter:
    "Another difficulty arises in the case of shift workers. If a factory regularly work a 5-day week, benefit is not paid for the
    534
    sixth day, and, if such a factory goes on short time, working week on and week off, benefit would be paid for six days in the off-week and would not be paid for the Saturday in the week of employment. If, however, a claimant were definitely discharged on Friday in the week of employment instead of merely suspended from his employment, benefit would be paid for the Saturday although he had done a full normal week's work in that week. In our view, when a shift worker has done a full normal week's work, he should be regarded as employed throughout the week and not entitled to benefit for any day of that week."
    In this case, again, the Royal Commission made a recommendation but did not provide us with the many arguments on which it was based; it merely recited the history, but did not provide the grounds of its recommendations. This, of course, only affects short-time workers, and I should like to put a point which I intended to put on the previous Debate, but the Minister rose to reply.
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I wish the hon. Member would elaborate the point about short-time workers.
    Mr. BEVAN: The point is that if a man does not become unemployed the question of continuity is of importance. I was about to point out that an argument can be applied here which was equally applicable to the last discussion. If a factory or pit works short time, it is because it is unable to dispose of its maximum output. If the holidays did not occur in this way and the output had been greater it could not have been disposed of and that shift would in fact be unemployed on that day. Where short time does not operate the point does not count, but where it does operate it does count, because the full shift's output cannot be disposed of, and if these days were not taken as days of holiday they would be taken as days of unemployment. The Umpire said, "Obviously a man ought not to have benefit on a day on which in fact he could not be regarded as unemployed." On the other hand, he said, "Obviously, where short time takes place taking the holidays is a form of curtailing output, and consequently it is not fair entirely to disregard that, and I will meet the position half-way and permit those days to count for continuity purposes."
    It seems to me that the decision of the Umpire was a perfectly just one. Some

    535
    Members might think it would have been going too far if he had decided that unemployment benefit should be payable for that day. It certainly would be going too far, in the view of the Minister and of hon. Members, if he had decided that the day should be entirely disregarded, and he did the perfectly proper thing in saying that these days of unemployment are sufficiently border-line days to count for continuity purposes. In steel works blast furnaces and similar works where it is not now possible to dispose of the full output of a plant, the practice has grown up not of reducing the number of hours in a shift but of taking a shift off for one day a week. That is, indeed, a product of trade depression, though from the point of view also of efficient factory regulation, it is undesirable for men to work only six hours on an eight-hour shift, and it is better to effect a reduction of working time by closing down for one day in the week. On account of the prolonged trade depression that has come to be regarded almost as a practice, although, as I have indicated, it is a byproduct of trade depression, and the day lost is a day of genuine employment to the man. I am hoping that the Minister will see his way clear to delete this Sub-section, as he did the last one, because otherwise it will hit the miners in South Wales very hard indeed. The fund can bear this burden, and there is no reason why we should have niggling economies at the expense of the unemployed. It is hard lines to say that if a man is idle for one day through the circumstances which I have explained, that day shaall not count for continuity purposes, whereas if he only works for one hour in a day that is counted as a day's employment. The Umpire has taken all these facts into consideration in coming to the decision which he has taken.
    One word in conclusion. The House knows the view we take about the Statutory Committee, but if we are to have a Statutory Committee, it seems undesirable to fasten down the law in this way when, in a few months' time, the Statutory Committee can consider all these matters. As has been pointed out, these are technical and complicated points, and if the Statutory Committee has any value at
    536
    all, I should imagine that this is just the direction in which it could, after taking all the local circumstances into consideration, give advice on which regulations could be drawn up such as would be elastic and adaptable to varying circumstances. I therefore beg the Minister to be good enough to delete this Subsection, because in that way he will be holding-off a blow from a large number of people who are already sufficiently hard hit by the industrial depression.
    6.5 p.m.
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I am not approaching this matter, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) suggested in one portion of his speech, from the point of view of whether the change asked for would or would not result in what he called "a niggling economy." Throughout this complicated Measure I have attempted to do what I believe to be the fair and right thing to the people affected, and therefore, I hope he will clear that idea from his mind, and believe me when I say that I am approaching this question from the point of view I have just indicated. This point is different from the one which we discussed on the last Amendment. The hon. Member quoted the report of the Royal Commission, and I would remind the House of the last four or five lines :
    "In our view, when a shift worker does a full normal week's work he should be regarded as employed throughout the week, and not entitled to benefit for any day of that week."
    The position under the Umpire's ruling is that if the normal arrangement of shifts at any works or factory is such that a full week's work is done in less than six days, a workman who has done his full work in a calendar week is not entitled to benefit in respect of any day in that week. That means that where, under the arrangements at the establishment, the full week is considered to be not a six-day but a five-day week, the man is not entitled to benefit for the sixth day. There is one exception to this rule, namely, that benefit may be paid for such a day if the worker is permanently discharged from his employment before that day. The Sub-section carries out the recommendation of the Royal Commission that under the circumstances I have named a worker should not be entitled to benefit in respect

    537
    of any day in that week, but having regard to what I said on the last Amendment I am again, after consideration, disposed to think that this is a Sub-section which, in the circumstances, I should not be justified in insisting upon, and, therefore, I can accept the Amendment.
    Mr. BEVAN: I am sure that my hon. Friends and myself, as well as hon. Members in all parts of the House, are very much indebted to the Minister for the withdrawal of this Sub-section, which many of our people regarded as seriously affecting them.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Amendments as to third statutory condition.)
    6.12 p.m.
    Mr. BATEY: I beg to move, in page 6, line 24, to leave out Sub-section (1).
    This Clause gave rise to a very long Debate in Committee, where the Minister brought up a manuscript Amendment which frightened us, because we could not understand his action. In this Sub-section which we wish to have deleted we see the result of that manuscript Amendment. The words in the Bill, before the manuscript Amendment was accepted, stated that a man must prove that he
    "is capable of and available for work but unable to obtain suitable employment."
    We argued that those words carried us back to the position under the not-genuinely-seeking-work Clause, and we could see no reason for their insertion, and we cannot see any reason for the alteration which the Minister has made. We opposed the wording of the Clause prior to the alteration, and we oppose just as strongly the words in this Subsection. The words which the Minister accepted were :
    "or if it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that the claimant has neglected to avail himself of an opportunity of suitable employment."
    I notice that the Minister has put down an Amendment to leave out the second word "an" and to insert "a reasonable," which would make the Sub-section say that a man must not neglect to avail himself of a reasonable opportunity of suitable employment. We say that those words are far too drastic. First of all, an officer of the Ministry of Labour has the power to stop a man's benefit if he
    538
    is satisfied that the man has not availed himself of a reasonable opportunity of suitable employment. That may give rise to a good many grievances arising from differences of opinion over the interpretation of the word "neglected." The officer might say that the man ought to have gone to a place a certain distance away where a worker was wanted and where he might have got employment, and that because he did not do so he neglected an opportunity. We have no hesitation in saying that these words are just as dangerous as the words which were in the Bill before the alteration made in the Committee stage. We see no reason for an alteration of the Act of 1930. There was a long Debate before that Act was passed. Strong public opinion had been aroused regarding the not-genuinely-seek-ing-work provision, because it was found so easy to penalise a workman and stop his unemployment benefit. The Debate led to the abolition of the not-genuinely-seeking-work Clause, and the Act as it stands ought to remain. We see no justification for the Minister seeking to alter the decision come to when Parliament abolished the not-genuinely-seeking-work Clause. We believe that the Act of 1930 has worked fairly smoothly and there has been no need, so far as we are aware, for the Minister to seek to alter it. To allow this Sub-section to stand while it includes the words :
    "if it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that the claimant has neglected to avail himself of an opportunity of suitable employment,"
    is so dangerous that we are bound to ask the Minister whether he can see his way clear to leaving the law as it stands at present. If he cannot, in view of the dangerous nature of those words, we shall ask the House to delete the Sub-section, and to allow the Act of 1930 to continue to operate. To insert those words is asking too much; they put such power into the hands of an officer of the Ministry of Labour that he has abundant opportunities for stopping benefit, and I have no hesitation in asking for their deletion.
    6.17 p.m.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    One of the difficulties of the passage of a Bill of this nature over a protracted period, and particularly under guillotine procedure, is that we are not able to

    539
    bring our Debates in Commitee to a consummation, and points cannot be revived upon the Report stage. The Minister will recollect that this matter was discussed in Committee and very considerable feeling was aroused, and that anxiety was expressed as to how the Sub-section would work out administratively. I believe that the Minister is not anxious to restore the not-genuinely-seeking-work conditions, because he has expresed the view, which he probably holds quite genuinely, that the words would not create those conditions. If the words which it is proposed to insert can be so interpreted, my hon. Friends and I are in some doubt as to why it is necessary for the Minister to alter the law.
    I can claim to speak with some small authority. I remember very vividly the Debate which took place in the last Parliament when the existing law was made. I do not know whether the Solicitor-General will argue the matter better than it was argued by his distinguished colleague, the then Attorney-General, but that distinguished statesman found himself quite unable to frame a form of words which would be acceptable not only to ourselves but, the Minister will recollect, to his own party. The existing law was received with universal acclamation in the last Parliament, although there were some gibes. It was recognised then, as it is now—this is my first point—that if the Minister is anxious to protect the fund from paying unemployment benefit to a man who would not accept employment if it were available, there is always a means of testing that man. There are jobs going in every Employment Exchange, almost every day. If a man falls into that category—and I am putting this very earnestly, because I am frightened about this Sub-section—all you need to do is to offer him a job. You can do administratively all the protecting you like against the undesirable man. If the officer feels that some men are being demoralised by continuous unemployment and are not lifting a finger to get a job, and that they would be better if they had one, all that the officer needs to do is to offer him a job and, if the man refuses to accept the job which is suitable, to disallow his benefit.
    540
    My second point is that the fund is not being called upon to carry a heavier burden as a consequence of leaving the law where it is. If the words are accepted, there will be no economy on the fund and they are not being put forward for purposes of economy. Where there are fewer jobs than persons available, all the available jobs are filled, and it is only a difference of whether John Jones or Bill Adams has the job. Therefore it is no use arguing that the fund is being unjustifiably burdened by permitting people to draw benefit who are not persons genuinely in search of employment. My third point is that the existing law makes it necessary that a man shall have a job of work offered to him, or shall be told about a particular job, before benefit can be withdrawn from him. Indeed, the words "offered to him" are quoted in the Clause in order to make the position clear. The Minister now says :
    "or if it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that the claimant has neglected to avail himself of an opportunity of suitable employment."
    The Minister made one concession to the discussion in Committee. He proposes to add the word "reasonable" before "opportunity" and the phrase will then read :
    "the claimant has neglected to avail himself of a reasonable opportunity of suitable employment."
    I admit that the introduction of that word makes the provision more acceptable, but the law will still be tipped over from what I call the objective test to a subjective test. At the moment there has to be a definite job of work in the offing. An employer has to be indicated and a job of work has to be stated before a man can be refused unemployment insurance benefit. Our fear is that that will not be necessary, and that all that the officer of the Employment Exchange will have to say is, "There were a few jobs at so-and-so yesterday or the week before; did you go and look for them?" I want the Minister to follow this. The man answers, "No." "Why did you not go and look for them?" The man's reply may be, "Because I knew that there were a lot of men senior to me in that place, and I knew that I did not have a chance of a job." It is not an exaggeration to say that there might be 1,000 men on the live register at the Employment Exchange, and there might be 10 jobs going.

    541
    My interpretation of the law is that under this Sub-section the Exchange officer will be perfectly entitled to say, and quite reasonable in saying, to those 1,000 men, "You did not know beyond a peradventure which of you would have those 10 jobs." That is our point, and I am not putting it to the Minister that he intends that those 1,000 men should be whipped up into an abortive search for work, but because of the difficulty in which he places his own officers. The interpretation will not be put upon this Sub-section by the insurance officer or by the Umpire, but must necessarily be upon the shoulders of a harassed local official. It is he who will have to decide. You will give him a regulation, but what regulation can you make? He must catechise the men, and he must be able to show that there are jobs available. The not-genuinely-seeking-work provision meant that men had to search for work although they might know that there were no jobs. The number of men who are idle will always be in excess of the jobs available, the officer can quite reasonably say to the men who do not get jobs, "You did not look for the job and, therefore, you do not satisfy the requirements of the law." That is our major case.
    So far as we know, nothing is happening in the Employment Exchanges to justify a change in the law. We have not heard any complaints, and I do not know whether the Minister has; if so, he has not taken the House into his confidence. I know Employment Exchange administration intimately, and the officers tell me that things are going smoothly. Some hon. Members may think that that means that the unemployed are getting their benefit without trouble, but that would be a slur upon the men concerned. The number of jobs found by the men themselves is still very largely in excess of the jobs found for them by the Exchanges. Consequently, it can be reasonably assumed that the men are doing their very best to find employment. Most people are whipped into activity to find work from the very fact of being out of work, and the additional spur in this Subsection is unnecessary. If our fears are justified, the Minister ought not to take the risk of allowing administrative abuses to arise in the Exchanges which will carry the Statute beyond the intention which he himself has expressed.
    542
    I apologise for having spoken so long on this Amendment, but it is a matter of first-class importance. I will conclude by putting again to the Minister a point that I put on the last Amendment. In one of the Schedules to the Bill, in which the functions imposed on the Statutory Advisory Committee are defined, they are given the power to overlook this condition and make recommendations about it. The Statutory Advisory Committee will obviously be informed by the Minister and by the permanent officials of the Department how things are going at the exchanges, and, if it is found that gross abuses are arising, the Statutory Committee can inquire into them and make their recommendations to the House. If you are setting up a committee and giving them the task of making the law in a month or two, why should you at this moment lay down the law that they are going to be asked to make? It seems to me that we are wasting our time in that matter. I am opposed to the appointment of a Statutory Committee, but, if we are to have one, do not let us waste our time in making the law that they will be able to make in a month's time. It seems to me to be desirable from every point of view that this provision should be withdrawn, and I hope that the Minister, who has found himself in a very agreeable mood this afternoon, will be able to see his way, after what I have said, to accept the Amendment.
    6.32 p.m.
    Sir ROBERT ASKE: When Section 4 of the Act of 1930 was being framed, a very great deal of attention was given by a representative body, consisting of, I think, members of all parties in the House, to discussing the precise form of words for dealing with the matter which is now dealt with in Clause 7 of this Bill, and the provision referred to in the Amendment which is now before the House formed one of the subjects of discussion, but it was eliminated, not because the provision in itself did not-appear to be eminently reasonable, but because administratively it was regarded as being altogether impracticable. As the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) says, why should a form of words which was drafted after the most exhaustive discussion be altered? No reason has been given in the discussions on this matter, either in Committee or on the Second Reading, why any alteration

    543
    should be made, except that there is something in the Report of the Royal Commission about it. There is no justification as regards any abuses in administration; there is only some hypothesis that in certain circumstances there might be some abuse in the working of the Clause. I have made inquiries, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale has, and I can find no reason whatever for any alteration in the existing law, which has worked admirably. Indeed, on such a difficult matter, I think that the form of words which has been adopted hitherto has shown itself to be the most satisfactory form for meeting a really difficult point. Whatever else may be needed in a provision of this kind, certainty in administration is of the greatest importance. Do we get that certainty if these words are put in? In my humble opinion, we reduce the whole matter to the greatest uncertainty.
    I admit that the present words in themselves are unobjectionable, if they could be worked out fairly and justly in practice, but may I indicate the kind of point that would, and must, arise? Assume that there are 400 riveters out of work in a particular area, and assume that there are vacancies for half-a-dozen riveters at a particular shipyard. Assume that 50 men go and apply for those half-dozen vacancies, and only six are taken on, 44 being therefore refused. All the other 350 riveters in the area apply for unemployment benefit. It can be said, if the tribunal thinks fit to say that it is proved, that every one of those 350 men neglected to avail himself of a reasonable opportunity of suitable employment. That is the practical difficulty that I venture to put to the right hon. Gentleman in regard to this matter. It is a matter of the practical administration of the scheme. It really means that in such circumstances, where only six men could be taken on and there were 400 who were available for the job, all of them except those who actually went and applied could be disqualified if the insurance officer or the tribunal should think fit to disqualify them. That is absolutely preposterous.
    One could go on giving scores of illustrations of the same kind, but the simple one which I have given shows that a principle of this kind embodied in the Bill would really place all people who
    544
    were in circumstances of that kind entirely at the discretion of the insurance officer or the tribunal. Instead of there being a definite principle which could be applied by the tribunal, the whole question would be reduced to one of discretion, so that it would be possible for the tribunal to allow or disallow benefit to all these other men just as they might think fit in any particular case. The law as it stands at present eliminates any matter of this kind, and no injustice is done, and in my submission to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman there is really no need whatever to alter a law which has worked so well, and to throw it into a state of uncertainty which has not existed hitherto.
    6.38 p.m.
    Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: When this subject was debated in Committee I think the Minister realised that there was considerable uneasiness among hon. Members as to the effect of the form of words which he had devised, and he gave some indication that he would try to find better words. A considerable time has elapsed since then, and he has introduced exactly one word—the word "reasonable." The Ministry was in labour, and it has produced this rather exiguous mus. I am not saying that it is not, as far as it goes, an improvement, but what is being done all the time is to undo the work that was done in 1930—a work which was not the work of any one man or of any one body, but was the result of a great deal of genuine discussion after the fashion of that Council of State which the Prime Minister likes. I have in mind one, now a Minister, who took a large part in that discussion, and was as much instrumental as anyone in framing those words in the Act of 1930. I refer to my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines, who played a very great part in that discussion, and I remember that in the course of the discussion he always said, "You must get an objective test." An objective test is what you have at the present moment under the present law, where there has to be either a refusal or a failure to observe written instructions; but when you get to a word like "neglect," you are getting back to the old psychological test, when the responsible official is really put in a position of having to make a comparative estimate of the activities of different men in trying to get employment.

    545
    I regard that as most undesirable. I believe it is going to spoil once again the relation between the exchange officials and those with whom they have to deal, and to introduce altogether the wrong atmosphere. After all, the primary job of the Employment Exchange is to find work, and not to constitute itself an organisation for harrying people into going through the requisite motions of displaying activity. That is what I am afraid we shall get back to, and I regard it as completely unnecessary, and, indeed, harmful. There are so many more men available even now than there are jobs that the kind of abuse pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for East Newcastle (Sir E. Aske) and by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale will, I am afraid, actually occur in practice. You give to these officials a form of words like this :
    "that the claimant has neglected to avail himself of an opportunity,"
    and they each sit down and, according to their wisdom, try and see what Parliament meant them to do about it. They will arrive at very different notions of what their duties are in estimating what neglect is, and you will get a large variety of interpretation among different officials, with very wide discrepancies. That is not possible at the present moment, because the present test is so objective that there is no room for a difference of interpretation as between one exchange and another, and I would press the Minister once again, as previous speakers have, to give us at any rate some evidence, because none has been presented to us that there is any need for this change at all. None of those Members who have already spoken have heard any expression of dissatisfaction with the working of the previous legislation. I feel that the Minister, in his desire to give effect to words which may appear in the Report of the Royal Commission, or something of that kind, is really playing with fire in this matter. He is taking a situation which no one has found to be unsatisfactory at all, and, in trying to provide for every possible contingency, he is using a form of words which I believe will be found in practice to be very dangerous indeed. I beg him to leave well alone, and not to take a retrograde step which I can assure him would be regarded with the gravest anxiety in all parts of the
    546
    country where this test is liable to be applied.
    6.44 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): Sub-sections have been going down like ninepins this afternoon, but I regret to say that I shall have to submit to the House that that process should now cease, and that this Sub-section should remain. More than one hon. Member has spoken as if there were some difficulty in understanding why this change was made in the Bill, and the Sub-section with these additional words was added. There can be no difficulty in understanding that to anyone who has taken the trouble to study the report of the Royal Commission which was set up by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but the discussions on this provision, both in Committee and this afternoon, have proceeded with but the most cursory reference, or no reference at all, to the argument that is contained in the report. Perhaps that is putting it a little high, but I have not myself noticed any such reference. May I cite these passages from the majority report?
    "Under both parts of this test the initial onus is placed on the Employment Exchange. Under (a) the Exchange must notify the claimant of a suitable situation; under (b) it must give the claimant written directions with a view to assisting him to find suitable employment. We have dealt elsewhere with the functions of the Exchanges under the Labour Exchanges Act, 1909, and have expressed concurrence with their established practice of sending to an employer only the applicant industrially best qualified for a vacancy notified by the employer. It follows that the value of provision (a) as a test of the bona fides of a claimant is closely circumscribed and that in the case of an unwilling worker the value of the test is negligible. With regard to (b) we find that the power to give written direction has in fact been used very sparingly and that any considerable use of the power—especially its use solely as a test of claimants' bona fides—is calculated adversely to affect the proper performance by the Exchanges of their functions under the Labour Exchanges Act."
    An HON. MEMBER: What a terrible argument!
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is an argument used after consideration by the majority of the Commission, and it is to be found in the report. I am not so foolish as to suggest that every Member of any party is bound by every word that appears in the report of the Royal Commission,

    547
    but you cannot dismiss, as if it were of no importance, a serious argument produced and agreed with by both majority and minority for a Royal Commission set up by hon. Members opposite which made a most lengthy and detailed examination of the whole question. They say that, as the function of Employment Exchanges is clearly to send the best men to jobs, it would be quite wrong to use this machinery of notification as a test to try to find out whether you do or do not get an unwilling worker and a shirker. It would be improper——
    Mr. BEVAN: If the purpose of the Amendment is to distinguish between two classes of the unemployed, those who are undesirable and those who are more desirable, how now can the Exchange officer send the one he considers to be the best person? He must already have made the decision.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I was not at the moment dealing with the object of the Amendment. I was putting, in my own words, an argument which is to be found in the Report of the Royal Commission. They go on :
    "Having regard to the combined effect of these measures, we do not consider that the condition 'genuinely-seeking-work' should be restored, but we recommend that the present disqualification should be replaced by the original condition 'unable to obtain suitable employment.'"
    That was In the Act of 1920. In 1924 hon. Members opposite added to that genuinely-seeking-work, which was found by common agreement in administration to produce very undesirable results.
    Mr. LAWSON: You had better say why.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not see why I need say why. I am giving e short history. [Interruption.] Surely what I say is correct, that genuinely-seeking-work was found to be producing results desired by no one, and therefore in 1929 we had the somewhat dramatic change that took place between the Bill as originally introduced and the Bill as it reached the Statute Book. Let me refer to what the Minority Report said, because bon. Members cannot dismiss as a mere nothing an agreement on the point
    548
    between the Majority and the Minority of the Commission. [An HON. MEMBER : "Oh, yes you can!"] You can do it in words, but it will not impress the House.
    "We have stated that benefit should be continued so long as a claimant is without work, able to work and unable to get work. We do not think that, with proper safeguards as to interpretation, there is any reason why the condition which existed in the 1911 Act 'unable to obtain suitable employment' should not be re-instated. There must be a clear understanding as to how the words 'unable to obtain suitable employment' are to be interpreted. As a rule a claimant would satisfy the condition unless he has been offered suitable employment and has refused it. This was the original intention of the condition when it was included in the Act of 1911. As was stated at the time, the workman's inability to obtain suitable employment was meant to be tested and was tested substantially by whether the Exchange should offer him a job or not."
    There you have both the Minority and the Majority recommending an alteration in the existing law. We, at any rate, think that that is a matter to which attention should be paid. We have not the slightest desire to harass the unemployed from pillar to post, but we think it right that there should be proper safeguarding machinery for dealing with a class of case which is rare but which exists—the man who prefers benefit to work. If you study all the Debates and Reports on the matter, every responsible person who has dealt with the subject has agreed that that is a case with which there ought to be power to deal, and the existing machinery under the 1930 Act, for the reasons pointed out by the Royal Commission, is neither adequate nor appropriate for dealing with that case. In the original draft of the Bill we adopted the recommendation of the Majority and the Minority and put back those words which in the old days I think had not been construed in any undesirable way. No sort of argument against those words was ever advanced similar to the argument advanced against genuinely-seeking-work. The Royal Commission thought those words would prove satisfactory. There was, however, a feeling, I think in many quarters of the House, that they might to-day be administered in an oppressive manner. I think the basis of that feeling was the suggestion that, to some extent, they put the onus on the man. Anxious as we were that there should be no possibility of the kind of oppression that none of us here

    549
    desire, those words were withdrawn and the words in the Act of 1930 were reintroduced with the gap filled up. For the purpose of dealing with the unwilling worker both the notification and the direction have proved unavailable and inappropriate.
    One or two hon. Members asked why we have no evidence of abuses. The answer is very easy to see. It is implicit in what the Royal Commission have found. They say that this machinery was inappropriate and ineffective to deal with the matter and, therefore, the evidence is not there. Wonderfully rare as it is, there are those among the unemployed who prefer benefit to work and, in the opinion of every responsible person who has dealt with the matter, it is a phenomenon with which there ought to be power to deal. When these words were actually introduced, the arguments which I have endeavoured to summarise were put up, and anxiety was expressed as to the form the words took. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) said—at that time the word was simply "opportunity" without the word "reasonable" which we propose to insert :
    "'An opportunity'." What kind of opportunity? Any opportunity? Is an opportunity an opportunity when it is unknown to the man who is out of work? If there is a job vacant ten miles away in another town, it may be an opportunity but, if it is outside the knowledge of the unemployed man, is that to be regarded as an opportunity? Is not an opportunity one that can reasonably somehow be brought to his notice or which has been brought to his notice by the Employment Exchange?—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1934; col. 212, Vol. 285.]
    We think it well may have been unnecessary but, in order that there should be no danger even of the kind of thing which no one in any quarter desires to see brought into the administration, we are proposing to insert the word "reasonable" before the word "opportunity." The officer will have to prove that the man is neglecting to avail himself of a reasonable opportunity of suitable employment. It is really fantastic, to suggest that in any of the hypothetical cases put forward of 1,000 men and 10 jobs you would get anyone to hold that a reasonable opportunity of employment was being neglected by the 990 people who did not attend.
    Mr. MAINWARING: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that it would be difficult to get any reasonable man to accept that position? Does he know that there are cases bearing on that point, and that dozens of men have been deprived of benefit for that reason?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Not on this ground.
    Mr. MAINWARING: I wish here and now definitely to say that in decisions given it has been definitely held by courts of referees that because a man did not appear at a certain shop or factory at a particular time when hundreds of others were there, because he did not accompany the large number, he was deemed to have failed to make use of a reasonable opportunity. Innumerable Umpires have upheld this decision.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If I am wrong, I withdraw, but I think the decisions to which the hon. Member refers were under the genuinely-seeking-work condition.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I think that the hon. and learned Member will take a reasonable view. May I say that since the not-genuinely-seeking-work test was abolished, we have had what is called "not normally in insurable employment," and you will find decisions given by the Umpire affecting men on the North-East coast particularly, who have been out of work three or four years. Because they could not show that they were going-round each day to particular jobs watching for them, it was held that they were not normally or genuinely seeking work. That was held in a large number of decisions.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. Member in his concluding words actually introduced the phrase "not genuinely seeking work" but he also referred to a different set of words "not normally in insurable employment." In my submission the test here is quite different, and I believe I am right in saying that these words have never previously been construed—"neglecting to avail himself of a reasonable opportunity of suitable employment."
    Mr. A. BEVAN: If there, are, say, 500 men at an Employment Exchange and it is known that the local authority are going to employ 10 men on the roads,

    551
    all these men are classified at the Employment Exchange as general labourers. There are 10 labourers' jobs going, and they can be given by the foreman of the local authority on any day. Now will it not be reasonable to expect that these men, not knowing who were going to have the 10 jobs, for each of them to apply for one of the 10 jobs?
    Sir R. ASKE: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say if it is not open to the tribunal in these circumstances to find against the men?
    Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Surely the interpretation would be that the Employment Exchange would know that the vacancy existed, and is not this provision directed to odd jobs which by chance do not come to their ears?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not know why the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) interrupted me, because he quoted exactly the same type of case.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: You have not answered it.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am having some difficulty in dealing with the various points that Members have put. In my submission there is no danger of the class of case which has been put, and is now being put, coming within these words. I want to add this. Of course this is a difficult problem. It is a problem which ought to be dealt with. I appreciate hon. Members opposite or anyone who takes the line that this is not a problem which needs to be dealt with. It is a perfectly fair difference of opinion. I am dealing now with words that have been introduced on the basis that it should be dealt with, and on that basis it must of course be a question of fact depending on the circumstances of each case. I submit to the House that these words with their triple protection, if I may so express it, of "neglecting to avail himself of a reasonable opportunity of suitable employment" cannot be used to penalise except in gross cases where it can be shown that the man has acted unreasonably, and that what he has deliberately avoided is an opportunity of suitable employment. For these reasons, we ask the House to reject the first Amendment and to accept the Amendment which stands in my right hon.
    552
    Friend's name to insert the word "reasonable," which, in our submission, meets all objections that could possibly be made.
    7.8 p.m.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: One must reply with some respect to the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman. May I try to reason the case against him as best I can? His main argument is that various commissions have examined this problem and all were agreed on two things, first, that there was a problem and, second, that this problem ought to be dealt with by Parliament. That is his case, and he went over various commissions. First of all, it was in the 1920 Act. Then you had the not-genuinely-seeking-work Clause which was not in the Act attached to the extended benefit. In 1924 the Government of the day abolished what we called the Minister's discretion, and brought in not-genuinely-seeking-work to apply to standard benefit. Following on that there was set up by the Labour Government what was called the Morris Committee, which reported on a form of words, afterwards accepted by the Government but rejected by Parliament, the not-genuinely-seeking-work. The commission was then instituted, and both the majority and minority recommend a form of words similar to what we are asked to accept to-day.
    That, in brief, is the history, but let me refresh the memory of the House on one or two points. First of all, the Solicitor-General argues a reasonable case, and it is extremely difficult, taking a reasonable view, to reply to him, because all the words he uses are reasonable words, and the arguments he uses are reasonable arguments. But let me reasonably suggest to him that there is a difference between theory and practice. I remember in my early days, when I was learning pattern-making, it was instilled into me that it was always good to get theory, but that you could never have a proper theory unless you applied it to practice. I suggest that is what is wrong. Let us take the question of genuinely-seeking-work. I was in the House when it was extended, and a colleague of mine moved that it should not be extended to standard benefit. I refer to Mr. Campbell Stephen who was Member for Camlachie. We were in grave doubt about the Minister, Mr. Tom Shaw, extending it, and we were met by the same kind of reasonable argument

    553
    that we are met with to-day. The late Dr. Macnamara said that if Mr. Campbell Stephen pressed his Amendment he would be accused up and down the country of standing for work-shys. What was more reasonable or fair than saying that a man should be genuinely seeking work? We were afraid that if we insisted we would be pilloried up and down the country as friends of the un-genuine workman.
    That same point was put by two Members, one who had been Minister of Labour in the Coalition Government and one in the Labour Government, and we were pressed to withdraw on the ground that only the ungenuine person would be disqualified. We were told the numbers would be few and we were not to worry. What happened was that the numbers became alarming. Everybody in this House soon was agreed, and it was not only Labour Members, but, to their credit, others joined in insisting that the words should go. So the words went, but we allowed the words "not normally" to remain. Again we were ensured by the Minister to leave them alone. Only people would be disqualified who had been so long out of work that nobody would ever dream that they were normally wanting a job. "Not normally in insurable employment" took the place of "not genuinely seeking work." Before the Act of the Labour Government came into operation there was practically nobody disqualified under "not normally in insurable employment." They were confined to two sections of people, namely, men who had gone abroad for a long period, or men who had gone into business on their own account. The moment not-genuinely-seeking-work came in, the number for disqualification went up, as the hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) will bear me out, by more than 20 times. Why? Because not-genuinely-seeking-work became an impost. A man of 45 years of age who had been out of work for three years prima facie was looked upon as not normally in insurable employment, and he had to prove after the three years that he was normally in it. How did he do it? By producing a long list of places at which he had searched for work. So that "not normally" became "not genuinely."
    The two most tragic places in Britain are the Welsh Valleys and the North-East Coast. I do not belittle the Clyde.
    554
    We on the Clyde have the terrible problem of shipbuilding. In shipbuilding it is almost impossible after three years unemployment for a man to drift back again. Nobody wants him. I have come from a union meeting to-day. On the North-East Coast our tragedy is not merely the Employment Exchanges or the employers. When a man has been out of work for a long time the workmen do not want him very much. He loses his skill. He cannot keep pace with them. Payment by results is now supplanting the old time system. The men get a bonus, and unless a man can pull his weight with the cleverer men it reduces the bonus. They do not want him unless he is capable. The result is that such a man remains out, and yet to-day, even with the not-genuinely-seeking-work abolished, he is refused benefit because he cannot go searching up and down. The law was not made in order to deal with the isolated criminal in society. We pass legislation to deal with cruelty to animals, but we should not do it if only one or two men were cruel. To-day we are passing a law to deal with a few people. I belong to one of the few remaining unions still paying unemployment benefit. Those unions which have stopped paying benefit have had to stop because of economic circumstances. We are more favourably placed. We have never stopped paying. We have never applied a test. We find that we do not need to apply a test. When once we tried to catch a fellow by means of a test, we failed. Under the present test, do you think that you will catch the bad men by such simple means?
    I used to run a class for the not-genuinely-seeking-work, and those who came to my class got benefit. I got the fellows into a room, and I used a blackboard. I used to say, "Where were you yesterday?" The man addressed would look at me and say, "Have some sense. What is the good of looking for a job when everybody in the place is idle?" A man when questioned by the chairman of a court of referees would forget what he had said when he gave an account of his whereabouts, and would fall into a trap, and it meant that he was disqualified for not genuinely seeking work. I knew all the places to which they were supposed to go, and I used to get them to write them down in thick block letters. I sometimes did it for them. They were

    555
    always able to recite them correctly, and they got benefit. That is what happened. An old fellow who was a Kirk elder went before the court, and when asked a question, he replied with his usual honesty, "I went to no place. What was the use of going?" He got no benefit. He was honest, simple, and a straightforward man, and down he went. Every man and woman attending the Employment Exchange knows that there are a number of applicants for every job. They will take the card. Who is to tell whether they are genuinely using the card or not? What is to be the test for them? Are you to have a detective to march them down the road and see that they go? In the City of Glasgow, at my Southside Exchange there are 22,000 on the register, and in the neighbouring Exchange of Govan, 20,000, making 42,000, and out of these you may find only about 100 people who are bad. You will have spent in order to catch that 100 far more in administration than you will save.
    The learned Solicitor-General has not said that this proposal is fool-proof. Even he, in his eulogy of the Clause, knows that it is not so. But, as I have said, even in his most enthusiastic phrases, he did not claim that it was fool-proof. In the Law Courts evidence has to be presented on oath and it is usually carefully sifted, but the position is not so in the court of referees. A man has to sit there defenceless unless he happens to be in a union. He sits there without an advocate or evidence or the assistance of anybody. The court is in private. In the Law Courts the Press are present, and there is no better way of securing justice than by publicity. I believe that the not-genuinely-seeking-work test would have collapsed on the first day if there had been an open court. I wish that I could picture to the House the position of these men. I have accompanied thousands of these men. This House is kindly in an individual way, but collectively it is cruel. I wish I could get hon. Members to be as collectively kind as they are individually kind, because no man in this House would knowingly do these poor people an injury. I wish I could get hon. Members to picture these men going to the court in terror, so stricken as to be hardly able to open their mouths.
    556
    Let hon. Members recollect the condition of things that prevailed under the not-genuinely-seeking-work formula. Tens of thousands of decent people were refused benefit. What was the net result? We were told that it had got at the rotters. The rotter is, after all, a human being. In certain respects there is not a great deal of difference between the rotter and myself. I have a chance and he has none. The rotter has to be kept by the Poor Law, in any case, or you may put him in prison. There are men in my division who have done time, who have served 10 and 20 sentences. I would sooner pay them 15s. 3d. a week than I would keep them in Peterhead at a cost of £2 or £3 a week. I would sooner give them their benefit, even though it might be wrong, than I would keep them in prisons or poorhouses.
    I ask the hon. and learned Member for the credit of his Department, to withdraw this proposal. He says that employers only have the best men, the men best equipped for the job. Those who are not the best equipped do not have a fair test. That is the greatest condemnation of the Clause. Those who are not the best equipped will not be chosen and they will not be able to make a proof. I ask the hon. and learned Member in the name of common decency, not in the name of his party, for the sake of the profession to which he belongs, a profession which has always prided itself on being just, particularly to the poor, not to make a mistake at the expense of the very poor. If a mistake is to be made, let it be made at the expense of some other section of the community.
    7.33 p.m.
    Sir REGINALD BANKS: The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has spoken, as he always speaks, with knowledge, with charm and with force, but the whole of his argument was directed not to the form of words which we are discussing but to a form of words which has been abandoned. His reminiscences were reminiscences of the not-genuinely-seeking-work period. The examples he gave were examples which we found under the not-genuinely-seeking-work Clause. He does not seem to have grasped the fact that that Clause has been totally abandoned and that we are introducing a formula entirely different, not only theoretically but in practice, as

    557
    will be found. Members of my own profession in court may cite authorities showing that there has been a decision upon this or upon that, but sometimes we are told by the court : "That is all very well, but those are decisions upon a repealed Statute; decisions upon an Act which went 20 years ago. We are dealing with a Statute of to-day; therefore all your authorities are out of date and do not apply." I respectfully submit that the arguments of my hon. Friend are in a similar category.
    He has only to consider for a few moments, not only from the lawyer's but from the layman's point of view, the obvious and essential difference between the two formulas. The not-genuinely-seeking-work formula imposes upon the man an active obligation. He has to be able to say, "I went looking for work," and he has to prove that he was looking for it. He has to go further, because "seeking" is qualified by the word "genuinely," which might suggest to the mind of a referee who was not disposed to be generous, the point of view : "Yes, perhaps you did go, more or less as a matter of form, to apply, but it was a sham, it was not genuine." Under that formula there is an onus imposed upon the man which I think most of my colleagues at the Bar will agree was almost impossible to discharge.
    The other formula is very different. It does not impose the active obligation, qualified by such a word as "genuinely." Perhaps I can illustrate the point by a reductio ad absurdum applied to myself and my legal colleagues. It might well be said, perhaps sometimes it is said, that barristers who, for one reason or another, seek Parliamentary honours to occupy their time, usefully or not, in this House, are not genuinely seeking briefs. If such a suggestion were made it would be very difficult to refute. Anybody could say : "Yes, but you know you were not in chambers at every available moment. You did not go to all the Assizes or the Sessions. There were times when if somebody had arrived with a brief you were not there to take it. Therefore, you were not genuinely seeking briefs;" even if we were allowed to seek briefs. Suppose we adopt the new formula, then those who make an allegation of that kind would have to show that, first of all, there was an opportunity of a brief.
    558
    It would not be good enough to say that there are 100 barristers and only 10 briefs. It would have to be shown that there was an opportunity of a brief, that it was a suitable case which the barrister could take, and that it was a reasonable opportunity, by which I mean that it was not just some kind of vague possibility, but something of a substantial chance. Then the person would have to show that the Gentleman in question, knowing all these things, neglected to avail himself of the chance that was offered. What an entirely different proposition that is.
    I have put it as a somewhat fantastic case, but the principle is just the same. The officer has to prove his case. The onus is upon him. The onus is not upon the man but upon the officer. He must prove that the man had his opportunity, that it was a reasonable opportunity and, more than that, that it was an opportunity of something that he could do. Then the officer has to say, "Knowing all these things you neglected to avail yourself of the offer; you did not take the chance that was offered," and he has to prove that. Will anyone, however human, however generous, and I hope we are not lacking in those qualities, say that if people have got a suitable job made available and they deliberately neglect to take the chance of it, that those who are honestly desirous of finding employment should be penalised by having to contribute towards their upkeep?
    Mr. COVE: How do you read that into this Sub-section?
    Sir R. BANKS: That is what the words palpably and obviously mean.
    Mr. COVE: Is that a genuine interpretation?
    Sir R. BANKS: Yes, it is a genuine interpretation, but I am afraid that my hon. Friend is genuinely seeking to distort the meaning, and I am afraid the decision will be against him. There is only one minor matter that I would refer to. The hon. Member for Gorbals might genuinely have sought work at the Bar, and have succeeded. He has, however, fallen into a fallacy. He said that we do not impose penal Statutes to deal with a very small class of criminals. I do not know about that. I do not suppose that the

    559
    number of murderers executed amounts to large figures, but nobody proposes to abolish the penalty for murder because we do not have murder cases every day. If we do not have some kind of penalty who knows how the class of criminals—I am not saying that these people are criminals—would increase? The Clause is a just, plain and common sense proposition. Nobody thinks that you ought to pay the rotter if he prefers rotting to getting work. On the other hand, we want to do everything we possibly can to help the man who does want work. Every kind of ingenuity has been devised to find a form of words which will be wide, generous and will prevent those lamentable experiences to which the hon. Member referred. I submit that that formula has been satisfactorily found and I am prepared to support it, without any apprehension as to criticisms from any reasonable labouring man in my constituency.
    7.41 p.m.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: In a very lucid exposition of the case for the sub-section my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General began by saying that Clauses had been going down like ninepins this evening. I cannot resist the feeling that this Clause will prove to be a ninepin, but for somewhat different reasons from those advanced by hon. Members opposite. I think that, so far as words can be fair, these words are undoubtedly fair in the duty that they seek to impose. The burden that would rest upon any officer of the Ministry of Labour in seeking to prove a case against an unemployed insurance man is well nigh overwhelming, as has been pointed out with great cogency by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Swindon (Sir R. Banks). He must establish, first of all, that there is employment, secondly, that it is suitable employment, thirdly, that there is an opportunity of that employment for the person who is before the tribunal, fourthly, that he has not availed himself of that opportunity, and fifthly, that he has neglected to avail himself of it, which is rather a different thing. If one were satisfied that there was going to be a really careful, judicial hearing of the matter.
    That is a burden which, except in the grossest possible case, I very much doubt
    560
    if the ordinary Employment Exchange officer could discharge. Juristically—to go back to a matter which was raised in the Committee stage, and which it would not be in order to discuss now—if one were satisfied with the method by which these matters were determined I do not think that there could be any conceivable objection to each and every one of these tests being applied to an applicant for benefit, but we have to face the fact that these issues are decided summarily, that issues are decided without legal help on the side of the man, that issues are decidede behind closed doors, so that nobody has any chance of checking a decision. As the man may have to go back to the tribunal to seek a further decision on a similar point he is anxious not to exacerbate the tribunal against himself, because there is the possibility of the kind of feeling : "We will get you next time." These things do not apply to a judicial tribunal, and they render the safeguards that these particular words have been devised to obtain not quite so substantial as they might otherwise have been. For these reasons, I am not impressed by the argument that the words themselves are complete and place the whole burden where I should like to see it rest, that is, on the shoulders of the officials of the Employment Exchanges.
    I depart from that aspect, in regard to which the proposition is perfectly fair, to consider the other side, that is, has any case been made out for putting these words in? That is where I find myself without any information at all. The Solicitor-General, obviously, could not deal with it, and maybe we shall have some help from the Minister. Really that is the practical question which the House wants to know. There is no evidence, as far as I know, that there is any substantial number of cases to be dealt with. The report of the Commission only goes to show that it is impossible to get any evidence as to whether there is any large number of cases or not. The paragraph which has been quoted simply says that it is impossible to say whether these cases exit, because existing machinery does not enable us to find out. Therefore, unless we can be better informed, it would appear that this Sub-section has been designed to meet a situation which has not been proved to exist

    561
    There are one or two reasons why it is unlikely that these cases exist in large numbers. We are dealing with the insured unemployed, that is to say, with people who are in the area of employment, or who have recently been in that area, and are anxious to get back to it. We are not dealing, as was the Royal Commission, with the whole wad of unemployed, undivided into insured and uninsured, but with a mass of unemployed confused and mixed up in all sorts of ways. We are dealing now with people who were recently in the area of work, and who are presumably anxious to get back, people who have contractural rights secured to them by this part of the Bill. In these circumstances I suggest that it is reasonable to argue that there will not be a large number of people who are not anxious to avail themselves of opportunities for work, if opportunities are available. Therefore, the Sub-section becomes, to my mind, of somewhat academic interest, dealing with few people, and unless the Minister can tell us from his administrative experience, we have nothing else to guide us, that there is in the knowledge of his Department a large number of cases I for one should not care to support the retention of these words within the Clause.
    7.50 p.m.
    Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: Hon. Members on this side will agree with the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) as regards the type of tribunal which will deal with these cases and the extreme importance of having a provision which cannot be misused. The Solicitor-General tried to impress upon us that because the Royal Commission recommended something we must pay serious attention to it. We must pay serious attention to the arguments behind the recommendation of the Royal Commission, not simply to the recommendation because it is a recommendation. One of the striking things in the report of the Royal Commission is that there is absolutely no evidence of any sort or kind of this abuse, against which this provision is being made. The Solicitor-General said that it was only intended to deal with gross cases which were rare, in fact, wonderfully rare. In the circumstances we believe that there
    562
    is no justification for upsetting the present position.
    No case has been made out to justify the risk of a change. It is apparent that there is a risk attaching to a change of words, but it has not been shown either that the words will catch the persons they are designed to catch or that they will not catch the persons whom they are not intended to catch. In order to justify them, both these things must be shown. The cunning, work-shy person is just as able to evade this provision as any other, and there has been no evidence that these words will catch the wonderfully rare case of the work-shy man, and will not catch the common case of a man who is not able to represent his position properly because he has no advocate to appear before the tribunal, and may be rushed into making unfortunate admissions by being unable to answer questions which may be put to him. Therefore, apart from an analysis of the words, we say definitely that the Government have not produced any case to justify upsetting the present words and the present conditions.
    In his final sentence the Solicitor-General in summing up what the Clause was intended to do, used a phrase which demonstrates aptly the difficulty when you come to put down words of this kind. He said that they would only apply where a man deliberately neglected to avail himself of an opportunity. The word "deliberately" does not appear in the Clause. Does the Solicitor-General mean that the word "deliberately" ought to appear, or that the Bill will be construed as having the word "deliberately" in it. He said that it was the Government's intention that the Clause should only apply where a man deliberately neglects an opportunity. The word is not included, and that alone shows that the words do not carry out what is now the avowed intention of the Government. They are, in fact, wider than their avowed intention. The whole history of this provision, it has been altered three times already, shows the immense difficulty once you try to upset a condition which exists, in arriving at some other form of words which Parliament hopes the court of referees will construe in the way they want them to be construed; of which there is absolutely no guarantee at all. That is the difficulty which the hon. and

    563
    learned Member for Central Nottingham pointed out when the provision comes to be construed by a tribunal which is not an expert tribunal. The danger of the Sub-section really lies in the phrase :
    "has neglected to avail himself of a reasonable opportunity of suitable employment."
    What is "a reasonable opportunity"? A reasonable opportunity is what the person trying the case thinks a reasonable man would do. We have all different opinions of what a reasonable man would do, and the difficulty which arises is because instead of making the actual test some offer of a job you are introducing as a test not an actual act but the state of a man's mind at the time, and that is something on which very different opinions may be taken. The Solicitor-General stated that the reason for the insertion of the word "reasonable" was to cover a case put up during the Committee stage, as to whether the matter had reasonably been brought to the notice of the applicant. It does nothing of the kind. There is no mention here of the opportunity being brought to the notice of the applicant. Again, it shows how difficult it is to find words dealing with a state of mind or a hypothetical action of a man and get them to define what you want them to define. There is absolutely nothing here to say what is meant by "neglected to avail himself of a reasonable opportunity of suitable employment." It may be that he should have gone out and sought it. Is it reasonable that a man should go and look at all the factories in his neighbourhood to see whether they want hands or not? The opportunity may be the notice outside a factory that they want five hands. Is he to go and look for it? The Solicitor-General says that it is intended to cover cases where it is brought to his notice. Is that bringing it to his notice? Has he to trudge the streets and look for it? On these words there is ample opportunity for a long legal argument on either side of the question, whether the man must be notified of the job or whether he has to seek the opportunity himself outside. Which of these the Government want these words to cover I confess that I do not know.
    To what does the word "reasonably" apply? Does it mean that he might reasonably have heard of the job if he had acted as a reasonable man? If he
    564
    does something which an ordinary reasonable man does not do and thereby misses an opportunity, has he "neglected to avail himself of a reasonable opportunity"? One could go on indefinitely putting cases as to what "reasonably" really means here. Does it mean that he had a reasonable chance of getting a job when he applied? That is an entirely different thing, and of course would require different evidence and different arguments. When you come to analyse what has been wrong with all the objectionable tests which have been discarded in this matter you find that it is always a question of judging what is reasonable for the man to do. Was it reasonable for him to go out and seek work? That has always been the real test. The trouble has been where you have had tribunals of this sort judging what a reasonable man ought to do in the circumstances, a matter on which it is difficult to arrive at a decision.
    Let me put this case to the House. Suppose every hon. Member was disqualified from drawing his salary because he has neglected to avail himself of a reasonable opportunity of making a speech. I imagine that there would be a great many protests from hon. Members who have on many occasions come into the House with the intention of speaking and who have gone out again saying that there were so many people trying to get in that there was no chance at all. In those circumstances would it be fair to say that that person neglected to avail himself of a reasonable opportunity of speaking in the House? That is precisely the question that is to be asked under this Clause. I suggest quite seriously that if one puts it in a way in which one can visualise oneself in the daily work of this House, one can see that the sort of difficulty there would be if the Whips—who, I suppose, would be the Employment Exchange authorities in the circumstances—came and put the case that one had neglected to avail oneself of a reasonable opportunity of making a speech. It would be almost impossible to get out of the difficulty and as a result one would be deprived of one's salary. That is exactly what the Government are doing with regard to the unemployed man. Many of us differ as regards the circumstances in which that deprivation would occur. I urge upon the Government that there is

    565
    really no case made out to put a risk on the unemployed man in circumstances such as those. Surely it is better, even at the risk of some rotters being transferred from Poor Law to unemployment benefit, which is extremely unlikely under Part I, to stick to the words which have operated satisfactorily and against which no factual case can be made out to-day.
    8.2 p.m.
    Mr. JAMES REID: I intervene only to make one suggestion. I share to some extent the apprehension expressed by my hon. and learned Friends the Members for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) and East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). I do not think that the problem is likely to be a serious one, but one wants to allay apprehension if one can. I suggest this form of words as at least going some way to improve procedure—that it should have to be proved that the claimant has unreasonably failed to avail himself of an opportunity of suitable employment. That would get rid of all question of whether the neglect was a deliberate neglect or a casual neglect. It would get rid of all question of whether the opportunity was a sufficiently good opportunity to be called a reasonable one, and it would concentrate on what I believe to be the one point on which the Government want to concentrate, namely, whether the man had present to his mind the knowledge that if he went to a certain place at a certain time of day there would be an opportunity of getting a job, and he deliberately chose to sit still at his own fireside instead of going there. That is the kind of man the Government want to catch, the man who knows that if he goes round the corner he may get a job, but prefers to sit still.
    Mr. JOHN WILMOT: What sort of test are you to apply as to what was in the man's mind?
    Mr. REID: Of course, you cannot see into a man's mind, but what you have to prove is that the man knew at the time when he sat still—someone had told him or he had come to know in some way—that there was an opportunity of getting a job at a certain place if he went there at a certain time. If he sits still in his chair he has to show that he had some very good reason for sitting still, and if he has no such reason to suggest then it would be held that he had unreasonably
    566
    failed to go there. That is the way I should look at the problem from a practical point of view.
    Mr. WILMOT: What is the test that he knew?
    Mr. REID: That has to be proved by the evidence of someone coming and saying that the man knew, in a certain way to be described. Unless you prove by evidence of some sort that the man knew the job was available I agree that he should not be deprived of benefit. Merely because he does not happen to go where the job happens to be available, is not sufficient, but if he refuses to go, in my view that is sufficient. I ask the Minister to find a form of words that will draw a distinction between two classes of cases : The man who may as a matter of routine go to a certain factory A where there are often jobs—that is one thing; and the man who knows that on Monday morning there are certain jobs available in factory B, but he does not go there—that is another thing. We want to catch the latter man but to let the first one out of this Clause.
    8.7 p.m.
    Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: I do not apologise for butting into a legal Debate in which lawyers are expressing their views, because for many years it has been my business to attend courts of referees. I am afraid hon. Members fail to appreciate the condition of the man having to appear before a tribunal with no advocates whatever, meeting a tribunal of persons, probably of untrained minds, who would be unable to define what is reasonable and what is suitable. It is a very different tribunal from the tribunal to which lawyers are accustomed. One has to try to visualise the court of referees as it is. But the answer to the Solicitor-General is, I think, that the man he is trying to catch has proved that he is not work-shy and has proved it by the evidence of his credit in the fund. The man concerned comes under Part I. He is a diligent worker and has established credit in the fund to himself, and he is entitled by law to absorb that credit. The fact that he has built up credit for himself under Part I is conclusive evidence that he is not work-shy.
    The hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) is

    567
    quite correct in saying that you can never hope to catch the work-shy in this way. In fact the work-shy man does not exist under Part I if one technically analyses the thing properly. But if the Department at any time assumes that there is such a person as the work-shy, the Department can easily catch him if it desires by offering that particular individual a job at some time. I can give concrete instances of cases when I have sat as a member of a court of referees. As person was brought up because she, a married woman, had refused a job as cook. She was ultimately deprived of her benefit because she was not prepared to leave her husband, who had a good job and had substantial wages. I could give a number of concrete examples of cases like that having been brought up a few years ago. But the final answer really is that the words of this Clause would deliberately torment and torture unquestionably good persons who have worked sufficiently long and have been sufficiently diligent to build up for themselves credit that entitles them to unemployment benefit. Such persons you are setting out to attack in any words that you may frame in this Clause. It is common knowledge that whenever any job is vacant hundreds of persons go seeking it. It is indeed a very serious reflection on persons who have built up credit within the fund for it to be assumed that they would not take a job when a job was vacant.
    8.12 p.m.
    Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I have looked at this Clause with a good deal of attention, and I speak now because the original Section in the Act of 1930 was the one upon which I first had an opportunity of addressing this House, and I have therefore had rather a sentimental interest, apart altogether from its great importance, in this question ever since. I see no difficulty or no objection to making a provision of this sort, because it is laid down very positively and definitely in the Sub-section that the onus of proof is to be upon the officer who comes to make his case. As I understand the position, that does not merely mean that the officer has to come and say so, but that he has to establish it and prove it, not in the sense of giving some evidence, but he has to establish it as a fact to the satisfaction of the tribunal. But when I look at
    568
    the language which is being used to carry that into effect I am bound to say that I am not altogether happy about the word "neglected." That is the real point upon which we want to spend a little time and it is well worth while spending a little time upon it.
    What does "neglected" mean in this Sub-section? Until I heard the observations this evening I thought I knew quite well, and possibly I do, but I am so minded that when I hear doubts expressed about a matter of this sort, which in my humble submission ought to be without doubt, I am a little apprehensive as to whether or not my judgment is the right judgment. Is it not much simpler to use some language which will remove that possibility of doubt, not merely from my mind but from the mind of the individuals who will ultimately have to administer the Act and bring this Subsection into operation? I have little doubt about it, but I appeal to the Minister nevertheless to give some further consideration to this form of words in order to make it quite plain that there can be no room for doubt in a matter upon which there should be no doubt.
    I do not necessarily accept the phraseology of my hon. and learned Friend below the Gangway or suggest that the Minister should accept it, but if something can be done to remove any possibility of doubt this discussion will not have been in vain. From the broader point of view, it is just as well that we should protect the people who are interested in the fund—and who may possibly, in time to come, have the increased benefits which most of us hope to see—from individuals who are making unfair, unjust or improper claims. At the same time I am sure that we all desire, and nobody more than the Minister, that it should be made plain upon what grounds disallowances of benefit are made. When I look at the word "neglected" I ask myself, is it possible that that word may be construed by somebody who is not familiar with the use of technical language as meaning "failed"? I am not so much impressed as some of my hon. Friends with the difficulty as to reasonable opportunity because the onus of proof is placed upon the officer, and as I read the Sub-section the onus of proof is a severe one. I should imagine that only in

    569
    very few cases will he be able to discharge it.
    The point is that the individual who is seeking benefit and who is entitled to benefit under these provisions ought to be able to look at the Clause and to realise what his rights are without any undue uncertainty. Having listened to the observations made in this Debate I cannot help seeing that there is room for some difficulty and uncertainty in reference to the use of the word "neglected." On those grounds, while I support the extension which is suggested by the Subsection, I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the wording and to see whether the difficulty which has been indicated with so much force might not be overcome. It is, possibly, only a question of language and of choosing the right word in the right place, and I cannot see that there should be any real difficulty in doing that.
    8.17 p.m.
    Mr. MAINWARING: The hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) has pointed out a difficulty in the wording of the Sub-section, and I am sure that all sections of the House would join him in seeking to discover a way of remedying it. I view this matter purely in an empirical sense having had long experience of the administration of the Insurance Acts in the past and particularly of the "not-genuinely-seek-ing-work" condition which apparently no one desires to reintroduce. What was the interpretation placed upon those words "not-genuinely-seeking-work?" Actually they were interpreted to mean that a man had failed to avail himself of reasonable opportunities to find work. Once that interpretation had been made, the words "not-genuinely-seeking" were forgotten and in thousands of cases the only question considered was, "has this man availed himself of any opportunity or of every opportunity that has come his way to find work?"
    Subsequently we found courts of referees asking applicants, "Where were you yesterday?" The reply would be, "I was at such and such a factory." It frequently happened that the chairman of the court knew that at another factory or colliery or workshop at some other place there had been a vacancy upon that day. The chairman would then ask the applicant whether he had attended at
    570
    that place. If the applicant replied "No," he was asked why. His reply would be that he had been at other places. He was then asked, "Why did you not go to that particular place?" It was held in hundreds of cases that in such circumstances the man had failed to avail himself of a reasonable opportunity of finding work. It is suggested that placing this power in the hands of an official of the Ministry of Labour will remove some of the disabilities experienced in the past. I do not think it will. In the past it was the local employment officer who sent cases forward to the court of referees for review. It was he who selected them and that is precisely what he is going to be asked to do under this proposal. He is asked to submit proof and his proof will be a simple one. Judging by past experience all he will need to do is to submit to the court that at such a workshop, factory or mine, on such a day, there was a vacancy and the man concerned did not apply. On past experience of the administration of these Acts, that will be accepted as conclusive proof.
    It is no good imagining that this proposal is going to start a new procedure. It is going to repeat the old procedure. We are in this astounding position. The Ministry suggest that they are out to catch the rare individual. Supposing there was one of these individuals for each exchange in the country, that would be a substantial number but you could still justify the use of the word "rare." Let us assume that at Tonypandy Exchange, for instance, there is one work-shy individual. In order to catch him you are going to harass the 5,000 other men signing at that exchange. The officer in the exchange must himself know of this man being work-shy. Unless he suspects it, he is not going to start this procedure. If that local employment officer has the slightest suspicion that among the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of men signing at his exchange there is one who is work-shy, the remedy is in his own hands. Offer that man the first job that comes along. If the man wants work the official will be conferring a boon upon him. If the man is work-shy that fact will be discovered at once.
    That is a simple remedy. There is no need for this Sub-section. The power is in the hands of the Minister. Let him

    571
    advise all exchanges and all his subordinate officers immediately to offer to the suspected work-shy individuals the first jobs that come along, and they will be eliminated in a very short time. But the moment you include these words you restore all that old machinery and local officers, whether they like it or not, will be bound to proceed on the old lines. Cases have occurred in the past involving not merely individuals, but hundreds of men, raising the question of whether they have or have not refused reasonable offers of employment. There is a possibility of this set of words being stretched to include what might normally be regarded as trade dispute cases, and men refusing jobs under what appeared to them to be unreasonable conditions of employment.
    Imagine, for example, a workshop where a number of men have been thrown out of employment and there is, between them and their employers, an honourable understanding as to the manner in which those men are to be again placed back in employment when the occasion arises. Suppose a local employment officer assumes that when this occasion comes it is a reasonable opportunity for other than those workmen who have been discharged finding work there, and suppose he assumes that anybody can go in there, as has been done in the past. I am not drawing upon my imagination, but giving actual facts. Quite a number of instances have arisen in South Wales where that did occur, and men who were not previously in the employment of that employer were asked, "Why did you not go there and obtain some of those jobs?" and they were deprived of their unemployment benefit when they admitted that they had not been there seeking work.
    I am conscious at this moment that every Member who has sat here and listened to any portion of the Debate on this Sub-section will agree that these words ought to be withdrawn, and the astounding thing is that if the Minister agrees to force this, he can get it carried by Members who have not listened to a word of the argument. That is the astounding position in which we find ourselves in this House, not merely to-day, but seemingly it is a common occurrence. It is a real tragedy to those of us who have experienced the evils of the past, and who see the possibility of their renewal
    572
    in these words, to find that this sort of thing can be imposed upon us against all the weight of argument in this House. I do ask the Minister to give this matter his serious consideration. We are not seeking any sort of personal kudos. I should prefer to go from this House and give heartfelt commendation to the Minister because he had, on his own volition, removed this possible evil from the Bill, and I sincerely trust that he will listen to the many appeals that have been made to him to reconsider these words.
    8.29 p.m.
    Mr. LAWSON: The Minister has tried his best to find a way out of the difficulty in which he found himself when once he departed from what has been the working practice in this matter. The old saying that the way to a certain place is paved with good intentions is no more applicable anywhere than it is to this particular matter of the test of work-seeking. I do not intend to go over the ground that has been so well covered by my hon. Friends this evening, but I want to say emphatically that there is no way of departing from the present working rule upon this matter of the test of offering work, as laid down in the new Clause, which will work without very great danger to the men, and ultimate trouble. Ultimately it comes down to the test of a man's desire for work. Originally the proof was upon the man in this matter, but now it is reversed, but when it comes to the words that the man must prove that he has not availed himself of a reasonable opportunity of suitable employment, then, in the circumstances that have been described by my hon. Friends, of great masses of workers being unemployed, with jobs for only a few, you ultimately come down to testing the desire of the men for work, and I think we shall get back to where we were in respect to this question.
    It may seem a far cry to the old test about genuinely seeking work, but that is the kind of thing that we are afraid of, and the Minister is as much afraid of it as we are. We say that once you get off the broad ground upon which this matter has been placed, and which has stood the test too, you are taking a very dangerous line of error. What was originally the test? A man went to the court of referees, and from there to the Umpire, and the

    573
    Umpire decided the state of the man's mind in reference to these matters. In paragraph 433 of the Report of the Royal Commission, we read :
    "It is not necessary to relate in detail the contents of the Umpire's decision above referred to; and it is sufficient for our present purpose to quote the opening paragraph of the decision :
    'In considering whether a person is genuinely seeking work the most important fact to be ascertained is the state of the applicant's mind. If a person genuinely wants work, i.e., really prefers working for wages to living on benefit, it is probable that she is genuinely seeking it. Action is guided by desire, and whilst few people genuinely seek what they do not desire, most people genuinely seek what they really desire.'"
    I hope the House thoroughly understands that decision, which means that the Umpire had got into a position where he had really become not only a psychologist, but having to test the mind of the applicant, and I think that anything that can be done to avoid the danger of getting back to that position certainly ought to be done. Once the Government get off the broad ground on which they have been working for the last three years in this connection, I can assure them that they will find themselves ultimately going back, from stage to stage, from the man to the court of referees, and from the court of referees to the Umpire, and the Umpire finding himself back to where he was on the genuinely-seeking-work Clause. All we are anxious about is to avoid these difficulties. It is not argued that a large number of people are involved, but the Ministry has at its disposal machinery which it has been using too ruthlessly in order to accomplish its ends. I refer to the not-normally Section. Matters of administration and their ultimate effect are the funeral of the Minister, but unfortunately a large number of poor people are involved, and the Minister would be wise to withdraw this Clause altogether. We shall go to a Division to show that we wash our hands of this business for it will only lead to trouble for Government and the persons concerned.
    8.36 p.m.
    Mr. McENTEE: I should like to join my appeal to the others that have been made to the Minister to reconsider the necessity for this Clause. It has been admitted by everybody, including the
    574
    Royal Commission, that the number of people who have sought to evade the old Section is practically negligible. There is no proof that there is any considerable number of people who are what is called work-shy. If that be admitted, as it appears to be, why do we want to alter the provision at all? The only reason that can occur to the mind of a reasonable person is that the Government desire—I do not like to attribute that to them—to deprive working people of benefit. Let me put my case and the experience I had as one who for many years worked in London as a carpenter and joiner. I ask the Minister of Labour and the Solicitor-General to imagine they were sitting on a committee and the officer at the Exchange where I was registered brought to their notice a case such as mine, and that they had to consider whether I had neglected the opportunity of a reasonable chance of work.
    When I was out of work I went out day by day from the place where I lived. I zoned the whole of greater London area, because I was certain I could not cover it in any one day. As a matter of fact, I found it difficult to cover in one week the places where there might be work. I went north one day, north-west another day, and so on until I covered each zone of London. It was my experience on many occasions that I went to a particular job in the morning and was told there was no work, but later learned that other men had got a job at that place in the afternoon. Frequently, I called on a firm one day without success, and found later that they had had jobs the following day after I had called somewhere else. Suppose the Minister of Labour and the Solicitor-General were sitting on a committee and the Employment Exchange officer tried to prove that I knew that the firm were likely to employ men. As a matter of fact, I did have a suspicion that the firm was likely to employ men, but I did not know when they would, and I had to cover other firms as well in a genuine endeavour to find work.
    Would the Solicitor-General and the Minister say that, because I happened to miss the particular day or time in the day when jobs were to be had, I had therefore missed a reasonable opportunity to get work? They might, because of their experience and sympathy, come to the conclusion that I had not missed

    575
    a reasonable opportunity and that I was entitled to benefit. I want them, however, to imagine the type of people who sit on the committees in some areas, and I think they will agree that that type, which is mainly made up of employers, has not the experience and the sympathy which is necessary for the job. I put it that there would be a reasonable chance in those circumstances of my being denied benefit. That kind of case can be multiplied scores of times. All sorts of prejudices enter into the minds of people sitting on such cases. The officer of the exchange is an experienced man, and if he brings a case against an insured person it is his natural desire to win it. Because of his experience and the lack of experience in most cases of the unemployed person, he has a better opportunity of winning the case.
    I have had men come to see me in regard to the old not-genuinely-seeking-work Clause and the existing provision, and I could not understand many of the decisions that were arrived at. There is not an hon. Member who has not had similar experiences. How are the words in this Clause to be interpreted? If we could sub-divide the Members of the House into 50 or 60 groups, and put them into as many rooms and we brought the same case before each group, there would be a serious difference of opinion about it. If that could occur with qualified people such as Members of Parliament, what can we expect from the inexperienced people who sit and hear the evidence against insured people? Many of them are seriously prejudiced against the man to start with. They nearly all have bias on the side of the officer, because they are familiar with him and meet him day by day. The appearance of the man will enter very largely into the consideration which they will give to his case, and if he has a plausible tongue and can present his case he will get a fairly reasonable hearing.
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I do not know whether the hon. Member realises that he is making the most serious reflections on the courts of referees all over the country, which are presided over by gentlemen of great experience, and which contain, also, representatives of the workers. I am 10th to interrupt him, but
    576
    I do not think he appreciates the very serious and most unmerited allegations he is making against courts of referees, who have done their duty most admirably.
    Mr. McENTEE: I venture to reply that I have heard a number of cases in which my judgment has definitely led me to believe that decisions were come to on prejudice rather than on reasoned judgment. I make that assertion quite definitely, knowing at least something of what I am saying; and it has been asserted in the House by men who have a far wider experience than I have, and men who have had a legal training, that this type of committee is generally an inexperienced one. If the members of a committee are inexperienced, they are not capable of coming to a sound judgment. I do not say that all are inex-prienced, but I say definitely that many of them are, and, that being so, one does not expect, and in fact one does not get, anything like a reasoned and sound judgment from them. It is true that the chairman of a court of referees is a man who is trained in the law. I believe the chairmen are all lawyers or, at least, that most of them are, but the chairman does not always govern the decision given. I have known oases in my own experience where the chairman's recommendation has been entirely ignored and overruled.
    In some cases, at any rate, I am strongly of the opinion that it was prejudice which governed very largely the judgment which was given, and whether that was or was not the case does not really alter the serious difficulties in the way of a number of bodies of men such as courts of referees coming to anything like similar decisions in cases which in every respect are similar. I submit to the Minister that there is nothing in the arguments put forward in the report of the Royal Commission to justify any alteration in the existing condition, which has proved to be very much better than any of the conditions in previous Acts, and very much better than the new condition which the Minister is now setting up.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'an,' in line 29, stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided : Ayes, 217; Noes, 53.

    577

    Division No. 233.]

    AYES.

    [8.49 p.m.

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

    Hammersley, Samuel S.

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

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Lfverp'l, W.)

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

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

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

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

    Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Raid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Remer, John R.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

    Hepworth, Joseph

    Rickards, George William

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

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Hornby, Frank

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Blindell, James

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Bossom, A. C.

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

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Hurd, Sir Percy

    Salt, Edward W.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

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

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

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

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Selley, Harry R.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

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

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

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

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Fortar)

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Ouinton

    Shuts, Colonel J. J.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Colfox, Major William Philip

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

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

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Leckle, J. A.

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Leech. Dr. J. W.

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Cope land, Ida

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Lewis, Oswald

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

    Spans, William Patrick

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Stevenson, James

    Cross, R. H.

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Storey, Samuel

    Crossley, A. C.

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Lyons. Abraham Montagu

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

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

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

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

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Denville, Alfred

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    MaeDonald. Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Dickie, John P.

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Drewe, Cedric

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

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

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

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

    Dunglass, Lord

    McLean. Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Magnay, Thomas

    Tree, Ronald

    Eillston, Captain George Sampson

    Manningham-Bulter. Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Elmley, Viscount

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

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Erskins, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

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

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

    Essenhigh. Reginald Clare

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Evans. Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Ford. Sir Patrick J.

    Milne, Charles

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

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

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Morrison, William Shephard

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Goldle, Noel B.

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Gower, Sir Robert

    North, Edward T.

    Withers, Sir John James

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

    Nunn. William

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Wragg, Herbert

    Greene, William P. C.

    Petherick, M.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Grimiton, R. V.

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

    Captain Sir George Bowyer and Sir

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Pybus, Sir Percy John

    George Penny.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

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

    NOES.

    Aske Sir Robert William

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

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Daggar, George

    Banfield, John William

    Buchanan. George

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Batey, Joseph

    Cape, Thomas

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Bernays, Robert

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Dobble, William

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Cove, William G.

    Edwards, Charles

    578

    579

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Kirkwood, David

    Rothschild, James A. de

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

    Lawson, John James

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Leonard, William

    West, F. R.

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    White, Henry Graham

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    McGovern, John

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

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

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Wilmot, John

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Maxton, James

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Mliner, Major James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Mr. D. Graham and Mr. G.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Macdonald

    Amendment made : In page 6, line 29, leave out "an," and insert "a reasonable."—[Sir H. Betterton.]
    8.57 p.m.
    Mr. LOGAN: I beg to move, in page 6, line 34, at the end, to insert :
    "(3) An insured contributor shall be deemed to be capable of, and available for, work if he proves that he has been disqualified for benefit under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts, 1925 to 1932, on the ground that he is capable of some kind of work."
    These words might be considered to be self-explanatory, but it is necessary to amplify them a little. They are tantamount to this : If a man cannot get sickness benefit because he is capable of work, it should not be possible to rule that he cannot get unemployment benefit because he is incapable of work. If he is denied benefit on the one hand, it appears reasonable that he should be able to obtain it on the other. This Amendment is brought forward with the honest intention of doing justice where it may be in particular cases, denied, and, if it be denied, we think, from the point of view of equity, that this alteration should be conceded. I am anxious to know what the Minister will say in regard to it.
    8.59 p.m.
    Mr. CAPE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    From the look of it, it is hardly necessary to move an Amendment of this kind, but it is put forward with the desire to make it clear that these men will be entitled either to unemployment benefit or to national health insurance benefit. I believe that the National Health Insurance Act states definitely that a man has to be totally incapacitated before he is entitled to benefit. It may be that a man is not totally incapacitated, but is in such reduced health as to be unable to follow his usual occupation. He may be a miner, a steelworker or a workman in
    580
    one of the heavy industries. He is sent to the regional medical officer by the approved society of which he is a member, and the regional officer says that the man is not totally incapacitated, although his general health is not up to the proper standard and that he may be capable of light work.
    We want to make it clear, in a case of that kind, that a man would be immediately entitled to unemployment benefit. If we do not insert something like this in the Bill we leave the position in the air and make it very difficult for a man to state that he has a substantial claim. I feel sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will have had many cases of this kind through his hands when he was a Member of this House in years gone by, and represented a division in which very many of that type of case arose, and arise yet. A good many men who have worked in the heavy industries find themselves in difficulties. The Amendment is moved to make it clear and distinct that a man of that type would be entitled to benefit.
    9.2 p.m.
    Mr. HUDSON: I am afraid that we cannot accept this Amendment. The difficulties that used to exist have been very largely reduced, if they have not entirely disappeared, as the result of some administrative changes that we were able to make after representations made to me by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), about three or four months ago. The difficulty arises because of the rules of the approved societies. When a man goes before the regional medical officer, in order to substantiate his claim that he is incapable of work, he cannot at the same time go to the Exchange and declare that he is capable of work. Owing to the fact that the approved societies' rules are retrospective, so far as payment is concerned, to the date of the regional medical officer's report, there is bound to be a gap of two or three days from the date when the man is decided

    581
    retrospectively to be capable of work, and during those two or three days, while he is seeking to substantiate his claim, he has to say that he is incapable of work. As the result of an administrative arrangement that we have been able to make, by advising the man to see his own insurance doctor in the morning and to go, on the same morning, to the Exchange and inform them of the decision of his own insurance doctor, the gap, where it exists at all, is reduced to the single day. As long as the approved societies maintain their existing rules it is impossible to ensure in all cases that a man comes directly off one form of benefit on to the other. We have already largely met the case that has been put before the House, and the delay in many cases is a maximum of 24 hours.
    Mr. LOGAN: Is it not statutory, in regard to health insurance, not to declare a man off unless he has recovered, upon medical certification? The provision as to total incapacity is only putting an obligation upon the approved society to pay benefit. The point that this Amendment tries to avoid is that when the man is off—supposing that he declares off——
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I must point out to the hon. Member that he has exhausted his right to speak. He can, however, ask a question.
    Mr. LOGAN: I would ask the Minister to consider whether it is not possible, seeing that total incapacitation is the qualification for the approved society, that the man should be able to claim unemployment insurance benefit the moment he is declared off?
    9.6 p.m.
    Mr. BANFIELD: I am somewhat disappointed that the Minister is unable to meet us on this Amendment. He agrees in effect that in certain circumstances men are denied benefit, and he says that an attempt has been made by administration to reduce the hardship to as small a minimum as possible. I should have thought that this was a comparatively simple matter, capable of a rather simple solution. The approved societies, on the one hand, anxious in the main to protect their funds and dealing with the matter under their own rules, send a man to the regional medical officer to see whether
    582
    the man is capable of some kind of work. On the regional medical officer declaring that the man is capable of some kind of work, the approved society immediately stops his benefit. All that we ask in this Amendment is that, if the regional medical officer says that the man is capable of some kind of work, the unemployment insurance committee, or whoever is responsible, shall not deny him benefit on the ground that he is incapable of work. If the regional medical officer says that the man is capable of some kind of work, it seems rather hard that he should be bandied about from pillar to post—that he should be told, on the one hand, as regards National Health Insurance, that he is capable of work, and that he should be told on the other hand, when he claims unemployment benefit, that he is incapable of work. It appears to me that the matter ought not to be left in the air in this way.
    I should have thought that the Minister himself would have seen the justice of the Amendment. If there is one thing more than another that makes people discontented and bitter, it is being bandied about from one authority to another and left in the air. It is serious enough for the unfortunate victims, and even the Minister did not deny the possibility of some hardship. When a man has been in bad health, possibly for a considerable time, and very probably himself believes that he is unable to work, it seems hard that, if he is declared to be capable of work, he should be denied unemployment benefit on the ground that he is still incapable of work. I do not think anyone would desire that these two insurance schemes should have it, as it were, both ways. Either the man is capable of work or he is not capable of work. If he is not capable of work, he should have his National Health Insurance benefit. If he is declared to be capable of work, why not give him his unemployment insurance benefit as a matter of right? Why deny it to him, even if the period is reduced, as the Minister says, possibly to a single day?
    I am surprised from time to time how glibly it is said that it is only a matter of one day, or of two days, or of three days. This little bit of money, small as it may appear to many Members of the House, is vital in the case of the vast majority of these men, and, if they are

    583
    denied it and have nothing else to fall back upon, their position is extremely difficult. I am not sure that the Minister has really seriously considered all the aspects of the matter. Why this simple Amendment cannot be put into the Bill is rather beyond me. We have to remember that, when the Bill is passed, it is likely to stand as the law for a fairly considerable number of years. We are now making laws which are going to settle to a very great extent all the ins and outs of unemployment insurance for a very considerable time, and it is hardly sufficient for the Minister to say, "We will attempt to deal with this matter as fairly as we can by administrative methods." That is not quite good enough; the guarantee is not quite sufficient. Unless this provision is put into the Act itself, I suggest that there will always be the possibility of injustice. In fact, there always will be injustice, and it will be injustice for which the ordinary man and woman will be unable to understand the reason. To ordinary men and women outside this House it would appear that, if ever there was a clear case for getting words inserted, with apparently no earthly reason why they should not be inserted, it is in regard to the words of this Amendment, and I would appeal to the Minister to see whether it is not possible in some way or other to make some concession on this point.
    9.13 p.m.
    Mr. HUDSON: With the leave of the House I will answer the point which has been put by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield). He is really labouring under a misapprehension. It is not a question whether the man is certified as being fit for light work, or fit for his ordinary work; the question is whether he is capable of any work at all, and the matter is, as I have said, a matter of the time lag between the actual date when the regional medical officer sees him and certifies him and the date when the approved society issue their certificate. There is a certain amount of point in what the hon. Member has been saying, but his representations should be addressed to the approved societies, because they have it entirely in their power to remedy the matter. It is a matter of their own administration. They might
    584
    say that their decision should be retrospective to the date on which the regional medical officer saw the man. Obviously it takes a certain time for the regional medical officer to write to the approved society, for the approved society to come to their decision, and to notify the man that he must bring his certificate to the Employment Exchange. If the approved societies would see that their machinery for dealing with this purely administrative matter is speeded up, or, alternatively, if they would agree to continue to pay a man his sick benefit until they actually issue their certificate that he is now capable of work, there would be no interval between the date on which he ceased to receive sickness benefit from the approved society and that on which he started to receive benefit from us. Really, the matter is not one with which we ought to be asked to deal. As I have said, we have, as a result of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), very considerably reduced the difficulty. In nearly every case there used to be a delay of some three days, but now it is only one day. If hon. Members wish to abolish that one day altogether, it is for them to make representations to the approved societies.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made : In page 6, line 35, leave out Sub-section (3).—[Mr. Hudson.]

    CLAUSE 8.—(Amendment as to fifth statutory condition.)
    9.16 p.m.
    Mr. LEONARD: I beg to move, in page 6, line 40, to leave out Sub-section (1).
    I look upon this question of training and training centres as a matter of great importance. I move this Amendment partly in order to give the Parliamentary Secretary an opportunity of making a statement as to what these centres are going to be, the extent of them, and their methods of functioning. I should be the last to deny to any man of any age the right to improve himself from a vocational or any other point of view. I look rather kindly upon many institutions that are already functioning, some of them controlled by unemployed men themselves, and all tending to give them an opportunity of making themselves proficient in some calling for which they have a bent. But, while I am prepared

    585
    to countenance that, we cannot lose sight of the fact that this is part of the statutory conditions laid down for benefit, and we must be especially alert in looking into the details of it. By the fifth statutory condition, if a man has been required by the insurance officer to attend any course of instruction, he has to prove that he duly attended. In this Sub-section there is a combination of the methods that apply to those over and to those under 18 years of age.
    I can see quite readily that it would be an advantage to some men who have been unemployed for long periods to have an opportunity of making themselves fit for re-entry into employment, but I should like to indicate a, possibility that may arise out of these seemingly innocent words. In practice, hitherto, insurance officers have in the main confined their activities to what may be called young persons, perhaps unmarried persons in the main, but, as I read this Clause, that age restriction might not hold, because it appears to me that this widens the age at which the insurance officer may look upon a man as suitable for sending to courses of instruction as a part of the condition of receiving benefit. They may look upon a man as soft and consider, in view of the possibilities of employment in the future, that he requires a little hardening up. On the other hand, while not desiring to cast any aspersions on any insurance officers, there is the possibility, if it has not actually occurred in the past, that some people have not comported themselves at the exchanges to the liking of the officer concerned, and it has been possible, as a sort of reprimand, to subject them to the fifth statutory condition. I want to prevent this Subsection being applied not as a help to individuals but as a penalty.
    In my opinion, a tremendous extension of centres will be required, because, notwithstanding the betterment of trade which we have been told about, and which we all acknowledge to various extents, there will still be a large army of unemployed of varying ages for a number of years. I should also like to know if the Government have come to any determination as to the type of centres to be provided. Have the men to be segregated according to trades? Have the Government come to a decision whether the
    586
    training is to be sufficiently comprehensive for preparing men or keeping them fit for re-entry into all trades of any importance, or are they going to fall back on the expedient which has been adopted in the past of providing courses of instruction in employments to which men could most suitably turn themselves if they were useful with their hands? Do the Government visualise the provision of any machinery which will give the Exchanges adequate guidance as to what industries require new blood? Every industry of any size is covered by agreements between employers and employed, and they make an effort to secure the requisite number of apprentices, or new blood, to keep it going. I hear the Parliamentary Secretary saying in an undertone that he wished they did but they do not. At least the structure of the machine is there, and there is no reluctance on the part of the trade unions to admit the apprenticeship which the industry can absorb. At present the centres have no such guidance, and I put the matter forward as one of importance.
    The Minister invited Members to pay visits to these centres. I have been a pretty regular attendant at a centre which I regard as exceptionally well conducted with a manager who did not look upon his work merely as a job but had a real appreciation of what came from his factory, and therefore I am not prejudiced. But even there in my opinion it was rather haphazard. I found a tendency to stress things which have a certain amount of popularity, such as woodwork and little dickerings in motors. I want to know, in view of the fact that this is to be made a condition whether conscious attention is going to be given to the various industries that require new labour. I have been in a committee that had some conscious thought in this direction. I would remind the hon. Member of the local training advisory committees after the War. There employers and employés met under the jurisdiction of Government officials, ascertained the requirements of the various industries and endeavoured to meet them. I have addressed these remarks to the Minister of Labour in order that he may have an opportunity of explaining in detail, because the progress of this Bill has been such that there has been nothing said about this great question of training these men and making it a condition of receiving benefit.
    9.28 p.m.
    Mr. BATEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The House has just listened for a long time to a Debate on an Amendment on the former Clause. We could not see why that Clause needed to be in the Bill, and all what we said about it we repeat on this Sub-section. The object of the Sub-section is to compel unemployed men to join authorised courses. The one thing an Englishman does not like is compulsion. Here the Government seek to compel men who are unemployed to join these various courses. There might be something to be said for training centres and training camps under Part II of the Bill, but whatever can be said for training centres and camps under Part II cannot be said under Part I. The first part of the Sub-section says that the Minister wants power to compel unemployed men to attend these authorised courses in order to keep them fit for employment. We have to remember that the unemployed to whom this Sub-section applies are those who will not have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks, and, in spite of that, the Minister wants power to compel them to attend authorised courses. What need is there for that? A man who has not been unemployed so long as 26 weeks does not need to be kept fit for employment. This House at the end of July or the beginning of August will adjourn for 14 weeks, and some Members will not return at the end of the 14 weeks, but nobody is going to argue that because the Members have not been here for 14 weeks or a little more they are not fit for work here. They will be fit, or will consider themselves fit, for work when they return, and, if it is not necessary to compel the Members of this House to keep fit for employment, there is just as little need to compel the unemployed.
    The Minister said to-day in answer to a question that there were over 80 per cent. who had found work from the training centres. If the training centres are doing such good work, that in itself should be sufficient to encourage unemployed men to go to them without them being compelled to attend. At a matter of fact, we believe that a lot of those who found employment by means of the training centres would have found employment if they had not been there.
    588
    Personally, I am not at all enamoured of the training centres. I have not so much objection to the training of juveniles under 18 years of age, but I have not yet been able to bring my mind to support training centres and training camps for those over that age. One could understand it if the Minister were seeking power only to compel single men to attend. The danger is that the Minister can apply the power to married men, and one feels a strong objection to his doing that. To take a married man away from his family and send him miles away to a training centre, in my opinion is not a wise action. I am not sure whether under this Sub-section the Minister proposes to send any of these unemployed to the training camps. If he proposes that, in my opinion it is a crime. None of these men ought to be sent to a training camp. Nothing that can be said for a man that has been unemployed for some years going to a training camp or centre can be said of this class of man. In the case of those who have been employed for a short period of time, I think the House should hesitate to give power to the Minister to compel them to go to training centres, and therefore I have great pleasure in seconding the Amendment.
    9.34 p.m.
    Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITE: I have listened with considerable astonishment to the speech of the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), and, when I saw this Amendment on the Order Paper, I thought it extraordinary that the Opposition should seek to delete this Subsection from the Bill. Surely this is a question which should be discussed, as far as we can, upon non-party lines. This particular portion of the Bill provides something which hon. Members on all benches seek to have carried out in the most efficient manner possible. I was interested to hear the hon. Member opposite say that, so far as Part II of the Bill was concerned, he thought that there was something to be said for these training centres.
    Mr. BATEY: No, I did not say that. If I get the chance I shall oppose it. I said that what might be said for training centres under Part II cannot be said under Part I.
    Mr. BRAITHWAITE: The OFFICIAL REPORT will show in the morning who is correct. I thought it was too good to be true for the hon. Member to find it possible at last to say a good word for the Bill. At least Part II to him is less objectionable so far as training is concerned than Part I. When we are raising this particular question, we want to bear in mind carefully what has been said by the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard). I was particularly impressed by his stressing of the fact that it is very important that there should be the most efficient liaison between the training centres and sources of employment in this country, whatever those sources may be; that we should not concentrate at any particular moment in the training of the men at these centres for one trade in particular at the risk of overcrowding it when they leave the training centre; and that we should not go in for too general a form of training which may make it difficult for the men to obtain any particular job in any particular position when they leave. I am sure that that is a part of this scheme which the Government will bear very carefully in mind.
    If I might give a particular instance of the point which the hon. Member for St. Rollox raises, it is this. We are faced at this moment in Sheffield with a situation in which the city has now touched a record for production, not only a postwar record but a record for all time in the production of steel, and that state of affairs has come to pass at one and the same time as there are still left in the city some 40,000 unemployed. It is due very largely to the rather peculiar circumstances in which Sheffield finds itself. During the War men poured into the city for the purpose of making munitions. They have remained there. A new generation has been born, and is now growing up. The population of the city increased by some 50,000 persons during the four years of the War, and although more people than ever are being employed, there are still some 40,000 unemployed. Yet there is a definite shortage of skilled labour in the steel industry in Sheffield. I think that the training centres can perform a very useful function if they can divert the flow of unemployed men through channels which will lead them to cope with a situation such as that. With that point in view, I was rather
    590
    surprised to hear the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) say—and again I hope that the OFFICIAL REPORT will prove that I am not misquoting him on this occasion—that it was a crime to send married men to a training centre.
    Mr. BATEY: No, to a training camp.
    Mr. BRAITHWAITE: A training centre or a training camp. He thought it was a crime, and the point he was making was that it would mean taking them from home and breaking up the family life, and that the social consequences would be disastrous. The Government are not proposing to send married men overseas as so many went during the War. I gather that it is not even proposed to send them many miles from home. The scheme, as I understand it, is that, in these areas where unemployment is most concentrated and most serious, these training centres will be set up for the purpose of dealing with this problem. I can well imagine—and I hope that the Minister when he replies will be able to confirm it—that in areas such as Sheffield—I mention that because I happen to "be one of the members for that City—there will be a training centre to which married men can go within a few minutes, where they can receive useful instruction which will enable them to obtain employment. I am sure that if that is so, the House will be in favour, upon whichever benches we may sit, of using this machinery for the purpose of obtaining employment for those men.
    It is probably agreed that, whether we like it or not, this country is entering upon a period of economic planning. There is a difference of opinion as to the priority, the speed and the tempo of that planning, but there is no difference of opinion that the time has come when there has to be very careful thought and organisation of industry from whatever point of view. I support this proposal of training centres, believing that they represent a very important contribution to that economic planning, and that they will be a great help in joining up idle men with industries where they can find employment, and in giving them a real opportunity to find their place in industry, and to earn their livelihood, and, in so doing, I hope that the Government will resist the Amendment.
    9.43 p.m.
    Mr. LAWSON: We make no apology for having put down the Amendment. If the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken wishes to know our intentions, I would tell him that we have mainly put it down with a view to giving an opportunity to the Government of stating clearly their intention on this part of the Bill. We had a short discussion on Part II as far as training was concerned, but I do not think that we have had any discussion whatever of the training under this part of the Bill. I have in a previous Debate made no bones as to my view in regard to training, and anyone who has seen it at first hand would not have any hesitation, under the limited conditions under which it has operated, of giving it his blessing. Generally speaking, if a married man has wanted to go to a centre he has done so. I have seen large numbers of men who have been only too pleased to get away from the great cesspool of unemployment to some place where they could have a reasonable chance of getting into condition and of securing a jumping off place for a job. Therefore, I believe that the training has done splendid work, and has accomplished a great deal. As far as juveniles are concerned, there may have to be some compulsion.
    Do the Government visualise any very wide extension of the training system under Part I of the Bill? Do they mean to operate generally the training centres as they are at the present time, with the usual gradual expansion? Here and there a centre is opened in some part of the country, and sometimes there is an extension in regard to the class of work undertaken. That is a normal development. Do the Government visualise a wide extension of the development? Do they intend to bring men into the centres compulsorily? I have never agreed with the use of the word "camps." In the "Daily Herald" investigation, which was very favourable for the training centres, when the term "concentration camp" was used, it must be clearly understood that that was a term that had been used by the Home Secretary. I do not know whether it was used by him, inadvertently, but the "Daily Herald" took that term from the Home Secretary's lips.
    Mr. HUDSON: I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary took it from the "Daily Herald."
    Mr. LAWSON: I understood that it was a quotation from something that the Home Secretary had said. I have never accepted the term "camps." Do the Government intend to apply compulsion on a large scale? Do they mean to send men to these centres without the pull of a job, that is, a job in the offing? Is it intended to send them to the centres as places where they can be pulled together and stiffened? I could understand men volunteering to go to the centres, even if there was not the prospect of a job. I have known young men who would be very pleased to get away from the place that had been such a trouble to them, with no prospect of a job, where they could get a change and be engaged in some way, and also get a good feed. Generally speaking, they do get good food in the training centres. Is it the intention to extend the camps and to keep the men there, without any prospect of a job, and compel them to go there? It is very important that we should have an answer to these questions.
    We cannot discuss Part II of the Bill, but the Unemployment Assistance Board can make arrangements with the Ministry of Labour for training some of their people, and it is the more important in view of that particular function that is laid upon them that the Ministry should take over some of the people. Upon the answer to these questions will depend our view on this matter. Training in general is a principle for which I stand, and in this matter I am speaking for our party. We stand for that, but we will not assent to wholesale compulsion. We shall be very careful about giving our blessing to a scheme which means simply sending men to the centres without any prospect of a job, especially if they are to be compelled to go there, but with the two principles of training voluntarily, and with very limited compulsion, and also the principle of the pull of a job, we are entirely agreed. I take this opportunity of paying my tribute to the men who are running the training centres. They have done splendid work, and it is because I appreciate that splendid work that I should not like to see the Ministry launching out, without limit, in a way that might possibly damage the work that

    593
    has been accomplished. The work has great possibilities but there are great dangers, and it is important that we should go very carefully.
    9.49 p.m.
    Mr. HUDSON: The House has shown by its reception of the remarks of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) how much it appreciates what he has said. If I dealt fully with this matter I should occupy most of the remaining time before 11 o'clock. A good many questions of detail could more properly be dealt with when our Estimates are under discussion than on this Amendment, but I will give a reply in broad outline. The hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) asked a number of questions. I should like to thank him for the tribute that he paid to the work of the centre in Glasgow, which I have had the opportunity of seeing. I will distinguish between the various types of training centres that we run. There is, first of all, the training centre which takes youths and trains them for a definite job. The training that is given there is very intensive, for a comparatively short time, and we have found by experience that unless a man can be placed practically at once into a job the training that he has got is not retained and most of the work that has been done for him is wasted. Therefore, we are compelled to limit the number that we take into these centres to the number for whom we think we can find jobs as soon as they come out. If there is any considerable gap they lose the skill which they have gained. That is a real check on any undue development of those training centres.
    The hon. Member suggested that it would be desirable that some from of advice should be taken in order to make sure that the men were not trained in industries where there was already a surplus of labour and that the training should be concentrated on those industries where there was a lack of labour. I agree with the hon. Member. I hope he will forgive me when I say that one reason why there is a lack in this respect at the present time is that the trade unions have always refused to co-operate with us. I hope that I may take his suggestion as an indication that the trade union movement, at all events in Scotland, will revise their view and will in future co-operate
    594
    with us in trying to place these men.
    Mr. LEONARD: Is that an invitation that there should be co-operation in an inclusive scheme, representative of all sections, including employers?
    Mr. HUDSON: I shall be glad to see it tried.
    Mr. LEONARD: Is that the condition that was offered to the trade unions and the employers?
    Mr. HUDSON: The position is that the trade unions have actually opposed our schemes. If they will co-operate with us we shall be the first to welcome such cooperation with open arms. The hon. Member also asked whether we give a general training or whether we train for particular trades. Usually, we train for particular trades, because the training has to be so intensive and we have not the time to give a general training. We must concentrate on the man getting work, and we try to limit our training to those trades where there is likely to be an opening. For example, many of the neon electric signs which cover shops in London have been erected by boys and young men trained in one of our centres. We discovered that there was a lack of men to erect these signs, and boys from our training centres were snatched up as fast as we could turn them out.
    We have just discovered that there is a demand for men who can put stained glass in the doors of some of the new houses which are being erected. Apparently some people have an artistic taste. There was, apparently, a shortage of people who could do this work, and we, therefore, developed a new course in order to train men who could put in stained glass windows. We cannot hope to make any great extension of these particular training centres until trade shows definite signs of revival. The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Braithwaite) talked about training men for the steel trade. I have not time to go into the matter fully, but I should deprecate the idea that it is the task of the Government to train persons for the steel trade. The training of apprentices is a matter for the industry. We have undertaken these training courses to enable people in distressed areas, who have no chance of getting a training

    595
    locally, to have an opportunity of acquiring skill which they may be able to exercise in other parts of the country. It would not be right for the Government to go to the expense of training people in Sheffield for the steel trade in Sheffield, or in any other industrial centre, like Birmingham.
    I now come to the second class of industrial centres, where we take in men largely for reconditioning. In 1931, when relief schemes were being largely closed down, the opportunities of placing men from these centres were considerably restricted, and for a time we had to restrict the intake of the centres. It has always been considered that you cannot adequately train a man or exercise discipline over him unless you can hold out the prospect of a job within a certain definite period. I happened to ask the manager of a training centre whether he thought he could exercise discipline over the men if there was not a definite promise of a job, and he thought that on the whole it was worth an experiment. He thought he could. However, to cut a long story short, we made an experiment and we filled up our centres, pointing out that there was no more than a small prospect of a job but that they would have the opportunity of a training under excellent conditions and with excellent food. The response was excellent and very encouraging; there was no difficulty in maintaining discipline. We filled up all our existing centres.
    The next point was whether we could develop it still further, and we tried an experiment last year of running a certain number of tented camps around each of the permament centres. It was purely an experiment, and we did not know whether it would be possible to maintain discipline among the men. Again the experiment was extremely successful. The men responded splendidly, and we hope this year to extend the scheme still further. It shows that we are doing precisely what the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street suggests—namely, going slowly in our extensions, and, as I see it, it is the line upon which we shall proceed, to make an experiment here and an experiment there, and where it is successful to enlarge upon it as far as we can. Hon. Members may have realised that the wording of the Sub-section
    596
    is not the same as the corresponding Sub-section in the original Bill. We have inserted the words
    "for the purpose of giving him an opportunity of becoming or keeping fit for entry into or return to regular employment."
    The object is clearly in the interest of the men themselves, and the Sub-section is not in any way a penal Clause. I must stress that point as a matter of great importance.
    Mr. LEONARD: Take a given centre with five openings in one of the sections, and 10 men unemployed at the appropriate Exchange. Will the offer be extended to the 10 men unemployed or will there be any possibility of five of the men being selected and it being made a statutory condition of benefit?
    Mr. HUDSON: The matter must be looked at from the point of view of the unfortunate manager in charge of the centre. He is trying to turn these men into semi-skilled artisans in the course of six months. Is it likely that he will be able to do that with conscripts? Obviously, in order to get good results they must be men who are reasonably anxious to make the best of their opportunities——
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: If a recipient of benefit refuses to go to one of these centres does he run the risk of losing benefit?
    Mr. HUDSON: I am coming to that point in a moment. In this Sub-section we have made a change from the existing law. The existing law, in Section 7, Subsection (1) of the Act of 1920, merely states that the insurance officer can order a man to go to one of these centres and if he does not then, automatically, he is disqualified from benefit without any sort or kind of appeal. Incidentally the first people to put this Section into operation were hon. Members opposite. We have abandoned that proposal, although a man who has volunteered for training is still served with a formal notice that he has to go. Under the Sub-section we have given the man a right of appeal to the court of referees, and he can appeal on the ground that it is unreasonable to insist on his going. Therefore, we have considerably modified the existing law in order to make it clear that they would only go as volunteers, or where there is

    597
    really good cause for requiring them to go. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) thought that it was disgraceful to insist on a married man going. I do not agree with him. Surely it is better for a man to be separated from his family for a month or so with the prospect of being able to get a permanent job, and move his family out of a derelict area, rather than to have to live in a derelict area and continue unemployed. The hon. Member says that this ought not to apply in the case of those under Part I, men who have been out of work for 26 weeks or less.
    I think that this point of view arises from our experience of the last few years, particularly in some of the depressed areas. In pre-War days for a man to have been out of work for six months would have been regarded as a very long time indeed. From 1911, when the Unemployment Insurance Act was first brought in, to 1914, the average number of days for which benefit was drawn by those who were unemployed was 15. I am not going to say that in the course of the next year or two years we shall get back to that state of affairs. But, after all, this is to be the basis of our unemployment system for a generation. I look forward to the day when even six months will be regarded as a considerable period, especially for a juvenile, and it will be only reasonable to say, for example in a village, to a miner's son when a pit has closed down and is not to be reopened, that before he has waited six months, to be demoralised by standing at a street corner, while he is still fit and still has the habit of steady work, "You can go off at once and be trained for a job." For that reason we have inserted this Sub-section in this particular form.
    Mr. LEONARD: Let me put a question with regard to the people who are sent for the purpose of being reconditioned. Would the Parliamentary Secretary say whether a person who has, either voluntarily or otherwise, been sent to get hardened up in his own occupation, be presented with a green card for any vacancies that may occur during the period that he is attending the centre as a refresher?
    Mr. HUDSON: I do not quite follow the hon. Member. The mere fact that a man is attending a training centre will
    598
    be a valid excuse for not taking the job. On the other hand the mere fact that he is at a training centre will not prevent him taking a job which comes to his notice.
    Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Will it be taken as a reasonable excuse for not attending a centre that a man is the holder of an allotment? A considerable number of allotments have been taken by these men, and if the allotments are to be left without cultivators that would be a very serious matter.
    Mr. HUDSON: Speaking from memory I rather think that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour gave a promise in regard to that point on the Committee stage. Obviously, the circumstances would be taken into account and a man would not be compelled unreasonably to abandon an allotment. On the other hand I think my hon. Friend will agree equally that a man ought not to be allowed merely to say, "I have an allotment," which possibly he has never cultivated before, and to regard that as a valid excuse for not going to a training centre.
    10.10 p.m.
    Sir P. HARRIS: The Parliamentary Secretary was so sweetly reasonable in the first part of his speech and so much represented what I believe to be the mind of the House, that I was a little disappointed at the last part of his speech, but I am not quite sure that the last part of his speech did not really represent what is in the Bill. My view always has been that the training of juveniles up to 18 years of age was most desirable, and that it was not unreasonable that young persons should be required to attend training courses to become efficient for industry or to be conditioned, as the case might be. But it is one thing to do it with young persons under 18, and quite another thing to do it with an adult, a man of 27 or 28 or 30, and to do it against his will. The Minister said that; he said in the light of his experience and knowledge, after visiting these centres and giving the subject a lot of study, that it-was not likely to be effective if compulsion was applied. But almost in the same breath he said that he did not think it unreasonable to insist on this condition for married men. That rather suggested compulsion. Compulsion of a man who has volunteered to go to a course and

    599
    then, having gone to the course, requiring him to continue his training so that the money spent on him should not be wasted, is one thing, but it is quite another thing to make as a condition of receiving benefit the attendance at a course. That is particularly so when you make it the condition of receiving ordinary standard benefit.
    When we come to Part II of course it is quite another story. You assume that when a man has to go on public assistance he has been a very long time out of work and may have become demoralised, and there may be a case made out for requiring attendance as a condition of public health payment, although even there, in the light of experience in London of one or two compulsory training centres where residence is required, compulsion has not produced very satisfactory results. I have only to mention Belmont as one example. The cases we are considering under Part I are the cases where there is still a legal claim to benefit, quite apart from any condition. I do not like these words. After the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary I am satisfied that as long as the matter is in his hands all his influence will be brought to bear on making attendance as fas as possible voluntary, in order to make the results satisfactory. But we have to remember that we are dealing with an Act of Parliament and not with a particular Minister.
    The Parliamentary Secretary made a very important statement. He said that we were making an Act of Parliament for all time, or at any rate for a generation. Of course no Parliament can pledge future Parliaments. Any future Parliament can undo what any past Parliament has done. The Minister is not to have the administration of this Measure. The responsibility is to be with the Statutory Committee. They are to have direction from Parliament as to what Parliament desires, and if these words remain in the Bill they will constitute an instruction to the new committee to require attendance at a course as a condition, whenever they think fit. It is unfortunate, after the excellent, fair and reasonable statement of the Minister that these words should be retained. It would be much better if he left it to the discretion of those responsible to require
    600
    attendance at these courses without compulsion of any form or character.
    10.16 p.m.
    Mr. LAWSON: May I put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary? I agree with the last speaker as to the fairness of the greater part of his statement, but I must say that the last part of his statement, referring to the married men, was rather ominous. I would ask him to explain further what is meant with regard to compulsion in the case of married men. If the Minister intends to use the Clause in that direction, I can easily see the possibility of using it on a wholesale scale, and I think in the interests of the training, as well as in the interests of the men, we ought to put our foot down on such a proposal.
    10.17 p.m.
    Mr. HUDSON: I tried to compress my remarks in order not to delay the House unduly and I may have compressed them too much. I was referring to what I understood to be the objection of the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) against any married people going to these centres at all.
    Mr. BATEY: No, the camps.
    Mr. HUDSON: If the hon. Member was only referring to the camps, that is another matter. Obviously, the overwhelming proportion will be single men, and all I wanted to do was to enter a caveat that the odd case of the married man would not be excluded.
    10.18 p.m.
    Mr. McENTEE: Reference has been made to co-operation with the trade unions, and I would like the hon. Gentleman to realise that the trade unions in the big industries—he mentioned the steel industry in particular—have a duty towards their members. In the building industry to-day there are certain trades, including my own trade—that of a carpenter and joiner—in which there is an over supply of men and there are other trades within the industry in which there is a definite shortage. The practice with regard to centres that have operated previously has been that a person who is being trained for the building industry is trained for a particular trade in the industry that is not over-supplied. We feel that there will be serious consequences as the result of bringing in

    601
    these quickly trained men. Their training is inadequate, not from the point of view of the training which it is possible to give within six months, but inadequate to fit them for the trade in which they are to be employed, and the result is that when they get a job they are unable to hold it. They get into the trade unions, many of them with the object of getting benefit, which is quite a laudable one, and no doubt also with the object of supporting the principles of trade unionism. The result is that they are thrown on the trade union funds because of the inadequate nature of their training and their inability to carry on the occupation for which they have been partially trained.
    In view of that experience, I think the Minister will understand the lack of readiness on the part of the trade unions to co-operate in these training centres unless they have guarantees, which the Minister is not prepared to give. I think he is not prepared to give any guarantee to any of the trade unions in regard to the type of co-operation that he is expecting from them. I have seen a good deal of training centres of all kinds, and personally I think a good deal of good work is done within those centres. Generally speaking, one would say that they are an advantage, but I think the Minister should recognise that when he is passing strictures, as he did, on the trade unions, they are scarcely justified, and if he expects co-operation from these very important bodies, he will have to consider reasonable guarantees that they have a right to expect from him.
    10.21 p.m.
    Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will leave these words in the Bill, because we who have to answer in our constituencies for the provisions of this Bill will not be afraid to face up to the compulsory powers that lie at the back of this Measure. It seems to me that the Opposition are getting away from the real point, which is to get men back into work, and when they object to the compulsory powers that exist in respect of married men they forget that it will be very much more important to get a married man back into work through a training centre, and thereby enable him to provide sustenance
    602
    for his wife and family, than many single men, it may be.
    Mr. LOGAN: As the hon. and gallant Member is so emphatic about taking a married man away to a training camp, will he tell us for what form of occupation they will train him?
    Captain BALFOUR: The Parliamentary Secretary gave us specific examples of men who were taken from distressed areas land trained for particular openings that existed, and although these powers will be used carefully, as the Minister has said, nevertheless I hope they will be kept within the Bill. It strikes me that we have nothing to justify the supposition that the right hon. Gentleman is la sort of Public Enemy No. 1 and his Parliamentary Secretary Public Enemy No. 2, and that they are going to administer this Measure in la harsh and unreasonable way. There are always recalcitrant cases, and it is as well to have these compulsory powers in the interests of those cases themselves. I hope that we who support the Government will face up to the question of the need for compulsion in the background, in the knowledge that it will be used reasonably and fairly, as it has been in the past.
    10.23 p.m.
    Mr. WILMOT: I feel, after the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, that it is necessary to be clear on one or two points. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour) speaks on the assumption that there is a vast amount of work going begging and that it cannot be done because the labour of this country is untrained.
    Mr. HOWARD: Where are the bricklayers?
    Mr. WILMOT: Does the hon. Member suggest that bricklayers cannot be obtained?
    Mr. HOWARD: I do.
    Mr. WILMOT: Then he had better get into touch with their trade union, and he will find that his information is inaccurate. The position is not that there is a lot of employment available and that there are no trained men able to take it; the reverse is the case, and it is impossible to find an occupation of a major character for which men can be trained with any hope of getting employment. The hon. Gentleman quoted one

    603
    or two trades peculiar to some fad or fashion of the moment, but the people who were trained to do that work were not men; they were youths. Nobody on this side objects in principle to the training of youths, but, as the Minister said, the whole problem of providing training for adults, as we have experienced in London, is vitiated by the belief on the part of the unemployed themselves that these training centres have a penal aspect. Whether it be true or not, the belief is a firmly rooted one.
    Mr. HOWARD: That belief has been created through the propaganda of the Labour party.
    Mr. WILMOT: If the hon. Member knew a little more about what is said by responsible Labour people, he would not have made that remark. The fact remains that in the minds of unemployed men there is a continual fear that they are going to be parted from their families and sent to training places like Belmont. As the Minister said, the best
    results are not to be got from conscripts; the best results will be got from free and voluntary training. Would it not be very much better if these training centres were voluntary? I am certain that, with the exception of a tiny minority, most unemployed men would welcome the opportunity of training, and all the social life and activity that that training would mean as a relief from the eternal, dreary monotony of waiting about in unemployment. If this were a voluntary scheme to which men might be invited to go, I believe there would be a very large response, but the whole meaning of the thing is vitiated by the firm belief among the unemployed that there is a penal aspect to it. I would therefore urge the Minister, in the interests of what he has in mind, to remove the compulsion.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided : Ayes, 210; Noes, 51.

    Division No. 234.]

    AYES.

    [10.31 pm

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

    Crossley, A. C.

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

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

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

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

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

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

    Denville, Alfred

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

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

    Dickie, John P.

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Drewe, Cedric

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

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

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

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Bateman, A. L.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

    Eillston, Captain George Sampson

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

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

    Elmley, Viscount

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Bernays, Robert

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

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

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Leckle, J. A.

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Erskins, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Blindell, James

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Gamzoni, Sir John

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

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

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

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

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Goldle, Noel B.

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

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

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Carver, Major William H.

    Greene, William P. C.

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Grimston, R. V.

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

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

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

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Hammersley, Samuel S.

    Magnay, Thomas

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hanbury, Cecil

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

    Coltox, Major William Philip

    Hanley, Dennis A.

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

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

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

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

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

    Cook. Thomas A.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Craven-Ellis. William

    Hepworth, Joseph

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Crooks, J. Smedley

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Milne, Charles

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

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

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Hornby, Frank

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Cross, R. H.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

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

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Runge, Norah Cecil

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

    North, Edward T.

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Nunn, William

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Tree, Ronald

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Salt, Edward W.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Pearson, William G.

    Selley, Harry R.

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

    Penny, Sir George

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Petherick, M.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

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

    Shuts, Colonel J. J.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Pybus, Sir Percy John

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

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

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Wells, Sydney Richard

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

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

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Sotheron- Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Spens, William Patrick

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Stevenson, James

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Storey, Samuel

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Remer, John R.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Rickards, George William

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Captatn Sir George Bowyer and

    Commander Southby.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Banfield, John William

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Batey, Joseph

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

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

    Maxton, James

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

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Mliner, Major James

    Buchanan, George

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Cape, Thomas

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

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Rothschild, James A. de

    Cove, William G.

    Janner, Barnett

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jenkins, Sir William

    West, F. R.

    Daggar, George

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    White, Henry Graham

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Kirkwood, David

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lawson, John James

    Wilmot, John

    Edwards, Charles

    Leonard, William

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. D. Graham.

    Amendment made : In page 7, line 12, leave out from "period," to the end of the Sub-section, and insert :
    "or during such part thereof as may be determined on any subsequent claim to benefit."—[Mr. Hudson.]

    CLAUSE 9.—(Period of disallowance of benefit in certain cases.)
    Amendment made : In page 7, line 29, at the end, insert :
    "(2) So much of Sub-section (2) of Section eight of the principal Act, and so much of Sub-section (1) of Section four of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1930, as relate to the extent of the period of disqualification and the date of the commencement thereof, and Section ten of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1921, shall cease to have effect."—[Mr. Hudson.]

    CLAUSE 10.—(Definition of dependent child.)
    10.38 p.m.
    Major MILNER: I beg to move, in page 8, line 3, after "infirmity," to insert :
    606
    "irrespective as to whether arrangements for such instruction have or have not previously been made."
    Clause 10 lays down the definition of "dependent child" part of which is as follows :
    "in relation to a person entitled to benefit, any child, younger brother, or younger sister, of his who is between the ages of fourteen and sixteen years and is maintained wholly or mainly by him and is either … or a person who is unable to receive such instruction by reason of physical or mental infirmity."
    The words formerly were :
    "person who was unable to receive such instruction."
    The Umpire decided that a person between the ages of 14 and 16 could not be said to be prevented from receiving instruction unless it could be proved that definite arrangements had been entered into prior to the child becoming unable to receive instruction. In consequence of that, many perfectly proper cases were disallowed by the Umpire,

    607
    The intention of the Amendment is to make it clear that, in the case of a child or person between 14 and 16 years of age, who is suffering from some physical or mental infirmity, the parents of the child will be entitled to dependant's benefit for the child, whether arrangements had been made for the child's education or not. I presume that that is the intention of the Government now, but, owing to the Umpire's decisions in the past, that intention has not been carried into effect. The Umpire has said, really, that, where no arrangements for the child's education had been made, it was wrong to give the dependant's allowance because the child was sick or ill. If these words are put into the Bill, they will ensure that dependant's benefit is paid in all these cases, irrespective of whether arrangements have been made for the child's education or not.
    Mr. T. SMITH: I beg to second the Amendment.
    10.41 p.m.
    Mr. HUDSON: The House will remember that during the Committee stage we had a certain amount of discussion on this point. In order to make the meaning of the Bill more clear, in the Bill as it was originally introduced a slight change was made in the wording of the existing Act. Hon. Members opposite took exception to this, and moved to reinsert in the present Bill the original words of the existing Act, in substitution for those which formerly appeared in the Bill. I pointed out that their Amendment made no difference at all, and on this ground I accepted it. For some three-quarters of an hour afterwards I was criticised by hon. Members opposite for having accepted their Amendment. I am in the same difficulty now, because these words make no difference at all. They certainly do not achieve the object which the hon. and gallant Member wants to achieve, judging by his speech, because they would merely allow dependant's benefit to be paid irrespective of whether arrangements for such instruction had or had not been made. That is the present position. The Umpire does not require that arrangements for such instruction should previously have been made, but requires to be satisfied that but for the infirmity the child would have been receiving
    608
    education. These words would not add anything to the Bill. If anything, they would serve to confuse the situation, and I am afraid we must resist their insertion.
    10.43 p.m.
    Major MILNER: Does the hon. Gentleman assure the House that at present it is not necessary for a parent to satisfy the Umpire that arrangements have been made for the child to be educated before he can draw benefit? I understand that the Umpire insists on proof of that sort, and the object of the Amendment is to dispense with that proof and do as the hon. Gentleman says is done at present, that is to say, to permit dependant's benefit to be drawn when the child is unable to receive instruction by reason of physical or mental infirmity, irrespective of whether such arrangements have been made or not. I am assured that the hon. Gentleman's interpretation is not the correct one.
    Mr. HUDSON: If I may speak again with the leave of the House, I can only repeat that I am assured that the Umpire merely requires to be satisfied that, but for the infirmity, the child would have been receiving the education.
    10.44 p.m.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Will not the hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter? When it was before the House originally it was thought by most Members present that in the case of a child with an infirmity the parent would receive benefit for the child until the child reached the age of 16, that is to say, that any child with an infirmity would be treated as a child until the age of 16, and that there was to be no test of education. You have altered the law and the unemployed man will now get the 2s. for the child even if he is giving him no education. In the old days there was this to be said, that you were not penalising them, but now the infirm child is deliberately penalised to that extent. I would ask the Minister if he could not reconsider the matter and agree to a form of words which would be accepted in another place. It is a small but a very human matter.
    10.48 p.m.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: When a claim is made in respect of a child suffering from an infirmity, it must be proved before the court of referees, the insurance officer, or the Umpire that the infirmity

    609
    is such that it cannot receive education, and that, if it were not suffering from the infirmity, it could and would receive education. I think the Parliamentary Secretary might take advantage of the suggestion of the hon, Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and go further into the matter. These words may not carry out the object in view, but it is necessary that the least possible difficulties should be put in the way of the parent with a child so infirm that it cannot receive education.
    Mr. HUDSON: I will look into it. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    10.49 p.m.
    Mr. WILMOT: I beg to move, in page 8, line 14, at the end, to insert :
    "(2) Where a person to whom paragraph (b) of the foregoing sub-section applies attains the age of sixteen years during a school term he shall be deemed to be a dependent child until the expiration of that school term."
    This Clause extends the dependant benefit in respect of a child from 14 to 16 if the child is in full-time attendance at a day school, but the moment the child becomes 16, dependant benefit in respect of that child will cease. The Amendment seeks to provide that, if the child becomes 16 in the middle of the school term, the benefit shall continue to the end of the term. The reasons are obvious. The child is at a secondary school and the parents have had a very considerable struggle to keep the child at school until he is 16. To force him to leave the school in the middle of his term might ruin the educational opportunities that could be obtained, and I feel sure that the Minister, in view of the fact that it is probably just a drafting question, will accept the Amendment to enable the child who has been kept at school at such a cost to reap the advantage at a very small cost to the Exchequer.
    10.51 p.m.
    Mr. HUDSON: This Amendment is designed, evidently, to give effect to a suggestion made by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) in the course of the discussion in the Committee stage. The House will remember that I promised to look into the matter. I have done so, and I am afraid that the Amendment will not secure the object the hon. Member has in view, because I find that in a
    610
    very large proportion—I do not know if it is a majority of cases, but certainly a very large proportion, the parent who has sent the child to a secondary school has to sign an undertaking, with a monetary penalty, to keep the child at school not only to the end of the term in which he attains his 16th birthday, but to the end of the summer term following. Therefore, this Amendment would not serve the purpose of encouraging people to keep their children at school and give them a secondary education. In addition, it suffers from the defect that it breaks what has hitherto been the definite age line between the juvenile of 16 and persons over that age. If we made this concession it would undoubtedly be only a stepping-stone to further concessions. At the end of the summer term there would be no reason for refusing to extend it further, and this would open the door to other difficulties.
    10.53 p.m.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he has made any inquiry of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland as to whether what he has said is consonant with the educational conditions of a child at a secondary school in Scotland? He is using, as an argument against this Amendment, conditions in the educational system in England that do not prevail in Scotland, and I would suggest that he should do, as he did on a previous Amendment, have a consultation with the Secretary for Scotland and see if something cannot be done to meet the purpose of the Amendment.
    10.54 p.m.
    Sir P. HARRIS: I hope that this decision is not final. This Bill will go to another place where the Noble Lord the President of the Board of Education sits. Anybody who has had, as I have many years' experience of education knows that it is essential, and is provided in the Act of 1902 on which our whole education system is organised, that a child shall be required to complete his term before he leaves his education. It does apply already to a child of 14, who cannot leave school and go into benefit, into the insurance scheme or into employment unless he remains, not only until he reaches the age of 14, but concludes the term. Surely, if it is applied to the child of 14,

    611
    it should apply equally to a child of 15. Educationally, it is very important, There will be a tendency, directly the child reaches the age of 16, for the parent to bring pressure for the child to be withdrawn. Everybody knows that a vast number of these scholars will be at central schools, and it is possible to withdraw children from the central school at the age of 16. Therefore, it would be to the advantage of this most interesting experiment which the Government are trying for the small concession to be made. I hope that it is not the final word of the Government on the subject, and that they will take the opportunity of consulting the Board of Education. I am sorry that the Board of Education is not represented to-night.
    10.56 p.m.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: May I supplement what has been said by the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot)? I think that the hon. Gentleman opposite must not forget that the more we reorganise schools, the more we shall have
    central schools in operation, and the more central schools we have in operation, the more will children at the secondary schools leave school between the ages of 14 and 16. When parents have kept their children in school until 15½, the educational career of the children is reaching an important stage and, therefore, it is very important that the Government should do nothing to put impediments in the way of their staying until the end of the term, which is the 16th birthday.
    Mr. HUDSON: Of course, in this matter we have consulted the Board of Education, and the President of the Board entirely agrees with the attitude my right hon. Friend has taken upon it.
    10.57 p.m.
    Mr. WILMOT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the London County Council considered this matter from the educational point of view, and that they have asked me to say that they would be very glad if this concession could be made?
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided : Ayes, 50; Noes, 211.

    Division No. 235.]

    AYES.

    [11.0 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Mallaileu, Edward Lancelot

    Banfield, John William

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Batey, Joseph

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Maxton, James.

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

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

    Mliner, Major James

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

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Buchanan, George

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Cape, Thomas

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

    Rothschild, James A. de

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cove, William G.

    Janner, Barnett

    West, F. R.

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jenkins, Sir William

    White, Henry Graham

    Daggar, George

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Kirkwood, David

    Wilmot, John

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lawson, John James

    Edwards, Charles

    Leonard. William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Mr. C. Macdonald and Mr. D.

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Graham.

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    NOES.

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

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

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

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

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

    Bateman, A. L.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Carver, Major William H.

    Cross, R. H.

    Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

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

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

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

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

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Denville, Alfred

    Blindell, James

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Dickie, John P.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Drewe, Cedric

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

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

    Dunglass, Lord

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Eillston, Captain George Sampson

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Eimley, Viscount

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

    Russell, Hamor Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Salman, Sir Isldore

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Salt, Edward W.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

    Fox, Sir Gilford

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Selley, Harry R.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Magnay, Thomas

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Ganzonl, Sir John

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

    Shute, Colonel J. J.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

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

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Glossop, C. W. H.

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

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

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Goff, Sir Park

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Goldle, Noel B.

    Milne, Charles

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Spens, William Patrick

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

    Morrison, William Shephard

    Stevenson, James

    Greene, William P. C.

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Storey- Samuel

    Gretton, Colonel Ht. Hon. John

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

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

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Hammersley, Samuel S.

    North, Edward T.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Nunn, William

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

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

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Palmer, Francis Noel

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

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Penny, Sir George

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Hepworth, Joseph

    Petherick, M.

    Tree, Ronald

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

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

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Hornby, Frank

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

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

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

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

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

    Pybus, Sir Percy John

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

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

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

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

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Held, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Womersley, Walter James

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Remer, John R.

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

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

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Rickards, George William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Lord Erskine and Commander

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Southby.

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    It being after Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19 th December and 1st May, successively to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Amendment as to anomalies regulations.)
    Amendments made : In page 9, line 16, at the beginning, insert :
    "For references in the said Section one to regulations there shall be substituted references to orders and."
    In line 16, leave out "regulations," and insert "orders."
    In line 28, leave out "permanently incapacitated," and insert :
    614
    "incapacitated from work and has been so continuously for at least six weeks."
    In line 30, at the end, insert :
    "(4) Any order made under the provisions of the said Section one or of this Section may be varied or revoked by any subsequent order made in like manner but, before any order is made under the said provisions, a draft thereof shall be laid before Parliament, and no such order made after the commencement of this Part of this Act shall have effect unless each House has resolved that the draft thereof be approved."—[Sir H. Betterton.]

    CLAUSE 13.—(Determination of claims and questions.)
    Amendments made : In page 10, line 11, leave out paragraph (ii).
    In line 17, at the end, insert :
    "or by reason of the provisions of Section four of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1930."
    In line 26, at the end, insert :
    "(b) the insurance officer shall not himself disallow a claim on the ground that the fifth statutory condition is not fulfilled, except in cases where that condition is not fulfilled only by reason of a person under the age of eighteen years having been required to discontinue for not more than one day his attendance at an authorised course in consequence of his misbehaviour while attending thereat."—[Sir H. Betterton.]
    Amendment proposed : in page 10, line 44, at the end, to insert :
    "(3) For paragraph (c) of Sub-section (5) of Section eight of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1930, there shall be substituted the following paragraph :

    (c) at the instance of the claimant—

    (i) without leave in any case in which the decision of the court of referees is not unanimous; and

    (ii) with the leave of the chairman of the court of referees in any other case; so, however, that where leave to appeal is not granted when the decision of the court of referees is given, an application for such leave may be made by the claimant in such form, and within such time after the date of the decision, as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister under Section thirty-five of the principal Act, and any application for leave to appeal shall be granted by the chairman if it appears to him that there is a principle of importance involved in the case or any other special circumstance by reason of which leave to appeal ought to be given.—[Sir H. Betterton.]
    Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
    The House divided : Ayes, 222; Noes, 33.

    Division No. 236.]

    AYES.

    [11.9 p.m.

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

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Eillston, Captain George Sampson

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

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

    Elmley, Viscount

    Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Fermoy, Lord

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Bateman, A. L.

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Fox, Sir Gifford

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

    Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

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

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Blindell, James

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Boulton, W. W.

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Magnay, Thomas

    Bowyer. Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Goff, Sir Park

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

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Goldle, Noel B.

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

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Greene, William P. C.

    Martin, Thomas B.

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

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Browne, Captain A. C.

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

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

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

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

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

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

    Milne, Charles

    Carver, Major William H.

    Hammersley, Samuel S.

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

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

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hartland, George A.

    North, Edward T.

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Nunn, William

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Hepworth, Joseph

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Cook, Thomas A.

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

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Craven-Ellis. William

    Hornby, Frank

    Pearson, William G.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Petherick, M.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'ptn, Bilston)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

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

    Pike, Cecil F.

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

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

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

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Cross, R. H.

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Pybus, Sir Percy John

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    Jamieson, Douglas

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

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

    Janner, Barnett

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

    Denville, Alfred

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Dickie, John P.

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Drewe, Cedric

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

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

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Dunglass, Lord

    Leckle, J. A.

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Shute, Colonel J. J.

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Remer, John R.

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Tree, Ronald

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Rickards, George William

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

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

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Roes Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Rothschild, James A. de

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Spens, William Patrick

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Stevenson, James

    White, Henry Graham

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Storey, Samuel

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Salman, Sir Isldore

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Salt, Edward W.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Womersley, Walter James

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Wragg, Herbert

    Selley, Harry R.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

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

    Sir George Penny and Lord Erskine.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Banfield, John William

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Mliner, Major James

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

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Cape, Thomas

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Jenkins, Sir William

    West, F. R.

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Daggar, George

    Kirkwood, David

    Wilmot, John

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Lawson, John James

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Leonard, William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Edwards, Charles

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. D.

    Graham.

    Ordered, That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended be now adjourned.— [Captain Margesson.]
    Bill, as amended (in Committee and on recommittal) to be further considered upon Monday next.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

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

TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS (CUSTOMS DUTIES).
  HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS (CUSTOMS DUTIES).
  RUBBER INDUSTRY (REGULATION SCHEME).
  RUBBER INDUSTRY (REGULATION SCHEME).
  MOTOR SPIRIT (CONSUMPTION).
  MOTOR SPIRIT (CONSUMPTION).
  COLONIES, SELF-SUPPORTING.
  COLONIES, SELF-SUPPORTING.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  SLUM CLEARANCE (COMPENSATION).
  SLUM CLEARANCE (COMPENSATION).
  PUBLIC ASSISTANT (ASSESSMENT, LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL).
  PUBLIC ASSISTANT (ASSESSMENT, LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL).
  OIL DUTY (POWER ALCOHOL).
  OIL DUTY (POWER ALCOHOL).
  GERMANY (BRITISH CREDITORS).
  GERMANY (BRITISH CREDITORS).
  NATIONAL GALLERY.
  NATIONAL GALLERY.
  UNEMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS).
  BACON AND HAMS.
  BACON AND HAMS.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Read 2a.

PETROLEUM (PRODUCTION) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That this House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I think it may be convenient if I say something now on a matter which affects certainly three clauses of this Bill, which was not discussed on the Second Reading, and which it would be difficult to raise properly on any one Amendment. I refer to the procedure under the Bill; I may say I do not expect any answer from the Government at the moment, but I think perhaps it is well that a feeling which is certainly shared by others as to the whole of the procedure of this Bill should be expressed at the earliest possible moment. The procedure under this Bill is rather obscure to follow. It is based on no fewer than three Acts, and there is a good deal of reference to those Acts. To understand it properly it will be necessary not only to master the three previous Acts but also the rules and regulations made under, certainly, one of them.
As I see it, the contemplated procedure, in default of explanation, is open to very serious objection. Under Clause 2 the licensing authority are to be the Board of Trade, and they are, subject to the consent of the Treasury, to grant licences on such terms as they please. So far as Clause 2 goes, they are the only authority. They are not
1026
bound to hold any public inquiry; they are not bound to hear objections; they are not bound to give the ground on which they give the licence to any particular person; they are not bound to consider the claims of competing applicants for licences. An absolute discretion is vested in them and, so far as Clause 2 goes, it might conceivably happen—though I am sure that is not the intention—that a licence might be given, and nothing would be known of it by possible competitors until the licence had been given; and, once the licence has been given, only that licensee, and nobody else, can proceed to the other steps necessary under the Bill.
Now I cannot help thinking that this is a very grave evil, and because I have no doubt that the Board of Trade will wish to act rightly, I do not for a moment say that they will not. But they are apparently to act quite arbitrarily. Suppose they gave a licence to some individual or some corporation, and it turned out afterwards that either there were objections to the individual or the corporation, or that another applicant had an equally good case and had not had it heard: I conceive that there would be very great indignation, and probably a great deal of untrue and uncharitable gossip. And all that would be avoided if an inquiry were held in the first instance.
Then I come to what happens when a licence has been granted. The licensee goes to the Railway and Canal Commissioners under Clause 3. It is not very clear what is to happen there. I confess I was somewhat reassured by an answer given to me on the procedure under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923. It does appear therefore that public inquiries are held and that objectors can come forward, but apparently there is no statutory right so far as I see. It all depends on rules, and you would have to burrow very deep to find what these rules are and how exactly they work. But if the procedure set forth in the answer to my Question could be made statutory, and it was certain that objectors would have an opportunity of coming to state their case, and also that there was an opportunity to have a local inquiry, which is a matter of great consequence especially where the amenities of a neighbourhood are concerned, then

1027
I think a good many of my doubts under that head would be resolved.
There is no provision, so far as I can see, for compensation and replacement if works are abandoned, as I think is made in other cases where compulsory powers are given. There are regulations under Clause 6 as to the applications for licences, and I suggest that they should be laid in draft before they take effect. As I read Clause 6 at present the regulations are to be made, and then there may be an opportunity of getting them disallowed afterwards. I suggest that the proper proceeding would be that they should be laid in draft and should not come into effect unless approved by the Houses of Parliament.
Lastly, I do not think Parliament ought to part with its power of supervising these schemes even after a public inquiry. I suggest therefore, that when a licence is granted by the Board of Trade and confirmed by the Commissioners, if that be so, a Provisional Order Bill should be necessary. Anyhow, I do submit there should not be two inquiries, one as to whether the licence should be granted and the second as to the terms on which it should be granted. Surely it would be much better to have one inquiry in all these cases I have put down certain Amendments to give point to my objections. I am not in the least wedded to them, but I submit there should be only one inquiry as to the licence and the conditions; that that inquiry should be an open one; that there should be statutory opportunity for all opponents to be heard; and that Parliament should reserve its power to revise or reject schemes made under this Bill. Of course, we are very much in the dark as to what schemes of development are possible under this Bill. It is a very different thing to develop oil and to open up rights of search for coal which is already proved. The whole aspect of a countryside may be changed and many people's property may be blasted by the erection of noxious refineries which come under the definition of works in this Bill. I have thought it well to raise all these points as soon as possible, and I trust that when we come to the Amendments the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill will give them sympathetic consideration.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Vesting of property in petroleum in His Majesty.
1.—(1) The property in petroleum existing in its natural condition in strata in Great Britain is hereby vested in His Majesty, and His Majesty shall have the exclusive right of searching and boring for and getting such petroleum:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply to petroleum which at the commencement of this Act may lawfully be gotten under a licence in force under the Petroleum (Production) Act, 1918, being a licence specified in the Schedule to this Act, so long as that licence remains in force.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I understand that the main Amendment upon which the first Amendment of Earl Peel on Clause 1 depends is that on Clause 2. Your Lordships will find it on page three of the Marshalled List in the names of Earl Peel and Lord Rankeillour—"Page 2, line 7, leave out subsection (2)." I believe also that the Amendment—Page 2, line 4, to insert after "persons" the words "and upon such terms and conditions"—in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, also depends upon it; so perhaps, with your Lordships' permission, we might follow the usual practice and take the discussion on this first Amendment.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I submit to your Lordships that I have points on Clause 2 which are not quite the same as that of my noble friend. They refer not so much to the conditions of the licence as to who should grant the licence in the first instance, and they also bring in the question of the Provisional Order. If we take the discussion on Lord Peel's Amendment it might be difficult to raise my points in effective form.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: We might take the general discussion on this point. I think we have done that previously.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The first Amendment is really consequential. It really follows on the other Amendments the noble Earl has on the Paper, and I should have thought, as I see it is your opinion, my Lord Chairman, it would be better if we took the whole discussion, which really raises the main point in the Bill, on the first Amendment by the noble Earl. Then, when the Committee

1029
has decided that point, it seems to me it would mean that the other Amendments would stand or would go on the result. The Amendments which are raised by Lord Rankeillour I must leave entirely to you, my Lord Chairman, but I think they could quite well come into this discussion.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: That is certainly what occurred to me. All the points that the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, wishes to raise could be raised in the general discussion.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: They could be raised in the general discussion, but I could not move the particular points in the general discussion, and my ammunition would be blank. I submit to your Lordships that Lord Peel's Amendment on Clause 2 being to leave out the whole of subsection (2), it would be a little hard if I were not able to raise the particular points I am putting forward.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am quite sure that your Lordships will find there is no real difficulty in this matter. It is possible for the Lord Chairman so to put the question as to safeguard the subsequent Amendments. It is all a matter of how the question is put.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think that if Lord Peel moves his Amendment this will not really interfere with the Amendments of Lord Rankeillour. It is true the discussion will take place with the latitude that can be enjoyed in your Lordships' House, which goes beyond the actual words of the Amendments put down by the noble Earl. Whether that Amendment stands or does not stand, the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, will be in order.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Of course the Amendment will be put when it comes, and if the noble Lord has anything to say he can say it. I think that was what was suggested by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I will move it now.
NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I am in the hands of your Lordships. I think it is not usual to move a later Amendment out of its turn. The Amendments must be taken in order, but I do net think
1030
the noble Lord will be in any way inconvenienced. The point he wishes to put can be put to your Lordships if we take the discussion in the manner suggested. All three Amendments will be put. I think we have had eases of this kind many times.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I may have misunderstood what is suggested. I understand that there is to be a general discussion on the question whether subsection (2) of Clause 2 stand part.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: No, the noble Lord is mistaken. The discussion should be on the whole effect of the three Amendments, and then, when your Lordships decide to follow the course which has been advised by the noble Earl, you would decide whether you accept the Amendments or not. That being the course of procedure suggested, I do not see that it will prejudice the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, from putting his point and getting your Lordships to accept it. We can discuss it on the first Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The matter appears to me quite simple. The discussion may take place upon the introductory words of my noble friend the noble Earl behind me (Earl Peel), but whether those words are inserted or not, an opportunity will still be open to my noble friend Lord Rankeillour to move his own Amendment when the time arrives. No doubt when my noble friend Lord Peel discusses his preliminary words he will, in the course of his speech, deal with a subsequent Amendment, but that will not as a matter of order preclude my noble friend Lord Rankeillour from moving his own words when we come to them, whether Lord Peel's preliminary words are inserted or not.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I want to come in at an earlier point.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The noble Lord can come in on the first discussion.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: If the question put is the one I have suggested I shall be shut out.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): Really I think my noble friend Lord Rankeillour cannot have noticed what is to be discussed. The Amendment, as I understand it, in

1031
the name of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, is an Amendment to insert the words "subject to the provisions of this Act." That comes in Clause 1, page 1, line 7, and whether those words are put in or not that will not in the least preclude my noble friend Lord Rankeillour from moving any Amendment on subsequent parts of the Bill when we get to them.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: Now I am quite satisfied. I am assured that Amendment could not be moved and that the later one can.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think the noble Lord is mistaken. What is going to happen, as I understand, is this. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, is to move his Amendment. We will then discuss it. One of the reasons, or perhaps the only reason for all I know, why he wants to move his Amendment is in order to pave the way for some later Amendments which he has down on the Paper. If his first Amendment is defeated, that may affect his mind as to whether he will move the later Amendments or not, but he will be perfectly in order in doing so whether he is defeated or not. In any case it cannot affect the right of the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, to move his Amendment when we come to it.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I am quite satisfied.
EARL PEELmoved, in subsection 1, after "is," to insert "subject to the provisions of this Act." The noble Earl said: I hope your Lordships will give me the credit for having observed a perfectly peaceful neutrality during the discussion that has raged among the experts. I do not want to press the humble claims of my Amendment at all on your Lordships. May I give a general description of my Amendment? Your Lordships will see, as the Lord Chairman has already observed, that a large portion of the substance appears on page 6, Clause 3, line 23. The noble Marquess, referring just now to my Amendment, said it was the most important point in the Bill. I respectfully desire to differ from that proposition. I do not put it forward as the most important point in the Bill. I think it is an ancillary, though an important point.
When your Lordships gave the Bill a Second Reading a few days ago no doubt
1032
you were moved by different considerations. There was the question whether the oil should be vested in the Government or the Crown. There was the question of working the oil. There was the question of altering the licence and things of that kind. We had a strong appeal made to us on the ground that for purposes of defence it was necessary this oil should be found and exploited, and that that could not be done under the existing Act. All those matters are left unaffected by the Amendment that I propose. I am not dealing with those matters at all. All I am suggesting is that the owner of the surface, when this oil is recovered, should have, anyhow, a claim to royalty, or some payment for it, and the State or the Crown, in taking over the oil, should give some recognition to the rights of the surface owner, and that there should not be, to use the pregnant words of the noble Marquess, that complete divorce between the surface and the substances below the surface. It will not have escaped the notice of your Lordships that when all these disturbances have been made on the soil, when oil is recovered royalties are paid to the State, and the only interested person who gets no advantage whatever, but some considerable disadvantage, is the owner of the soil himself.
We know that during the last few years the owners of the soil have gone through a very severe time. They have suffered very heavily from Death Duties and other taxes and charges. It does seem to me to be a little hard that this precise moment should be selected for inflicting upon them another disability and preventing them from getting any advantage whatever from a substance that hitherto has been in their full possession. This Bill itself, by its very texture, recognises that there is property in the oil below the soil, and indeed that point is further recognised by the fact that cases are exempted from the Bill where the oil has already been worked. My noble friend, the noble Marquess who introduced the Bill, told us that there were precedents for this. I do not know how much your Lordships are interested in precedents, but he told us that the State owned the silver and the gold and that that was a precedent for acquiring the oil. I do not think he will press any further his claim that coal under the sea is a breach in that arrangement,

1033
because I think the noble Marquess accepted the fact that coal so possessed by the Crown is possessed by the Crown as the owner and not in respect merely of ordinary Crown rights.
That statement did not, I think, convey an absolutely accurate picture of the state of affairs. Silver and gold have belonged no doubt to the Crown from time immemorial. Whether they were an exception to the general Common Law rights of owners to possess what was below the soil I do not know. I suppose silver and gold were presumed to belong to the Crown before any Common Law right existed. This taking without compensation, or taking by the Crown by Statute, of oil, is the first breach that has been made by Statute in the Common Law for all these centuries. There is no precedent for it and I want to impress upon your Lordships that the cases of precedent cited by the noble Marquess do not apply. This is the first case in which a breach has been made in the Common Law, and I think that your Lordships should pay special attention to that fact when setting up a new precedent.
The arguments of the Government in favour of giving no compensation are two-fold. First it is suggested that, owing to the liquidity of the material concerned, if the owner sinks a shaft in his own land he may draw oil from the land of adjoining owners. That is pronounced by the Government to be a very wrong and unfair thing. In that respect they are standing up most vigorously, and I think rightly, for the rights of landowners. They say, in effect: "Draw oil from your own land, but how wicked it is in that process to take oil from somebody else's land." That is a rather remarkable argument, because in another part of the case we are told that really there is no hardship in taking oil from people without giving them compensation, because, firstly, they do not own it, and, secondly, because they will not be a penny the worse. When it comes to a landowner taking the oil that argument is used against him, and we are told it is unfair to suck oil from your neighbour's land.
At an earlier stage I mentioned the point about water, because I could not see why the analogy of water should not have some influence on this case. As your Lordships know, you can sink a well
1034
and draw water from your neighbour's land. I need not dwell upon that because your Lordships are no doubt familiar with it. I have suffered myself from a large water company setting up an establishment eight miles away and drying up my wells. No doubt the water company made a very good thing out of it. I do not understand why there should be this indignation on the part of the Government against unprecedented and monstrous conduct in drawing oil from under other people's land when all over the country people are drawing water from under other people's land. So far as I know, there has been no expression of indignation in that case on the part of the Government either here or in another place. Therefore I do not think we need lay great stress on that argument. But surely the inference drawn from the Government argument goes a great deal too far. The Government say it is wrong that you should sink a well and draw oil from somebody else's land. It is rather a large inference from that to say that, because in sinking a well in your own land you may draw oil from somebody else's land, therefore neither you nor anybody else shall have any right in the oil. It seems a piece of—remarkable Whitehall logic, shall I call it?
Then the Government say that it is very difficult to ascertain who are the different owners of the surface on the oilfield, and because it is uncertain what are the limits of the oilfield and, therefore, what is the number of owners who have surface rights, that they should have no rights in the oil at all. Again, it seems to me a long step from saying that it is difficult to ascertain rights to confiscating those rights altogether. There would be a strange smudge on our law if that was the case. Everybody knows that every day in the Law Courts all sorts of difficult questions as to the division of rights are settled. Nobody suggests that because rights are difficult to assign they ought to be confiscated. I regard this argument as not really a very serious argument. Indeed, I do not think the Government rely on it very fully, because, after showing that there are a great number of practical difficulties and objections in the way of assigning exact rights to any owner as to the oil under his land, they proceed to what I may call their more general and main

1035
argument. I have provided very simply in my Amendments for dealing with this difficulty—that the matter should go to arbitration. Then the rights of these persons could be settled. There is no real difficulty. If there is a real intention to give people compensation for the oil under their land, the matter can be settled by arbitration, and it has been settled in the United States in many cases very easily by that method.
Not satisfied with that practical argument, the Government say that there really is at this stage no value in the oil under the land, and that therefore to take away from people what is of no value does them no harm. It is perfectly true, of course, that neither oil, nor clay, nor coal, nor any other substance is of value under the soil. It is of no value until it is abstracted and brought to the surface. But it would be a very far-reaching argument to say that because it has no value in the commercial sense, but only value in the potential sense, therefore ownership in it should not be recognised and no value should be paid for it. I think it is not unreasonable to apply that to things like ungotten coal, which, below the surface, has no value.
The other point on which the Government rely is this. It is a very remarkable argument. I do not know whether other noble Lords will go more fully into the matter. I merely indicate it. It is that a man has no property in anything unless he knows he possesses it; so that if you discover at any time that you have a property below the soil you have a claim to it, but if you do not know that a mineral is below the soil then you have no claim to it. I confess that distinction is rather too subtle for me. It involves examination into a man's state of mind on which it is extremely unwise, I think, that his property should depend. Another variant of this argument which has been used is that land has been bought and sold without the question of oil under the surface making any difference to the price. I do not know how that can be stated so positively by the Government, because a great deal of land changes hands with the reservation of minerals, and it seems to me to be extremely hard to say that the reservation of the possibility of the existence of minerals, whatever they are—whether oil in the form of coal, or coal in the form of oil, shall I say?—did not make some
1036
difference to the price. In fact, I am confident that in some cases that would affect the price; and taking that test of the Government, it is clear that a property is then established in the oil below the surface. So much, then, for the argument as to whether you know that you have the particular mineral under the surface.
I really am not quite certain upon which of these arguments the Government rest their case, because the arguments really are in the nature of alternatives. First of all the Government say: "You have no right to the oil under the surface; and if you have a right, then it is extremely difficult to assess the money value of that right, and because the apportionment is difficult we cannot assign any value to your oil." We were invited by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, to judge everything on its merits, and that no doubt is a very good rule. In fact, he said, I think, that it was almost a test of belonging to the Conservative Party that you should be prepared to discuss things on their merits. Therefore, if I express a slightly contrary opinion, I do so at the risk of being driven out of the Conservative Party, which I should much regret. But surely in certain cases it is just as well to consider whether any principle is involved in the decision on the merits.
I submit to your Lordships that there is a very great principle embedded in this, and that it is not enough to say, in an easy way: "Let us consider it on its merits." The Conservative Party in my opinion has many times made a great mistake because it did consider matters only on their merits, and because it did not go a little more deeply into the principles upon which those merits were based. And I may say that even if we do not go into the principles of the thing, there are other people and other Parties who will do so. I was much interested to hear the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on the Second Reading of the Bill, and the view which he took of the principles which were settled and determined in this Bill itself.
I submit that in this case there is at least a strong moral claim for giving the owner of the soil whose oil is taken away a royalty, or at any rate some share in the proceeds. Ought it all to

1037
go either to the Government or to some wealthy company which exploits the oil on his property? Is he to be the only person whose property may be damaged and who gets no value whatever from it except some sort of payment for the loss of amenities? I submit, my Lords, that that contention is really against natural justice. I think there was some feeling among the members of the Government that there was a claim for compensation, because the Government in the last resort did not rely at all upon all these arguments of practicality and of ignorance or omniscience.
I observe that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, in his speech in the debate on the Second Reading, urged your Lordships to pass the Motion for the Second Reading—and I suppose the argument applied to my Amendment as well—on the ground that it would be said
"that this House, which is accused of being reactionary and selfish, was so blind to the national interest…"
etcetera, and at the end of his speech he stated that such a "retrograde step" as throwing out the Bill
"would not only be a step vicious in itself, but would also be a step calculated to do untold harm to your Lordships' House…"
The humble submission which I put before your Lordships is this, that in any judgment yon give on this matter you should not be actuated by the consideration whether it does or does not do harm to your Lordships' House. I submit that the only thing you can do is to exercise your wise judgment on these matters and to exercise that judgment without fear, favour or affection. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, after ("is") insert ("subject to the provisions of this Act").— (Earl Peel.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble Earl in his speech, although he differs from me, has raised perhaps the most important point in the Bill. He has told us that there are other points, and that this one is ancillary to the other points, but I think that the principle of which he has spoken at great length and very eloquently is the one which is exercising your Lordships' minds at the present moment. It is true that this Bill has been given a Second Reading in your Lordships' House, but I would
1038
not venture for one moment to press that point, because I took occasion in the debate on the Motion for Second Reading to invite your Lordships very earnestly to consider this matter very carefully, and when we reached a further stage of this Bill, to give then the decision which in your wisdom you considered was the right one.
The actual Amendment which the noble Earl has moved is coupled with other Amendments to Clause 1 and with Amendments to Clauses 2 and 3, and those Amendments the noble Earl has put down for the purpose of giving expression to the views which he holds. By his proposal to delete subsection (2) of Clause 2 the noble Earl proposes to remove the specific power which is given to the Board of Trade to require the payment of a financial consideration for the right to work oil. Perhaps the noble Earl's intention, by this Amendment and the others to which I have referred, is to preserve the private rights in oil which he claims are in existence at the present moment and at the same time to limit the Crown to securing its financial return by charging fees, as they can under Clause 6, subsection (1), on applications for licences.
I am given to understand by legal opinion that by the noble Earl's proposed Amendment of subsection (1) of Clause 2, which preserves the right of the Board of Trade to grant licences "upon such terms and conditions as they think fit," the Board of Trade may impose a condition requiring the payment of a financial consideration, whether by way of royalty or otherwise. In this case the noble Earl's Amendment to Clause 1, combined with his Amendment to Clause 3, would only preserve the rights of mineral owners where compulsory rights of access were granted under Clause 3. Where-arrangements with third parties could be made voluntarily, the mineral owner would secure no royalty; where compulsion had to be applied to third parties, the mineral owner would be entitled to-royalties; so I venture to say that it is difficult actually to see the merits of the proposal which has been made by the noble Earl.
Of the three main arguments which I put forward in the Second Reading debate in favour of the proposals in the Bill, the first was that it was an almost

1039
insoluble problem to devise any equitable scheme for the allocation of royalties as between neighbouring landowners, owing to the relatively small size of estates in this country, and the impossibility of determining from what point in a petroliferous area the supply tapped by any boring is actually drawn. The noble Earl brushes that on one side and says that that could be done—that there is litigation every day in the Courts which decides matters of this kind—and therefore he thinks that in pursuance of of the principles which I understand he very strongly holds, this is a consideration which should in no circumstances come into the minds of the Government.
The second point I ventured to make was that unless we could determine a very clear definition of the ownership of oil, which involves the whole royalty question, the activities of those who are anxious to exploit the oil in this country, and find oil by boring, would be unduly hampered. In fact, one can say that the fact that no undertakings have been embarked upon, except in three cases, for the finding of oil, is due to the difficulties which I put before your Lordships on the Second Reading, and which I think it is obvious to your Lordships do in fact exist. In a moment or two I shall draw your Lordships' attention to what has happened abroad owing to the difficulties entailed in this particular point.
The third point, to which the noble Earl has made some special reference in his speech, is in reference to the fact that no one in this country can actually say that he is being treated unjustly, or is a loser from the point of view that he has been aware of oil existing under his property, and has either bought the property with that fact in view, or has sold it to a buyer with the reservations which are inherent to all properties now sold with minerals existing in those properties. The noble Earl says that this is the first Bill which contains this principle of an infringement of what he looks upon as the rights of private owners.
EARL PEEL: What the Common Law looks upon as the rights of private owners.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am prepared to say that the departure proposed by the Government is one which to modern generations is a novel one indeed, and whenever these matters are
1040
put before Parlaiment they require very careful consideration. I endeavoured to make clear to your Lordships, for what it was worth, what was my own personal opinion, and I have come to the conclusion that this Bill is a proper and just one to all parties in the State, by reason of the necessities imposed upon us for one thing, the difficulties which would be incurred if we adopted any other process for the second thing, and thirdly because in no circumstances can we say that any injustice is being perpetrated on any individual in existence at the present moment. I am inclined to think that the noble Earl is not aware that gold and silver were acquired by the State by Act of Parliament, and so there has been a precedent for the acquiring of minerals, but I am not anxious to press that point. I do not think it, is a very important point, and it certainly does not weigh very much in your Lordships' minds, because I hardly suppose there is anyone in this House who imagines that now or in the future there will be a great find of gold or silver. But the fact is that they have been acquired by the State; and if gold and silver were found in profusion in this country we should have a debate in this House on the Statute which was enacted some hundreds of years ago. That is a point, however, on which I do not wish to lay any undue stress.
The noble Earl has suggested that the problem in this country is a relatively simple one compared with that in the United States of America. He informed us on the Second Reading that the nature of the oilfields in this country through the geological survey are pretty well known. It would, however, be unwise to assume that this is so. The development of geological science and the accumulation of data from operations in various parts of the world have caused attention to be given to areas which were previously regarded as of little or no value as oil-bearing lands. In many instances, while the surface geology is well known, the sub-surface conditions and the extent of possible oil structures which might be revealed by drilling are largely a matter of surmise. The geologist may certainly reach certain conclusions, but only the drill can prove whether or not he is right. There are cases on record in established oil-producing

1041
countries where, with what appeared to be precisely similar geological structures, one has proved to be oil bearing and the other not.
The noble Earl next suggested that after every sort of experiment and every sort of mistake, many of the States in the United States of America have really arrived at a system by which they can apportion such royalties as there may be between the owners of the surface. If this were so, I would venture to ask why should there have occurred as recently as the last two or three years in a new field in East Texas one of the worst instances of competitive drilling which has taken place? This field was first brought into production in September, 1930, and by the end of December, 1931, 3,280 wells had been drilled. By February, 1933, the number had reached over 9,000 in a proved area of about the same size as the County of Rutland. So I think the density to be contemplated with the competitive system which the noble Earl seems to favour—
EARL PEEL: I don't.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: —would fill the whole population of this country with alarm. On the Second Beading I stated to your Lordships, and I think the Leader of the House did the same, that we had definitely come to the conclusion, after a very careful study of the question, that the policy we were adopting, whilst we agreed it was a novel one, was the only one which could be carried out in an industry which we hope may bear a great part in the future of this country. It may be speculative, and our prognostications may come to nothing, but we do feel that it is only by the provisions in this Bill that we can make a success of this undertaking. I ventured, at probably undue length, to state the misgivings which I myself felt in relation to the principle involved in this Bill; but I certainly came to the conclusion, after long thought and study, that the only way, in a progressive spirit, of dealing with this difficult and intricate matter was by the provisions included in this Bill. Therefore I hope your Lordships will not accept the noble Earl's Amendment.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: As I understand the Amendment of Lord Peel, what he desires to do is to put
1042
in words which will ensure that some Parliamentary powers will be imposed before a man's property can be taken away from him. As the Bill stands the clause reads:
"The property in petroleum existing in its natural condition in strata in Great Britain is hereby vested in His Majesty,…"
and nothing else. What that amounts to is that the Government can come down and say: "Because we think some person has some valuable property in land which he has either inherited or bought, without any safeguard by an inquiry by Parliament or by any body set up by Parliament, we, the Government, can come and take that property because we think it is valuable. "But what a precedent for use by noble Lords opposite! I can understand their coming and saying: "The banks of this country are a valuable property. In order to make people prosperous the banks should be nationalised." They are a valuable property, and they point to this clause, which says that because this is a valuable property the Government have a right to take it. It seems to me a most extraordinary proposition which may lead to any sort of revolutionary proposal which I am afraid the Socialist Party threaten to bring forward if they come in, which is not unlikely within two or three years.
The noble Lard says that there are precedents—gold and silver. I am not sure that I am correct, but unless I am mistaken I believe the taking of gold and silver occurred something like three hundred years ago, when morals were not what they are now, when there were plenty of highwaymen about and people who were only too anxious to take somebody else's property and make an excuse for doing so. I do not see very many representatives of the Liberal Party present, but I remember Sir Charles Dilke, who was a well known Liberal, saying in another place that because there have been bad precedents that was no reason why we should have another. That is an excellent principle, which I hope your Lordships will maintain.
EARL PEEL: I am very sorry indeed that the noble Marquess representing the Government is apparently completely adamant on the question of giving any advantage to the owner of the land for the oil underneath it, and that he has not moved at all from the position he

1043
took up on the Second Reading. There were one or two points of detail in his speech with which I should like to deal because, as he was turned away from me, I did not quite catch the full bearing of his argument that my Amendment would not deal with voluntary arrangements. If that is his view I am of course prepared to make any alteration to meet that point. If he is right on the question of the statutory right to silver and gold, I certainly was advised on this point by a very high legal authority, and I am rather surprised to find that the noble Marquess has a precedent, as he tells us. But he really did very grievously—though quite unintentionally—misrepresent my argument in one respect.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think it would be as well if I repeated what I did say, and that was that I was legally advised that where arrangements with third parties can be made voluntarily the mineral owner would secure no royalty, but where compulsion had to be applied to third parties the mineral owner would be entitled to royalties.
EARL PEEL: There is no difficulty whatever in putting down an Amendment to set that right. But where I do challenge my noble friend is on this. He said: "Look at what has happened in the United States, in Texas, where there has been free drilling and so many wells put down on a very small area." I dare say these things go on in Texas. My observation had nothing whatever to do with that. All I said was that in certain of the American States—and I was not thinking of Texas at that time, because I believe conditions there are rather disturbed—it was a question of arbitration and the assigning to the different owners of a share of the oil that was drawn away from their land.
He said, further: "What a chaos you would have if you had all these wells—one man drawing oil from one well and another from another." I never made any suggestion which could be interpreted into anything of the kind. I dwelt on this point on Second Reading, and I did not want to repeat my observations, but I said that the unitary development of these oilfields is one of the things that all geologists were agreed upon. There is no difference of view about that. I did say in the few observations I then made that I did not want to disturb in any way the system of exploiting the oil or to upset any arrangement that would be useful. I never suggested, and would not suggest, that it should be allowed to anybody in any oilfield to sink wells as he likes. I am all for unitary development. I am only suggesting that, subject to the principle of unitary development, oil should not be taken away without some sort of compensation, however small, to the owners of the surface.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Perhaps it is only right that I should tell the noble Earl that I have had given to me the Report of the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry, where it deals with royalties, and it says:
"The decision of the Judges in this so-called 'great case of mines' (Queen v. Northumberland) was in effect that only the so-called royal mines (i.e., those of gold or silver) belonged to the Crown, and that all the baser minerals belonged to the individual land owners."
It was the decision of Judges.
EARL PEEL: I am much obliged. My information, then, was right.
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 42.

CONTENTS.

Rutland, D.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Somerset, D.

Exmouth, V.

Forester, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Greville, L.

Sailsbury, M.

Hereford, V.

Hastings, L.

Knutsford, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Abingdon, E.

Ullswater, V.

Lamington, L.

Denbigh, E.

O, Hagan, L.

Dudley, E. [Teller.]

Auckland, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Redesdale, L.

Peel, E.

Carrington, L.

Remnant, L.

Radnor, E. [Teller.]

Cranworth, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Selborne, E.

Dynevor, L.

Strachie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Mersey, V.

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

Joicey, L.

Ancaster, E.

Amulree, L.

Marks, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Iveagh, E.

Barnard, L.

Rennell, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Bayford, L.

Rochester, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Carnock, L.

Rockley, L.

Midleton, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam)

Sanderson, L.

Munster, E.

Snell, L.

Plymouth, E.

Clwyd, L.

Stanmore, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Cottesloe, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Danesfort, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

BridgeMan, V.

Denman, L.

Hailsham, V.

Elton, L.

Templemore, L.

Halifax, V.

Ernle, L.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "and His Majesty shall have the exclusive right of searching and boring for and getting such petroleum." The noble Lord said: This Bill vests the property in petroleum existing in its natural condition in His Majesty, and it seems to a good many of us that that is going quite far enough. The only reason why I am not questioning subsection (1) is that I consider that on the Second Reading the principle was accepted that:
"The property In petroleum existing in its natural condition in strata in Great Britain is hereby vested in His Majesty."
But the Bill goes a little further, because it says:
"and His Majesty shall have the exclusive right of searching and boring for and getting such petroleum."
That is a very drastic provision indeed. During the War there were suggestions much on the same lines, and an Act was passed in 1918 which was also very drastic, yet on the other hand it recognised the right of owners to bore on their own land and recognised their right to royalties.
This Bill does nothing of the kind. As the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said, what this Bill comes to practically is that it is confiscation, if this clause stands exactly as it is now. A subsequent Government would have a perfect right to come forward and say: "The only part of this Act we are going to put into force is Clause 1, subsection (1). We are going to deal with mineral oil and we are going to deal with it ourselves." No doubt the Government will say that they have no idea of confiscation, and that they
1046
have no intention themselves of boring for oil, selling oil, and distributing oil. That is all very well, but my long experience of Parliament in one House or the other has convinced me that Governments always go upon the supposition that they are going to last for ever. It is quite likely that within a short time we may have a very different Government indeed.
No doubt this Government has all Parties represented in it, but the next Government may be a Government entirely composed of the Labour Party. What are the principles of the Labour Party? They have always contended themselves that, as regards production and distribution, these things should be done entirely by the State and not by private individuals. Therefore, it is not surprising if the Labour Party support the Government on this Bill. It seems to me you may be making a very dangerous precedent, because the same provision may easily be made in future as regards coal. It would be very easy for a future Government to bring in a Bill on the same principle as this to deal with coal in particular areas where it has not been so far found, and to say that the State shall have exclusive right to that coal. A Bill was brought in by a previous Government which provided that coal not proved should be confiscated right away and become the property of the Crown. If you are going to pass the Bill in this form, and allow no Amendments, it practically means that when the Labour Party come in they will be able to do practically whatever they like in this matter, not only in regard to oil but in regard to coal.
You have also got to consider the effect of the Bill on local authorities. It will

1047
prevent local authorites from being able to increase their income and lower their rates. Take for instance a county like my own where there is a coalfield. The county council has over 20,000 acres. Under this Bill, if there is any oil there, the advantage is to be taken away from the local ratepayers and given entirely to the Crown. And again I wish to point out that there is no limitation at all as regards the Crown. Clause 2 and Clause 2 do not apply to the Crown in any way. In the case of an ordinary licence there is some slight protection, but under this Bill there is no protection at all if the Crown —that is, the Government—should decide. and probably it would do so, to bore for oil and afterwards distribute it and sell it. It is really helping State trading, which I think the majority in this House are against. It would give the Government power to take the whole matter into their own hands. They would knock out private individuals and probably do a great deal of harm. The whole pith of my Amendment is that, although recognising that the Second Reading has, rightly or wrongly, agreed to the principle of oil being vested in the Crown, yet there ought to be some restriction even upon the Crown to bore for oil and distribute it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, leave out from the first ("Majesty") to the end of line 10.— (Lord Strachie.)
LORD HASTINGS: One feels that the omission which the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, is endeavouring to rectify was an unintentional one on the part of His Majesty's Government. Is it realised that as the Bill now stands the authority sought to be given by Clause 1 to His Majesty is absolute, and that, in the case of the licensee, he has to go through a number of preliminaries in the first place before a licence can be obtained? Having obtained the licence he then has to make good not his right to work his claim, but to work in a particular area, before the Railway and Canal Commission. As my noble friend said, there is considerable protection for the owner of the site upon which boring is to be carried on under the terms of the Bill, but let us suppose that a Government desired to embark upon State trading on a large scale. There is nothing in this Bill whatever which in the first place compels the Government to
1048
seek a licence, nor is there Anything in the Bill which compels such a Government to pay any compensation whatsoever for surface damage. There is nothing in the Bill to compel the Government to go before the Railway and Canal Commission. The power proposed to be vested in His Majesty is absolute. Unless some such Amendment as that moved by my noble friend Lord Strachie is made in the Bill, there would be no protection whatever for any of His Majesty's subjects against a Government which proposed to embark upon State trading without regard to the interests of such subjects. I desire therefore very strongly to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The words which were included in the Bill were placed there to make it clear that in addition to vesting the property in petroleum in the Crown, the Crown have the power, subject to certain other provisions which are mentioned in the Bill, to make possible the search for and to develop any oil which may exist, and in addition, that only those who are properly authorised shall have the right of searching or boring for oil. I am legally advised that it is very desirable to retain these words in the Bill. The Bill does not in any way bind the Crown, and, consequently, the deletion of these words would not prevent the Crown, or a Government Department which owned lands, from drilling themselves. There is, however, no intention on the part of His Majesty's Government to undertake drilling. But if it were considered desirable to prevent the Crown from searching on its own lands a specific provision would have to be made in this Bill. If the Amendment were accepted—and I ask your Lordships not to accept it—a further Amendment would be necessary to make it clear that no one who does not hold a licence can search or bore for oil. I ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment.
LORD JOICEY: I think this Amendment is a very important one, and before your Lordships take any action upon it there should be further consideration. It is a very easy thing to find coal, and under the present law there is no power whatever enabling the Government to take possession of coal. I think it is absolutely necessary that landowners

1049
should be protected in case other minerals are found when boring is taking place for oil. The point with regard to the payment of rates, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Strachie, is also an important one. There is a strong feeling throughout the country in regard to the Government not paying rates upon industries with which they are associated. I hope before we pass from this matter we shall have some assurance stronger than we have yet received from the Government that some provision will be made to make this perfectly clear.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: The words of this clause appear to be absolute and unrestricted: "shall have the exclusive right of searching and boring for and getting such petroleum." Is there any principle of Common Law which would prevent the Crown from using these words as conferring a right to bore upon lands in private ownership?
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: Before the noble Viscount replies I would ask him whether these words could be applied to a company guaranteed by the Government—whether, for instance, a company guaranteed by the Government could have the privileges which are given to the Government in this Bill? I should like to support what was said by the last speaker. I hope your Lordships will realise this is a very important point and will insist that the Government themselves shall have to apply for a licence on exactly the same terms as private individuals. I hope we shall get a satisfactory reply from the Government or challenge them on this matter.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I rise only because a question has been asked that I desire to answer. I do not want to repeat the arguments against the merits of the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Munster has put before your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, asked: Is there any principle of the Common Law or otherwise which would prevent the Crown from, entering into private property to search for oil? Of course there is. The answer is, the Crown has no right, and this gives it no right, to enter into any one else's land at all. I can give the noble Lord an absolute assurance on that. The Crown will neither have a greater or a less right; its right is absolutely governed and except for provisions in the case of
1050
an invasion, the Crown has no right to go on private property whether these words are in or out. My noble friend Lord Dudley asked whether this provision would affect a company whose capital was guaranteed by the Government. No, this provision would not affect it. I gather the question meant: "Would such a company have the right to search for oil?" No, it would not.
The real explanation of this is simple enough and not quite so serious as some noble lords seem to imagine. Under the words which we have already passed over, the property is vested in His Majesty. It is thought eminently undesirable that anybody who likes should search for oil. There ought not to be large inducements to it. But suppose they think fit to search for oil and find it, they might expect to gain a greater probability of getting the right to extract, and in order to give a limitation of the rights of drilling and searching for oil, which of course are not affected by the vesting of the property in the oil, it is provided here that His Majesty, which means, of course, the Government, shall have the exclusive right of searching and boring for and getting such petroleum. These words are not required to enable the Crown, if it ever wanted to do it, to make a hole in its own property. Whether these words are in or out, if His Majesty desired to sink a well under Buckingham Palace there is nothing to prevent him doing so, or if the War Office desired to sink a well on Salisbury Plain there is nothing to prevent them doing so. These words are required to enable the scheme which is followed in the later clauses, in which power is given to grant licences, to become effective. Clause 2, as your Lordships can see, gives power to grant licences "to search and bore for and get petroleum." Before you give power to the Board of Trade on behalf of His Majesty to grant. licences, Clause 1, with these words in, is necessary. It does not affect one way or the other the right of the Crown to sink wells in its own land if it were ever so foolish as to desire to do it.
LORD JOICEY: There is one point in connection with the Amendment to which I should like to draw attention. You may bore where coal mining is going on and affect that industry by flooding the mines. There is no provision whatever,

1051
unless this Amendment is passed, for preventing that. Surely it is very important in the County of Durham, where we have coal mines all over the place, that we should have some power to prevent boring if it is likely to damage the mines and bring in flood water. If you begin to flood one mine in the County of Durham, or in any other coalfield, you may flood a dozen. I think some provision ought to be made for that.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Perhaps I am very stupid, but I am not sure that I understand what the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House has just said. As I understand—I may he quite wrong—what he said was that the Crown, that is, the Government, may bore for oil under Buckingham Palace or on Salisbury Plain, but that they could not bore for oil on my property. I look at the Bill and I see in Clause 1:
"His Majesty shall have the exclusive right of searching and boring for and getting such petroleum."
There is nothing about Buckingham Palace or Salisbury Plain. There are certain words which have, as far as I can see, a clear interpretation, stating that His Majesty, that is, the Government, shall have the exclusive right of searching and boring for and getting petroleum. If that is the case, and somebody authorised by the Government, a member of the Government or an official, comes upon my land to bore for oil, it will be no protection if I say: "Oh, but in the House of Lords the Leader of the House said that these words did not mean anything."
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I did not say that.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: That is what I understood.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: May I correct the noble Lord? He says that I said these words do not mean anything. I made no such statement. What I said was that they did not mean what the noble Lord thinks they mean. I most certainly can assure the House—I cannot persuade my noble friend—
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am always open to persuasion.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM:—that in fact these words vest the exclusive right
1052
in the Crown so that the Bill may go on to make the Crown the only person who may give a licence. It gives no right to enter upon the property of any other person. That would have to be given by particular clauses and there are, in fact, other clauses which lay down the terms on which the Crown may grant licences.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: If that is so, why not accept the Amendment? I think I am right this time. The Crown cannot go upon anybody's property, but, having granted a licence to a certain person, that person can go on the land. That, as I understand, is all that the noble Lord opposite wants. Why not accept the Amendment or at any rate put in words to make it clear?
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection:
"() Where in any particular case the exercise of the exclusive right conferred upon His Majesty by this section is not delegated to a licensee under Section two of this Act the exercise of such right (in so far as it involves the entry upon or interference with land) shall be subject to all and the like obligations and conditions as would in the circumstances of that case have been imposed under this Act upon such exercise by a licensee."
The noble Lord said: I will move this Amendment very briefly. It is really very simple. It applies in a case where the Crown—that is, the Government—decide that they will have no licensee at all, and in that particular case it will protect the landowners. It provides that where there is no licensee
"the exercise of such right (in so far as it involves the entry upon or interference with land) shall be subject to all and the like obligations and conditions as would in the circumstances of that case have been imposed under this Act upon such exercise by a licensee."
That is to say, that in a case where the Crown exercises its right under this Bill and issues no licence, there will be the same protection to the individual landowners as if the Crown were bound like any other licensee. I could not hear what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said; he was addressing only his supporters, and he had his back entirely to me. I rather gathered, though, that he said that there was no intention on the part of the Crown to bore for and to work oil itself, and that it would as a

1053
rule grant licences. If that is so, I cannot see why the noble Viscount should not be inclined to accept my Amendment, because it only applies where the Crown itself—that is to say, the Government of the day—decides itself to bore for oil, and to raise oil and to distribute the oil.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 16, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Straeltie.)
LORD HASTINGS: I wonder whether the noble Viscount who leads the House would be good enough to tell us whether in fact the Crown will be enabled to enter upon land and bore for oil otherwise than after the receipt of a licence which can be obtained only in the manner prescribed later on by the Bill? The fear of those who have been speaking in favour of these Amendments is that the Crown is exempt from the ordinary conditions which apply to ordinary licensees. That is really all that there is in it: there is the fear that the Crown will be exempt, and there is a great desire that the Crown shall not be exempt. If the noble Viscount can tell us that our fears are unreal, that will very largely clarify the situation.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am always reluctant to state my own personal opinion about these things, because any lawyer may possibly be mistaken; but may I state what my understanding is and then add what I hope my noble friend will think is riot an unreasonable suggestion? My understanding of these provisions is that by the first subsection His Majesty has all the property in petroleum in the country vested in him, with the three exceptions set out in the Schedule. By the next part of that subsection, only His Majesty can search for petroleum. By Clause 2, to which we will come in a moment, His Majesty, acting through the Board of Trade, can grant licences to people to search for, bore for, and get petroleum. If His Majesty wishes to sink wells on his own property—that is to say, if the Government desire to sink wells on their own land—there is nothing in this Bill to prevent it, but if the Government wish to go on to the land of somebody else, then inasmuch as whoever went would go only by virtue of a licence, they would be subject to the conditions which are contained in this clause and would have to get a
1054
licence from the Board of Trade. I have stated what I believe this Bill provides, and inasmuch as I am stating my own opinion in answer to a direct request, if my noble friend and your Lordships' House think fit I will get that view confirmed, and if there is any doubt about it then we will, on the Report stage, put in words which will make it plain. I have no doubt that that is what is intended, and I am quite prepared to give an assurance that we will satisfy ourselves by consulting the proper authorities that that is the effect, as I believe it to be.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: May I ask one question: Is it quite clear therefore that only in the case of an individual wishing to bore on his own property can that boring be done without a licence from the Board of Trade?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Except the King.
LORD STRACHIE: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Licences to search for and get petroleum.
2.—(1) The Board of Trade, on behalf of His Majesty, shall have power to grant to such persons as they think fit licences to search and bore for and get petroleum.
(2) Any such licence shall be granted for such consideration (whether by way of royalty or otherwise) as the Board of Trade with the consent of the Treasury may determine, and upon such other terms and conditions as the Board of Trade think fit.
(3) The grant of a licence under this Act shall not be taken as conferring on any person any right to enter on or interfere with land.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR had given Notice that he would move, in subsection (1), to leave out "grant" and insert "make a Provisional Order on the recommendation of the Railway and Canal Commissioners granting." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which I had some fear would have been cut out. It is entirely due to a misunderstanding and I must apologise to your Lordships for the delay in the proceedings which that misunderstanding caused. If I may, I will move this Amendment in two parts, because two different points are involved, one point

1055
about the Provisional Order and another point about the position of the Railway and Canal Commissioners. I wish to move at the moment as follows: leave out "grant" and insert "make a Provisional Order granting."
The object of this Amendment is to secure that Parliament shall not part with its power in this matter. As the Bill is at present drawn I see no opportunity for a revision by Parliament of a licence once granted. I submit that if there is going to be any great development, the procedure should be such that at any rate Parliament shall know what is going on and shall have a right to express an opinion. I will come later on to the question of the nature of the inquiry and whether that is sufficient, but even assuming that there is an inquiry and that as the result of that inquiry the Board of Trade grant a licence, I submit that that licence ought to be brought before Parliament in the form of a Provisional Order. Operations under this Bill may be on a very large scale. You may have a great length of pipeline; you may have refineries, to which many people strongly object, and the whole question of public policy may be involved. I submit that it should not be left, with or without an inquiry, in the sole discretion of the Board of Trade. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I understand that the noble Lord moves the Amendment in a form different from the way in which it is printed. Do I understand him rightly to move in this form: Page 2, line 4, leave out "grant" and insert "make a Provisional Order granting" and does he wish to delete the other words?
LORD RANKEILLOUR: That is all I move now. The other words are omitted. I will decide whether to move the other words afterwards, when I know whether or not the word "grant" stands part of the clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("grant") and insert ("make a Provisional Order granting").—(Lord Rankeillour.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The Amendment my noble friend has moved is followed by other similar Amendments to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, by the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, and a further Amendment by the noble
1056
Earl, Lord Dudley, to insert a new subsection in Clause 2. The effect of the Amendment which has been moved now is that the Board of Trade would not be able to grant a licence under the Act to search for and bore for oil until the Railway and Canal Commissioners had made a recommendation that a licence might properly be issued.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: May I correct the noble Earl? I have now omitted that part of the Amendment.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: By altering his Amendment the noble Lord has made no provision for the grant of a permanent licence, so I understand that the noble Lord intends that the Provisional Order is to be confirmed by Parliament, virtually making the grant of each licence subject to Parliamentary approval. Am I right in that?
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I think not, because a number of licences could be comprised in one Provisional Order Bill.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: If that were done, a special Bill would be required each time a Provisional Order was to he made. But I would go further. An oil company of standing which might desire to secure a licence would very properly object, before it had secured any rights, to disclose for the benefit of those who had never suspected the existence of oil its belief that a certain area was likely to be oil-bearing. Such a belief would be based on the expert and technical knowledge which an oil company acquires as a result of its special experience, which it could not be expected to disclose for the benefit of all and sundry. The proposal is equivalent to saying that an inventor is to make public the details of his invention before he has secured his patent rights. The Bill at the moment places on the Board of Trade the duty of acting for the Crown as manager of its property in petroleum. The Board, which has acquired specialised knowledge in regard to petroleum questions and the grant of oil concessions, will have to satisfy itself as to the suitability of the applicant and his ability to develop any oil resources to the best advantage. Having obtained a licence the licensee has done no more than secure an interest in the petroleum. He cannot proceed to work the oil until he has secured the necessary rights of entry on the land. That is the stage at which the question

1057
of contemplated works will arise, and at this stage the Bill makes provision for the intervention of the Railway and Canal Commission if the necessary rights cannot be secured by voluntary arrangement.
The Amendment appears to contemplate that before the issue of a licence it will be possible for an applicant to indicate the places where he proposes to work. But it was made clear by Lord Londonderry during the debate on the Second Reading that one of the principal objects of the Bill is to enable licences to be granted in respect of very large areas. An applicant for a licence over an area such as may be contemplated would not be able to say in advance at what points he might wish to carry on operations. Accordingly, if the Amendment were accepted all those who are given rights of opposition in the whole of the area would have to be heard if they gave notice. There might be a dozen local authorities, and hundreds, and possibly thousands of owners and occupiers of land wishing to be heard. It is difficult to see what function the Railway and Canal Commission could perform when that stage was reached. Under the Bill the persons and bodies who are given the right of opposition have no rights in the oil, the property in which is vested in the Crown under Clause 1 of the Bill. When the stage is reached at which the licensee wishes to carry on the work of searching for and developing any oil which may be found, then, if he fails to secure the rights he requires by voluntary means, he can go to the Railway and Canal Commission, and the Commission has full powers under the Mines (Working Facilities)Act,1923.
As regards the proposal to apply Provisional Order procedure to the grant of licences, I suggest that for the reasons already given this procedure is not appropriate to this matter. There is the further reason that the adoption of such a procedure would involve very considerable delay in the issue of licences. It can safely he said that if the Amendment is adopted, it will defeat the purpose for which the Bill has been introduced—namely, to secure a proper and thorough search for oil by substantial people having at their disposal the best expert knowledge and advice. I therefore ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment, which the noble Lord
1058
has moved in another form than that which appears on the Amendment Paper.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: The speech of the noble Earl in answer to this Amendment throws a new and rather sinister light on the procedure under this Bill, because it would appear that only to officials of the Board of Trade, and perhaps to the President, are the purposes of the exploiters of oil to be divulged. The Board of Trade will settle with the licensee in private. The licensee will divulge his plans to them only, and there will be no opportunity to others, necessarily, to state their case. I venture to say that whatever the disadvantages of delay may be the disadvantages of this procedure will be much greater. I confess I do not think that the delays will be so great. Provisional Orders on all sorts of subjects are made by the Departments, and as a rule they are not opposed, but in a new departure of this kind I say that Parliament should be in a position to supervise and if necessary revise the proceedings now to be started on foot. If I receive any measure of support in this matter I shall feel bound to divide the House.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think, perhaps, the noble Lord is somewhat unduly alarmed. The Board of Trade are by this Bill placed in the position of granting licences, and I think the noble Lord will see that the responsibility placed on their shoulders is one which it is quite impossible for them to discharge without duly considering all the surroundingcircumstances. That the Board of Trade should have the right to grant a licence is a very important point in the Bill, and it is quite impossible for the Board of Trade to grant a licence to any one who is not duly qualified to bore for and develop oil in the best circumstances. There is another matter which the noble Lord, in spite of his long experience, fails to recognise. The Board of Trade are subject to Parliament, and if they have shown by granting a licence that they are not carrying out their duty properly, the Board of Trade for their misdeeds will have to answer to Parliament. I think the noble Lord must agree with what has been already said, that if there is to be delay, and the matter of considering who is to have a licence is to be a question about which there is to be wide and prolonged discussion, all those difficulties which

1059
have prevented the development of oil in this country hitherto will be re-developed, and we shall find that this venture, which we hope will be a success, will again be a failure as it has been in the past. I hope the noble Lord will not feel so suspicious of the Board of Trade as to the manner in which they are going to grant licences, and that he will not press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I should like to support the Government, if the Government were not taking such very wide powers under this clause to grant licences to anybody they wished. There is no limitation, and I hope they will meet us later on and propose some limitation. For instance, there is no limitation to British subjects, and I feel sure that Parliament would wish to discuss that matter. They can also grant licences on any terms they choose. We are giving the Government very wide powers indeed to grant very valuable concessions, and in view of these wide terms I feel that Parliament can hardly abrogate its responsibility in this matter.
Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: The question of the Provisional Order having been decided, I wish to move to insert the words
1060
If the Government cannot give us some assurance on these points that they will take them into consideration, I am afraid i shall be bound to support Lord Rankeillour's Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Perhaps I omitted to tell your Lordships, because I was under the impression you had heard what I said on the Second Reading, and also had studied the Bill, that the granting of licences is one thing and access to the land another. Before oil can be exploited there have to be all those negotiations with the owners of the land, and if those negotiations are not successful then it is for the licensee to go to the Railway and Canal Commission. Therefore the suggestion that a foreign company might surreptitiously arrive on the land is entirely beside the point.
On Question, Whether the word proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 19.

CONTENTS

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Elton, L.

Hailsham, V.

Ernle, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Halifax, V.

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

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Hereford, V.

Gainford, L.

Mersey, V.

Greville, L.

Ancaster, E.

Joicey, L.

De La Warr, E.

Aberdare, L.

Luke, L.

Feversham, E.

Arnold, L.

Marks, L.

Iveagh, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Marley, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Barnard, L.

Portsea, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Bayford, L.

Redesdale, L.

Midleton, E.

Carnock, L.

Rennell, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Rochester, L.

Munster, E.

Sanderson, L.

Plymouth, E.

Clwyd, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Stanhope, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Stanmore, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Danesfort, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal. L.

Denman, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Dynevor, L.

Templemore, L.

Exmouth, V.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Somerset, D.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Forester, L.

Hastings, L. [Teller.]

Dudley, E. [Teller.]

Auckland, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Lamington, L.

Peel, E.

Carrington, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Selborne, E.

Cranworth, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Remnant, L.

Strachie, L.

"on the recommendation of the Railway and Canal Commissioners." The point of this is that in the inquiry before the Railway and Canal Commissioners they should have the power to consider other

1061
applications and to consider the fitness of those applying and other relevant considerations. It is to give them a full inquiry into the circumstances of the case, and, if their recommendation is not to be confirmed by a Provisional Order, it seems to me to make this provision of the more importance.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, after ("grant") insert ("on the recommendation of the Railway and Canal Commissioners")—(Lord Rankeillour.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I do not think I can add anything further to the remarks which I made when the noble Lord moved his earlier Amendment. The effect of the proposed Amendment, as I said at the beginning, is that the Board of Trade would not be able to grant a licence to search or bore for oil until the Railway and Canal Commissioners had made a recommendation that the licence should be issued.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF DUDLEYmoved, in subsection (1), to insert the following proviso:
"Provided that where separate applications are made by two or more persons for a licence to bore for petroleum on land of which one of those persons is the estate owner the Board of Trade shall not grant the licence to any person other than such estate owner."
The noble Earl said: I think this Amendment is very largely self-explanatory. I am sure that noble Lords on this side of the House at any rate will so far recognise and. uphold the rights of private landowners as to give them under the conditions of this Bill some preference where other persons besides themselves apply for licences to bore on their own property. I am sure that your Lordships will think that that is only a reasonable right for them to have, and I hope the Amendment will be accepted. The words "estate owner" may be considered too wide. In that case, of course, I should be ready to accept any variation of the term, such as "estate owner in fee simple," or any other variation which would more distinctly specify the estate owner as apart from a lessee.
It may be that the Government will say that you cannot obtain a unified development and at the same time grant
1062
the estate owner this privilege, and of course I do not mean that the estate owner should be granted a licence for any dog-in-the-manger reason. If the estate owner is competent to bore himself and has the necessary capital at his disposal—and, after all, these are matters which the Board of Trade would have to go into in the case of any applicant for a licence—if they are satisfied that he fulfils these conditions, then I am sure your Lordships will agree he should have a preference to obtain that licence over any other applicant, no matter how large that applicant might be.
After all, if, say, a very large company who are already boring in other parts were disappointed at not being able to obtain a licence to bore on a certain property where the private property owner had been granted the licence, they could always come, to some arrangement with the private property owner to do the boring, if he so wished; but I do feel, and I am sure your Lordships will also feel, that where the private owner is competent to do the boring on his own property ho should be granted that privilege. The noble Marquess talked about persons who were incompetent to do this boring. I do riot know whether the noble Marquess considers himself personally competent to bore for his own coal. I do not know whether he considers I am competent to bore for my coal. But we both do it, and we do it in a competent and adequate manner, and if petroleum is found on our property why should we not have the right to bore for it in preference to other applicants? I hope your Lordships will support this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 6, after ("petroleum") insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Dudley.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: As I understand the Amendment the noble Earl has placed on the Paper, it is one which will in reality give the estate owner the right every time of having the licence before any other individual for that particular district. Under the terms of this Amendment the Board of Trade would not even have the right of ascertaining whether the estate owner was financially and technically qualified to do the work.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I do not suggest that for one moment. I thought I said in my opening arguments that the Board of Trade would have to make exactly the same inquiry in respect of the estate owner as in the case of any other applicant for a licence.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: That is not in the Amendment which the noble Lord has on the Paper.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: The estate owner will apply for a, licence, and in applying will be subject to the same questionnaire as any other applicant; but having satisfied the Board of Trade that lie is a competent person to bore, I submit he should have a preference over other applicants.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: That is not the Amendment as I read it. However, I shall deal with the points raised. Firstly, it is putting the Government and the Board of Trade in the most difficult position. If you accept this Amendment it will be defeating one of the main objects of the Bill, which is to enable the Board of Trade to grant licences to properly qualified persons and firms and, where necessary, to give exclusive rights over a very substantial area. If that area covered a district of 200 or 300 square miles you would have an owner coming along and saying: "I was first"; and, whether he was first or not, according to the Amendment which the noble Earl has put down, he would be bound to have that licence before a firm or other individuals who may be more competent to work the oil.
I will read one passage to your Lordships from the Report which was made in 1927–28 by Sir Thomas Holland, the very eminent geologist, who undertook a survey of the Trinidad oil industry at the request of that Government. He says:
"That it is necessary for Government to have the power to exploit Crown oil through its approved licensee or lessee is essential, and its decisions therefore should not be controlled by regard for independent private understandings previously made between surface owners and applicants for concessions."
There might be scores of applications for licences from estate owners each one of whom might conscientiously believe that he was capable of undertaking the search for oil. But a large percentage
1064
would soon discover that searching for oil is a highly speculative and expensive business. The licences having been granted would have a nuisance value, and if a bona fide oil company were induced to take any interest under such conditions it would have to buy out those rights at some stage of the proceedings. But the carrying out of operations by concerns inadequately equipped and financed can, and would, be very harmful, and I would even go so far as to say that if this Amendment is accepted it will stop any real likelihood there may be of a search for oil in this country being carried out on a substantial scale by competent individuals. I would therefore ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment.
LORD BAYFORD: Although technically the noble Earl, Lord Munster, is perfectly right in suggesting that the Amendment as it stands cannot be accepted, my noble friend behind 111C has raised a point with Which a great many of us are in sympathy. We do think that, other things being equal, the owner of the land ought to have the first choice. I think that is the point my noble friend wishes to raise. It is true that, as the Amendment stands, the Government cannot accept it, but they realise what is in my noble friend's mind, and I think they should give us some assurance that between now and the Report stage they will consider this matter and see if there is not some means by which they can meet the point, which I think is a good point, and one with which a good many noble Lords, on this side of the House at any rate, are in fullest sympathy.
LORD GAINFORD: I hope this matter will be considered by the Government. I admit that the Amendment as drafted is not at all complete, but it seems to me that if there are two applicants for a licence, and one is the owner, then, provided the owner is in a proper financial position and has the ability to carry out his undertakings, the owner's application ought to have prior consideration by the Board of Trade. Take for instance an individual who wants to bore for petroleum in somebody's park, and the individual who owns the surface in the Park also knows there is coal lying under the surface of the soil. He has not only got an interest in working the coal through the boring operation and ascertaining what coal there is, but he may be

1065
quite prepared to bore also for petroleum which may be below the coal.
As we all know, there is very little difference in the origin of petroleum and coal. It is vegetation which has been either compressed or turned into liquid fuel through the ages, and it does seem to me that an individual who is prepared on his own property to sink for petroleum ought to have at least as much right to do so as some company which may come along. Furthermore it seems that an individual who is prepared to do all the necessary work to get petroleum on his estate has a real interest in the buildings which may be erected in connection with it, and he is obviously interested in the people who come to reside there and to work. He also has an interest in the character of the plant which may be erected and the place where it may be erected. If, in all the circumstances, it seems to the Board of Trade that the applicants are on equal terms, fair consideration ought to be given to the owner of the property and the Board of Trade should not give preference to an outsider.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: If the Government would accept the principle which the Amendment implies, and which the noble Lord has just adumbrated—that is to say, all things being equal the property owner should have a preference over other applicants—I would naturally accept any words that would fit in with that principle. I have no wish to give a preference to a dog-in-the-manger property owner who wishes to obtain a licence and has no real desire or intention of boring; but it appeared to me that the Board of Trade, under this Amendment, would still have the right of questioning the applicant, even though he was the property owner, and, if the Board of Trade were satisfied he had not sufficient capital or sufficient organisation to bore and only meant to get his licence in order to trade it to an outside company, then, of course, I do not ask for any preference in that case. If the Government would assure me that between now and the Report stage they will give a preference on the lines the noble Lord has just adumbrated, I would be willing to withdraw this Amendment.
So far as the arguments of the noble Earl who replied with regard to the expense and in regard to inadequacy are concerned, I do not think they are telling
1066
arguments. After all, I can only refer to the fact that the noble Marquess who is in charge of this Bill and myself, under present conditions, get our own coal, and it is not said by anybody on this side of the House that we should not get that, coal on the grounds of expense. We may be foolish enough to attempt to get it; at any rate, we do get it; and I cannot see any reason why the argument of expense and inadequacy should apply to us in getting petroleum when it does not apply to us in getting coal.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I hardly think there is very much difference between us on this matter. The discussion has wandered very far from the Amendment which, in no circumstances, expresses the views the noble Earl has in his mind. I think it must be obvious to your Lordships that the Board of Trade, when they consider these matters, will endeavour to find the individual who is best qualified and best equipped to make a success of the venture of finding oil. One can rightly imagine that the person, if he is properly equipped financially and otherwise, would be the person who is owner of the soil. I cannot understand why the noble Earl is so apprehensive that the owner of the soil will be pushed on one side if he is properly and efficiently equipped to carry out the duty which, in the interests of the State, should be carried out not only efficiently and well but also harmoniously in consideration of the people who live in the district. I am bound to say I am not so apprehensive as the noble Earl on that point. I can assure him that this matter, like other matters which your Lordships have raised, will be very carefully considered between this stage and the Report stage, but I hardly think that words could be found which would really carry out the views that are in the noble Earl's mind.
The noble Earl made another point with reference to a licence having a "nuisance value." It was suggested to Lordships that the Amendment which is on the Paper should be incorporated in the Bill. That would mean that an owner would be able to establish a claim and place himself on his property, and if a licensee later on was able to make a success of boring for oil, he would have to come to some terms with the owner before he could successfully go

1067
on with the object he had in view. I am sure the noble Earl has no intention of that kind in his mind. I certainly have no apprehension that the Board of Trade or any other Government Department would depart from what is obviously the best way of carrying out the objects desired.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: On the assurance given me by the noble Marquess I am afraid I cannot withdraw the Amendment altogether. I would wish, with your Lordships' permission, to withdraw the Amendment as it now stands and re-draft it for submission on Report stage, embodying the principle with which I think your Lordships are in sympathy.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY THE EARL OF DUDLEY moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsections:
"(2) The Board of Trade shall cause notice of any application made to them for a licence under this section to be published in accordance with regulations to be made under this Act in some newspaper or newspapers circulating in the locality to which the application relates and in the London Gazette, and such notices shall specify the time within which and the manner in which objections to or representations with respect to the application can be made.
(3) If no objection or representation is duly made to the Board of Trade or if all objections and representations so made are withdrawn the Board. of Trade upon being satisfied that the proper notices have been published may if they think fit grant the licence, but in any other case they shall before granting the licence cause a local inquiry to be held and shall consider any objection or representation not withdrawn and the report of the person who held the inquiry:
Provided that the Board of Trade may require any person who has made an objection or representation to state in writing the grounds thereof and may grant the licence without causing a local inquiry to be held if satisfied that every objection or representation duly made and not withdrawn relates exclusively to matters which can be dealt with by the Railway and Canal Commission under Section three of this Act."
The noble Earl said: The Bill as at present drafted provides, as your Lordships will be aware, no machinery whatsoever for notifying estate owners of negotiations which may be going on between the Board of Trade and applicants for a licence. It affords no opportunity to private estate owners to lodge objections to those negotiations,
1068
which several noble Lords have pointed out will in fact be going on in secret at the Board of Trade. It provides no machinery for notifying neighbouring estate owners of the intention to bore in the neighbourhood of their property, and it provides no opportunity for those neighbouring estate owners to lodge objections if they should think it reasonable to do so. There is also no provision for any local inquiry to deal with any special local conditions which may arise in a certain district before boring is carried out, or in fact before a licence is granted. It is true that the Railway and Canal Commission under subsection (2) (a) of Clause 3 shall have regard, amongst other considerations, to the effect on the amenities of the locality by the proposed use and occupation of the land in respect of which the right is applied for. I think your Lordships will agree that in many cases it will be necessary for an inquiry to go much further than the inquiries which the Bill imposes on the Railway and Canal Commission at present. To begin with, I am not at all sure that the Railway and Canal Commission have the necessary machinery for setting up a local inquiry. I understand they are a body of gentlemen who sit in London and who have no power to appoint a local commission to enquire into local conditions.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Will the noble Earl forgive my interrupting him? I think, in replying to Lord Rankeillour's Amendment on line 4, I dealt with the points which the noble Earl now mentions, and I said beforehand that I would endeavour to deal with them on that Amendment.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I do not think the noble Earl dealt with the particular points I am raising, which are (a) whether there should be a local inquiry at all, and (b) whether the Railway and Canal Commission or the Board of Trade are the right people to hold that local inquiry. I am submitting by my Amendment that the Board of Trade are the people who should hold the local inquiry, but if the Government are able to assure me that the Railway and Canal Commission have the power to hold that local inquiry and will be empowered to do so by this Bill by the insertion of some such words as "having held a local inquiry" at the end of Clause 3 (2)(a), then I

1069
would be perfectly satisfied. I think that your Lordships will agree that there are many cases where it would be necessary that a local inquiry should be held.
My Amendment ensures that the necessary and proper publicity would be given locally three months before a licence is granted to an individual to bore in that district. That is to say, three months before the licence is granted notice will be given in the local newspapers and in the London Gazette. That will give a chance to the estate owners to lodge reasonable objections. It will give them a chance to make arrangements to bore themselves if they should desire to do so and to put in their application. It will give a chance to neighbouring property-owners to lodge their objections, and it will also ensure against undesirable persons being granted licences by the Board of Trade without due notice having been given locally. The noble Marquess said just now that it was unreasonable to suppose that such licences would he granted by the Board of Trade to undesirable persons. If the present Government, or a Conservative Government, were always going to provide the President of the Board of Trade, I should have no such feelings of fear, but I do not think the noble Marquess can vouch for the action of a Board of Trade appointed by a Socialist Government that may hold office in the future. I hope your Lordships will give your earnest consideration to this Amendment and that I shall get an assurance from the Government that the principle of it will be embodied in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 6, at end insert the said new subsections.—(The Earl of Dudley.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think there is a little confusion in the mind of the noble Earl, if he will not mind my saying so. There is a great distinction between obtaining a licence and what happens after that licence has been obtained. The person making the application goes to the Board of Trade. If he is a proper person to carry out the work and is capable of doing so, the Board of Trade will grant him a, licence. I think the noble Earl will see that that is not a matter for public inquiry. The individual must receive the licence because
in the opinion of the Board of Trade he is a fit person and capable of carrying out the work. If a public inquiry were to precede that, and the individuals in competition had to go before a tribunal to argue the case, it would entail delay and create difficulties which would be most unfortunate.
Once the individual has obtained a licence he then has to obtain access to the land and then comes the time for inquiry. An owner can refuse a licensee access to the land. He may have good and adequate reasons for doing so, in which case there would be no further steps taken, but if the licensee considers that permission is withheld capriciously he can go before the Railway and Canal Commission, who will then go into the matter and say whether it is proper to prevent the licensee exercising the right conferred on him in the licence. It is a matter which has been raised before in this debate. The noble Lord behind me desired that it should be done by Provisional Order, but your Lordships accepted the view that the best way to work the Bill is that the Board of Trade should have exclusive power to grant licences.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: May I ask whether in case of an inquiry before the Railway and Canal Commission they would be able to entertain objections that the licensees were not fit and proper persons, or to consider representations that other persons would be more fit to undertake the work, or would they under their terms of reference be unable to go into the question at all and have to take the licensee and only decide the way in which the licence should be carried out on the land?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think the answer to the noble Lord's question is that they would have to satisfy the Railway and Canal Commission, when these proceedings have arrived at that stage, that they were fit and proper persons to have the right applied for.
On Question, Whether the proposed new subsections shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 40.

CONTENTS.

Dudley, E. [Teller.]

Bertie of Thame, V.

Aberdare, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Exmouth, V.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Carrington, L.

Forester, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Cranworth, L.

Hastings, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Dynevor, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Remnant, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Lamington, L.

Strachie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Bridgeman, V.

Denman, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Elton, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

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

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Hailsham, V.

Gainford, L.

Halifax, V.

Greville, L.

Ancaster, E.

Hereford, V.

Luke, L.

De La Warr, E.

Mersey, V.

Marks, L.

Feversham, E.

Marley, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Balfour of Burleigh,

Rennell, L.

Midleton, E

Bayford, L.

Rochester, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Carnock, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Munster, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clan William.)

Stanmore, L.

Plymouth, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Stanhope, E.

Clwyd, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Cottesloe, L.

Templemore, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsections:
"() In determining whether any licence shall be granted or the terms and conditions upon which any such licence shall be granted the Board of Trade shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case and in particular to—

(i)whether it is more in the national interest that any minerals other than petroleum the getting or working of which would be prevented or prejudicially affected by the exercise of the powers of the licence should be got or worked than that the licence should he granted; and

(ii) the extent to which the searching or boring or getting of petroleum under the licence will or may prevent the getting or working of minerals other than petroleum or prejudicially affect such getting or working by causing the flooding of mines or in any other manner.

"() The terms and conditions upon which a licence shall he granted shall include an obligation upon the licensee to pay compensation to all persons interested in any lands and to all mineowners whose lands or mines are injuriously affected by the acts or operations of the licensee under the licence not being acts or operations in exercise of an ancillary right obtained by the licensee under Section three of this Act. Such compensation shall be determined by the Railway and Canal Commission in the same manner as compensation is determined under Part I of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923, and that Part as amended by any subsequent enactment shall (mutatis mutandis) apply for the purposes of this subsection and have effect accordingly.
"() In this section 'minerals' means all minerals and substances in or under land
1072
obtainable whether by underground or surface working."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment, like the Amendment which we have just discussed, is to protect as far as possible the owners of land and also to protect other industries working under the land. This clause seems to me to be in some ways rather contradictory. Subsection (1) provides:
"The Board of Trade, on behalf of His Majesty, shall have power to grant to such persons as they think fit licences to search and bore for and get petroleum."
That looks as if the Board of Trade have the right to grant a licence to any one to go upon other people's land whether they like it or not, to destroy the amenities of their mansion house or their park, and in fact to do what they like Subsection (3) provides:
"The grant of a licence under this Act shall not be taken as conferring ou any person any right to enter on or interfere with land."
Those two provisions seem to be contradictory. The object of my Amendment is, as far as possible, to protect the interests of the landowner. I hope the Government may be inclined to accept some Amendments. So far they have rejected every Amendment, although they evidently contemplate a Report stage, because the Leader of the House has said that on Report various questions will be reconsidered and something may be done in the matter. But if they refuse to accept any Amendments there will be no Report stage, so that I can only hope that on some occasion the Government may be inclined to accept an Amendment.
The object of my Amendment is to provide that in determining whether any licence shall be granted various considerations shall be taken into account, and that the Board of Trade shall be satisfied that the granting of the licence will not prejudice any existing or future coal working. I am told by those who are interested in this matter that the question is very serious indeed. In places where you have borings for coal, as has been said, you will sometimes have borings at lower depths underneath the coal measures. We all know that sometimes there is great danger when making these borings of flooding a particular area, and the Bill as drawn does not seem to protect against that danger either existing workings or future workings of coal. If borings were made to great depths in land in which it was known that coal existed, people might he very unwilling to go to the expense of putting down a costly shaft because they would realise that there would be a risk of the shaft being flooded out owing to the borings which had been made.
It is quite evident that this question has been before the Ministry, and not so very long ago. I understand that what happened was this, that as regards making boreholes or sinking wells for water the Ministry of Health actually asked the Mine Owners' Joint Committee to discuss this matter with them, showing that at any rate the Ministry of Health did not think that it was out of the question that boring for water or sinking wells might seriously affect workings of coal which might be rather near the surface. I think the Committee might consider very carefully whether there is any right to destroy old industries in order to start new ones, because there are certain cases in which that has occurred. It has happened, I know, in my own part of the country, where there is only a very small coalfield, in which, owing to flooding, one colliery has let water into another and has entirely prevented the working of that colliery and destroyed it. Under this clause of the Bill it seems to me that the same thing might happen.
There seems to be no provision to guard adjoining landowners from damage done by an owner who under licence is boring for petroleum, and the object of this rather long Amendment of mine is
1074
to give him some protection. It seems to me that taking the Bill as a whole there is precious little protection for landowners against the risk either that their coal mine may be flooded out or that the amenities of their estate may be entirely destroyed, or to ensure that there shall be any real or adequate compensation. No compensation is provided by Clause 2 for damage done by operating under a licence, as distinct from the compulsory acquisition of rights under Clause 3. I hope that if the noble Marquess will not accept this Amendment of mine, he may, on the other hand, be ready to say that upon Report he will further consider this matter, in order to ensure that owners shall be properly protected. I venture to think that the general feeling amongst coal owners, and indeed owners generally, is that under these licences to be granted there is no protection for them and that they must he very prejudicially affected. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, at end insert the said new subsections.—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: There appears to be still a certain amount of misconception of the position in regard to the issue of licences. Let me once again repeat what the method is and what actually has to be done. The grant of a licence does no more than assign to a licensee the rights which under the Bill the Crown will possess of searching and boring for and getting oil. The Bill makes it quite clear that the grant of a licence gives no rights to enter upon or interfere with land. These rights the licensee must acquire either by voluntary arrangements with landowners or by an order of the Railway and Canal-Commission. If an arrangement is made with a landowner he will obviously consider the effect of the grant of rights on the working of minerals of which he is the owner.
If the licensee goes to the Railway and Canal Commission, a specific duty is laid on the Commission under the Act of 1923 to consider whether it is in the national interest that a right should be granted. A licence to search for and get petroleum may be granted over a large area, and it would be impracticable for the Board Of Trade to consider the question of all other minerals which may exist in the

1075
area; but for the reasons already given it is suggested that there is no necessity for such a provision in the Bill. The question only becomes a practical one when a licensee wishes to start operations at a particular place, and I suggest that when this happens the situation is covered by the provisions of the Bill.
As regards the second part of the Amendment, assuming that third parties are not to be granted compensation there would appear to be no need to make any special provision, because the person granting the rights will presumably include in his terms something on this account. If third parties, on the other hand, are to be included in such cases, it seems illogical to exclude them where rights are granted by the Court. The question of third parties was carefully considered by the Government when the. Bill was being drafted, and it was decided that these must be left to their rights at Common Law in the event of damage or nuisance arising. I do not think there is any necessity for the noble Lord's Amendment, and I would ask your Lordships not to accept it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 2 agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY THE EARL OF DUDLEY had on the Paper an Amendment to insert the following new clause after Clause 2:
Appeals.
". Any person aggrieved by the refusal of the Board of Trade otherwise than pursuant to the proviso to subsection (1) of Section two of this Act to grant a licence under that section or by any term or condition as to consideration or otherwise upon which a licence is granted under that section may at any time within three months after the intimation to him of such refusal or of such term or condition by notice in writing addressed to the Board of Trade appeal against such refusal or such term or condition (as the case may be) and thereupon the Board of Trade shall refer the matter to the Railway and Canal Commission who after considering any representations made to them by the Board of Trade and hearing any other parties appearing to the Commission to be interested in the matter may either allow or disallow the appeal or (in the case of an appeal against any such term or condition as aforesaid) may allow the term or conditions with modifications or substitute a new term or condition and the decision of the Commission on any matter referred to them under this section shall be final and binding. Provided that where separate appeals are made by two or more persons against the refusal of the Board of Trade to grant a
1076
licence to bore for petroleum on land of which one of those persons is the estate owner the Commission shall not allow the appeal in favour of any person other than such estate owner."
The noble Earl said: I think your Lordships will agree that the powers of the Board of Trade under the Bill as drafted, with regard to the granting of licences, are altogether too arbitrary, and my Amendment provides a right of appeal.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: On a point of order, is riot this Amendment consequential to a previous Amendment moved by the noble Earl on Clause 2, page 2, line 6: "Provided that where separate applications are made by two or more persons" down to "any person other than such estate owner"?
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: Not at all. The point here is entirely different. This Amendment provides a right of appeal for any applicant for a licence who has been unsuccessful in obtaining a licence from the Board of Trade. At present any applicant who is turned down by the Board of Trade has no method by which he may appeal against the decision of the Board of Trade. In fact, the Bill gives the President of the Board of Trade a complete monopoly over the granting of licences. My Amendment would allow any applicant Whose application has not been successful to appeal to the Railway and Canal Commission, whose decision in the matter shall be final and binding. I might point out that the last six lines of my Amendment as it appears on the Paper, containing the proviso, are now out of order, because they refer to those persons who have failed to get their application granted owing to the fact that the estate owner was by my previous Amendment to have a preference. I now propose that any applicant who has failed to get a licence shall have a right of apeal and a right to have his case re-opened by the Railway and Canal Commission. I hope the Government will realise that the present powers of the Board of Trade are too strong and will accept this Amendment and give applicants a right of appeal.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The noble Earl omits the proviso at the end of his Amendment?
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: Yes. The last six lines.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Dudley.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The Amendment is designed to give any individual a right of appeal. Under the Amendment there are two grounds on which an appeal may be made. The first is against the refusal by the Board of Trade to grant a licence, except where a licence is granted to an estate owner, and the second is against any term or condition upon which a licence is granted. In regard to the first point I can assume that the noble Earl's intention is that an appeal shall only be allowable when the Board of Trade refuses to grant a licence to anyone in respect of a particular area, and not in those cases where the Board of Trade has selected one applicant in preference to another. If an appeal is to be allowed in the latter cases, with a right on the part of the Railway and Canal Commission to decide against a decision of the Board of Trade to grant a licence, I think the arguments already used on the Amendment to Clause 2 standing in the name of Lord Rankeillour will apply, as no substantial concern would disclose its plans with the possibility of having a right given to it by the Board of Trade withdrawn.
There are perhaps various reasons why the Board of Trade might refuse to grant licences. There might be unsuitability on the part of the applicant, or he might not have the necessary financial and technical assistance to enable him to carry out oil development work. There might be a third reason—namely, that negotiations were proceeding with another applicant who was better fitted to undertake the work, but who may only be prepared to proceed if allowed to take up a larger area, including that in respect of which another application had been made. As regards an appeal against any term or condition upon which a licence is granted, I would suggest that there is no substantial ground on which an appeal procedure such as is outlined in the Amendment can be justified.
So far as any financial consideration is concerned, the Board of Trade can only act with the consent of the Treasury. It is difficult, I think, to see how a distinction can properly be drawn between a licence issued by the Board of Trade acting for the Crown under this Act, and
1078
licences or leases granted by the Commissioners of Crown Lands. I submit that the acceptance of this Amendment would create a dangerous precedent. The issue of licences will in each case be made on the authority of a Minister, who will, of course, be ultimately responsible to Parliament should any suggestion be made of unfair administration in the granting of these licences. In those circumstances I would ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I think that is a very unsympathetic answer from the Government. I do not say that the Railway and Canal Commission are necessarily the right people, though they appear to be the obvious body. But some provision should be made for appeal by those applicants who have been turned down by the Board of Trade. Otherwise we might find the Board of Trade giving licences to unsuitable people, when rejected applicants were more suitable to do the boring, and they have no power of appeal under the Bill. Unless I can get some assurance from the Government that they will look into the question of appeal between now and the Report stage, I shall press my Amendment.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I can certainly look into the question the noble Earl has raised, but I can give him no definite promise that anything will be done.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Is there going to be a Report stage
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Yes.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 3:
Provisions as to compulsory acquisition of rights to enter on land, & c.
3.〔(1) Part I of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923, as amended by any subsequent enactment, shall apply for the purpose of enabling a person holding a licence under this Act to acquire such ancillary rights as may be required for the exercise (if the rights granted by the licence, and shall have effect accordingly, subject to the following modifications:—

(a) references to a person having a right to work minerals shall include references to a person holding a licence under this Act, references to minerals shall include references to petroleum, and references to the working of minerals shall include references to the getting, carrying away, storing, treating and converting of petroleum;

1079

(b) without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of Section three of the said Act, the ancillary rights therein mentioned shall include (in addition to the rights specified in subsection (2) of that section) a right to enter upon land and to sink bore holes therein for the purpose of searching for and getting petroleum, and a right to use and occupy land for the erection of such buildings, the laying and maintenance of such pipes, and the construction of such other works as may be required for the purpose of searching and boring for and getting, carrying away, storing, treating and converting petroleum:

Provided that where a right to lay and maintain pipes under a highway is granted by virtue of this subsection, Sections nineteen to twenty-eight and thirty to thirty-four of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, shall be incorporated in the order granting the right, subject to any modifications or adaptations specified in the order.
(2) In relation to any application made to the Railway and Canal Commission under Part I of the said Act, as applied by this section, the following provisions shall have effect:—
(a) the Commission shall, in deciding whether to grant any right applied for or what terms and conditions, if any, should be imposed upon the grant of such a right, have regard, among other considerations, to the effect on the amenities of the locality of the proposed use and occupation of the land in respect of which the right is applied for:
LORD STRACHIEhad on the Paper three Amendments to subsection (1)—at the beginning to insert "So much of"; after "enactment" to insert the words "as relates to the granting of ancillary rights for facilitating the working of minerals"; and after "shall" ["shall apply"] to insert "mutatis mutandis and so far as applicable." The noble Lord said: My object is to secure that the whole of Part I of the Act of 1923 should not be embodied in this Act. It does not seem necessary to bring extraneous mattersinto this Bill. For instance, under this Bill it does not seem necessary to bring in Section 8 of the Act of 1923, which deals only with restrictions on working minerals required for support. This Amendment is not damaging to the Bill; it is simply clarifying it, and applying only that Part of the Act of 1923 where boring for petroleum comes in. It cannot be said that Section 8 of that Act could have anything whatever to do with boring. I beg to move the first of these three Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 15, at the beginning insert ("So much of").—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I should like to take these three Amendments together. I am advised that in the view of the Parliamentary Counsel they are not necessary, but I am quite prepared to look into the point before the Report stage and see if we can come to some agreement to put down an Amendment at that stage of the Bill.
LORD STRACHIE: I shall be very glad to accept this if there is a Report stage. It seems to me that this is just one of the cases where a small Amendment might be accepted, but the Government seem to me to be accepting nothing.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Oh, yes, I am accepting one of the noble Lord's Amendments later on.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR moved, in paragraph(a) of subsection (2), after "the Commission shall," to insert:
"advertise their intention of considering the recommendation of any licence applied for in three newspapers circulating in the area affected, and shall hold a local inquiry before recommending the grant of the licence if required by any local authority or owner or occupier of land in the said area who binds himself under a deposit of one hundred pounds to appear in opposition to the recommendation. For the purpose of this section an area affected means an area within three miles of any of the contemplated works. The Commission shall."
The noble Lord said: I am not particularly attached to the actual words of this Amendment, but I want to get a statement from the Government as to what is the procedure under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act and the Railway and Canal Commission Act. I was told in answer to a Question the other day that the applicant under this Act is required to serve notice on the parties directly interested and to advertise by public notice in the local Press and elsewhere, giving full particulars of the application, so as to enable any other party interested to apply for leave to appear at the hearing. That, I understand, depends on summons for directions in each case, and I presume these summonses for directions depend on rules to be made. I should rather like to know by whom these rules are to be

1081
made, whether they can be revised by Parliament, and whether there is any objection, in view of the difficulties of this development, in making them statutory. Also I understand that there has been no local inquiry by the Commissioners under the Act of 1923. But I submit that they cannot very often properly discharge their duties as proposed under this Bill unless they do hold a local inquiry and consider, among other things, the effect on the amenities of the district.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 11, after ("shall") insert the said words.—(Lord Rankeillour.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I was unaware that the noble Lord was going to raise the question of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act and to go into the details of the Bill as he has done. but I will certainly make a point of examining that and answering his question at a later stage. As regards this Amendment and the other two standing in his name, which follow it on the Paper, the previous Amendment which the noble Lord moved was not accepted, but, if it had been, the necessary consequential Amendments, including one providing for the confirmation of Provisional Orders, would more appropriately be included in Clause 2 or a new clause. The second and third of these Amendments on the Paper would really make nonsense of Clause 3 (2) (a).
LORD RANKEILLOUR: These two later Amendments were consequential on the earlier Amendment, and I am not moving them. I am only moving the first of the three.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I regret that the Government cannot accept the first Amendment. I understood that all three of the Amendments were consequential on a previous Amendment which the noble Lord moved, but, as he appears to have some doubt in his mind on that point, I will examine it more carefully and give him a reply on the Report stage.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: Would it be possible to circulate something—I will put down a Question, if necessary—as to what are these rules under the Act of 1923, and by whom they are made and whether they can be reviewed by Parliament? That is really my point.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: If the noble Lord will put down a Question on that point it could no doubt be answered more fully.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph(b), to insert the following new paragraph:
"(c) provision shall be made for all works being carried out with due regard to the amenities of the locality and for reinstatement of the land on the ceasing or abandonment of any work; and if any dispute arises under this paragraph it shall be determined by the Commission:"
The noble Lord said: This Amendment speaks for itself. I think a provision like this finds its way into other Acts where compulsory powers are taken, and something of the kind is necessary in this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 23, at end insert the said new paragraph —(Lord Rankeillour.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: In subsection (2) of Clause 3 the Bill already includes provisions which are supplemental to those contained in the Mines (Working Facilities) Act, 1923, which are designed to protect the amenities of a locality in which oil development may take place and to enable additional compensation to be given where rights are acquired compulsorily. Under subsection (2) (a) of Clause 3 the Railway and Canal Commission is required in deciding whether to grant any right applied for, or what terms and conditions should be imposed upon the grant, to have regard to the effect on the amenities of the locality of the proposed use and occupation. It may be that at that stage the Court will lay down certain conditions, which may to a considerable extent meet the points raised in my noble friend's Amendment. If the Amendment were accepted in its present form a licensee carrying on operations might be liable to have his activities continually interfered with because someone in the locality objected to a particular stage of those activities, and complained that he was spoiling the amenities of the district. If no redress were obtainable the dispute would have to go to the Commission for determination, and this would impose an undue liability upon the licensee. It is perhaps not unreasonable to suggest that some provision should be made as to the reinstatement of land on the ceasing or abandonment of any work,

1083
and here again the Commission may take this into account in considering the terms of the grant. I am advised there is no need to accept this Amendment, and in that case I should be glad if the noble Lord would withdraw it.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Under paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) we are told compensation is to be paid, and I think the question is also raised by this Amendment. That is the question of compensation for damage to amenities in the event of refineries being put up which would change the aspect of the country, pipes being laid, and so on. But what happens after three or four years if the licensee is fortunate enough to recover oil and the whole country is ruined by the oil going over it? Is there a fresh chance to get compensation? It appears to me that the clause is drawn on the understanding that the owner of the surface is going to get damages while the prospecting is in progress, but I do not see in the Bill that there is any provision for compensation to owners—not only the large owners, but everyone who owns a cottage in the country—should oil be discovered and the district made very nearly unbearable.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The Government are by no means opposed to the spirit which actuates the noble Lord in moving this Amendment, and I think it will be best if the noble Lord and myself consult as to the form of words which will carry out the object he has in view.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I am much obliged to the noble Marquess, and I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Power to make regulations.
6.—(l) The Board of Trade may make regulations prescribing—

(a) the manner in which and the persons by whom applications for licences under this Act may be made;

(b) the fees to be paid on any such application;

(c) the conditions as to the size and shape of areas in respect of which licences may be granted;

(d) model clauses which shall, unless the Board think fit to modify or exclude
1084
them in any particular case, be incorporated in any such licence;

and different regulations may be made for different kinds of licence.
(2) Any regulations made under this section shall he laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if either House, within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulations are laid before it, resolves that the regulations shall he annulled, the regulations shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of new regulations.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "shall" for "may" ["The Board of Trade may"] The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 14, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I accept this Amendment.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR moved to leave out subsection (2) and insert the following new subsection:
"(2) Before any regulations are made under this section a draft thereof shall he laid before each House of Parliament and if either House within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such draft is laid before it passes a Resolution against the draft or any part thereof no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making of any new draft regulations."
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment of substance. The object of the Amendment is to provide that regulations made under this clause shall not become operative until they are approved by Parliament. As the Bill now stands it would appear that they may become operative before that. I think this is a matter that Parliament should consider before any effect is given to the regulations. There are plenty of precedents both ways, I imagine, but I submit that in a departure of this kind, especially when such great power is given to a Department, the regulations made by that Department should come up for the scrutiny of Parliament. To get an affirmative Resolution in the Houses of Parliament is a very different thing from opponents getting a negative one, and I think in this case we ought to lean to the side of caution and give Parliament

1085
a prior right before regulations come into effect.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 27, leave out subsection (2) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Rankeillour.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Under the Amendment which my noble friend has moved no regulations can be made until Parliament has considered them in detail. The fact that draft regulations would have to lie an the Table of each House for twenty-eight sitting days might mean very serious delay before the first regulations could be issued, and the same thing would happen to any amendment of regulations which had proved in practice to be unsuitable or unworkable. With the Bill as it is drafted at the moment. I would suggest to the noble Lord that the Board of Trade are given as much latitude as reasonable and effective administration demands, while full Parliamentary supervision is maintained to en. sure that the acts of the Department are kept under proper control. I hope the noble Lord may see his way to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I am afraid I am not very much impressed by the argument of delay. The delay under my form of Amendment would not be very long. but I know that whatever may be said about the general supervision of Parliament, the practical supervision very often makes the whole difference. In view of the great powers which the Bill gives to the Board of Trade I regret I am not content to withdraw.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I venture to ask the noble Lord to reconsider his decision to pursue this Amendment. The Amendment does mean that a great deal of delay would ensue, and in most of these matters I think the noble Lord will agree delay would be undesirable. The Bill provides very clearly that the Board of Trade are really very seriously confined in their actions, and these actions must come within the purview of Parliament at a very early date. While the noble Lord and myself are certainly guardians of the right of the public to sanction all these matters, still I hardly think the Amendment which the noble Lord has put on the Paper is one that is best calculated
1086
to carry out the object he has in view. I know it is very difficult to go on suggesting to the noble Lord that every Amendment he proposes involves delay, but I think he will agree at the same time that these Parliamentary usages and controls, to the principle of which we all subscribe, can mean delay which will cause injury to those who are endeavouring to prospect for oil in this country. I hardly think the noble Lord's Amendment really carries out the full object he has in view, and I hope he will see his way to Withdraw it. I can assure him that between now and the next stage of the Bill I will consider all his Amendments from the point of view from which he has moved them.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I am not wholly convinced. This is a matter of considerable importance and it is entered upon at rather a late hour. It raises the whole question of the supervision of Parliament over Departments. If the noble Marquess will not take the Amendments now, might I suggest that the proceedings in Committee be adjourned so that the matter may be fully considered before the Committee stage is resumed at some later date? If necessary I would make a Motion to that effect.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: There is one further point which might be put to the noble Lord. At present Parliament imposes a duty on the Board of Trade, after the passing of this Act, to administer it, and under the Act the Board of Trade has to make regulations. The Bill makes it clear what are the matters in regard to which the Board may make regulations, and after they have been made it may be found in practice that they require to be amended. While giving the Board of Trade power to make regulations, Parliament reserves its right to renew the regulations if it considers it desirable to do so. I can only emphasise what my noble friend has already said, that we will consider the point which the noble Lord has raised in greater detail at the next stage.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I think in the circumstances it would be best if this matter were further considered in Committee.

1087
I, therefore, move that the Committee stage be adjourned. I am not quite sure what the proper terms of the Motion should be. I understand now that the Motion should be that the House do now resume, and I move accordingly.
Moved, That the House be resumed.—(Lord Rankeillour.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I hope the noble Lord will not persist in the Motion he has moved. We have nearly got through the Committee stage. There will be another stage accorded to this Bill in which many questions that have been brought forward can be revised, if necessary. In view of these cir
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to prevent the recurrence of events such as took place in the so-called rodeo at Wembley in 1924. On that occasion very great cruelty to the animals was involved in the show and what happened, I think it is now agreed, could not possibly be dignified by the name of sport. The proceedings were indeed repugnant to public opinion, and it would have been quite unnecessary to ask your Lordships
cumstances, and in view of Parliamentary time, which is not always an easy matter to adjust, I sincerely hope the noble Lord will not pursue the Motion.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I am sorry to assume a hardness of heart which I am afraid I do not feel, but I do not think your Lordships are so overworked that time could not be found for the rest of the Committee stage. I am afraid that I feel obliged to insist on my Motion.
On Question, Whether the House shall be resumed?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 8; Not-Contents, 29.

CONTENTS.

Dudley, E. [Teller.]

Bertie of Thame, V.

Carrington, L.

Midleton, E.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Rankeillour, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

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

Gainford, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Bridgeman, V.

Lamington, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Hailsham, V.

Luke, L.

Remnant, L.

Ancaster, E.

Aberdare, L.

Rennell, L.

Feversham, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Rochester, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Bayford, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Lucian, E. [Teller.]

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Munster, E.

Onslow, E.

Danesfort, L.

Templemore, L.

Plymouth, E.

Elton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

to consider this Bill were it not for the fact that we are threatened with a repetition of the same thing. It has not been found possible to introduce a Bill to prevent the holding of a rodeo because that is a term which is not capable of exact definition in the sense in which it is desired to prevent it. There are three main points against which the Bill is directed. They are the lassoing, the wrestling and the riding of animals which are exhibited as untrained animals. In point of fact, these cattle which were supposed to be untrained and unmanageable were nothing out of the ordinary, as is proved by the fact that 149 of them which were sold after the rodeo ten years ago were found in Kent by the people who handled them to be as tractable as or more tractable than the ordinary cattle with which they had to deal. At this late hour I do not propose to weary your Lordships with evidence in support of the statements which I have just made.
I have here material which I could lay before your Lordships, but I have this excellent reason for not supporting what I have said in detail, that only three weeks ago or less this matter was raised in your Lordships' House by my noble friend Lord O'Hagan, and was explained in detail by him. My noble friend moved a Motion on the subject which had a very sympathetic reception from the noble Earl who replied for the Government. The noble Earl drew attention to the fact that a Private Member's Bill was about to be introduced in another place. That in fact took place, and the Bill passed through all its stages in another place without a voice being raised against it at any of its stages. I should think it is almost unprecedented for a Private Member's Bill to get so easily and so speedily through another place. In those circumstances I think I can confine myself to the statements which I have made, adding merely that certain objections have been raised by the Hunters' Improvement Society and some other bodies to certain aspects of the Bill which, while they are entirely in sympathy with the objects of the Bill, they think go a little too far in certain respects. Those objections have been met, and suitable Amendments, which will be of quite a minor character, will be moved at the Committee stage. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I should like to say one or two words in support of this Bill. Speaking not only for myself but for many others who hold the same views as I do, we welcome this Bill and trust that your Lordships will give it a unanimous Second Reading. I think it will be agreed that it is a remarkable thing, as my noble friend has said, that this Private Member's Bill in another place received unanimous support from all sides of the House. I should like to say also how gratifying it is to those who take the view that we have taken in this matter, that His Majesty's Government have been so sympathetic and helpful in another place. I am sure, after what the noble Earl said the other day in reply to my Motion, that we shall receive as sympathetic support to-day. I can only hope that as a result of the passage of this Bill, small as it may be,
1090
a step forward may be taken in the interests of humanity and proper consideration for animals, and also to raise the standard of feeling on this matter in the country as a whole.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, in view of the fact that in the debate on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, on April 11, I explained the existing law governing performances of this character, it is unnecessary for me to detain your Lordships further in consideration of this subject. This Bill passed through all stages very rapidly in another place without any opposition to the principle underlying it. His Majesty's Government have no criticism to offer, and I hope that the Bill will receive the approval of your Lordships' House generally.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COUNTY COURTS (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendment read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[The reference is to Bill No. 65 as printed for the House of Commons.]
Clause 13, page 11, line 17, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 20 and insert ("and the jurisdiction of the Court to hear and determine any claim mentioned in this subsection shall, save as provided in paragraph (e) thereof, be exerciseable wherever the owners or part owners of any ship in respect of which the claim is brought may be domiciled").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords,I need only detain your Lordships about two minutes with reference to this matter. The Amendment is to correct a small slip which was found to exist in this Bill after it left your Lordships' House and before it came on in another place. The first and most important part of the Amendment is to leave out of paragraph (g) of Clause 13 (1) the words:

1091
"unless it is shown to the Court that at the time of the institution of the proceedings any owner or part owner of the ship was domiciled in England."
The whole of paragraph (g) including these words was taken from paragraph (xii) of Section 22 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, which set out the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court. It is an extremely technical matter, but the object was to assimilate the admiralty jurisdiction of the County Court to that of the High Court, except as regards pecuniary limits.
Paragraph (g) relates to what may be called "commercial court" claims. A typical case would be where a consignee of goods wishes to claim against the shipowner for short delivery. In such cases the Court of Admiralty had jurisdiction only where the shipowner was not domiciled in England, whilst the County Court had jurisdiction irrespective of the shipowner's domicile. This was a strange exception to the general rule that the County Court admiralty jurisdiction was carved out of the jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty, but it was established by judicial decision. The effect of the Bill as drafted, and as it left this House, was to take away this peculiar jurisdiction of the County Court; and though the County Court on its Common Law side had concurrent jurisdiction up to £100, the result would have been to deprive litigants in claims between £100 and £300 from trying such cases in the County Court at all.
Attention, as I have said, was drawn to the matter, and it was clear that the Bill must be amended; and the Amendment on the Paper was moved by the Attorney-General and carried. The object of the last part of the Amendment is to make it clear, as a matter of construction, that so far as paragraph (g) is concerned, it is intended by Parliament that it should mean what it says, and should not be subject to any implied limitation based on the corresponding paragraph in Section 22 of the Judicature Act. The reference to paragraph (e) is required because in that paragraph there are similar words about the owner being domiciled in England. It relates to claims for "necessaries." There the County Court admiralty jurisdiction is and always has been the same as that of the High Court (except for the pecuniary limit) and nobody has suggested altering that position.
1092
While it makes a great practical difference whether the County Court has admiralty jurisdiction in a case or not, even if it be only exercised in personam, it makes less practical difference whether the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court is wide enough to cover a claim against a ship owned by a shipowner domiciled in England. In the High Court there is the alternative of suing in the Commercial Court; and if by mistake the action is commenced in the Admiralty Division, it can be retained in that Division by leave of the Judge. I regret to have had to trouble your Lordships with this technical matter. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
WALTHAMSTOW CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; and referred to the Examiners.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Blackburn),
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Shipley).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

NORTH LINDSEY WATER BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESinformed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on the 14th of February last discharged, and Bill committed.
NEWPORT CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
BARNSTAPLE GAS ORDER, 1934.
BRIGHTON ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1934.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to Which they think it necessary to call the attention of the
1094
House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (URBAN DISTRICT OF EGHAM ORDER).
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the urban district of Egham:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eight o'clock.