Sitting of 8 May 1934

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the County of York, West Riding (Hemsworth Division), in the room of Gabriel Price, esquire (deceased).—[Mr. Edwards.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  SCOTLAND.

    HERRING FISHING INDUSTRY.
    Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the communication sent from Buckie Town Council impressing upon the Government the plight of the herring fishing industry and the urgency of immediate assistance to enable herring fishermen to prosecute their calling and what action he has taken, or proposes to take, to deal with the emergency?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I have received a telegram from the town council of Buckie asking for Government assistance for the herring fishing industry. A petition containing a similar request has been submitted by the associations who represent the industry, and in conjunction with the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries I have arranged to meet a deputation from the associations on Thursday.
    Sir M. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on account of the uncertainty in this industry everything is at a standstill at the present moment; and will he endeavour to make some announcement within the next few days which will enable them to start preparations in earnest for the new fishing?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I realise the anxiety which exists in the herring industry, and
    888
    I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that on Thursday, when we receive the deputation, we shall listen with deep anxiety and sympathy to their statements, and try to assist them in every possible way.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the party of the hon. and and gallant Member is opposed to the principle of subsidies?
    Rear - Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETERasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether there has been since 1st January of this year any considerable export of salt herring to Russia as a result of the Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement?
    Sir G. COLLINS: My information is that no salt herring have been exported to Russia since the date mentioned, and indeed that very few have been available in that period. I understand, however, that the herring trade are negotiating with the Soviet's representatives with a view to a sale of herring cured during the coming season.

    CONVICTS.
    Mr. GUYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the average daily number of convicts undergoing sentences of penal servitude in Scotland during the years 1930 to 1933, inclusive?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The average daily number of convicts undergoing sentences of penal servitude in Scotland was 157 in 1930, 153 in 1931, 130 in 1932, and 126 in 1933.
    Mr. GUY: May I ask whether these figures do not indicate that there has been a steady decline in serious crime in Scotland under the administration of the present Government?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I am sure that we are all glad to notice the decline, but I must leave it to hon. Members to draw what inferences they like.

    EVICTIONS, BARRHEAD.
    Mr. MAXTONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the circumstances under which two families were evicted from condemned houses in the burgh of Barrhead and, having no alternative

    889
    accommodation, occupied empty condemned houses; and on whose authority the fathers of the families were arrested in the middle of the night, taken from their beds, and imprisoned in the local police station?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I am informed that on 12th April, 1934, the two families referred to were ordered by the Sheriff, at the instance of the factors, to remove within 14 days from houses which had been condemned in December, 1933. On 26th April complaint was made to the police that they had forcibly taken possession of two empty condemned houses belonging to the town council, and on the same day they were warned by the police that if they did not leave they would be apprehended. The two men were arrested by the police at midnight on 29th April under the specific powers conferred by Section 4 of the Trespass (Scotland) Act, 1865. The following morning the men pleaded guilty at the police court to the offence and were liberated without bail. I may add that they are still occupying the houses.
    Mr. MAXTON: Could the hon. Gentleman tell me on whose authority this was done? Does he take responsibility for the arrest and the imprisonment of men who have been rendered homeless under the operation of an Act for which he is responsible I Does he take the responsibility, or who does take the responsibility—locally?
    Mr. SKELTON: The responsibility in this matter is the local authority's responsibility.
    Mr. MAXTON: But is the hon. Gentleman aware that the local authority have never met to discuss this matter? I am asking who is definitely responsible for the seizing of two British citizens out of their beds because they had been rendered homeless?
    Mr. SKELTON: I have already stated the Act under which these men were apprehended, and the sequel. I have nothing to add to that.
    Mr. MAXTON: I am asking this—
    Mr. SPEAKER rose—
    Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. I asked the hon. Gentleman a question, and
    890
    he has answered me three times. He has said the local authority is responsible. I tell him the local authority has not met. I ask him who has done this thing?
    Mr. SKELTON: I have nothing further to say.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member put a point of Order to me. The Minister has given him a reply. Whether it is right or wrong is not for me to judge.
    Mr. MAXTON: I will raise the matter on the Adjournment. It is an outrage.

    CONTRIBUTORY OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Marquess of CLYDESDALEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the case of Mr. Andrew Gibson, of Dunottar, Granhill Crescent, Elderslie, Renfrewshire, who regularly paid his contributions towards old age pension from the inception of the Act until he retired from work at the age of 60, who on reaching the age of 65 applied for an old age pension, but was refused on the grounds that no contributions had been made between the ages of 60 and 65, although he was not employed during that time and although he was on no occasion notified that contributions should be continued during that time; and, seeing that he offered to pay up the arrears of contributions until he became eligible for pension, can he give an assurance that he will look into this grievance?
    Mr. SKELTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. My right hon. Friend has carefully inquired into the case, but I regret that Mr. Gibson cannot now qualify for a contributory old age pension.
    Marquess of CLYDESDALE: Is the hon. Gentleman quite satisfied that this man has had fair treatment?
    Mr. SKELTON: The conditions of the Statute must be carried out. Had Mr. Gibson, between the ages of 60 and 65, when he ceased to be employed, become a voluntary contributor, which he might have elected to do, he would now be qualified for pension; but, in the circumstance, I fear no action can be taken.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the statement in the question that this old gentleman never received notification from his society that he could become a voluntary contributor;

    891
    and does he know that it was the duty of the society to acquaint him with the provisions whereby he could qualify for pension?
    Mr. SKELTON: I will make further inquiries into that point. I think I had better postpone any observations until I have made further inquiries, and not commit myself to an answer, although I think it would be the correct one.

    DANGEROUS DEIVING (FINES).
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of cases in which fines of 10 guineas or less have been imposed upon persons convicted of dangerous driving in Scotland during the past year and the number of cases in which the fine exceeded 10 guineas?
    Sir G. COLLINS: During 1933 fines not exceeding 10 guineas were imposed in 206 cases, and fines exceeding 10 guineas were imposed in 38 cases, in respect of convictions in Sheriff Courts and the High Court of Justiciary on charges of contravention of Section 11 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, or on common law charges of dangerous driving.
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: May I take it from those figures that in the great majority of cases a man can drive to the danger of the public without being fined more than 10 guineas?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I would not like to commit myself to that view.

    SMALLHOLDINGS (HOUSES, LONGFORGAN).
    Lord SCONEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that many of the houses on the Department of Agriculture for Scotland's smallholdings at Longforgan, Perthshire, are in a state of dilapidation; and if he will make an inquiry into the position?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The smallholdings referred to are occupied under land-holders tenure, and the obligation of maintenance is on the holders concerned. Recent reports to the Department of Agriculture by inspecting officers do not indicate that the houses are in a state of dilapidation.
    Lord SCONE: Will my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of making further investigation, in which
    892
    case he will find that many of the houses will collapse long before they become the property of the present occupiers?
    Sir G. COLLINS: Officers of the Department will visit the scheme about Whitsuntide, and I will ask them to observe these houses with care.

    PUBLIC HEALTH (MILK-BORNE DISEASES).
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Prime Minister whether he will publish the report of the Scientific Committee appointed by the Economic Advisory Council to consider the incidence of milk-borne diseases; and whether steps will be taken to submit its findings to agricultural interests, as well as to medical authorities, before any legislative action is taken thereon?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The Committee's report has only just been received, and it has not yet been possible to consider the question of its publication. My hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that the interests of every section of the population will be carefully borne in mind by His Majesty's Government when they review the conclusions reached by the Committee.
    Mr. LAMBERT: As this is a Committee paid for by the taxpayer, may not we, as taxpayers, have the benefit of its advice?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It all depends. The rule has been that these reports are confidential until they are published. Otherwise, they remain confidential.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is the Prime Minister aware that this question of milk-borne disease is one of extreme importance as affecting the agricultural interest, and will he, if possible, publish the report?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As soon as I have had an opportunity of reading the report myself, I shall decide whether it should be published or not; and the bias is always in favour of publication.
    Lieut.-Colonel AC LAND - TROYTE: Have the Council considered the question of diseases being brought in by butter from foreign countries?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should imagine not, but I do not know. As I have said, I have not had time to read the report. I will do so as soon as I have an opportunity.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that medical authorities are not always right about the origin of diseases?

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    MINES (FLOODING).
    Mr. SPENCERasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that a number of mines in South-west Lancashire are threatened with flooding due to the accumulation of water in workings in the Westhoughton area; whether his Department will take steps to deal with the menace by means of a central mines drainage committee or, alternatively, if any other action will be taken by his Department or by the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): The answer to the first part of the question is, Yes. With regard to the second part, such powers as I possess, by virtue of Section 18 of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, are in practice dependent upon agreement on the part of a substantial majority of the coalowners concerned. I have been in close touch with the position in the Westhoughton area for some time, but I understand that no such measure of agreement is obtainable there at present. The water problem in that particular area, however, only forms part of a problem which affects, or may in course of time affect, a much wider area, and it would be better if it could be dealt with as a whole. I am, therefore, inviting the coalowners to consider the question from that point of view, and if I can help in any way, I will certainly do so.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: While thanking the Minister for what he is trying to do in this connection, may I ask whether he will be good enough to use the great influence of his Department to try to get a settlement of this very terrible problem; and is he aware that a whole area of several miles of the Lancashire coalfield is threatened by this water?
    Mr. BROWN: As the hon. Member knows, I recently saw a deputation on this matter, and we are doing all we can.
    Mr. TINKER: Is it possible for the hon. Gentleman to put his foot down, and to get more effective action?
    Mr. BROWN: I will talk to hon. Members about it later.
    Mr. PEAT (for Mr. MARTIN)asked the Secertary for Mines whether he can give any information concerning a memorandum which has been submitted to the Coal Mines Re-organisation Commission for a scheme to drain the flooded pits in the South-West Durham area and win the coal for the specific purpose of submitting it to a process of hydrogenation with a view to supplying the defence forces with home-produced oil?
    Mr. E. BROWN: I have seen a copy of the memorandum in question, which makes some general proposals for dealing with mine water in the Durham coalfield, including a proposal for a preliminary engineering survey of the whole problem. My hon. Friend will not expect me, within the limits of question and answer, to go into the many and complicated questions which arise in connection with a problem of this magnitude, but clearly the matter is one which must be considered, in the first instance at any rate, by the Durham coalowners as a whole. I am asking for their views upon the memorandum and upon the drainage problem generally, and I am offering to assist in any way I can.

    MINE EXPLOSIONS.
    Mr. MAINWARING (for Sir WILLIAM JENKINS)asked the Secretary for Mines how many explosions have taken place since 1920 to the last available date in England, Scotland, and Wales, stating in each case separately how many lives were lost in each explosion and how many were injured?
    Mr. E. BROWN: With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate the statistics in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the statistics :

    COAL MINES ACT, 1911.

    Explosions of Firedamp or Coal Dust : 1920 to 1933.

    Year.

    Fatal Accidents.

    Non-fatal Accidents (including all cases in which any injury whatsoever was caused).

    No. of separate accidents.

    No. of persons killed.

    No. of separate accidents.

    No. of persons injured.

    ENGLAND.

    1920

    …

    …

    …

    2

    4

    12

    19

    1921

    …

    …

    …

    8

    10

    13

    19

    1922

    …

    …

    …

    5

    50

    15

    23

    1923

    …

    …

    …

    7

    42

    19

    42

    1924

    …

    …

    …

    5

    11

    19

    31

    1925

    …

    …

    …

    3

    14

    16

    61

    1926

    …

    …

    …

    2

    2

    7

    11

    1927

    …

    …

    …

    5

    12

    16

    29

    1928

    …

    …

    …

    5

    23

    5

    20

    1929

    …

    …

    …

    3

    5

    9

    33

    1930

    …

    …

    …

    12

    57

    5

    40

    1931

    …

    …

    …

    8

    88

    13

    55

    1932

    …

    …

    …

    6

    40

    6

    51

    1933

    …

    …

    …

    7

    34

    12

    48

    TOTAL

    …

    …

    …

    78

    392

    167

    482

    SCOTLAND.

    1920

    …

    …

    …

    11

    13

    45

    72

    1921

    …

    …

    …

    4

    6

    17

    34

    1922

    …

    …

    …

    7

    21

    35

    74

    1923

    …

    …

    …

    7

    16

    29

    45

    1924

    …

    …

    …

    9

    9

    39

    50

    1925

    …

    …

    …

    3

    7

    39

    57

    1926

    …

    …

    …

    3

    3

    22

    35

    1927

    …

    …

    …

    5

    8

    33

    62

    1928

    …

    …

    …

    10

    13

    22

    52

    1929

    …

    …

    …

    7

    11

    34

    64

    1930

    …

    …

    …

    6

    13

    30

    73

    1931

    …

    …

    …

    3

    17

    22

    40

    1932

    …

    …

    …

    5

    15

    22

    34

    1933

    …

    …

    …

    1

    1

    17

    17

    TOTAL

    …

    …

    …

    81

    153

    406

    709

    WALES AND MONMOUTH.

    1920

    …

    …

    …

    3

    9

    18

    37

    1921

    …

    …

    …

    3

    3

    6

    12

    1922

    …

    …

    …

    2

    2

    18

    26

    1923

    …

    …

    …

    2

    2

    17

    25

    1924

    …

    …

    …

    4

    15

    19

    32

    1925

    …

    …

    …

    5

    8

    16

    35

    1926

    …

    …

    …

    —

    —

    6

    9

    1927

    …

    …

    …

    1

    52

    12

    31

    1928

    …

    …

    …

    —

    —

    6

    7

    1929

    …

    …

    …

    3

    18

    12

    23

    1930

    …

    …

    …

    —

    —

    9

    15

    1931

    …

    …

    …

    1

    2

    2

    6

    1932

    …

    …

    …

    2

    14

    9

    25

    1933

    …

    …

    …

    —

    —

    4

    8

    TOTAL

    …

    …

    …

    26

    125

    154

    291

    INADEQUATE VENTILATION, MINES.
    Mr. MAINWARING (for Sir W. JENKINS)asked the Secretary for Mines what number of prosecutions have taken place with the instructions of the Mines Department as a result of the reports of defective ventilation in the mines of Great Britain from 1920 to date,

    COAL MINES ACT. 1911.

    Prosecutions taken at the request of the Secretary for Mines under Section 29 of the Act, in respect of inadequate ventilation. 1920 to date.

    Name of mine and owners.

    Number of Charges.

    Result.

    1920.

    Gain, Lanarkshire

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1

    Conviction.

    (Glenboig Union Fireclay Co., Ltd.)

    Littlemill, Ayrshire

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1

    Dismissed.

    (Coylton Coal Co.)

    Lucy Drift, Glamorganshire

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1

    Conviction.

    (Thomas Merthyr Colliery Co., Ltd.)

    1921.

    Saron, Carmarthenshire

    …

    …

    …

    …

    3

    Dismissed.

    (Blaina Colliery Co.)

    Newdigate, Warwickshire

    …

    …

    …

    …

    2

    Dismissed.

    (Newdigate Colliery (1914) Ltd.)

    1922.

    Viewpark, Lanarkshire

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1

    Dismissed.

    (Addie & Sons' Collieries Ltd.)

    Stanhope. South Yorkshire

    …

    …

    …

    …

    2

    1 Conviction.

    (Old Silkstone Collieries Ltd.)

    1 Dismissed.

    Pentwyn, Monmouthshire

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1

    Dismissed.

    (The Pontnewynydd Coal and Clay Co., Ltd.)

    1923.

    Garforth (Trench), West Yorkshire

    …

    …

    …

    …

    2

    Convictions.

    (Garforth Collieries Ltd.)

    1924.

    Gartshore, Dumbartonshire

    …

    …

    …

    …

    4

    Dismissed.

    (Wm. Baird & Co., Ltd.)

    Clifton, Cumberland

    …

    …

    …

    …

    3

    Convictions.

    (Allerdale Coal Co., Ltd.)

    1925.

    Portland Nos. 1–5, Ayrshire

    …

    …

    …

    …

    2

    Convictions.

    (Portland Colliery Co., Ltd.)

    Diamond, Breconshire

    …

    …

    …

    …

    2

    1 Conviction.

    (Gurnos Anthracite Collieries Co., Ltd.)

    1 Dismissed.

    Brynlais, Glamorganshire

    …

    …

    …

    …

    3

    1 Conviction.

    (The Brynlais Colliery Co., Ltd.)

    2 Dismissed.

    Gwaunclawdd, Breconshire

    …

    …

    …

    …

    2

    1 Conviction.

    (Gwaunclawdd Abercrave Colliery Co., Ltd.)

    1 Dismissed.

    1926.

    Waunhir Slant, Carmarthenshire

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1

    Conviction.

    (Ashburnham Collieries, Ltd.)

    1927.

    Hebburn, Durham

    …

    …

    …

    …

    4

    Convictions.

    (Wallsend and Hebburn Coal Co.)

    Pantyffynnon, Carmarthenshire

    …

    …

    …

    …

    2

    Dismissed.

    (Blaina & Raven Anthracite Collieries, Ltd.)

    1928.

    Vogrie, Edinburgh

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1

    Conviction.

    (Paul, Gavin & Sons, Ltd.)

    Cwm Duffryn, Glamorganshire

    …

    …

    …

    …

    6

    Convictions.

    (Cwm Duffryn Colleries, Ltd.)

    1929.

    South Garesfield, Durham

    …

    …

    …

    …

    3

    Convictions.

    (South Garesfield Colliery Co., Ltd.)

    giving each year separately, and particulars where prosecutions took place?
    Mr. E. BROWN: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate a tabular statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement :

    Name of mine and owners.

    Number of Charges.

    Result.

    1930.

    Bank 1, 2 and 6, Ayrshire

    …

    …

    …

    …

    3

    2 Convictions.

    (New Cumnock Collieries, Ltd.)

    1 Dismissed.

    Rising Sun, Northumberland

    …

    …

    …

    …

    32

    28 Convictions.

    (Wallsend and Hebburn Coal Co., Ltd.)

    4 Dismissed.

    Bishop Middleham, Durham

    …

    …

    …

    …

    2

    Convictions.

    (Dorman Long & Co., Ltd.)

    Herrington, Durham

    …

    …

    …

    …

    2

    Convictions.

    (Lambton, Hetton and Joicey Collieries, Ltd.)

    Onllwyn, No. 3, Glamorganshire

    …

    …

    …

    …

    3

    Dismissed.

    (Evans and Bevan.)

    Milfruen, Monmouthshire

    …

    …

    …

    …

    3

    1 Conviction.

    (Blaenavon Colliery Co., Ltd.)

    2

    Withdrawn.

    1931.

    East Holywell, Northumberland

    …

    …

    …

    …

    2

    Convictions.

    (East Holywell Coal Co.)

    Hindley Green, Lancashire

    …

    …

    …

    …

    2

    Convictions.

    (J. Scowcroft & Co., Ltd.)

    1933.

    Ushaw Moor, Durham

    …

    …

    …

    …

    4

    2 Convictions.

    (Pease & Partners, Ltd.)

    2 Dismissed.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    SOUTH AFRICA (JAPANESE HATS).
    Captain DOWERasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if his attention has been called to the large quantities of hats composed of foreign hoods, and with bands and linings of Japanese manufacture, that are being sold by a firm in Johannesburg as British hats, stamped inside "Best English value;" and will he make representations to stop this unfair trading?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): On the general question involved, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave to him on 5th December last. Since that date a Debate on the subject of the protection of Union industries has taken place in the House of Assembly in the Union of South Africa, in the course of which very full information was placed before the Union Government in respect of Japanese imports into the Union. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the official report. As regards the special case dealt with in the question, I am arranging for the particulars to be brought to the notice of the Union Government.

    INTERNATIONAL WHEAT ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he
    900
    can make a statement with regard to the results of the Wheat Conference at Rome?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): The meeting of the International Wheat Advisory Committee which opened at Rome on 5th April was adjourned, and was resumed in London yesterday. I am not yet in a position to make any statement as to its proceedings.

    ANGLO-TURKISH TRADE.
    Mr. WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the trade situation between Turkey and Great Britain?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): His Majesty's Government are proceeding as rapidly as possible with the consideration of this question, but I regret that I am not at present in a position to make a statement.

    AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY (IMPORT DUTY).
    Mr. LIDDALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of agricultural machinery, including tractors, increased from 744 tons in the first three months of 1933 to 1,586 tons in the same period this year; and what action the Government intend to take?
    Dr. BURGIN: I am aware of the facts to which my hon. Friend draws attention. Any question of an increased duty on agricultural machinery is a matter for the import Duties Advisory Committee in the first instance.
    Mr. LIDDALL: What do the Government propose to do?
    HON. MEMBERS: Ah!
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the farmers of this country get the implements that they require at the cheapest possible price?

    HATS (IMPORT).
    Captain DOWERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the quantity of hats and caps of wool felt imported into this country during the first quarter of this year rose from 66,812 dozens to 161,424 dozens; and whether, in view of the embarrassment this increase has caused to the British hat industry, he will consider the advisability of adopting emergency means to deal with the matter?
    Dr. BURGIN: I am aware of the increase in the imports of hats, caps and other headgear of wool felt. The duties payable on these goods were increased less than a year ago on the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and the question of any further increase is a matter for that Committee in the first instance.
    Captain DOWER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these goods are coming from Czechoslovakia, which has recently revalued its currency, and will he say how we are to take action to safeguard ourselves?

    UNITED STATES.
    Captain FULLERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the growing opinion in the United States of America that, owing to our recently-established supremacy in the world export trade, they should plan to balance their imports and exports; and what steps he proposes to take to assist them to obtain this end by buying more from us?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am not sure that I fully understand what my
    902
    hon. and gallant Friend has in mind. But if he has any concrete suggestions to make, I shall be happy to consider them.

    GLASSWARE (IMPORTS).
    Captain SPENCERasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he is aware that the imports of glass bottles and jars have risen from 52,805 gross in the first quarter of 1932 to 119,331 gross in the first quarter of 1934; and whether he will state the reason for this increase of over 100 per cent.;
    (2) whether he is aware that the imports of domestic and fancy glassware have risen from 20,486 cwts. in the first quarter of 1932 to 84,854 cwts. in the first quarter of 1934; and whether he is in a position to give the reason for this increase of over 300 per cent.?
    Dr. BURGIN: I am aware of the facts to which my hon. Friend draws attention. Imports during the first quarter of 1932 were at an unusually low level, doubtless on account of the duty of 50 per cent. ad valorem then in force upon these goods under the Abnormal Importations Act, 1931.
    Captain SPENCER: In view of the growing anxiety of the workers in this industry, may I impress upon the hon. Gentleman the necessity for speedy action in dealing with applications?
    Dr. BURGIN: Yes, Sir. An application for an increase of duty is now before the Import Duties Advisory Committee.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Does not that show that our tariffs ought to be increased?
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: Are not these bottles used by fruit bottlers as well as by farmers, and are they anxious not to have their raw materials made dearer?

    ARMAMENTS (EXPORT).
    Mr. BERNAYSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, since the meeting of the Disarmament Conference in 1932, any licences for the export of arms to Denmark and Holland have been issued; and, if so, for what kind of arms and for what quantities?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I will have a statement prepared which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. BERNAYS: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman guarantee that these arms are not subsequently re-exported to Germany?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: That should form the subject of a separate question.

    LARD.
    Lieut.-Colonel KERRasked the President of the Board of Trade the average wholesale prices of lard in the United Kingdom, month by month, for January, February and March, 1931, 1932 and 1933?
    Dr. BURGIN: As the answer contains a table of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the table :
    According to quotations in the "Grocer" the average wholesale price in the United Kingdom of American lard in January, February and March, 1931, 1932 and 1933 was as follows :

    —

    1931.

    1932.

    1933.

    Per cwt. (in boxes).

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    January

    49

    7

    46

    5

    44

    11

    February

    46

    4

    46

    3

    39

    8

    March

    50

    3

    44

    3

    41

    7

    Quotations for home produced lard are not available.
    Lieut.-Colonel KERRasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that British bacon producers are being obliged, owing to the prevailing low prices, to sell their fat to soap manufacturers rather than render it into lard, and that the restrictions on the import of lard into Continental countries have the effect of increasing the quantity of foreign lard sent to the United Kingdom; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this situation?
    Dr. BURGIN: I have no definite information in regard to the first part of the question. I am aware that the importation of lard into this country increased in 1933 owing, no doubt, in part, to the restrictions to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. I would, however, point out that imports in February and March of this year were below the average of recent years. The position is being kept under review.
    Lieut.-Colonel KERR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that so late as 7th April the price per cwt., landed duty paid, was 31s. 6d. and on 2nd May was only 23s., and will he take steps to have an inquiry into the cause of this serious fall in price in so short a time?

    INDUSTRIAL SURVEY.
    Dr. MCLEANasked the President of the Board of Trade when he will give to the House the detailed report of the survey of industrial development in the United Kingdom since January, 1933?
    Dr. BURGIN: I hope that the report will be available to the House on Thursday next.

    BRITISH-CAUGHT HERRING (GERMANY).
    Sir M. SUETERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any information to show whether the fall in the sale of British-caught herring to Germany last year was caused by restrictions and currency difficulties, or by the action of the German Government in granting subsidies and the expenditure of large sums on new boats?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I have no doubt that the German import duties and currency restrictions, and also the augmentation of their fishing fleet, to which it is believed that the German Government have given some financial support, have contributed to the decline in the sale of British-caught herring in Germany, but I am unable to say how much of that decline is attributable to any one cause.

    POULTRY FARMERS (BANKRUPTCIES).
    Sir GIFFORD FOXasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of poultry farmers who have become bankrupt since November, 1932; and how this figure compares with the previous period of similar duration?
    Dr. BURGIN: The number of poultry farmers who have become bankrupt during the period 1st November, 1932, to 30th April, 1934, is 34; the figure for the previous period of similar duration, 1st May, 1931, to 31st October, 1932, is 14.
    Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Can the hon. Gentleman say to how many they will amount in six months?

    TRADE AGREEMENTS.
    Lieut. Colonel Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM-BULLERasked the President of the Board of Trade the countries with which trade agreements have been concluded and the date of termination of each agreement?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I will circulate this information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the information :
    Countries with which Trade Agreements have been concluded and when terminable :
    Argentine (two Agreements)—7th November, 1936, or thereafter on six months' notice.
    Denmark—20th June, 1936, or on three months' notice in certain circumstances.
    Estonia—22nd July, 1934.
    Finland—23rd November, 1936, or thereafter on six months' notice. On three months' notice in certain circumstances.
    Germany—After three months' notice.
    Iceland—28th June, 1936, or thereafter on six months' notice. On three months' notice in certain circumstances.
    Latvia—15th July, 1934, or at any time in certain circumstances.
    Norway—7th July, 1936, or thereafter on six months' notice. On three months' notice in certain circumstances.
    Soviet Union—After six months' notice.
    Sweden—7th July, 1936, or thereafter on six months' notice. On three months' notice in certain circumstances.

    BRITISH EXPORTS, DENMARK.
    Sir M. MANNINGHAM-BULLERasked the President of the Board of Trade what increases have taken place in the volume of exports of British goods to Denmark since the completion of the Anglo-Danish Trade Agreement?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The Trade Agreement with Denmark came into operation as from 20th June, 1933. During the nine months ended 31st March, 1934, the declared value of the exports of the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom consigned to
    906
    Denmark (including the Farö Islands) amounted to £9,220,000, as compared with £7,981,000 during the nine months ended 31st March, 1933.
    Mr. PIKE: How does that figure of increase compare with the increase of imports from Denmark to this country?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: My hon. Friend is mistaken. There has not been an increase in that direction.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is it not the fact that the adverse trade balance is still in the neighbourhood of £20,000,000?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Yes, Sir, but it is narrowing.

    IMPORT DUTIES (MANUFACTURED ARTICLES).
    Sir FRANK SANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the fact that 19 out of the 20 main groups into which articles wholly or mainly manufactured are divided show a large quantitative increase in retained imports during the first three months of this year as compared with the corresponding period of last year, he will make a general representation to the Import Duties Advisory Committee as to the desirability of scaling upwards the general level of tariffs now imposed on manufactured goods?
    Dr. BURGIN: No, Sir. It is for the industries concerned to make such representations as they may think proper to the Advisory Committee, who have at their disposal full information in regard to imports into the United Kingdom.
    Sir F. SANDERSON: Does not my hon. Friend consider that the time has now arrived when it is not only advisable but essential that there should be a general increase in the import duties?

    MANUFACTURED GOODS (IMPORTS).
    Sir F. SANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the Board of Trade Journal for 3rd May, 1934, which shows that the imports of apparel in the period January to March, 1934, are 37.4 per cent. higher than in the period January to March, 1933; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made as to the source from which this apparel comes, and ascertain whether it is the produce of countries whose standard of living is sufficiently low to warrant steps being

    907
    taken to regulate the import of such goods into this country?
    Dr. BURGIN: I am aware of the figures to which my hon. Friend draws attention. As regards the last part of the question, the sources of imports of apparel in the three months in question are given in the Trade Accounts for March, the principal countries being Germany, Italy, Japan, Czechoslovakia, Switzerland and France.
    Sir F. SANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can make an announcement on the policy the Government intends to pursue in respect of the level of the tariff on manufactured articles, having regard to the fact, as shown in the Board of Trade Journal for 3rd May, that the quantity of manufactured goods imported and retained in this country during the first three months of the present year were 25 per cent. higher than in the corresponding period of last year?
    Dr. BURGIN: I would refer to the replies given on 28th March to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins), and on 29th March to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams).
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Do I understand that His Majesty's Government are not themselves concerned as to whether our tariffs are adequate to protect our industries, and that, if the Import Duties Advisory Committee fail to make appropriate recommendations, the Government have abdicated their responsibility in the matter?
    Dr. BURGIN: I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend will draw no such erroneous conclusion.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: As every question has been answered in the same way, that it is a matter for the Import Duties Advisory Committee, what conclusion are we to draw?
    Dr. BURGIN: In the answer which I have just given to the question on the Paper I referred to an answer of the President of the Board of Trade, in which he said that the increases in the imports of goods were a gratifying sign of increased trade activity, and that one of the signs of an increase in trade will be expanding imports.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Would the hon. Gentleman remind some hon. Members that this is a National Government, and was not brought in on Tariff Reform only?
    Mr. CHARLES BROWN: Is it not correct to say, in view of what the President of the Board of Trade had to say yesterday, that the Government now advise the Import Duties Advisory Committee?
    Dr. BURGIN: It is quite untrue.

    BUTTER (IRISH FREE STATE).
    Mr. RONALD ROSSasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the present price per cwt. of Irish Free State butter in the United Kingdom and in the Irish Free State, respectively?
    Dr. BURGIN: Owing to the small quantity of butter imported into this country from the Irish Free State during the first three months of this year, quotations have not been recorded on the principal markets.
    Mr. ROSS: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that butter is now being unloaded into the United Kingdom in very large quantities since the embargo was taken off by the Free State Government in April?
    Dr. BURGIN: The actual fact is that in the first three months of this year the importation of butter from the Irish Free State amounted to less than one-quarter of 1 per cent. of our imports.
    Mr. ROSS: Will the hon. Gentleman say what proportion it amounts to at the present day?
    Dr. BURGIN: This is for the first three months of this year, which is about as near as I can get.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Is not the Irish Free State a part of the British Empire, not to be treated as a hostile State?
    Mr. ROSSasked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of duty per cwt. of butter imported into the United Kingdom from the Irish Free State?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The average amount of duty on butter imported from the Irish Free State at the present time is about 19s. per cwt.
    Mr. ROSSasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what is the amount of duty per hundredweight charged on United Kingdom butter exported to the Irish Free State?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The duty payable on United Kingdom butter on importation into the Irish Free State is £3 14s. 8d. per cwt. According to my information, butter imported for use in the manufacture of articles of food mainly for exportation is exempted from payment of this duty, but is subject to a levy proportionate to the export bounty payable on factory butter. Small quantities of Northern Ireland butter enjoy free importation under certain special conditions.
    Mr. ROSS: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider that there should be equality in these matters and, in order that Irish ideas may prevail, would he see that the duty is raised from 19s. to £3 14 s.?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: That question should be addressed to another Department.

    SILK (IMPORT DUTIES).
    Captain STRICKLANDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the potential serious consequences to the silk and artificial silk industry of the long delay in recommitting the consideration of increased import duties to the Import Duties Advisory Committee; and whether he can now make a statement as to the position?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade informed the House yesterday, I have asked the Import Duties Advisory Committee to resume its work on the revision of the silk and artificial silk duties with a view to the submission to the Government, at as early a date as may be possible, of such recommendations as the Committee may see fit to make.

    IRISH FREE STATE CATTLE.
    Major-General Sir Alfred KNOXasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total number of beasts from the Irish Free State which paid import duty in the first three months of 1933 and 1934; and what was the total amount of the duty paid?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The total number of live quadruped animals imported into the United Kingdom from the Irish Free State during the first three months of 1933, was 236,000, and the net amount of duty paid thereon £593,000. During the first three months of 1934 the number of such animals imported was 213,000 and the net amount of duty paid £599,000.
    Sir A. KNOX: Does not the reduction of the figure in the last three months show that smuggling is going on from Ulster to a large extent?

    DYERS AND CLEANERS (PETROL DUTY).
    Captain MOSSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will make-a statement regarding his recent interview with a deputation from the dyers and cleaners industry on the subject of the petrol tax; and is he aware that this tax is equivalent to 100 per cent. on an important raw material in this industry?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As has been repeatedly stated, a policy of exemptions from this tax could not be justified. I pointed out to the deputation, and I trust obtained their concurrence, that such distresses as afflicted the industry were largely attributable to causes other than the petrol tax. I am aware that the ad valorem incidence of the tax is approximately as stated in the second part of the question.

    HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS (DUTIES).
    Mr. LENNOX-BOYDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Import Duties Board does in fact take into consideration the advisability of recommending a duty on any horticultural product (as for instance onions) which is not at the present time produced in the United Kingdom in quantities which are substantial in relation to United Kingdom consumption, but the production of which is in the United Kingdom capable of considerable expansion?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The functions of the Committee are laid down in Section 3 of the Import Duties Act, and extend to articles of a kind which, in their opinion, are likely within a reasonable time to be produced in the United Kingdom in quantities which are substantial in relation to United Kingdom consumption.
    Mr. GLOSSOP: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that the increased consumption of British onions would raise people up physically even if it lowered them socially?
    Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITE (for Mr. LOUIS SMITH)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give an undertaking that in the trade negotiations with the Dutch. Government no concessions will be given with regard to the importation of Dutch horticultural produce into this country which will in any way affect adversely the recent improvement in the horticultural industry in Great Britain?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) on 3rd May.

    ANGLO-POLISH TRADE.
    Captain CAZALETasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he can give the House any further information concerning the recent Anglo-Polish negotiations for a trade agreement; and whether any orders for goods have been placed in this country recently by the Polish Government?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I presume that my hon. and gallant Friend is

    The following table shows the average declared value (c.i.f.) per cwt. of butter imported into the United Kingdom and consigned from the undermentioned countries during the periods specified.

    Period.

    Average declared value (c.i.f.) per cwt. of butter consigned from—

    Australia.

    New Zealand.

    Denmark.

    Netherlands.

    Soviet Union.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    1929

    …

    …

    8

    5

    2

    8

    13

    0

    8

    19

    1

    8

    4

    8

    7

    18

    5

    1930

    …

    …

    6

    6

    7

    6

    17

    11

    7

    7

    6

    7

    8

    0

    6

    1

    6

    1931

    …

    …

    5

    7

    2

    5

    11

    11

    6

    8

    10

    6

    4

    6

    4

    17

    5

    1932

    …

    …

    4

    16

    0

    5

    1

    5

    5

    4

    0

    5

    5

    11

    3

    16

    6

    1933

    …

    …

    3

    17

    2

    4

    1

    2

    4

    4

    11

    3

    19

    1

    3

    0

    7

    1934 (January to March).

    3

    5

    11

    3

    9

    7

    3

    12

    9

    3

    11

    4

    2

    1

    8

    The value of the imports from the foreign countries specified is exclusive of Customs Duty, which was 10 per cent. ad. valorem from 1st March to 15th November, 1932, and 15s. per cwt. subsequently.

  PANAMA CORPORATION, CANADA (DEBENTURE HOLDERS).
  Mr. JOHN WILMOTasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs
  referring to the recent mission to Poland. The reports or the various delegates have now been received and are being carefully considered in connection with the preparation for the official negotiations. As regards the second part of the question, it has recently been announced in the Press that the Westinghouse Brake and Saxby Signal Company have concluded a contract with the Polish Government for £4,800,000 in connection with the fitting of air brakes on the Polish State railways. Other important contracts involving some £2,000,000 have been secured by British firms in Poland in recent months.

  PANAMA CORPORATION, CANADA (DEBENTURE HOLDERS).

    BUTTER IMPORTS (PRICES).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS (for Duchess of ATHOLL)asked the President of the Board of Trade the average price at which butter has been imported from Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, the Netherlands, and the Soviet Union during the years 1929 to 1933, respectively, and the first three months of 1934?
    Dr. BURGIN: As the answer involves a table of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the table :
    whether his attention has been drawn to the proposals of the Panama Corporation, Canada, to its debenture holders; and will he allow a representative of his

    913
    Department to follow the proceedings so that the Board of Trade may be conversant with the proposals in order that he may, if necessary, take action for the protection of the unorganised and scattered United Kingdom debenture holders in the Panama Corporation, Canada?
    Mr. THOMAS: I have no information other than what has appeared in the Press. The matter does not appear to be one in which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom could, in any case, intervene.
    Mr. WILMOT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider what steps can be taken to check the tendency of companies, of which this is an instance, evading their debenture holders by removing outside British jurisdiction?
    Mr. THOMAS: I gather that this has something to do with what the hon. Gentleman and his friends would call the rentier class. I do not know anything about the matter.
    Mr. WILMOT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, with all respect, whether the matter to which he refers is not one that properly falls within the purview of his Department?
    Mr. THOMAS: If it had, I would have given the hon. Gentleman a different answer.
    Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the men who were ejected from a meeting of this company is the hon. Member who put this question?
    Mr. THOMAS: I do not know whether he comes within the category of the rentier class.

  ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, 1930 (INSURANCE COMPANIES' DEPOSIT).
  Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider taking steps to increase the £15,000 deposit demanded by the Road Traffic Act, 1930, from insurance companies to £100,000?
  Dr. BURGIN: The suggestion of my hon. Friend has been noted.

  BRITISH ARMY (HORSES).
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office how many horses for the Army have been purchased from Southern Ireland since the 1st January?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): I have the figures of the purchases from 1st January to 30th April, and these show that no horses were bought from Southern Ireland.
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will my hon. Friend kindly maintain that satisfactory state of affairs while there are plenty of horses to be sold in this country?

  NEW FOREST (WATER SUPPLY).
  Major MILLSasked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, if he is aware that the Commissioners require by way of rent, as a condition of granting a licence to statutory water undertakers to lay, maintain, and renew water mains in the waste lands of the New Forest, the payment of a percentage of the whole of the water rents received by the undertakers in respect of properties served by the mains; and upon what principle this practice is justified, which involves the payment of a royalty bearing no necessary relation to the value of the lands occupied by the mains, and tends to make the obtaining of water supplies by the inhabitants of rural districts more difficult and expensive?
  Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): There are two statutory water undertakers serving the New Forest, and one of these has had a licence for over 30 years to lay, maintain and renew water mains on a royalty basis. No difficulties have arisen, and the Forestry Commissioners are not aware that the basis on which the licence was granted has made the obtaining of water supplies difficult or expensive. Similar terms offered to the other undertaker have not been accepted. The laying of the water mains in the waste lands of the forest instead of under the public roads effects a considerable capital saving to the undertaker.
  Major MILLSasked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissinoners, if he is aware that persons residing in the New Forest and desiring to connect their premises to water mains laid by statutory undertakers in public highways, for the purpose of obtaining a supply of water for domestic purposes, are required by the Commissioners to pay an annual way-leave rent in respect of any connection laid across roadside verges vested in the Crown which form the only means of access from the premises to such mains; and what is the basis and amount of the rent usually demanded as the consideration for such a wayleave?
  Sir G. COURTHOPE: A small annual wayleave rent is charged by the Forestry Commissioners for connections laid in land in the New Forest vested in the Crown to the water mains of one of the two statutory undertakers operating in the forest, in order to preserve the Commission's rights to the soil. The amount charged varies according to the rateable value of the premises served, and in some cases is as low as 5s. per annum. The licence granted to the other statutory water undertaker includes the right to make connections without additional charge, and a licence on similar terms is available to the statutory undertaker first mentioned.
  Major MILLS: Would my hon. and gallant Friend very kindly let me have a copy of the scale of charges to which he has referred; and does he not consider that even so low a charge as 5s. is rather a lot for taking a pipe an inch or less, in diameter across a few yards of land?
  Sir G. COURTHOPE: I will see that the scale of charges is communicated to my hon. and gallant Friend. I do not think that 5s. is an unduly heavy minimum for the granting of an easement by the Crown.

  FOUNDRY WORKERS (POLITICAL LEVY).
  Marquess of CLYDESDALEasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a political levy has been charged by the National Union of Foundry Workers in the case of certain employés of the
  916
  Carntyne Steel Casting Company, Limited, Renfrew, who have not contracted in and against their express wishes; and what steps does he propose taking with a view to preventing such illegal practices?
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): I am not aware of the case to which the question refers, but any member of the union who wishes to make a complaint as to the matter can do so to the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies under Section 3 (2) of the Trade Union Act, 1913.
  Mr. PIKE: Does not an Act of Parliament exist for the purpose of preventing the action stated in the question; and, in view of the fact that it is an offence under that Act, may I ask why the responsibility should fall upon any member who suffers of having to report it to the Registrar of Friendly Societies?
  Sir H. BETTERTON: The answer is that the Act says so. The Act expressly provides that in such a case, assuming that the facts are as stated, the proper course is to complain to the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies.
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will the Minister look into the question whether a certain amount of intimidation is not going on at the present time?
  Sir H. BETTERTON: No such statement has been brought to my notice.
  Mr. PIKE: Will the Minister call for a report on the working of the Act?
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Has the Minister any information at all to warrant the statement in the question?
  Mr. PIKE: You can have plenty of it.
  Mr. CHARLES BROWN: If the Minister makes such inquiries, will he at the same time make inquiries as to whether the coalowners of Nottingham force men into unions which they do not want to join?

  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT (ECONOMY CUTS).
  Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the assurances that it would be treated as a non-controversial Measure, he is now

  917
  prepared to introduce a Bill to antedate from 1st July the restoration of the cuts on unemployment benefits?
  Sir H. BETTERTON: This was fully discussed in the Debate on 2nd May, and I cannot add to what was then said.
  Captain CROOKSHANK: Are we to understand that this is quite final, then?
  Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes, Sir.
  Captain CROOKSHANK: May I ask why?
  Sir H. BETTERTON: For the reason that I stated in the Debate.

  MINISTERS' POWERS (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
  Colonel GOODMANasked the Prime Minister what action has been taken to give effect to the recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee on Ministers' Powers?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have not yet had sufficient opportunity to give consideration to the issues raised in this report.

  CIVIL SERVICE.

    BOROUGH COUNCIL ELECTIONS.
    Mr. J. WILMOTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what action is taken in the case of members of the Civil Service who offer themselves as candidates for election to Metropolitan borough councils?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It rests with the head of each Department to determine whether, and if so upon what conditions, an officer of his Department may become a candidate for or serve on any local council, provided that the duties involved in such candidature or service do not conflict with the personal performance of the officer's duties to his Department. In accordance with this general principle, certain Departments whose activities are closely connected with those of local authorities have decided that it is undesirable for their officials to serve on such authorities.

    ADMINISTRATIVE POSITIONS.
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether persons appointed to administrative positions in the Civil Service are exclusively drawn from university graduates; the numbers appointed during the last three years and the number from each university; and, if appointments have been made from other sources, the number and the source from which drawn?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As the answer is somewhat long and involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer :
    The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Posts in the administrative class above the junior grade may be filled not only by promotion from that grade but also from other ranks in the Civil Service. Direct recruitment to the junior grade is by open competition, but provision also exists for promotions to this grade from the existing Civil Service. The numbers of appointments to the grade made from the last three open competitions and the various universities attended by the appointed candidates are shown in the following table :

    Competition of.

    Total Number appointed.

    Universities

    1931

    18

    Aberdeen

    2

    Cambridge

    10

    Edinburgh

    1

    Oxford

    5

    1932

    19

    Cambridge

    6

    Edinburgh

    1

    Glasgow

    1

    London

    1

    Oxford

    10

    1933

    29

    Cambridge

    14

    Manchester

    1

    Oxford

    13

    St. Andrews

    1

    Fuller information will be found in the annual reports of the Civil Service Commission. No similar information is available as regards appointments from other sources, but in paragraph 103 of the report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service 1929–31 (Command Paper 3909) it was stated that about one-quarter of the officers serving in the administra-

    919
    tive class had been promoted to that class from other classes.

    IRELAND (LAND FRONTIER SMUGGLING).
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is now satisfied that the precautions against the smuggling of cattle from the Irish Free State into Northern Ireland are effective; and whether the administration is exercised by the Government of Northern Ireland or the British Government?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer my right hon. Friend to the reply given by me yesterday to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox). As regards the second part of the question, the Customs service is administered by the Imperial Government, but, by arrangement between the Imperial Government and the Government of Northern Ireland, patrols of Royal Ulster Constabulary assist in the Customs work on the Land Boundary.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is the Government of Northern Ireland satisfied that the restrictions against smuggling are sufficient?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am hardly called upon to answer for the Government of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is it not a matter for the Imperial Government to exercise proper control?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Certainly. That is another question. The Government here are taking every step in their power, and will continue to take every step in their power, to stop smuggling.
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Have the Government taken the step of strengthening the personnel of the Customs?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, they have.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that no Irishman will ever stop another Irishman smuggling?
    Sir A. KNOXasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what steps have been recently taken to render smuggling
    920
    from the Irish Free State to Northern Ireland more difficult?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that it would not be in the public interest to give this information.
    Sir A. KNOX: To what extent has the hon. Gentleman increased the personnel on the border? At present it is a laughing stock.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: We have increased the staff, but I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that it is not to the public advantage to give too much information as to what we are doing and intend to do.
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the hon. Gentleman give the percentage of the increase of personnel?

    DENTAL OFFICERS.
    Captain ELLISTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the recommendations of the Warren Fisher Report can be extended to include dental officers as submitted in a memorandum by the British Dental Association?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Committee on the Medical Branches of the Defence Services suggested that some of their proposals in regard to the medical services might with advantage be applied to the dental services. I understand that representations have been made by the British Dental Association to the Defence Departments and that this question is now under consideration.

    HOME-GROWN SUGAR, LIMITED.
    Mr. J. WILMOTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the British Government still hold 250,000 ordinary shares of 5s. each in a company known as Home-Grown Sugar, Limited; if so, whether the losses disclosed by the accounts for the last two years are continuing; and what steps the Government propose to take?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The balance sheets of the

    921
    company, as published in House of Commons Papers 111 for 1932 and 165 for 1933, show that during the years 1931–32 and 1932–33 sums of £27,596 and £48,254 respectively were allocated to revenue account from reserves. The accounts for the year ended 31st March, 1934, are not yet available, but I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture hopes that they will disclose a more favourable result. The Government do not propose, therefore, to take any action at present in the matter.
    Mr. WILMOT: Is there any reason why these heavy losses should be suffered, having regard to the prosperous conditions of the industry?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I can give the hon. Member a great many explanations if he will give me notice.
    Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITE: Is not this an experiment in nationalisation?

  SHANGHAI.

    BRITISH AND UNITED STATES FORCES.
    Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the total strength of His Majesty's forces at present stationed at Shanghai; how such strength compares with that of the United States forces there, and whether he has any information as to whether an increase of the United States forces there is contemplated?
    Mr. COOPER: On 1st April the strength of the Regular Army at Shanghai was 1,071, and the strength of the United States forces was 1,781. I have no information of any contemplated increase in the latter.

    BARRACK ACCOMMODATION.
    Captain FULLER (for Mr. NUNN)asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what new barrack accommodation is being erected in Shanghai for the housing of the international forces stationed there for the protection of the international settlement?
    Mr. COOPER: I am informed that new barracks were erected for the Japanese troops last September. I am not aware of any other new construction.

    ROYAL NAVY (FLEET AIR ARM).
    Mr. EVERARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether pilots and observers of the Fleet Air Arm on retirement are given annual courses in flying; and whether they are placed on the general reserve of the Royal Navy or on special flying reserve?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): Naval pilots, on retirement from the Royal Navy, are allowed, if of suitable age, to transfer to the Royal Air Force Reserve. These are given annual flying practice, and will be earmarked for service with the Fleet Air Arm in time of war. As regards Naval observers, it would not be possible to provide these officers, after retirement, with such periodical practice as would be of any real value.
    Mr. EVERARD: If it is necessary for all officers of the Royal Air Force to undergo an annual training, is it not also necessary for officers of the Fleet Air Arm?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I have told my hon. Friend that retired pilots do receive training. With regard to retired observers it would be almost impossible to keep them efficient especially in Wireless Telegraphy without almost daily training.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    MINORITIES PROCEDURE.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals have been put forward by any member of the League of Nations for revising the minorities procedure of the League; and what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government?
    The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): I assume that the hon. Member refers to the draft resolution which the Polish Government have requested the Secretary-General to place on the Agenda of the fifteenth ordinary session of the Assembly. The draft resolution calls upon the Council to summon within six months of the close of the proceedings of the Assembly an international conference consisting of all the members of the League of Nations for the purpose of drawing up a General Convention on the international protection of minorities.

    923
    This proposal of the Polish Government will be carefully studied by His Majesty's Government at the same time as the other items figuring on the agenda of the fifteenth session.
    Mr. MANDER: Will the views of His Majesty's Government be stated at the Council meeting next week?
    Mr. EDEN: His Majesty's Government will first consider the proposals before they make a statement.

    GERMAN ARMAMENTS.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider the advisability of proposing at the next council meeting of the League of Nations that an inquiry shall be held under Article 213 of the Treaty of Versailles as to the present position of German armaments, with a view to establishing the real facts and testing the willingness of Germany to carry out her treaty obligations to give every facility for an investigation?
    Mr. EDEN: As the hon. Member is aware, the disarmament negotiations are still proceeding and I am unable to make any statement for the time being.
    Mr. MANDER: Does not the hon. Member think it is about time that the German peace bluff was called, and that really her heavy re-armament was exposed to the world?

    DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present composition of the British delegation to the Disarmament Conference and when the last full meeting of the delegation was held?
    Mr. EDEN: As the Disarmament Conference is not in session, it is impossible to give the present composition of the United Kingdom delegation. The composition of the United Kingdom delegation at the Disarmament Conference at Geneva has varied from time to time in accordance with the exigencies of the work at Geneva, and of the duties connected with the offices held by those who have at one time or another since 2nd February, 1932, been appointed as delegates or substitute delegates. It is customary for the delegates present at
    924
    Geneva to meet for consultation when necessary. Apart from this, formal meetings of the full delegation are not held.
    Mr. MANDER: Is it not a fact that the full British Delegation has not met for nearly a year, and is it not about time that the full British Delegation did hold a meeting to consider the policy?
    Mr. EDEN: The hon. Member will appreciate that a full Delegation consists of a great many members of the Cabinet, and that they can hold meetings for consultation here.
    Mr. MANDER: Is it not a fact, as I stated, that the full Delegation of the members officially appointed has not met for nearly a year?

    YUGOSLAVIA (CROATS AND SLOVENES).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any reports from His Majesty's Minister at Belgrade as to how far the present constitution in Yugoslavia protects the rights of the Croats and Slovenes as equal parties in the State; and whether he will urge His Majesty's Minister to call the attention of the Government of Yugoslavia to any infringement of the promise contained in the preamble of the Treaty of St. Germainen-Laye that the peoples of that State, of whatever race, language, or religion, shall have full guarantees of liberty and justice?
    Mr. EDEN: The Yugoslav Constitution provides that the Croats and Slovenes form with the Serbs a single nationality and that all citizens of Yugoslavia are equal before the law. I do not feel called upon to take any action in the sense suggested by the hon. Member.
    Mr. DAVIES: In view of the fact that the Croats and Slovenes are not treated equally with the Serbs under the law of Jugoslavia, and that, His Majesty's Government at that time were one of the parties interested in giving a constitution to Yugoslavia, is it not possible for His Majesty's Government to intervene to see that the Croats and Slovenes get fair play?
    Mr. EDEN: No, Sir. I do not think so. We have had no recent allegation in regard to any minority treatment by the Yugoslavia Government.
    Mr. DAVIES: Is not the hon. Gentleman fully aware that the Croats and Slovenes are not minorities; that they are racially within the State, and that they cannot proceed under the minority rules of the League of Nations?
    Mr. EDEN: I think that my answer covers the hon. Member's point.

  HOUSING.

    SLUM CLEARANCE.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the communication sent from the National Federation of Property Owners and Ratepayers, pointing out the hardship involved to property owners who keep their property in a good state of repair, notwithstanding that it is situated in a slum area, and who are now only to be entitled to receive site value for their premises by reason of the fact that they are in a clearance area and notwithstanding the fact that the buildings are in good tenantable repair; and what action he proposes to make it clear that the existing compensation provisions are not intended to apply to sound property?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): I am aware of this communication, and I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for South West St. Pancras (Mr. Mitcheson) on Thursday last, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Does my hon. Friend think that it is fair treatment on patriotic owners who have kept their property in good repair, notwithstanding the great disadvantage of being in a slum area, that they should have that property condemned as if it were insanitary and bad for housing?
    Mr. RADFORD: Has my hon. Friend heard of the many cases of grave injustice which have already come to light in the Hulme area of Manchester, where a slum clearance area has been declared?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: As to the first question I think there may be a mis-
    926
    understanding. A clearance area is an area of houses which are unfit for human habitation and for which the appropriate compensation is site value. If a house is fit and not condemned in the area, it can only come into a clearance area on a market basis of compensation. If it is improperly included, it is excluded when we hold an inquiry, and if by any chance there is still a mistake, it is further considered by the Minister of Health, and again excluded.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Surely the fact of a house in good repair obstructing a new street is no reason for pulling it down without compensation?
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that owing to their residence in districts widely removed from towns in which they own property, many owners of houses involved in slum-clearance schemes never know the intention of local authorities until it is too late to make representations; and whether it is the practice of all local authorities to ensure that in every case the owner of each house is properly notified well in advance of the official intentions with respect to it?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend finds it difficult to understand how the suggested inconvenience can arise, for all local authorities are required to serve notices of the making of either clearance or compulsory purchase orders in respect of a clearance area on the owners, mortgagees, lessees and occupiers of property included in the area. The notice is required to specify a period of not less than 14 days within which objections to the order can be submitted to the Ministry.
    Sir J. LAMB: Can my hon. Friend say whether the notice also specifies to the owner his rights with regard to the question of appeal?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Yes, the notice states his right of appeal.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. MITCHESONasked the Minister of Health if he can furnish a statement as to the number of houses built during the half-year ended 31st March, 1934, distinguishing separately those built by unaided private enterprise

    927
    and those built by municipal authorities with or without State assistance; and how the total built during the half-year compares with the highest total built during any previous half-year ending on 31st March?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The total number of houses built in England and Wales (excluding houses of a rateable value exceeding £78 (or £105 in Greater London) ) during the half-year ended 31st March, 1934, was 153,290, of which 120,781 were built by private enterprise without State assistance. The highest corresponding total during any previous half-year ending 31st March was 111,066 for the half-year ended 31st March, 1927. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving further particulars.
    Mr. HICKS: Can the Minister convey to us the number of houses called working class houses and say what proportion they are of the 120,000 houses referred to?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The proportion is 45,000. The remainder are "B" type houses.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that the number of houses built by unaided private enterprise in the last six months is higher than those built by private enterprise and subsidised effort in the previous period?
    Mr. KENNETH LINDSAY: What would be the comparable figures for the whole of last year?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The comparable figure for the full year ending March last is 266,000 houses, which is easily a record for the post-War period and an output which can only be described as terrific.
    Following is the statement :
    The total number of houses provided in England and Wales (excluding houses of a rateable value exceeding £78 (or £105 in Greater London)) during the half-year ended 31st March, 1934, was 153,290. The highest corresponding total during any previous half-year ending 31st March was 111,066 for the half-year ended 31st March, 1927.
    Details for each half-year are set out in the following statement :—

    —

    Half-year-ended—

    31st March, 1934.

    31st March, 1927.

    With State Assistance.

    By Local Authorities

    29,399

    37,361

    By Private Enterprise

    1,644

    41,055

    Total (assisted)

    31,043

    78,416

    Without State Assistance

    By Local Authorities

    1,466

    32,650

    By Private Enterprise

    120,781

    Total (unassisted)

    122,247

    32,650

    Grand Total

    153,290

    111,066

    CRIMINAL CAUSES (COSTS).
    Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. DOBBIE)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the expense to which persons charged with offences and acquitted are put in providing for their defence, he will consider amending the legislation concerning costs in criminal causes so that a judge or magistrate shall be directed to award costs to persons who have been charged and acquitted by the court or magistrate?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I do not see my way to propose legislation for this purpose.

  EDUCATION.

    NURSERY SCHOOLS.
    Mr. MAINWAR1NG (for Mr. DAVID DAVIES)asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education how many nursery schools were established and how many plans for new ones had been approved on 1st September, 1931, and 1st April, 1934, respectively?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): The number of nursery schools recognised by the Board of Education on or before 1st September, 1931, was 45, and the number of new schools for which plans had been approved was 14, but of these two have not been proceeded with. The number of schools recognised

    929
    on or before 1st April, 1934, was 59 (including two schools recognised as efficient but not grant-aided), and the number of new schools for which plans had been approved at that date was two.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will the hon. Member get the Government to reconsider their views about nursery schools in view of the Hadow Report and the Report of the Chief Medical Officer of Health? Is not this the time to expand nursery schools in devastated areas owing to the conditions of health of the people?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The Noble Lady knows perfectly well that it is open to local authorities to submit to the Board such cases as they consider urgent.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the hon. Member realise that when the Government came in they told local authorities not to go on with these schools? Does he not know that it is the policy of the Government to cut down open-air nursery schools? Is not this the time when they should go forward with their extension?
    Miss CAZALET: Is it not the fact that when the Government's magnificent slum clearance policy comes into operation it will be unnecessary further to encourage these nursery schools?

    MEDICAL TREATMENT.
    Mr. MAINWARING (for Mr. D. DAVIES)asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education how much money was recovered from parents in respect of charges for medical treatment during the last school year?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The amount recovered from parents in respect of the medical treatment of children attending public elementary schools during the financial year 1931–32, the latest period for which complete audited accounts of local education authorities are yet available, was £69,370.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Does the hon. Member realise that the Chief Medical Officer of Health has stated that a great many of the illnesses of children at school are due to neglect between the ages of two and five, and that there is no other way of dealing with them except by opening nursery schools?
    Mr. PIKE: May I ask whether these recoveries were voluntary?

    ENFIELD CABLE WORKS.
    Mr. GROVESasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Enfield Cable Works, Limited, Enfield, Middlesex, are on the list of Government contractors; and, if so, whether they are engaged on any Government contracts at the present time and the Departments concerned?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative. The Departments concerned are the Admiralty, War Office, His Majesty's Office of Works, and Post Office.

    PRIVATE BILLS [Lords]
    (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with,—
    Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely :
    South Devon and East Cornwall Hospital, Plymouth, Royal Albert Hospital, Devonport and Central Hospital, Plymouth (Amalgamation, &c.) Bill [Lords].
    Sunderland and South Shields Water Bill [Lords].
    Bills to be read a Second time.

    STOCKPORT EXTENSION BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the North Wales Power Company, Limited; and for other purposes." [North Wales Electric Power Bill [Lords].
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  NORTH WALES ELECTRIC POWER BILL [Lords].
  Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.
  As amended (in Committee and on recommittal), further considered [3rd Allotted Day].
  UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.

    CLAUSE 14.—(Provision of authorised courses and other courses of instruction and training, and payments to persons attending thereat.)
    3.45 p.m.
    Mr. COVE: I beg to move, in page 11, line 12, to leave out "take into consideration the number of," and to insert :
    "submit to the Minister proposals for the provision of such courses of instruction as may be necessary for."
    We have made our position perfectly clear on the policy announced by the Government in relation to juveniles. We have said clearly and distinctly that we regard the policy of the Government in this Bill as third-rate, and that they should have come forward with proposals for raising the school age. It would have been a much more effective contribution to the problem of juvenile employment than that suggested in the Clause. We are profoundly dissatisfied with the policy of the Government, but events in the industrial world will compel them to change their policy because of the large number of children who will be coming out of school in the next few years. We agree that if there are to be juvenile instruction centres, they should be organised in the most effective manner.
    The purpose of the Amendment, although it does not go as far as we would like, is to secure that every local education authority shall make proposals to the Government concerning juvenile instruction centres. As the Clause is drafted, we feel that there are a number of loopholes, and that there will be considerable delay which might result in large numbers of juveniles not being catered for in junior instruction centres. We want to impose the duty that education authorities shall submit schemes and proposals to the Government for erecting juvenile instruction centres in every educational area. We have seen the effect, in the figures published to-day, of the increased outpouring from the schools. The figures of unemployment show that there has been a substantial increase in the number
    936
    of juveniles unemployed, partly due to the fact that the figures give the record to the end of the term, but they also reflect the beginnings of an upward rise in the number of children who will leave school in the next few years.
    I must again remind hon. Members that in the next three or four years between 400,000 and 500,000 more juveniles will be leaving school than at present. This problem will grow in magnitude, and I cannot imagine any Government sitting down quietly under the menace which lies in front of these juveniles. Even with a considerable expansion of trade, there will be a large number of juveniles unemployed, simply because there is this tremendous increase in the numbers coming out of the schools. There is nothing more tragic or demoralising than unemployment among juveniles. I have in my division lads aged 15, 16 and even up to 18 who since leaving school have never done a day's work. A considerable number in the mining areas particularly have not yet succeeded in getting into any kind of occupation. It is a tragic thing to see them going about without any industrial skill, and without any hope of employment. Adequate provision is required for the care and training of those young people. The Minister in these discussions has often quoted the Report of the Royal Commission. I do not necessarily agree with all that the Commission has said, but on this point I think their view is thoroughly sound. They say,
    "The problem of occupation is, we believe, the most difficult question raised by the contemporary employment situation. The solution of it, for the majority of older unemployed workers is especially hard to find. But for younger workers the importance of occupation and training is at its maximum and the practical difficulties are much less formidable. Neglect to do what is possible here would be the most short-sighted of policies and we desire most earnestly to press upon both central and local authorities the necessity that this should be regarded as one of the most significant elements in the national treatment of unemployment and that no effort should be spared to extend and to improve the present service."
    I agree with those words. When I said in Committee that the work in the junior instruction centres was often carried out "in dingy, cramped and ill-equipped buildings" some hon. Members seemed inclined to disbelieve me but that is the statement of the Royal Commission and they also say :

    937
    "It must be remembered that the work of the centres necessarily suffers from the discontinuity of the attendance of pupils as they come and go in the intervals of their industrial lives."
    This Amendment would aid in the better organisation of the centres. If each local authority is compelled to submit proposals the general effect will be good and it will result in a greater interest in the centres and eventually in a far better organisation of the work. The centres are now regarded in many instances as an imposition. There is not, in many cases, the keenness that we would desire but I imagine if the duty of making proposals were imposed on every local education authority, it would result in more concentrated interest in the work and more effective steps for carrying it out. I have criticised this proposal of the Government as inadequate and I maintain that that criticism is sound. I still believe that these centres are not the effective educational institutions that we would desire. I believe, further, that they will not make that contribution towards solving the problem of juvenile unemployment that we would desire. On the other hand, this Government with a large majority in the House supporting it, has decided against raising the school age with maintenance grants and in favour of the system of centres. In those circumstances I intensely believe that we ought to do all we can to make that system as effective as possible.
    I shall be surprised if the Government refuse this Amendment. I am certain that if we had a free vote upon it, we would carry it in the Division Lobby. But I hope that the Government will regard it as a reasonable Amendment and will agree to it, particularly in view of the situation which lies ahead, with the prospect of unemployment on a gigantic scale among these youths. Now that these centres represent the declared policy of the Government in regard to this question, they would have wholehearted support of everybody interested in the welfare of children in accepting the Amendment. Everybody who has come in contact with the situation realises the terrible tragedy of having all these young people unemployed with no provision of any kind whatever for their training and I think everybody concerned will agree that, even though the Government have only provided us with a third-
    938
    rate policy, we ought to make the best of a very bad job.
    3.55 p.m.
    Viscountess ASTOR: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment, because it is the first honest attempt that we have had from the Opposition to help us with one of the great Measures of the day, and the National Government ought to be only too delighted when they see honesty shown even by the Opposition. Many of us hoped that the Government, in view of the great number of unemployed juveniles and the number coming on to the labour market, would raise the school age. We had hoped before that it was going to be raised in two years' time and it is only through the blindness of past Governments and their refusal to face the facts, that we are in the position of having so many thousands of children unemployed to-day. I am grateful to the present Government for what they have done in relation to juvenile unemployment. They are making an attempt to deal with it by means of these centres. But we know what local authorities are and while some of them would prepare good schemes, others would simply wait to see what was going to happen. The time is past when you can hope to do anything by means of permissive legislation.
    The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) has referred to the plight of young people in Wales who have never done a day's work since leaving school, but it is even more tragic to reflect that there are young people in many districts who have never seen their fathers at work. No matter what our political views may be, I am sure we all desire that these young people should get work or go to these centres. I remember two years ago when we were fighting for the unemployment training centres a Socialist said to me, "I do not blame Socialists who want to make people Socialists and I do not blame Communists who want to make people Communists, but I cannot understand you Tories failing to see that you are making them by causing discontent among people who ought to be employed or occupied in some way." I agreed with him, and I think if we had taken a forward view years ago in regard to

    939
    juveniles, we should have a much less tragic situation in this respect to-day. I have just come back from the North, and it is heart-breaking to see the number of young people there who have nothing to do. That is why I say that it is no good giving these permissive powers, because some local authorities will be lax, some will be blind and some will say that it is too expensive to do anything.
    This is a useful Amendment, and one which the Government might easily accept. I hope the House will not think, however, that I want to criticise the Government. I have in my hand a paper which gives certain Opposition views about this Measure. There is an extract from the "Manchester Guardian" saying what a splendid Bill it is, and there is also an extract from a statement by Mr. W. A. Appleton, Secretary of the General Federation of Trade Unions, to the effect that the Bill, in the main, is one which definitely places Great Britain in the forefront of the nations which are seeking to deal scientifically with their social problems. I do not think half enough has been made in the House or in the country of the value of this Bill. I want the Government to make the Bill even greater yet. If a free vote of the House were allowed, I think that all who know anything about juvenile unemployment would vote for the Amendment.
    4.1 p.m.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): In spite of the somewhat ungracious way in which the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) moved the Amendment, considering that it has been a matter under discussion between him and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, and is the result of a promise made by my right hon. Friend, we propose to accept it. It would be out of order for me to reply at any length to the points made by the hon. Member. It will suffice to say that the proposals he put forward as an alternative would certainly not have dealt with the problem of the large number of persons who for the next four years will be leaving school. The provisions in the Bill do deal with the whole of the unemployed juveniles from 14 to 18 years of age who are unable to get work, and they go much further than the recommendation of the Royal Commission. It was very significant
    940
    that the hon. Member in his quotation from the Report of the Royal Commission failed to carry the quotation to the end. The Royal Commission said, in paragraph 618:
    "we consider that all possible steps should be taken to provide for and encourage the attendance of all unemployed juveniles."
    The Royal Commission recommended that steps should be taken to encourage attendance. This Bill compels attendance, and therefore goes much further.
    4.4 p.m.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: I would thank the Minister for a real concession. I call this one of the good parts of the Bill, because it is constructive. I remember the controversy that we had on this very same subject with Miss Margaret Bondfield when she was very reluctant to accept an Amendment aiming at the same purpose. We defeated the Government on that particular occasion, and Miss Bondfield, needless to say, was sweet reasonableness. She met me and we drafted words that appeared in due course on the Report stage—words that have helped to put these excellent institutions on their legs. The institutions have done good work, but in spite of the provisions of the Act of 1929 the work is still spasmodic and the system is not complete. We want to make it universal so that every child within reason who finds himself or herself out of work and compelled to go on the Insurance Fund, will have an opportunity, or will be required if you like, to receive training so as to be kept physically fit and maintained in efficiency while idle.
    I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) might have quoted a few more words from the Report of the Royal Commission. They are no doubt a remarkable tribute to the work that is done by these institutions. I can speak from personal experience. There are first class men and women carrying on this work of salvage in many cases. The work calls for tact, wisdom and courage. Now that we are extending it and making it more complete, we are paying a tribute to these men and women. Of course some of the local authorities have not done the work adequately. The work ought to be made as permanent as possible. I took the trouble to get into

    941
    contact with a London authority, and I understand that they are prepared to work this scheme with enthusiasm. They are making arrangements to recruit a new class of young men and women. The work calls for youth and enthusiasm. You do not want teachers who have already exhausted their enthusiasm for education. I am glad that the Minister has given way to the light of reason and is prepared to take advantage of the experience of my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment. I wish him luck in his new experiment.
    4.7 p.m.
    Sir FRANK SANDERSON: I wish to express my appreciation of the acceptance of the Amendment. I would say from my own personal experience that I have seen cities in the North of England where there is a large volume of employment waiting to absorb boys and girls, but the vacancies have not been filled because the people available have had no instructional training. During the last 12 months I have been engaged in an industry in which we required many hundreds of hands, but boys and girls who had had no training could not come along and be absorbed in the industry. In some cases we have had to send out men all over the country, even to the mining areas, to try to find boys and girls who would fill the vacancies. I have seen notices outside factories requiring hundreds of hands, and simultaneously I have seen men and women lined up in the same cities waiting to draw unemployment benefit. That shows how absolutely essential it is that everything possible should be done by the Government to give these courses of instruction. I would like to express my delight that the Government have accepted the Amendment.
    4.9 p.m.
    Mr. LAWSON: I ought to say from the Opposition Benches that we appreciate the Minister's acceptance of the Amendment. I never felt sure that the Government would achieve what was desired by the Clause as it stands. The Clause says :
    "Every education authority shall…. take into consideration the number of persons in their area….and if, having regard to that number, they are of opinion…."
    942
    There are rather too many qualifications in the Clause. The most significant statement of the Minister of Labour on unemployment figures is that while there has been a reduction in the total of the unemployed as a whole there hag been an increase in the number of juveniles unemployed. I think, therefore, that the Government have been wise in accepting the Amendment.
    4.10 p.m.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish to enter my dissent from the general opinions expressed. I do not accept the Amendment as the best way to deal with juveniles. If the Government are going to insist on compulsory schooling they ought to do it by raising the school age, and the Employment Exchanges should not be used as a means of compelling juveniles to go to these centres. Once we agree to compulsion of those under 18 years of age it will be very difficult to differentiate and not to apply compulsion to those above 18 years of age. I cannot see the difference between not compelling a person of 19 to go and compelling those under 18 to go. The hon. Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) told the House that up in the North of England there were many jobs available but not the people available for them. I know of no place where he could not get plenty of people for all jobs. In every place that I know there are 10 people available for every job.
    Sir F. SANDERSON: There were 400 vacancies and we were unable to fill them.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. Member makes a responsible statement and we must accept what he says, but I would like to know something about the place and the conditions. If there were 400 wanted in the west of Scotland to-day there would be 4,000 people available for the vacancies 20 minutes after the unemployed had got to know.
    Sir F. SANDERSON: I stated that there were hundreds of workers in the same town outside the exchange waiting to draw benefit. Our difficulty was that we were unable to secure trained workers.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. Member has not told us the details, and we do not know what he means. I do not know the kind of work or the conditions attached to it. The hon. Member has made only a bald statement. In no part

    943
    of the country to-day do I know of a firm which has failed to secure a supply of trained labour.
    Sir F. SANDERSON: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to accept my word. I am quite willing to give him all the information he requires, but to explain the case further on the Floor of the House would take too much time.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I would like to know the particulars. On this Amendment I do not take the general view. I shall not divide the House, but I wish to record my dissent from the Amendment. I think that these training centres, if well run and designed to give good health to young people, could attract juveniles without any sort of compulsion. I resent very much the element of compulsion.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made : In page 11, line 16, leave out from "work," to "and," in line 20.—[Mr. Cove.]

    CLAUSE 15.—(Power to require attendance of persons under eighteen at authorised courses.)
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. LOGAN: I beg to move, in page 13, to leave out lines 10 to 15.
    The lines which I desire omitted are :
    "For the purposes of this sub-section and of any such proceedings as aforesaid, a person who, by reason of his misbehaviour while attending at any course, has been required to discontinue his attendance thereat for any period, shall be deemed to have failed without unavoidable cause, to attend at that course."
    In connection with these words, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the words of Sub-section (2) of this Clause :
    "If any person whose attendance at an authorised course has been required by the Minister under this section fails, except by reason of sickness or other unavoidable cause, to attend at that course, proceedings may be taken by or on behalf of the Minister "
    under Sections 45 and 78 of the Education Act according to the age of the person. Anyone familiar with those Acts knows that if a person under 16 is brought before a magistrate, the court has power to deal with him in regard to school attendance, and there can be a committal. In this Clause, the Minister is taking power to deal with those in attendance at training centres in the same way as school children
    944
    are dealt with. In regard to those under 16, a fine not exceeding 20s. can be imposed for the first offence, and after that a boy can be sent to an industrial school. I do not suppose hon. Members wish our industrial schools to be filled, through this provision in the Unemployment Bill, with boys up to 18 years of age. I find that a penalty of 5s. can be imposed under this Bill for the first offence, and for the second offence a penalty up to 40s. There is a remarkable and subtle point in regard to the Clause, that if a person should, by connivance with a boy, decide that the boy should leave a training centre, his parents can be penalised to the extent of £5. Under the Education Act, the education authority can take proceedings only with the sanction of the Minister.
    If the words I am proposing to leave out are not omitted, the Minister will have power, if a young man gives dissatisfaction at a centre, to penalise him and send him away from the centre; then, although the Minister has taken the young man away from the centre, he can be "deemed to have failed without unavoidable cause to attend." In other words, if a boy should for any reason fail to comply with the regulations that may be laid down, he can be debarred from attendance at a centre, and be penalised because he will be "deemed to have failed without unavoidable cause to attend." This appears to me to be a double-edged weapon. I am not in agreement with the setting up of training centres, for I cannot see what training you can give to a youth of 18 which will fit him for any occupation. What is required is education, and training should come through education. I agree, however, that in a training centre some good may be done to one or two, and, perhaps, a dozen boys. I do not believe in the penalty, and I hope that the Minister will delete it, and bring in something more suitable which will not tend to fill our courts with youths of 17 and 18. I do not think that is what is intended by the Government in setting up training centres for young people.
    4.24 p.m.
    Mr. BANFIELD: I beg to second the Amendment.
    These words are far too wide for the purpose for which, apparently, they are inserted. I take it that they are inserted to enable some kind of discipline

    945
    to be observed in the training centres. If the words are kept in the Bill, the possibilities are that in certain circumstances the person concerned and his parents may be harshly punished. What constitutes misbehaviour raises a rather complicated question. The misbehaviour may arise simply through the high spirits of boys between 16 and 18, which in itself is not of a criminal nature, but is due merely to the natural waywardness of the ordinary youth. There may be a possibility that the right type of teacher might not be employed, and he might require the discontinuance of a boy if he considered he had misbehaved, and he may be condemned because he has brought himself within Sub-section (2) of the Clause. That throws the young man back in the same position as if he were a child attending school who had played truant or had not put in a certain number of attendances. He is liable to be taken to a police court, or sent away to an industrial school or to a place of detention. That would be altogether contrary to the intentions of the Government and, I am sure, to the intentions of the House. I hope that the Minister will give us some assurances about the possible construction and use of these words. It would help us if he told us precisely where he expects these powers will eventually lead him. Very great injustice may be done, and awkward cases will arise which will arouse strong feeling and agitation, and may, in some measure, tend to wreck the whole system of training centres.
    4.27 p.m.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish to ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. The Subsection refers to the Education Act, 1921, but that Act is a different Act from that which applies to Scotland. Clause 33 deals with the application of this Clause and mentions certain Scottish Acts, and I am wondering whether I should be in order to discuss its application to Scotland.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, I think the hon. Member is quite in order.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: This Sub-section refers only to one Act, but it applies to two Acts in Scotland. One is the Day Industrial Schools Act, 1893, and the other is the Education (Scotland) Act
    946
    which was passed to fit alongside the other Act in 1918. I do not want to be critical of the Scottish Office, but I am sorry that no representative of that office is here, because the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan) has raised a genuine point, and it is much worse in Scotland under the Day Industrial Schools Act. More drastic powers have been taken in England than in Scotland, and I am sure that if the House were aware of the position they would not agree to this Clause so easily.
    Mr. JAMES REID: I and some of my hon. Friends put down Amendments to Clause 33 in Committee. There was not time to discuss them, but the Scottish Office did accept a modification of what was originally proposed. What appears in the Report stage is a considerable modification of what was in the original Bill.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: That does not alter the fact that Clause 33, which is the Clause affecting Scotland, says :
    "in the case of a person who has not attained the age of sixteen years, proceedings may be taken by or on behalf of the Minister under section four of the Day Industrial Schools (Scotland) Act, 1893 (notwithstanding that such person may be over the age at which an order could otherwise be made under that section)"…
    It then goes on to say :
    "provided that it shall not be competent in any proceedings under this sub-section to pronounce a sentence of imprisonment."
    That is a modification, but the penalties are more severe. A boy of 18 or of 17 is a man for Army purposes. When a boy joins the Army at the age of 17 the Army authorities say that for effective purposes he is a man. He can join at 17, and they can refuse to release him.
    Mr. CAPORN: They cannot send him abroad.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: My point is that they treat him as if he is competent to give his word at 17. Here is a boy of 17, for whom the parent is responsible, and he can be fined. A fine means imprisonment in a great number of cases among poor people. In many cases it is worse than imprisonment. A good number of the Glasgow magistrates are not enforcing fines as a penalty. They are saying that if the case is not bad enough for imprisonment, they will let people off.
    4.33 p.m.
    Lord EUSTACE PERCY: On a point of Order. I would submit that this is rather an inconvenient moment to discuss the point which the hon. Member is raising, because Sub-section (2) which we are now discussing does not apply to Scotland. Therefore, no Amendment that we make in the Sub-section can possibly remedy the complaints that are now being made by the hon. Member. I would suggest that the convenient time to raise his point, especially as there is no representative of the Scottish Office present, would be on an Amendment to Clause 33.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I can understand that it might be more relevant to discuss this particular question on Clause 33, but on looking at the Amendments I find that the only Amendment to Clause 33 is one by the Scottish Office, which says that school attendance does not necessarily mean efficient education. Therefore, I could not allow any general discussion of the question now before the House upon that particular Amendment. On Report, unless there is an Amendment down, you cannot discuss what is in the Clause.
    Lord E. PERCY: Without wanting to prevent the hon. Member from raising any point, is it desirable that because an hon. Member has not' put down an Amendment in the right place he should be able to discuss the whole question on a Clause which has no relevance to the point he is raising?
    4.35 p.m.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Before I started, I raised a point of Order. I did not ask for the Noble Lord's Ruling; I asked for the Ruling of a greater man than the Noble Lord before I said a sentence. I do not know whether the Noble Lord was in the House at the time.
    Lord E. PERCY: I was.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I asked for Mr. Speaker's Ruling because I knew that I was on doubtful ground. Mr. Speaker said I was perfectly entitled to go on. With all due respect to the Noble Lord, I am still subject to the Ruling of Mr. Speaker. I apologise to the Noble Lord, but that is the fact. My point is, that whether in England or Scotland the same principle is involved, a boy can be fined. In my view, a fine means imprisonment,
    948
    because poor people cannot pay a fine. In the case of poor people, a fine is a worse form of punishment than a small sentence would be. They can get the small sentence out of the way, but a fine hangs over their heads for a long time. They have not the money. The idea of fining as a punishment is entirely wrong, and the Minister ought not to persist in it. I hope that he will see his way to drop the idea of fines. I will not pursue the Scottish point too much, but I trust that some modification will be made.
    4.37 p.m.
    Mr. COVE: I do not apologise for intervening, because this is a most important question from the point of view of the successful running of the junior instruction centres. I have had the privilege of discussing this matter with a number of people engaged in work at the junior instruction centres. It is a question on which there is difference of opinion. On the whole, there is a feeling among the principals of these institutions that they do not desire too drastic powers, for the reason that if you make the powers too drastic, the heads of the centres may be afraid to use them. There may be a feeling that the penalty is so painful that if the head of a junior instruction centre had to deal with a lad who was difficult to handle, he would be afraid to exercise disciplinary measures, simply because the penalties were so heavy in front of the child. From that point of view, there is a danger that by making the penalty too severe it will not have the disciplinary effect that a more moderate penalty would have.
    I admit that in the junior instruction centres it will be necessary to have some form of discipline, some form of penalty for misbehaviour, but if the sentence is too harsh, the danger is that the discipline will not be exercised. I hope that the Minister will realise there is that difficulty. I have met some of the most successful heads of junior instruction centres, and they are not keen on having powers of discipline of a penal character. They say that if the man or woman selected is competent for the job, the difficulty of discipline largely disappears. I have been assured on that point on more than one occasion. I have heard

    949
    speeches made in the conferences of these people that I have attended, and I have heard them strenuously objecting to any powers of discipline of this penalising nature being put into their hands. They say : "Appoint the right person, get the right man, and then the problem of discipline becomes a very small one." It is not a great tribute to these people to say that disciplinary powers of the kind proposed are necessary over a very wide field.
    The success of the junior instruction centres will depend largely upon the appeal that is made by the centres, upon the atmosphere of the centres, and I am assured that if the right person is appointed the difficulties will be very small. I should like the Minister to be very careful to see whether it is necessary that these particular powers should be given. What exactly is the procedure that will be adopted in order to safeguard the interests of the children who go to the centres? As I understand it—I may be wrong—if a boy is excluded from a centre for a week because of mis-behaviour, he can be penalised to the extent of one day's loss of benefit, if he is receiving benefit. What will be the position under the Act so far as benefit is concerned for youths who are over 16 years of age? I should like to have a statement as to the machinery that will be adopted in order to secure not only that the discipline of the centre is all right, but to secure that the interests of the youths attending the centres are secured. It is necessary that we should have that information, and then we shall have a clearer view as to the intention of the Government. We want for the running of these centres not a maximum amount of disciplinary powers but a maximum amount of attraction and goodwill that will get children into them, and that we should run them on more or less a club kind of basis, with occupations of various kinds in which the children are really interested. That is not so easily supplied as would appear from some of the speeches that we have heard.
    4.45 p.m.
    Sir P. HARRIS: I have two questions to ask. What is the existing law for the existing institutions? We are not making a new experiment; we have junior instruction courses actually running all over the country. In the second place,
    950
    how far are penalties of this character found necessary in order to enforce discipline? I know that once the courses are set running and in going order, discipline is not difficult to maintain, but I understand that in some cases at any rate in the initial stages, when the courses are new, when the atmosphere has to be created, and the idea is novel, some difficulties arise. I want the Minister to make it quite clear whether, under the existing law, if a young person fails to attend a course, he or she loses benefit.
    4.46 p.m.
    Mr. HUDSON: The object of inserting these particular lines in the Bill was in order that the authorities might be provided with an ultimate sanction in the case of persons who, as the result of gross misbehaviour, have made it impossible that they should be kept in the class. I hope the House will realise that conditions in the new centres will be very different from those in the existing centres, because in the existing centres—and this really answers the question of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris)—the overwhelming majority of those attending attend as a condition of receiving benefit. In future a very large number, the overwhelming majority, will be attending without receiving benefit. There will be those between 14 and 16, in respect of whom benefit is not payable, and there will be a certain number between 16 and 18 who are not entitled to benefit. Therefore, we are dealing with a different type of person. Under the existing rules it is possible to deprive a child of benefit, but even this in exceptional cases has proved insufficient, and accounts of that will be found in the Royal Commission's Report. Therefore, it was necessary to find some other sanction.
    In the normal course of things, in the existing elementary schools, I imagine that the ultimate sanction, apart from the influence of the headmaster, which I quite admit is extremely important, is some form of corporal punishment. It is clear that we cannot have corporal punishment in the junior instruction centres for those between 16 and 18, and all that we have done is merely to continue the penalties, such as they are, that have been in existence for the past 15 years in respect of school attendance.

    951
    They are not new penalties. They are not a new terror that is being invented in this Bill, but penalties that have been in existence for a long period in respect of school attendance. I would add that the child or a parent has to appear before the court, which has to be satisfied that the action of the superintendent of the junior instruction centre—in the case of a child below 16, the parent is responsible, and in the case of one over 16 the juvenile incurs the penalty—in excluding the boy was justified by the nature of the misbehaviour of which he was guilty. Therefore, I think the penalties are not excessive by any means in the circumstances, and they are the least we could have devised. They are nothing new; they have been in existence for at least 15 years. In respect of those between 16 and 18, we are merely adapting the penalties that have been in existence with regard to day continuation classes, which were, I believe, enforced in the early days after the War and which have been in existence and are used to this day, I think, in Rugby.
    4.50 p.m.
    Mr. LAWSON: The House must have felt obliged to my hon. Friend who drew attention to the fact that what was going to happen was that we were going to apply the law as to school attendance to these boys, and that, as the hon. Gentleman has admitted, carries ultimate sanctions, which means appearing before a magistrate and perhaps being fined, with the possibility of an industrial school. That means that the penalties applying to non-attendance at school are to apply to these boys who, as the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, in the case of those from 14 to 16, receive no unemployment benefit. They apply everything as far as ordinary school attendance is concerned, and they extend the penalties, but they do not extend the school age so that you can have a regular educational system. If there is anything shown up, it is the admission of the Parliamentary Secretary in reference to this Amendment. I do not think I have exaggerated the penalties, and the Parliamentary Secretary has admitted that there is no benefit between 14 and 16, that the penalties for non-attendance are all going to apply, and yet they have not got the benefit of
    952
    the extension of the school age with a regular curriculum and all that that stands for.
    I am one of those who never hesitated about the value of juvenile instruction centres. The only thing that could be said for them was, in the first place, that the boys were going to get a certain amount of benefit, as they do now in the upper reaches, and in the second place that they were treated on an altogether different basis from that obtaining in school. There was very little to be said for them, but there is nothing to be said for the system which gives all the discipline and all the penalties of school age, with the possibility of sending a boy ultimately to the industrial school, and yet deprives him of all the value of a regular education such as an extended school age would give. I wonder really what hon. Members behind the Government will say about this now that we have the issues quite clear. We cannot on this Amendment argue the case for extending the school age, but if ever it was given point, it certainly has been by the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary just now.
    4.54 p.m.
    Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: The reason for the Amendment is that the House is asked to do one of the most astonishing things it could be asked to do. We are asked to decide the nature of the punishment, but we do not know what the crime is going to be. Whenever we lay down penal codes and decide the punishment which is to be meted out to any citizen, we usually know the crime beforehand, but in this case we know nothing about it. The schools have not been established. The schools will be established by the Ministry of Labour in accordance largely with decisions made by the Ministry of Labour, and they may be entirely unattractive to the boys. We in this House shall have very little control over these schools. We have not decided what sort of schools they are to be, we have not decided what the curriculum shall be, we have not even decided how the teaching staff is to be recruited, and we do not know what sort of buildings they will be. We know nothing at all about the sort of schools to which these lads are to be exposed. All we know is that they are to be punished if they do

    953
    not attend them. That is an astonishing thing to be asked to decide. The Parliamentary Secretary tried to make an analogy of the existing educational system, but there is no analogy. We know what the school is there.
    Lord E. PERCY indicated dissent.
    Mr. BEVAN: The Noble Lord shakes his head, but we do know now, and indeed we have much more control over it than we have over this sort of school, which is to be established very largely under the aegis of the Ministry of Labour. We have control through the local authority and through this House over the existing schools, and we have laid down the sort of punishment to be meted out to boys if they do not attend, but we are asked to buy, as it were, a pig in a poke. We are laying down these penalties before we know anything at all about the nature of the instruction to be given, and I suggest that it will be time enough for us to embark upon legislation of this kind after we know the sort of instruction to be given to these boys. These schools, as an hon. Friend reminds me, may be extremely dingy. As a matter of fact, I could almost prophesy that they will be dingy, because everybody knows that this legislation is of a purely temporary kind, in order to enable the Government to ward off the claim for raising the school leaving age.
    We understand that the large number of juveniles thrown on the unemployment market will be diminished in a few years time. Juvenile unemployment, I understand, is expected to be much less, so that what we are going to have in the meantime is a lot of squalid makeshifts that will not be assimilated into the main educational structure of the country, that
    will be superimposed upon it, miserable excrescences on the system, and because we know that these schools will be so unattractive, we have to prepare harsh penalties for the boys beforehand. When it comes to what is claimed to be the beneficial aspect of the Bill, we are not allowed to discuss the details at all, but when it comes to imposing punishments for boys, we are to accept full responsibility. Why did not the Minister have the courage to do both? Why does he ask us to accept responsibility for giving him power to pnnish crimes that have not yet been defined, in circumstances quite unknown, and indeed in circumstances in which lads might be justified in refusing to attend school?
    This is just another feature of a half-baked legislation. The Minister himself does not known what the schools will be like, and, as a matter of fact, he does not know where they are going to be, because they are not going to be established if there is not a sufficiently large number of juvenile unemployed in the area. Obviously this is not the sort of power that we ought to give the Government in these circumstances, and all those who have the future of legislation at heart and who really desire to make our educational system attractive to the young and an example to other nations of the world ought not to allow the Minister to take powers of this description, in the absence of any knowledge of the nature of the crime to be committed and the sort of educational establishments which will be set up.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided : Ayes, 303; Noes, 39.

    Division No. 246.]

    AYES.

    [5.0 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

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

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Bernays, Robert

    Carver, Major William H.

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

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B

    Castlereagh, Viscount

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

    Bllndell, James

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

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

    Boulton, W. W.

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

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

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

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

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

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

    Christie, James Archibald

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Clarke, Frank

    Atholl, Duchess of

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

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Bailey, Erie Alfred George

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Baldwin-Webb. Colonel J.

    Buchan, John

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Balnlel, Lord

    Bullock, Captain Malcolm

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Burnett, John George

    Colfox, Major William Philip

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

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Rickards, George William

    Cook, Thomas A.

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

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Cooke, Douglas

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Copeland, Ida

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Rothschild, James A. de

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

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

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Russell, Hemer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    Leckls, J. A,

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

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

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Denman. Hon. R. D.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Denville, Alfred

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Salmon, Sir Isldore

    Despencer-Roberlson, Major J. A. F.

    Levy, Thomas

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Dickie. John P.

    Lewis, Oswald

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Dower, Captain A. V. G.

    Llddall, Walter S.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Drewe, Cedric

    Lindsay, Noet Ker

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Duckworth, George A. V.

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

    Selley, Harry R.

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Eady, George H.

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Mabane, William

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

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Elmley, Viscount

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

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

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Smlthers, Waldron

    Entwlstle, Cyril Fullard

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Somervell, Sir Donald

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

    McKle, John Hamilton

    Somervllle, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Soper, Richard

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Flint, Abraham John

    Magnay, Thomas

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Maitland, Adam

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Spens, William Patrick

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

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

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Fox, Sir Glfford

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

    Steel-Maltiand, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Stevenson, James

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Stones, James

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Galbralth, James Francis Wallace

    Meller, Sir Richard James

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Milne, Charles

    Sutcllffe, Harold

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Templeton, William P.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

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

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Granville, Edgar

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

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

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

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Griffith, F. Klngsley (Mlddlesbro', W.)

    Morrison, William Shepherd

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

    Grigg, Sir Edward

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Todd, A. L. S. (Klngswlnford)

    Grimston. R. V.

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Munro, Patrick

    Train, John

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Tree, Ronald

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wllfrid

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    North, Edward T.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Hales, Harold K.

    Nunn, William

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Hamllton, Sir George (llford)

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

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

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

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Hanbury, Cecll

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kennlngt'n)

    Petherick, M.

    Wells, Sydney Richard

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

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstapte)

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Pike, Cecil F.

    White, Henry Graham

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Potter, John

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)

    Pybus, Sir Percy John

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P

    Radford, E. A.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Wills, Wllfrid D.

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

    Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Womersley, Walter James

    Hornby, Frank

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Ray, Sir William

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hurd, Sir Percy

    Remer, John R.

    Captain Austin Hudson and Lord Erskine.

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    956

    957

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Malnwarlng, William Henry

    Banfield, John William

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Maxton, James

    Batey, Joseph

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

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

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Buchanan, George

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cape, Thomas

    John, William

    West, F. R.

    Cocke, Frederick Seymour

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

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Cove, William G.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Daggar, George

    Leonard, William

    Wilmot, John

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Edwards, Charles

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    McGovern, John

    Mr. C. Macdonald and Mr. D. Graham.

    5.11 p.m.
    Mr. LEONARD: I beg to move, in page 13, line 27, after "assessors," to insert : "consisting as to one-half of the members thereof of representatives of the local education authority and as to the other half of representatives of organisations of workers."
    This Clause gives the Minister power to require the attendance of a person under 18 at authorised courses, and Sub-section (4), the Sub-section to which the Amendment refers, reads :
    "The regulations made by the Minister under this section may make provision for the establishment of boards of assessors for the purpose of reporting to him as to the advisability of requiring persons to attend at an authorised course."
    I look upon this as a matter of some moment, because of the possibilities of mistake in direction and guidance that may occur and, while I am prepared to agree that the intention of the Minister and everyone having the well-being of the persons concerned at heart is exactly the same, it is permissible to disagree as to methods. There are three aspects of Clause 15 which, I think, allow us to make the suggestion put forward. For instance, the attendance of a person may be required at any authorised course he may reasonably be expected to attend. What is reasonable for a person to attend contains many factors, and I think that aspect of the Clause requires guidance of a specialised and detailed character. The Clause makes it clear that proceedings can be taken if a person fails to attend an authorised course which has been deemed reasonable for him to attend, and his failure may be the basis of proceedings against him. That also introduces the question of suitability, and it may be that the unsuitability of the course is responsible for the non-attendance.
    Another aspect of the Clause concerns the question of misbehaviour. Mis-behaviour is to be deemed to be equal
    958
    to failure, but a person may be placed in circumstances that are entirely uncongenial and unsuitable to his make-up and impulses, and that may be a factor in creating a state of conditions within himself that may be responsible for making him what I will, for want of a better word, call for the moment "misbehave." These three aspects of the Bill itself, in my opinion, suggest possibilities of initial selection or guidance being wrong. The type of person who is to give the guidance is very important, and we suggest two sources from which such guidance should be given. The representative of the local education authority should be one of the sources from which the Minister should take guidance. An organisation responsible for the education of young persons should have at its disposal, on behalf of anyone needing scrutiny, some guidance as to his impulses and tendencies, a very important thing to have in mind when we are considering the activities and the destination of a person.
    On the other hand we suggest that one section of the board of assessors should be drawn from representatives of working-class organisations. I think they will be specially suited to consider the physical requirements needed in a boy who is to be sent for a course of instruction. They will know the type of individual who will ultimately be a success or is likely to gain advantage from any course of instruction. The suitability of a man for any particular industry is now regarded as very important. There are many people receiving all the instruction possible but of a type entirely unsuited to benefit by it, and, in consequence, they spend very unhappy lives. If the boards of assessors are drawn from the sources we indicate, we think there will be as few mistakes as possible in that direction.
    5.17 p.m.
    Mr. CHARLES BROWN: I beg to second the Amendment, which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will see fit to accept. The Clause deals with a very important problem, but, in our view, only in a half-hearted way. Earlier this afternoon the Government showed signs of mending their ways, especially when they accepted the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove); but, admitting that there is an important problem and that the Government think it necessary to compel people, under penalty, to attend these training centres, I wish to know to what extent it will be necessary to establish boards of assessors. Are they to be generally established, and will the greater portion of those who go to training centres be sent there by them? I know that the Minister will have power to send young people to these training centres without boards of assessors pronouncing any opinion at all, but I would like to know how far he intends to use boards of assessors. If it is intended that they shall have some voice in sending the greater proportion of young folk to training centres the constitution of these boards becomes a very important matter indeed. We have no information on that point at the moment, and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us how he intends to constitute these boards.
    I would like to emphasise the point made by the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) when he explained the details of the Amendment and urged that half the members of a board of assessors should be members of the local education authority and half representatives of workers' organisations. In that way we should get persons with wide knowledge and experience of the general conditions obtaining in an area, and well fitted to advise the Minister. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to what we ask, even though he does not accept our Amendment. I hope he will accept the Amendment because if he does not we shall have to force the issue to the Division Lobby.
    5.21 p.m.
    Mr. HUDSON: The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) said just now that the Clause dealt with this matter in a rather half-hearted manner. As
    960
    far as I can make out, the object of this Amendment is to secure that we shall be quarter-hearted. In order to allow further boys to escape, hon. Members wish, first, to abolish all the penalties for non-attendance, and then to set up a new type of assessors in order to increase the chances of boys getting a good excuse for non-attendance. We propose that a board of assessors shall normally consist of three persons. Boards will be set up in considerable numbers all over the country, in areas considerably smaller than the area of a county or a large borough. We anticipate drawing their members from the members of the existing Juvenile Advisory Committees in those areas at present administered by the Ministry of Labour, and from the Juvenile Employment Committees in those areas which are administered by local authorities. Hon. Members know that both those bodies are composed of representatives of local education authorities, of employers and of persons representing the workers.
    We want to retain the discretion we are given by the Bill, because we have received representations from a certain number of local education authorities that they have what they call school attendance committees, composed of persons who are well acquainted with all the problems of school attendance, and we want to have discretion to appoint members of those school attendance committees—in certain cases the whole of the committee—as boards of assessors. If we accepted the Amendment we could not do that, because our discretion would be fettered. In view of the explanation I have given, that local education authorities and workers will, in the majority of cases, be represented on these boards of assessors, I hope hon. Members will not press their Amendment.
    5.24 p.m.
    Mr. COVE: I do not think we can accept the hon. Gentleman's speech as a reason for withdrawing our Amendment. Listening to him, I came to the conclusion that the logical result of his speech should be, the acceptance of the Amendment; but after giving all the reasons why he should accept it he went off at a tangent, and said the Government could not agree to it for one special reason, and that was that certain education authorities happened to have comm.-

    961
    ittees dealing with school attendance. Really the Amendment helps the working of the scheme. The hon. Gentleman suggested that we were desirous of helping children to escape more easily, that all we wanted was to let the "kiddies" off. That is a slander on the very composition of the boards we suggest. The hon. Gentleman did not know, in his innocence, that he was really slandering members of education committees when he made a statement of that kind, because in our Amendment we suggest that responsible people like members of education committees should be on these boards of assessors. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary does not suggest that those who administer education on local authorities are not responsible people. Though it may be somewhat irrelevant, I would remind him that many of those people are of his own political complexion. Surely they are not the people who will make it easier for the children to escape attending junior instruction centres.
    Mr. HUDSON: I do not suggest that; far be it from me to do so. I pointed out that that was the object of the Amendment and of the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard), according to his speech.
    Mr. COVE: Now the hon. Gentleman is trying to justify his attitude by what he supposes to be our intention. It is pure supposition on his part. He is always ready to believe that we on this side are evil people, that we have some wicked intent, whereas that suggestion applies more to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour than to innocent people such as we arc. If there is anybody who is Machiavellian in the House at the moment it is the Parliamentary Secretary. Anyhow, whatever our intentions, whatever our wicked designs, there is the constitution of the boards and the hon. Gentleman ought to look at this matter in an objective manner. We say, "Let the boards of assessors be composed of members of education committees." They will not let the children off too easily. They have experience in administering education affairs. Further, I wish to emphasise the point made by my Friend the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) that to a large extent these training centres will be new institutions. In large areas
    962
    in the country they will certainly be new, and the people there will have had no experience in running them. With a new administrative problem and when dealing with children who are going to new institutions, we need among; the assessors representatives of the working people, parents who understand the difficulties of children, and know something about the children. I should have thought that in the interests of the peaceful working of the scheme the Government would have accepted this Amendment.
    I must be perfectly frank. I am beginning to be afraid that the spirit of driving youths into these centres is too much in evidence on the Government side. I have noticed a tendency this afternoon which has rather disturbed me. My experience, if I may be gracious for a moment, is that the Ministry of Labour have endeavoured to deal with the junior instruction centres in a very human and kindly way. I readily admit that they realise the difficulties of the problem, and have dealt with it on the whole in an excellent manner. The spirit has been the right one of enticing children into the junior instruction centres with the object of making it worth while for them to go there and receive instruction. This afternoon the Parliamentary Secretary has shown a different kind of outlook, and I am beginning to be afraid that with the powers that we are now giving him he is going to destroy the spirit which is behind the junior instruction centres. What a difference there is when the Minister of Labour is absent for five minutes from the Government Bench. When he is there, everything is all smiles and kindliness, and we realise what a jolly sort of fellow the Minister of Labour is.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): The hon. Member is now getting rather far from the Amendment.
    Mr. COVE: I cannot discuss this matter without referring to the people who are to administer it. The Parliamentary Secretary is in a most unaccommodating mood. We have received an impression from him on the last Amendment which may be put in this way : "We are going to drive these children into the centres. We are going to penalise them." We now ask him, with regard to the boards

    963
    of assessors, for a constitution which will have, on the one side administrative experience, and on the other a closely intimate touch with the boys and girls and their homes and with the people who understand how those children live and what their difficulties are. We ask him to constitute boards of assessors of this kind, and I should have thought that he would have jumped at the opportunity and have accepted it.
    We are suggesting an ideal board of assessors which would be fifty-fifty in administrative experience and in the human touch, but apparently the Minister is not prepared to meet the situation. He is simply saying, "I have my Bill before me and I have my majority, so what does it matter? I am going to drive the Bill through." When we make constructive suggestions, that is the attitude with which we are faced. The only answer to the adamant attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary is for us to take as many hon. Members as we can into the Lobby against him in order to register our protest against the provisions of the Bill and against his attitude in supporting his proposals.
    5.34 p.m.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: I generally find myself in complete agreement with the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) in regard to matters dealing with education, and also his attitude to the main provisions of this Bill, but, having heard the arguments which he has mustered in favour of this Amendment, I think there is less substance in them than in the arguments which he generally marshals in favour of anything which he commends to this House. The very characteristics which he envisages as necessary for the tribunal which is to consider these matters are just those which are par excellence possessed by the very authorities which are now dealing with them, and which the Minister has just told us are the authorities which it is desired to employ.
    In a matter of this kind, whatever tribunals we set up, we are dealing with a very limited personnel, and the advisory bodies which deal with juvenile unemployment in the localities, whether they are under the Ministry of Labour or under the Board of Education, are those men
    964
    of good will and experience who have come forward and have been doing this work on those bodies. Organised labour, in such districts as have come within the range of my knowledge, is very fully represented, but a body consisting of the two elements mentioned in the Amendment would restrict the amount of good will. There is no provision in the Amendment for representatives of parents. Parents are represented at present, and this would therefore be a restrictive rather than an enlarging Amendment. On this occasion I cannot accompany the hon. Member for Aberavon into the Lobby, if he really proposes to go there.
    5.36 p.m.
    Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary has been unable to accept this Amendment. The operation of this Clause should not be under the purview of the Minister of Labour at all, because adolescents and young persons between the ages of 14 and 18 ought to come within the range of the Board of Education. The only reason why they are excluded, so far as I can see, is to evade something which should be done in order that those people might definitely come under the purview of the Minister of Labour. The Liberal party's representative does not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), and for that I am sorry. I hope that the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. G. White) appreciates the significant point that although in Scotland and on the northeast coast people have been sufficiently sensible to elect Labour councils, 75 per cent. of the areas are still dominated by Tories and others. By this Amendment we are endeavouring to ensure that people shall have protection. In my constituency we dominate all the committees. We have a majority upon the Glamorganshire County Council and in all the urban areas, and the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary will suit us very well. There are, however, areas in this country where the political predilection of Tories and others predominate, and we want to make sure that parents whose political views may be distinctly opposed to those of the dominating parties will have an opportunity of contributing to the making of the reports and that they shall be appointed assessors as well as the persons who may be nominated by

    965
    the Minister and the local education committees. In that way we shall have a fair representation of the viewpoint that may be held by those people.
    I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate that there are areas in the country where a type of mind may dominate the education committees that does not represent a substantial majority of the people in the areas. The education committee in any area may have a majority of landlords, and one would expect to see what is known as the squire psychology dominate in the area. What chance is there that the poor working-man will have any defence whatsoever, and what type of report does the Minister hope to have, unless he is prepared to balance the type to which I have referred with another representing the views of the working man or woman?
    Mr. COVE: An anti-toxin?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: This scheme should be properly balanced, and the Minister should see that there is 50 per cent. representation from trade union organisations and 50 per cent. from public bodies such as education committees and others. That is the reason why we are putting forward this Amendment. Nothing that has been said by the Parliamentary Secretary or by the spokesman of the Liberal Party has convinced me that we should withdraw the Amendment. We shall press it to a division.
    5.43 p.m.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary has not quite sensed the full merit of the Amendment that we are submitting. Let me put forward one practical difficulty that arises in the operation of the Clause. Large numbers of young men are unemployed in country districts in which a juvenile instruction centre is not immediately available, and they may be told that the only place to which they can go for their instruction is the nearest township, which may be a long way away. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary implies that if a young person refuses to travel day by day the distance between the village where he lives and the nearest township in which an instructional centre is to be found, that will be deemed to be an unreasonable objection?
    966
    There is another practical difficulty. I gather from the Parliamentary Secretary that, in order to provide asssessors, he intends to use, amongst other people, those who are now acting as attendance committees in various areas. Let me revert to the practical example which I gave a moment ago. The attendance committee in the township is not always the same as that which operates in the village from which the boy may come. Which attendance committee has to supervise the case? Is it the attendance committee where the juvenile instruction centre is situated, or the committee of the village from which the boy comes? That is an important question.
    It might be argued that in a concentrated area the attendance committee might be a useful body, but, if the young man or juvenile happens to live in an area where the attendance committee is not operating, his chance of getting his case presented before that committee is not very good. He may know nobody there; he may have no contact with the people of the area; and consequently he may feel that his case in defence of his excuse being a reasonable one will have but a remote chance of being put. I can think of places not far from my own area—remote villages, not in the area but some miles beyond the border, or remote hamlets where there cannot of necessity be a juvenile instruction centre, because there is not sufficient population. The local attendance committee has no jurisdiction there, and, unless there is some such provision as that which we are proposing, a boy will have no opportunity of establishing personal contact with someone there so that he can be assured of presenting his case.
    Mr. HUDSON: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that there is any considerable number of villages, even in Wales, where children are allowed not to attend school—where there is no means whatever of enforcing attendance? Otherwise, I am afraid I cannot follow his argument.
    Mr. JONES: I am afraid I have not made my point clear. There are, of course, attendance committees everywhere, but my point is that in the place where the boy lives there is one attendance committee, while in the place where

    967
    the training centre is there is another and entirely different attendance committee.
    Mr. HUDSON: After all, we are not discussing the broad question of the Clause, but an Amendment to ensure that, instead of having a body of assessors appointed at the discretion of the Minister, the body shall consist of representatives of the education authority and of the workpeople; the hon. Gentleman will have to direct his remarks to showing how his suggestion will be better than ours.
    Mr. JONES: I was under the impression that we had a Chairman already. That interruption was quite unnecessary and quite uncalled-for. I will develop my argument as best I can, and I think it is quite a good argument. I dare say the people on the attendance committee are quite excellent people; I am not saying a word against them; but they operate over a limited area, and not necessarily over the area where the boy happens to live. The acceptance of our Amendment would afford a better chance of the assessors consisting of people who would have contact with the area from which the boy comes.
    Mr. HUDSON: There is nothing in the Amendment which says that.
    Mr. JONES: Of course there is. We suggest that the assessors should include representatives of organisations of workers. An organisation of workers is not necessarily confined to the township where the juvenile instruction centre is; it operates over a much larger area; and, therefore, although perhaps I have not put the point very clearly, I would submit that there is something in it. A trade union, for instance, may have its centre, say, in Cardiff, but a boy may live six miles outside Cardiff, in some hamlet. The attendance committee of Cardiff does not operate six miles out, but the trade union does, and, therefore, if representation of organisations of labour be established as part of this machinery, the boy will have some chance of representation that he will not get if it is limited to the attendance committee. I think that that is a fair point to make, and I would submit to the hon. Gentleman that there was not the slightest need for him to
    968
    stand up as he did and speak to me in a quite unnecessarily discourteous way.
    5.51 p.m.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I think the point of this Amendment is quite a genuine one, and I am sure that the hon. Members who moved it would not be unresponsive to an approach if the Government consider that this is not the best way of dealing with the matter. The important point is that these assessors will have power to make recommendations on which the Minister will act. They will have grave powrs, and it is important that they should be the proper people to do the job. There is nothing in the Clause at present to ensure that the parent and the boy shall be present when the case is heard, but that also is important. When we discussed Part II of the Bill, it was agreed that no one should be cut off without having a right of attendance before the committee which adjudicated, and surely it is not too much to ask that here also the parent and the child involved should be given a right to attend.
    As to the composition of the committee, the Clause does not state that any of these assessors will be members of the local education committee. As I read the Clause, the board of assessors can be anyone. As far as I can gather, the law will make provision for the establishment of boards of assessors, but it does not say that they will be members of the education authority. The Minister can appoint anyone or any number of people that he likes. There are no qualifications : it is left to him to set up any kind of board. Parliament, however, ought to have some power over the composition of this body. The Amendment proposes that 50 per cent. of the assessors shall be representatives of the education authority, and 50 per cent. representatives of working people's organisations. That is fair, though possibly it may be suggested that some other method would be better For instance, I would have liked to see—I do not know if it would be included in the workers' representation—some representation of the education committees of co-operative societies, who have tremendous experience in this class of work; and I think also that the teachers should be represented. Indeed, if I were consulted, I

    969
    should be inclined to make the assessors very nearly all teachers, because the teacher is certainly human in dealing with a child, and, whether he is a good or a bad citizen in other respects, in my view he treats the child with consideration and a great deal of care and thought, and he is used to handling children.
    I would ask the Minister if he cannot meet the sponsors of the Amendment and see if some safeguard in the setting up of this board can be provided. It is important that the board should be carefully scrutinised. I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary could give us some more definite information than he has hitherto given as to the composition of the board; and I would ask him, if this Amendment does not represent the best form, at least to give us some form that will enable a person coming before the board to feel that at least he will get a fair deal. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter.
    5.57 p.m.
    Mr. HUDSON: Perhaps with the leave of the House I might reply to the points which have been raised. I think that hon. Members are under some misapprehension about the functions of the assessors, and attach much more importance to them than they really deserve. The assessor is not going to decide—
    Mr. BUCHANAN: He can recommend—
    Mr. HUDSON: He can make suggestions, but the responsibility is that of the Minister or of the person acting on behalf of the Minister. Therefore, the responsibility of the assessors is rather remote. We are anxious to get as assessors people who will know the local conditions, and that is very much more likely when they are drawn from the bodies suggested, namely, the local juvenile employment committee or, where these exist, the local juvenile advisory committee. They consist partly of employers, partly of representatives of the workers, partly of representatives of
    the education authority, and partly of persons who take a general interest in education, and they know, not merely the conditions in the boroughs, but in all the surrounding districts, because they have the supervision of larger areas. That is a very much better source from which to draw the members of the board of assessors than some local body.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: There will be the right of attendance before the Committee?
    Mr. HUDSON: I imagine so; I think almost certainly, because obviously, in the majority of cases, they will have to know the reasons why the child does not attend. It may be that the child cannot be spared, or the mother will come along and say, "My girl is not going to enter into industry; she will always remain at borne with me, and, therefore, does not need to attend the juvenile centre."
    Mr. LEONARD: The hon. Gentleman has given the impression on more occasions than one with regard to his attitude towards instruction that he has it well set in (his mind that the trade unions are antagonistic, and in his speech to-day he stated that this was another method to circumvent the process of training. I take it from that that he has returned to the fear that the trade unions, or the workers' representatives, might endeavour to undermine the machinery of training. If that continues, there is a possibility that, if the assessors are selected from the local advisory committees, they might be selected in a manner to exclude workers' representatives.
    Mr. HUDSON: I certainly do not contemplate that we should exclude workers' representatives. On the contrary, I should think the normal course would be that every committee would have at least one workers' representative.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided : Ayes, 41; Noes, 328.

    Division No. 247.]

    AYES.

    [6.2 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (poplar. South)

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

    Daggar, George

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Buchanan, George

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Banfield, John William

    Cape, Thomas

    Edwards, Charles

    Batey, Joseph

    Cove, William G.

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    West, F. R.

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Maxton, James

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

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

    Milner, Major James

    Wilmot, John

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Kirkwood, David

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Lawson, John James

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Mr. Groves and Mr. John.

    Leonard, William

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Denville, Alfred

    Hornby, Frank

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

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Dickie, John p.

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Alexander, Sir William

    Dower, Captain A. V. G

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

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

    Drewe, Cedric

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

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

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Hudson. Robert Spear (Southport)

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Applln, Lieut. Col. Reginald V. K.

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

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

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

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

    Dunglass, Lord

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Astor, viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Eady, George H.

    Hurd, Sir Percy

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

    Balllie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Elmley, Viscount

    Janner, Barnett

    Balniel, Lord

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

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

    Entwistle, Cyrll Fullard

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

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

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Bernays, Robert

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B

    Evans. R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Blindell, James

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Boulton, W. W.

    Flint, Abraham John

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Fox, Sir Glfford

    Leckle, J. A.

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

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Lelghton, Major B. E. P.

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

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Levy, Thomas

    Buchan, John

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Lewis, Oswald

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

    Llddall, Walter S.

    Bullock, Captain Malcolm

    Glossop. C. W. H

    Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

    Burnett, John George

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Goff, Sir Park

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

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Carver. Major William H.

    Granville, Edgar

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Cassels, James Dale

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Mabane, William

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

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

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Grigg, Sir Edward

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

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

    Grlmston, R. V.

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Christie, James Archibald

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Clarke, Frank

    Gunston, Captain D. W,

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Hales, Harold K.

    Magnay. Thomas

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Hamilton, Sir George (llford)

    Maitland, Adam

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Hammersley, Samuel S.

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Colvllie, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Hanbury, Cecll

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

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Hanley, Dennis A.

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

    Cooke, Douglas

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Harris. Sir Percy

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Copeland, Ida

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Meller, Sir Richard James

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

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

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Milne, Charles

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Molson. A. Hugh Elsdale

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

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

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Morris. Owen Temple (Cardiff. E.)

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

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

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

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

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

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

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

    Morrison, William Shephard

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

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Davison, Sir William Henry

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

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Hopkinson, Austin

    Munro, Patrick

    972

    973

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Ruggles-Brlse, Colonel E. A.

    Sutcliffe, Harold

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

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Templeton, William P.

    North, Edward T.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth

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

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

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Russell, R. J. (Eddlsbury)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Pearson, William G.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Livcrp'l)

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Peat, Charles U.

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Train, John

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Tree, Ronald

    Perkins, Walter R. O.

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Petherick, M.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Scone, Lord

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

    Potter, John

    Selley, Harry R.

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Preston, Sir Walter Rueben

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Pybus, Sir Percy John

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Radford, E. A.

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

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

    Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Waiter D.

    Weymouth, viscount

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

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

    White, Henry Graham

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Smithers, Waldron

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Ray, Sir William

    Soper, Richard

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Sotheron-Eslcourt, Captain T. E.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon S.

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Wills. Wilfrid D.

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Spens, William Patrick

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Remer, John R.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Rickards, George William

    Stevenson, James

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Stones, James

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Robinson, John Roland

    Strauss, Edward A.

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

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Mr. Womersley and Major George

    Rothschild, James A. de

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Davies.

    CLAUSE 18.—(Establishment of Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee and duties of Committee as respects Unemployment Fund.)
    Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment which I call is that in the name of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis).
    6.17 p.m.
    Mr. LEWIS: I beg to move, in page 15, line 22, at the end, to insert :
    "or towards the establishment of a benefit stabilisation fund with the object of securing uniformity in rates of benefit over long periods of time whether employment be plentiful or scarce."
    The effect of the Amendment will be that one of the purposes for which the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee will be able to recommend the application of a surplus or part of a surplus will be a reserve fund for the stabilisation of rates of benefit. The object is to secure that uniform rates of benefit are paid over long periods of time and that the rate of benefit does not rise and fall according as to whether trade is good or bad, or whether the payments in the current year into the fund are large or, comparatively speaking, small. If some such steps are not taken we are
    974
    in this position : A man in employment may pay into the fund for a number of years, during which time another man who is unemployed may draw out benefit at the rate then current. Owing to a falling off in trade and a consequent reduction in the rate of benefit, the first man may now become unemployed and find that, though he draws benefit, it is not at the same rate as when he used to contribute to the fund, but at a lower rate. It is, on the face of it, a most undesirable state of affairs.
    It may be argued that these fears are to some extent unnecessary, but as to that we have past experience to guide us. I see that in the report of the Royal Commission, page 20, paragraph 29, column 2, the rates of benefit applicable to an adult man, wife and two children are set out, and that over a period of 18 years the rate of benefit in that case has been altered no less than nine times. It has sometimes gone up and sometimes down. I think that most people would agree that whatever is a reasonable period for the stabilisation of benefit, that number of changes in that period is not reasonable, and we want if we can to avoid such frequent changes up and down in the future. It is of the utmost importance

    975
    that the Statutory Committee should take a long view in these matters, and I am most apprehensive as to whether, operating under the Bill as now drafted, it will be possible for them to take a long view. The important words in this connection occur in Sub-section (3) of Clause 18. They are :
    "If the committee at any time report that the Unemployment Fund is or is likely to become, and is likely to continue to be, insufficient to discharge its liabilities, or is and is likely to continue to be more than reasonably sufficient to discharge its liabilities, and so on."
    The House will see that the all-important determining factor is what is meant by the words : "likely to continue to be." I see that the Minister of Labour is here, and I shall be most grateful to him if in the course of the Debate he will tell us what he understands by the words "likely to continue to be." Does he visualise a period of weeks or of months or of years? He has not yet informed the House upon that point. We have had some light thrown upon it by another Minister of the Crown whom I also see here, and that is the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As he is present I want to remind him of something which he said about this matter on the Committee stage of the Money Resolution. I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT of 11th December. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said :
    "There is no provision under which a recommendation can be made by the Committee to set up a reserve."
    At that point the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) interposed with this question :
    "Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that they would not be entitled, if they thought it necessary, to put aside money to meet any greater charges on the fund next year?"
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied :
    "They are not entitled to do that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1933; col. 95, Vol. 284.]
    I submit that if that is the view of the Government on this Clause, it is quite clear that their view is that the Statutory Committee may not look even 12 month's ahead in considering the state of the fund. That is an alarming prospect with regard to a fund of this magnitude, and I hope that the Minister of Labour will let us know what, in his view, is intended to be the effect of the words which appear
    976
    in the Bill governing this matter—the words "continue to be." We have to remember that in times of good trade all of us tend to be optimistic. If trade is rising there is always a feeling about that it is going to be even better in a few month's time or next year, and it is very hard to find anyone who really visualises the end of those good conditions. You see examples of it in booms of all kinds. Everybody, whatever the past experience may have been, cannot help catching the general spirit of optimism that there is about, and thinking and acting as if those good conditions were going on indefinitely, whereas all experience teaches us that periods of good trade are followed by periods of bad trade.
    If there be no such provision as that which we are suggesting here, it must of necessity follow that if benefits are distributed up to the hilt in good times, they will have to be reduced in bad times, or, alternatively, contributions will have to be increased to maintain them. I do not want the House to be under any misapprehension as to our intentions in this matter. It is not suggested that the rates of benefit, as set out now in the Bill, should be for all time. We want to avoid the raising of the rates of benefit and the subsequent necessity of lowering them. We want them to remain as they are until it is safe to increase them, so that the increase may, in its turn, be maintained. It is clear that that is impossible unless financial provision, is made for some kind of reserve fund for the purpose of stabilisation. It is the desire that when a man who is in work pays into the fund he shall know what he in turn will get out of the fund when he is out of work.
    6.27 p.m.
    Mr. J. REID: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I should like first to put the present position under the Bill as I understand it. I confess that when I first heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that there was no provision for a reserve fund, I somewhat misunderstood his position, and I regarded the position with considerable alarm. My alarm was to some extent allayed by what took place in the Committee stage on this Clause, and I should like to deal with what then took place. I had the good fortune to move an

    977
    Amendment to this part of the Bill in somewhat different terms from the present Amendment just before the Guillotine fell, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was somewhat interrupted in his reply, and I understood him to say that the matter would be considered before the Report stage. I may have misunderstood the position in the somewhat difficult conditions for hearing, because I notice that the OFFICIAL REPORT only reports the first few words and the rest is cut off with the significant word "Interruption." In col. 1653, on 12th February, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it was still his view that the Bill did not enable a reserve fund to be established, but, quoting what he said there,
    "that does not mean that they cannot establish what one may call a working balance."
    I said, in the following column :
    "I want to ask one question : Would the Chancellor consider a sum of the nature of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 a reasonable sum such as could be carried forward from one year to another? "
    And the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was :
    "That would be a matter for the Committee to consider."—[OFFIONAL REPORT, 12th February, 1934; cols. 1653–54, Vol. 285.]
    It is, therefore, to be inferred from that statement that it is competent for the Committee to carry forward a matter of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 from one year to another if they think that it is the right thing to do. From my point of view, I have no doubt whatever that the Committee would desire to carry forward as big a sum as possible for the purpose, as expressed in this Amendment, for evening out fluctuations in the income and expenditure of the fund.
    Therefore, so far the point has been met. We have been told that the Statutory Committee are entitled to carry forward, if they choose, a sum of the magnitude of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000. I think that an even larger sum might well be put to reserve because there may be very violent fluctuations. I put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if it is contemplated that the Committee can carry forward a sum of this magnitude it is better to carry the sum to a reserve fund than to call it a working balance. One can understand a working balance of
    978
    a few hundreds of thousands of pounds or even £1,000,000 in matters of this magnitude, but when we come to sums of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000—I speak as a layman in accounting matters and may be I am wrong—I think it would be better to call it a reserve fund and put it aside definitely for a rainy day rather than keep it in the till as a working balance. We have already got from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a large part of the substance of the Amendment, the real purpose of which is to regularise the position and allow the Committee to put an even larger sum to reserve.
    The National Debt Commissioners are going to get a substantial instalment of £5,000,000 each year, and I would add my thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the concession he made on that matter and for having put his name to an Amendment reducing the rate of interest, which does ensure that the interest will be regularly paid and a considerable sum put to Sinking Fund, so that the debt is to be paid off in something like 40 years. If there is a surplus over and above that £5,000,000 for the first few years I think it is much better that it should go to reserve and be available to prevent alterations in the rates of benefit rather than go to a further acceleration of the payment of debt. In my view it is not necessary to pay off the debt quite so quickly as the £5,000,000 instalment will bring about, but I entirely accept the compromise which has been arrived at. Having established the principle that the debt is to be paid off in such a reasonably short period it would be a graceful act on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to complete his concessions in this matter by saying that the surplus will not be used to further reduce the period during which the debt will be paid off, but that it shall be retained by the Committee for the establishment of a Reserve Fund.
    6.34 p.m.
    Mr. C. BROWN: I am much interested in the speeches of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) and the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. J. Reid), as they mark a change in the attitude of hon. Members opposite in regard to the rates of unemployment benefit as contrasted with the attitude of some of the auxilliary bodies which support the Conservative party. I have been

    979
    recalling to mind a number of speeches and documents which have suggested that the rates of unemployment benefit should be closely associated with the cost of living. I have in mind a publication of the Federation of British Industries in which that argument is used, and I think the Royal Commission had something to say on the same lines. I am certain that the May Economy Report talked in that fashion. We have never agreed that the rates of benefit should fluctuate according to the rise and fall in the cost of living, and we heartily welcome a proposal which will fix them irrespective of rises and falls in the cost of living. It is interesting to find the present proposal coming from the Government benches. We shall support the Amendment if it is pressed to a Division. We would gladly see the rates of benefit raised considerably, and when they are raised we do not want them to rise and fall with the rise and fall in the cost of living. We want them stabilised at a higher level than they are to-day, and with that qualification we shall support the Amendment in the Division Lobby.
    6.36 p.m.
    Sir P. HARRIS: I desire in a few words to support the principle of the Amendment. There is a real danger if times improve that any surplus will go to pay off still further the unemployment liability of the past. The idea is to put the fund on a sound financial basis so that the rates of benefit will not constantly fluctuate. This is an insurance fund and, obviously, it must have reserves in the interests of the beneficiaries, so that contributors may know when they pay in week by week and month by month, when they are employed that when a rainy day comes there will be enough money in the fund to meet the liability to all the individuals concerned. The attraction of the Amendment to me is that if something of this kind is not inserted we may have the Statutory Committee proposing to utilise the surplus to still further decrease debt and increase the £5,000,000 by the amount of the surplus brought about by good times.
    6.38 p.m.
    Mr. LAWSON: I am pleased that there is a process of enlightenment going on among hon. Members behind the Government. Their intention is to put this
    980
    money to reserve, to a kind of stabilisation fund, rather than to the relief of debt. If they continue in this way they will land where the Labour party have been for some considerable time, and that is that the £5,000,000 interest should go to a reserve fund rather than to the relief of debt. When you get to that point there is an inkling of the truth in the minds of hon. Members opposite that it is necessary to have a solvent fund and stabilised payments. If not it will probably be found, if unemployment gets worse, that it will be necessary to reduce the amount of benefit. We support the Amendment but we do not believe that the rates of benefit are sufficient. We believe that we shall ultimately have to consider the inclusion of great masses of people who are now considered under transitional payment. It is a good thing that such a proposal as this should be made because it shows that the case we have been putting for a stable and solvent fund, which will do justice to the great mass of the people, must have a reserve fund. The right hon. Gentleman will have to go further than he did the other afternoon, when we had some pretty politics for about two hours, which meant nothing in the long run, and put the £5,000,000 to reserve.
    6.40 p.m.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The Amendment has really nothing to do with the question of the debt, which has already been settled, or with the question as to whether benefits should rise and fall with the cost of living. The purpose of the Amendment is one with which every one who has any regard for the idea of an insurance fund at all will sympathise—namely, that there should be as little change as possible from time to time in the rates of benefit payable. The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment said that he had already got a great deal of the substance of the Amendment in the concessions I made on the Bill in Committee. The hon. Member is quite right. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) has forgotten, I think, for a moment the rather longer account I gave in Committee of my view of the meaning of the words in the Bill. Really, the whole question turns upon the interpretation of one word—the word "reasonable." Whilst it may be thought

    981
    that it is only a matter of words, the distinction between a reserve fund and a working balance, there is rather more in it than that. It appears to me that there is a definite distinction between the two terms, a distinct difference between the idea of a reserve fund and the interpretation which I put on the word "reasonable." The difference, as I see it, is simply the difference between long-term and short-term fluctuations.
    Under the terms of the Bill it is possible for the Statutory Committee to provide against what I call short-term fluctuations. The intention of the Amendment, it has been so stated, is to provide against long-term fluctuations. I do not think it is possible to set up a reserve fund which will be large enough permanently to stabilise the rates of benefit. The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. J. Reid) has pointed out that you may have considerable fluctuations, as we have seen in the past, for a comparatively short time. It has been stated in the course of these Debates that a variation in the average level of unemployment of 100,000 persons makes a difference one way or the other to the finances of the fund of £3,000,000 a year. You might have a number as large as 500,000 in a comparatively short time, say a few years, and that is at once a difference of £15,000,000. Nobody can say that 500,000 would be the utmost extent of the variations which might take place in a comparatively short time.
    Since attention has been drawn to the matter we, naturally, have gone into it further, and we are advised that this
    term "more than reasonably sufficient to discharge its liabilities" could be interpreted accurately as giving the Statutory Committee power to provide for what I may call a working balance, which will mean a carry-over not necessarily only for one year. It may mean a carry-over for a longer period than that and would, I think, be a natural procedure on the part of the Statutory Committee in order to iron out what I would call the short-term fluctuations which otherwise might arise in the course of a single year. Therefore, I think my hon. Friends will see that, on that interpretation of these words, they have got already in the Bill everything that it is practicably possible to secure in this way, and that the setting up of a reserve fund could not be expected to enable the Committee to do more than they can do now to iron out the longer term fluctuations, because we cannot imagine that they would be able to set up a large enough reserve fund to provide for the stabilisation of benefit. In these circumstances and with that reassurance, if I may so call it, I hope they will not find it necessary to press their Amendment.
    Mr. LEWIS: Having heard the right hon. Gentleman's description of the difficulties in the way of establishing a fund such as we have suggested, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    HON. MEMBERS: No!
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided : Ayes, 54; Noes, 302.

    Division No. 248]

    AYES.

    [6.48 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Banfield, John William

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

    Reld, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Bernays, Robert

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

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

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cape, Thomas

    Holdsworth, Herbert

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

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Janner, Barnett

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Daggar, George

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

    West, F. R.

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    White, Henry Graham

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Kirkwood, David

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Edwards, Charles

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Lewis, Oswald

    Wilmot, John

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Mainwarlng, William Henry

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Milner, Major James

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

    Nathan. Major H. L.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Elmley, Viscount

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

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

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Entwlstle, Cyril Fullard

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Alexander, Sir William

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    MacAndrtw, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

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

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

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Antruther-Gray, w. J.

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    McCorquodale, M. S.

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

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Astbury. Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

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

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Balley, Eric Alfred George

    Gillett, Sir Gaorge Masterman

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

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

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Magnay, Thomas

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Maltland, Adam

    Balniel, Lord

    Goff, Sir Park

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

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Goldie, Noel B.

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

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

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

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

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Beit, Sir Alfred L.

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

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

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Granted, E. C. (City of London)

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Blindell, James

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Meller, Sir Richard James

    Boulton, W. W.

    Grigg, Sir Edward

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Grimston, R. V.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Milne, Charles

    Bracken, Brendan

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

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

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

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

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Hales, Harold K.

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

    Buchan, John

    Hamilton, Sir George (llford)

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

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Hammarsley, Samuel s.

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Burghley, Lord

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Munro, Patrick

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Burnett, John George

    Harbord, Arthur

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

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    North, Edward T.

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

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

    Carver, Major William H.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Cassels, James Dale

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Pearson, William G.

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

    Hopkinson, Austin

    Peat, Charles u.

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

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Penny, Sir George

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Hornby, Frank

    Percy. Lord Eustace

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

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, 5.)

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Petherick, M.

    Christie, James Archibald

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

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)

    Clarke, Frank

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

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

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Potter, John

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Colfox. Major William Phillp

    Hurd, Sir Percy

    Preston, Sir Walter Rueben

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

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

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Pybus, Sir Percy John

    Cooke, Douglas

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Radford, E. A.

    Cooper, A. Duff

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

    Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

    Copeland, Ida

    Jamieson, Douglas

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

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Jennings, Roland

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Jesson. Major Thomas E.

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Ray, Sir William

    Cranborne, Viscount

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

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Reld, William Allan (Derby)

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

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Remer, John R.

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonal Barnard

    Kerr. Hamilton W.

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Rickards, George William

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

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Robinson, John Roland

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Daspencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Dickle, John P.

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Dower, Captain A. V. G.

    Leckis, J. A.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Drewe, Cedric

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Duckworth, George A. V,

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

    Levy, Thomas

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)

    Dunglass, Lord

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Eady, Gaorge H.

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Llv rp'l)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

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

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    984

    985

    Sandoman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Spens, William Patrick

    Ward. Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Stevenson, James

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Scone, Lord

    Stones, James

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Selley, Harry R.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Sutcllffe, Harold

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

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

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Templeton, William P.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

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

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Smithers, Waldron

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

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

    Womersley, Walter James

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Soper, Richard

    Train, John

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Tree, Ronald

    Spears, Brigadier General Edward L.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES —

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Lieut. Col. Sir. A. Lambert-Ward

    and Major George Davies.

    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. GEORGE HALL: I beg to move, in page 15, line 33, to leave out from "Parliament," to the end of line 22, page 16.
    This Amendment is one of great substance, because it deals with a portion of a very important Clause, which sets out the composition of the Statutory Committee and its duties, and lays down the procedure for carrying the recommendations of that Committee through the House. The Amendment refers to that part of the Clause which deals with the procedure for carrying the draft Orders through the House. We are definitely of the opinion that these recommendations, once they have been brought forward to the House, should—since we are dealing with matters of such great substance—be debated in the same way as every alteration in benefits or contributions has been debated during the last eight or ten years. The Clause provides that, when the recommendations have been made by the Statutory Committee, they shall be submitted to the Minister and, after consultation with the Treasury, the Minister shall bring them forward in the House in the form of a draft Order. The Committee will deal with matters of great importance, matters which will affect the 12,000,000 persons who are insured under the Act. The Committee will have power not only to deal with the benefits but also with the contributions which will be paid by those persons who are in employment. Part II of the Third Schedule lays down 25 different conditions affecting insured persons which will come under review by this Committee when they are dealing with the finances of this fund. No fewer than eight Acts of Parliament can be dealt with in review by this Statutory Committee.
    We are definitely of the opinion that the changes which could be brought about as a result of recommendations made by this Statutory Committee are so important that they should be submitted to adequate discussion in the House. We have had some experience of draft Orders during the last two years. Draft Orders are invariably brought on at a time when almost all the other business of the House has been completed for the day. It is true that the Government have the power to bring the draft Orders in at a time which they deem suitable, but, judging by the experience of the Orders which have been submitted from time to time by the Advisory Committee dealing with the question of tariffs, these Orders are invariably brought forward after 11 o'clock. Even now, I do not think that the Minister himself could give me any promise or pledge that the draft Orders embodying the recommendations of the Statutory Committee would be brought before the House at a reasonable time. It would be left entirely for him to bring them forward at a time suitable to himself. Even when they were brought forward to the House, they would be in such a form that no Amendment could be made to them by the House. All the House would be expected to do would be to say Yea or Nay, although the matter might affect nearly 13,000,000 insured persons and, if it dealt with an increase of contribution, their employers as well. Such a draft Order could be brought forward after 11 o'clock at night, and all the House would be asked to do would be to say whether they approved or disapproved of the Order. No Amendment could be moved or accepted by the Minister.
    We are, therefore, definitely of the opinion that the power of Parliament

    987
    ought not to be curbed in this way. We ask that we should have the opportunity of discussing in the proper Parliamentary manner the important changes which will be brought about in the conditions of insured persons, and should not have business rushed through in this way, which is quite alien to this institution of Parliament. I hope that the House will be jealous of its powers and of its right to adequate Debate in matters of this kind. We on this side of the House are very concerned about this usurpation of our powers, and we ask the Minister at this late hour to reconsider his attitude and allow adequate Parliamentary discussion upon any change which is likely to take place in the contributions, benefits, or conditions of payment.
    7.6 p.m.
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): I am not sure whether I understood the hon. Member aright; if I did not, perhaps he will excuse me for interrupting. These Orders are not Orders which are merely laid on the Table and can only be discussed after 11 o'clock. They have to be affirmatively approved. Therefore, before they become operative, adequate discussion will take place upon them. They are different from the ordinary Orders which are brought before the House and merely lie on the Table and are taken after 11 o'clock. I do not know whether the hon. Member fully appreciated that.
    Mr. HALL: I had, but I should like the right hon. Gentleman to correct me upon this point. Would there be any difference between these Orders and those which are submitted, say, from the Import Duties Advisory Committee? Those Orders are debated in the House; they are submitted and they are debated, but the Minister will agree with me that, once an Order is submitted to the House by himself under this Bill, there can be no Amendment to it at all: the wish of the House must be taken in the affirmative or the negative. All we can say is Yea or Nay. That is what I attempted, perhaps in a very inadequate way, to express. The right hon. Gentleman will concede this point, that most of the Orders under the Import Duties Advisory Committee are laid on the Table at the tail-end of business, and, while it is true that there is some discussion, it
    988
    cannot be argued that adequate discussion can be given on important matters of this kind after 11 o'clock at night. We are definitely of the opinion that matters which would be dealt with by this Statutory Committee in the form of recommendations covering, as they would, the whole field of the conditions of payment of benefit to the unemployed, and the contributions of the workpeople and their employers, should receive adequate time for a full discussion and not be rushed through the House in the form of draft Orders, as is the case with the Import Duties Advisory Committee.
    The purpose of this Amendment is to give adequate time and not to allow the Minister to decide such questions—I am not saying this out of discourtesy to the present Minister—in consultation with the Treasury and without consulting the House at all. Once his Department and the Treasury have considered the recommendations and amended them in accordance with their own desires, the House is not to be consulted at all other than to be asked whether they will approve or disapprove these Orders. This Amendment ought to appeal to every hon. Member of the House. There will be changes; that is inevitable, but when those changes take place they should be adequately discussed and sufficient time should be given for the purpose; they should not be rushed through the House as draft Orders usually are.
    7.10 p.m.
    Mr. TINKER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The explanation which the Minister attempted to give is not as satisfactory as we should like. The point we want to make is that this Clause is handing over great powers to a body of people. We tried to stop the delegation of those powers, but Parliament decided that the committee should have them. Our next plan of campaign is to try to get adequate time for the examination of the committee's proposals. We do not like to think that proposals bearing on the important matters of an increase or decrease in benefit or contribution, or the financial provisions of Clause 18, should be left merely to the Minister, to put forward any Amendments that may occur to him, and that those Amendments must be accepted or rejected as a whole at a late hour of the night. The House

    989
    ought to recognise that if this Statutory Committee is to enjoy any confidence in doing its work, its proposals should be examined with the full time of the House. If hon. Members on the other side of the House support this Clause, I cannot understand any one of them objecting to the proposal which we put forward. It would be a great advantage to them to be able to say, "Here we have before us these recommendations, subject to the full examination of the House of Commons; let us see what we can do with them." That would be a pleasure to the supporters of this Clause. On the other hand, we should be able to say afterwards, "We told you when you were passing this Clause that you could do nothing with it, although we gave you ample time." In place of that, the committee's proposals will probably be manoeuvred by the Government and kept away from full examination; they will be brought in at some late hour when everybody is tired out.
    In view of the importance of this Bill and this particular Clause, no Member of the House should hesitate to allow full examination of any proposal brought forward. I appeal to the hon. Member who spoke on the last Amendment. He said some time ago—last week, I believe—that we had not brought in any constructive proposals at all and that our method of dealing with this Bill was entirely destructive. Surely he will not say that this afternoon. We are asking that everything done under this Measure should be brought before the House of Commons. That in itself cannot be destructive; it must fulfil the purpose of bringing the whole matter to light. On those grounds I hope that the House will see its way to giving us this Amendment.
    7.14 p.m.
    Mr. J. REID: I should like to say a few words about the idea of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) that this is a constructive Amendment. So far as I can see, the Amendment is purely destructive. It takes away a carefully thought-out and workable method of procedure and substitutes in its place absolutely nothing at all. The Clause would be completely unworkable if this Amendment were passed. The Subsection would finish at the words "the
    990
    Minister shall lay the report before Parliament," and after that there is silence as to what shall be done with the report.
    Mr. TINKER: The Minister will decide.
    Mr. REID: If the Clause be amended as suggested, it will authorise the Committee to present a report to the Minister, and it will authorise the Minister to present the report to Parliament, but it will not authorise the Minister to do anything to give effect to the report. It will be necessary, on my understanding of the wording, to have a fresh Act of Parliament before the Minister can give effect to the report. [HON. MEMBERS : "Hear, hear!"] I have listened carefully to Speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and they have never suggested that they thought it would be necessary to have an Act of Parliament to give effect to the report. Perhaps the Minister will put us right on this matter, but my understanding of the effect of the Amendment is that it will be necessary to have a fresh Act of Parliament before anything can be done on the report at all. Therefore, I have no hesitation in saying that this is a destructive Amendment.
    7.17 p.m.
    Mr. WHITE: I have the same doubt of the practical result of the Amendment as my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. J. Reid), but I entirely share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) with regard to the desirability of having the fullest discussion and the right of amendment of any proposal coming from the Statutory Committee dealing with matters of this importance. There is a further reason, which we have expressed at other stages of this Bill. The Government, in their wisdom, have produced a Bill which embodies a tripartite scheme for dealing with unemployment and poverty. As part of that scheme they are setting up two bodies, the Statutory Committee and the Unemployment Assistance Board. Both bodies are entirely independent one of the other, and there is no authority in the Bill that I can discover to co-ordinate the activities and policy of these two bodies. The Statutory Committee is able, for example, to propose a financial policy which may inflict considerable difficulty on the finances of the Unemployment Assistance Board under Part II. They might very

    991
    well increase the period for which benefits should be paid, which would give substantial relief to the finances and arrangements under Part II. On the other hand, they might decide to pay a higher rate of benefit for a shorter time. That would also have an important effect on the financial policy of the Unemployment Assistance Board. There is nowhere in the Bill any authority or machinery for coordinating the policy of the Board and the Statutory Committee. For that reason, I think that Parliament ought to have the fullest opportunity of being in the position of co-ordinating the policies of the two bodies which the Government in their wisdom, for reasons I have been unable to discover, have made independent one of the other.
    7.19 p.m.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: The point of substance brought forward by hon. Members opposite was that if the law is altered by means of an order and not by a Bill, there is no opportunity of amendment. That, I think, is the only point of substance that has been raised, because the procedure we are considering is well established, and there is no point in urging that an important order would be taken late at night. It is true that the numerous small Orders under the Import Duties Act are now customarily taken at the end of the day, but hon. Members will recollect that on occasions when there has been an Order of real importance, a whole day has been given to the discussion of it. Obviously, in any Parliament, if an Order of great importance were brought forward, the Opposition would naturally ask, and the Government would be compelled to arrange for, the Order to be taken at a suitable time of the day. Therefore, I do not think there is much practical substance in the suggestion that the thing would be rushed through late at night.
    The orders under this Clause are not like an order that has to lay on the Table and automatically comes into operation unless there is a Prayer against it, but the point of substance is that we cannot amend an order, and I should have thought that hon. Members might have met the situation by a small Amendment in line 38. It says there that the Minister shall make an order embodying the recommendations in the report. I can see the possibility of the Statutory Com-
    992
    mittee, having examined the situation, recommending, for example, a change in the period of benefit, a change in the rates of contribution, and, conceivably, certain changes in the rates of benefit. It might well be the case that the points of their recomendations hung together, but nevertheless, there might be general agreement with regard to two points in the report but not with regard to the third. If the Minister felt that that situation was likely to develop and he attempted to deal with the situation, not by making one order, but by making two or three orders covering a particular report, that in some circumstances would be a proper power for him to possess. A scheme might be brought forward that was rather extensive and after discussion in the House there might be evident agreement on the bulk of it, but on one point violent disagreement; and the Minister might feel that disagreement was such that he could not go forward with the scheme and that he would be compelled to withdraw the whole of the order because he wished to modify one part of it.
    It is the case in practice that these orders are amended, not on the Floor of the House, but by the process of the Minister withdrawing the whole order with a view to tabling a new one. I am inclined to think that the Minister might find it advantageous. It would not compel him to table more than one order, but if it seemed convenient that he should table more than one in respect of more than one report, then by the insertion in line 38 after the word "order" of the words "or orders," I believe that most of the difficulties that hon. Members opposite feel might be met. I do not know what view the Minister will take of this suggestion, but it does not impose any obligation on him. If he is willing to accept the proposal, perhaps Mr. Speaker will accept a manuscript Amendment.
    7.23 p.m.
    Mr. C. BROWN: Hon. Members opposite think that this is the best possible Bill to deal with unemployment, and that the machinery which it devises to deal with the changed character of that problem the best possible machinery. That is not the view of some of us who sit on these benches. Consequently we do not like the Statutory Committee or the methods by which it is proposed it should

    993
    function. When I say that, I ought to recall to the House the nature of the arguments that are put forward in support of setting up these extra-Parliamentary bodies. The Government are very fond of setting up these bodies, some of them with executive functions and some with merely advisory functions. One of these advisory bodies is dealt with in this Clause. They are called into being because it is suggested they will always operate without being actuated by political considerations. That is the main argument put forward in their support. I am more than ever convinced that the House ought to carry our Amendment because of an incident that occurred yesterday. We have other bodies of this kind acting in an advisory capacity, and yesterday the President of the Board of Trade, in making his statement, suggested that the Tariff Advisory Committee should at once get on with the job of considering the silk duties. Twelve months ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a speech in the House in which, in effect, he told the Tariff Advisory Committee to leave the silk duties alone for 12 months.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: No.
    Mr. BROWN: In effect he did. It was the result, at any rate. The committee did not go on considering them.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: As the result of the commercial negotiations taking place with Japan, the Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote a letter to the Advisory Committee explaining the position, and suggested that as he could not give effect to any recommendations that they might make, it would be wise to suspend their investigations.
    Mr. BROWN: That is the point I was trying to make. You set up these extra-Parliamentary bodies, the argument being that they would not be actuated by political considerations. In a case of the Import Duties Committee, we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer acting in such a way as to stay the action of an extra-Parliamentary body and to suspend its activities in a particular respect for 12 months. We have another Minister coming to the House yesterday and telling them to get on with the job because of a certain situation which has arisen. It is conceivable that this Statutory Committee, functioning in the sphere of un-
    994
    employment insurance, could equally be actuated by ministerial statements in this House, perhaps on very important matters, and it could make orders largely in keeping with those ministerial statements. Those Orders would in due course come before the House and under the proposed procedure would get very little consideration.
    We are, I think, entitled to put forward this Amendment and to suggest that if it is carried it will ensure that the House of Commons will be able to give more adequate discussion. We know it cannot amend these Orders, but the Amendment will ensure that the House will be able to give more adequate consideration to reports and Orders which may have been actuated by Ministerial statements, and which would not be free, as it is suggested, from political considerations. The Government have always means at their disposal of influencing such bodies as this, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, still loyal to some of the best traditions of the Liberal party, in spite of his doubts about the technicalities of the Amendment, wants to retain the control of adequate discussion in the House of Commons on these important matters.
    7.27 p.m.
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment stated that the Amendment raises questions of far-reaching importance, and that having regard to the whole scheme of the Bill it was impossible to over-estimate its importance. That is perfectly true. If this Amendment were carried, it would completely destroy the machinery which the Bill sets up to secure the financial solvency of the fund. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. J. Reid) pointed out that the effect of the Amendment is to leave out from the word "Parliament," in line 33, to the end of the Clause. The Amendment, therefore, would exclude the provision under which, if the Minister does not accept the proposals of the Committee for securing the solvency of the fund, he shall make proposals which
    "in his opinion have substantially the same effect on the financial condition of the Unemployment Fund as that estimated by the report as being the effect of the amendments recommended."

    995
    The whole structure and purpose of this part of the Bill is to ensure that the fund is solvent and self-supporting. If Part I fails to secure that and to ensure, as we hope for all time while the Act is in operation, that the Fund is solvent and self-supporting, then one of the main purposes of the Bill will be lost. Quite clearly, this object of maintaining the solvency of the fund will not be achieved unless the finances are kept under constant review and unless there is a deliberate obligation—which would be eliminated if this Amendment were carried—on the Minister of Labour to take prompt action when the expenditure exceeds the income.
    Why did we come to this conclusion? Why is it that we thought it was necessary to put in this Clause, which has so far-reaching an effect? The reason is that, the whole history of unemployment insurance, certainly since 1920, has been that Government after Government have failed to face up to an unpleasant and possibly an unpopular task when the fund was receding into insolvency and instead of being an Insurance Fund was degentrating into a "dole" fund. It is to prevent that state of things that we have inserted this Clause. The observations of the Royal Commission on this point are so relevant that I would draw the attention of the House to them. The Royal Commission, it must be remembered once again—and I make no apology for reminding the House of the fact—was set up by my predecessor and the last Government, and its terms of reference were to make recommendations with regard to the insurance scheme,
    "its future scope, the provisions which it should contain and the means by which it may be made solvent and self-supporting."
    The Royal Commission recommended just exactly what we have incorporated in the Bill, and they did that for reasons which are set out in paragraphs 288 and 289. I will not read the whole of those paragraphs but only the relevant parts. It is pointed out that under the existing law, under Section 15 of the Act of 1920, it was for the Minister if the Treasury so directed, to make modifications by Order to ensure the solvency of the fund. But every Government since 1920 refused to face up to the situation arid to face up to what would probably be
    996
    an unpopular task. The result was that in 1921 we began the pernicious system of borrowing, which went on until 1931. It is to prevent a recurrence of that practice and to ensure that we do not delude ourselves by calling the scheme "insurance" when it is nothing of the kind, and to ensure that our insurance scheme shall be an insurance scheme in reality as well as in name, that we have inserted this provision. Let me remind the House of what the Royal Commission said when pointing out that no Minister had adopted the powers that he had under Section 15 of the Act of 1920. They said :
    "Throughout the period 1920–1932 we know of no occasion on which this procedure was acted upon. The atrophy of these Ministerial powers may have come about because amending legislation was constantly needed on subjects other than finance, and it was the line of least resistance to include financial proposals within a Bill which was necessary in any case."
    A little further down the Report says :
    "Each successive Government has made changes in the scheme, which have been determined less by the need for the careful balancing of income and expenditure than by a desire to attract, or do as little as possible to repel, electoral support. As we have said (in paragraph 198) it may well be that from time to time the interests of industry, both employers and workers, have been sacrificed to the interests of political expediency."
    Further, they say :
    "On this ground alone, we have reached the conclusion that there is need for an impartial body outside the immediate political arena which has the duty of keeping the unemployment insurance scheme constantly under review, and of suggesting changes in the scheme which will maintain its finances upon a sound basis."
    What is recommended in the Report in that respect is incorporated in the Bill. Later in the same paragraph, 289, the Report says :
    "It seems to us that only by this means is there any assurance that full consideration will be given to the financial effects of legislative changes in the scheme and adjustment of the finances of the scheme as unemployment fluctuates."
    That is the reason why this Clause and these provisions have been inserted, and if they are taken out, as this Amendment seeks to take them out, the whole value of this part of the Bill goes. I cannot for a moment accept an Amendment which has that effect.
    I appreciate all that the hon. Member said with regard to the procedure as to

    997
    Orders. I can only say that so far as I am concerned, and I give this assurance, the House will have the fullest opportunity of discussing any Orders for which I am responsible. The hon. Member asked: "Why do it by Order? Why not do it by Act of Parliament? Why not bring in a Bill?" It may well be, and I hope it will be, that the Statutory Committee may say: "The time has now come when the balance at our disposal is such that we are justified in recommending a reduction of contributions." It may be that they may say: "We are justified in making some alteration in the rates of benefit." It may be that they will say:" The funds at our disposal justify some further relief to the contributors." The result of the procedure we propose will be that if the Statutory Committee come to that conclusion and make that recommendation an Order can be brought before the House at once, and we can obtain the approval of the House or rejection by the House. In that way we are saved from the necessarily cumbrous procedure of an ad hoc Bill to deal perhaps with one specific point: "Shall contributions be reduced?" or "Shall benefits be altered?" possibly to the advantage of the recipients.
    The Bill is deliberately designed to put the fund permanently on a solvent, self-supporting basis, and it is designed to do away with the necessity which has been experienced so often in past years of attempting to bolster up an insolvent fund by borrowing with the results that we have seen. I hope the House will not countenance the acceptance of an Amendment which would destroy the whole value of this part of the Bill.
    7.41 p.m.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: On this side of the House we have expressed disagreement with the main principles of the Bill, and that disagreement is more fully justified after the last speech of the right hon. Gentleman than ever before. He has said that it was his intention and the intention of the Government to bring forward a Bill to make the scheme of insurance, in his euphomistic phrase, solvent and self-supporting, which, in effect, has been to remove the scheme of insurance, the control of insurance and the conditions of insurability away from the control of this House. It is because this Bill effectively does that that we have
    998
    brought forward this Amendment, which was moved with great directness and frankness by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall). The right hon. Gentleman says—I am paraphrasing what he said—that the purpose of the Bill is to enable a future Government to face up to the emergency conditions and to keep the fund solvent and self-supporting. He denounced past Governments, including Governments of which he has been a Minister, for not facing up to the position. Therefore, he says: "I propose to set up some body, other than Parliament, to deal with the matter. Parliament has been unworthy of its responsibility." The Government with which he was connected failed in its executive responsibility and he says: "Let us get some body that will do the work, some body of people who cannot be held responsible, some body who, in the Minister's words—again I am paraphrasing—will not be subject to pressure from the electorate." Since when has this House condemned attention to the demands of the electorate? Do the Conservative party stand for that? Do the present Government pay no heed to the demands of their supporters? There are a good many rumours about, and from the discussions we have had in the House regarding the approaches to the Tariff Advisory Committee, we are not quite sure that even the outside bodies which the Government set up are independent of pressure.
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I do not think I made myself quite clear. The whole object is not what I think the hon. Member represented it to be; it is to compel the House of Commons to face up to the situation. It is the House of Commons that has to take the responsibility of facing up to the situation and not of riding away from it.
    Mr. GRENFELL: That is very ingenuous, and so disarming is the right-hon. Gentleman's ingenuousness that I cannot quarrel with him, but if it were anybody other than the right hon. Gentleman I should be very much more dubious indeed of the implications of what he has said to the House. The right hon. Gentleman stands nakedly—figuratively speaking—and unashamedly for a dictatorship. The right hon. Gentleman is taking steps to take away from the innocent-looking Members on that side of

    999
    the House and the innocent Members on this side of the House the right to examine the future legislation of this insurance scheme, which will affect the lives of 13,000,000 insured persons, and if one multiplies that 13,000,000 by two or more, there are 30,000,000 men, women and children who will have their fortunes and circumstances influenced and affected by-whatever is to be done by this Statutory Committee. This Statutory Committee is to have extensive powers, if not of life and death, at least of welfare or misery, over the lives of a very large number of people, and the right hon. Gentleman is only confessing timidity on his own part and the part of his colleagues in the Government when he says that they wish to remove these matters from the controversy of this House. After all, Parliament lives to argue and to contend; if Parliament does not exist for that, what does it exist for? If Parliament does not exist to respond to the popular demand for supervision of popular affairs, then we have mistaken the purpose of Parliament altogether.
    The right hon. Gentleman quoted the report of the Royal Commission, but I do not think he was justified in using paragraphs 289 and 290. There are certain recommendations there, but they are that the Statutory Committee to be set up should present an annual report on the condition of the fund and make certain recommendations each year which may assist Parliament and the Minister in determining what changes, if any, may be required in subsequent legislation. After all, it is legislation. We cannot escape legislation by these Orders in Council. It is legislation, but nobody yet on that side of the House and no Minister dare stand up and say that these changes, affecting the rates of benefit and of contribution, should be made without consultation with Parliament. Parliament has to give its consent, but the right hon. Gentleman says that this is going to give Parliament the right to give its consent in a more direct way. I submit that Parliament is not going to give its consent, because Parliament is to be told what it is to do, and that is not consent. Parliament is to be merely a registering authority at the command of the right hon. Gentleman. There will be no possi-
    1000
    bility of any alteration or change in these Orders. The Minister has made that quite clear.
    Now let us see what the Bill proposes, because it is vitally important. Members of Parliament, in passing this Bill, are depriving themselves and those who are to suceeed them, who will be entirely different people, we hope, but they will be the Parliamentary successors of hon. Members who are going to do this thing to-day, of certain rights, and even though the hon. Members who now face me have no intention of coming back to this House again after another election, they ought to leave the House in order, for those who are to follow them. They must not sign away, they must not sell, the birthright of Parliament, as is going to be done if this Bill is carried through unaltered. In the first part of this Clause, in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4), are laid down the conditions under which the Statutory Committee is to do certain things, and really we do not quarrel with the setting up of the Statutory Committee, provided that it is a Committee with statutory authority to do certain things, but not a committee which is to dismiss Parliament itself. We do not for the moment wish to quarrel very much with what is proposed until we come to the point where, the Statutory Committee having made its investigation, having kept in close contact with the operations of the fund, and having made its report to the Minister, the Report has been laid before Parliament; then we say, "You should stop there." This Bill proceeds to do, from that point forward, something which the House should not permit to be done. This Sub-section says that the Minister shall lay the report before Parliament, and then it goes on to say:
    "and in a case where the report contains recommendations for the amendment of the Unemployment Insurance Acts or of any previous order made under this section, shall, after consultation with the Treasury, lay before Parliament "
    and so on.
    The Statutory Committee is to make a report, which is to be laid before Parliament. We shall all see the report, and at that point it will be public property, but that will not be the final form of the draft Order which is to be laid before Parliament. The Minister will then

    1001
    start to work on the report, and he will take into consultation the Treasury. They will go away from this House to some little office of their own, and they will have people to advise them and to consult with them. We shall not be parties to that consultation at all. The whole House will be utterly ignored, and in two months' time they will have hatched a draft Order. They will place the draft Order on the Table of the House, but Members of this House will have nothing to do with the shaping of the draft Order or with its terms. They will be told to sit here like nice, obedient Members of the Opposition, and the Government will put the draft Order on the Box and say why they have altered it. In paragraph (b) of this Sub-section (5) the Minister is expected to state, in so far as the Amendments proposed by the draft Order differ from those recommended by the report, the reasons for the difference. The Statutory Committee is to make its recommendations. The Minister and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who are both facing me at this moment, will take those recommendations away, and they will work on them. Then they will bring forward their draft Order, which may, and probably will, vary from the recommendations, and they will be expected to say why they differ. They reserve to themselves the right to amend, the right to exercise their judgment upon the recommendations, but this House has not got that right.
    Back comes the draft Order to this House, but nobody in this House is worthy of making any suggestion for amending the recommendations. That is to be denied to the wisest, most experienced, and most public-spirited Members of this House. The only people who have any right to make suggestions are the two Ministers opposite. They will then bring the finished product, the draft Order, before the House of Commons, and they will tell the House of Commons, "You swallow this. This is a concoction of ours which we think is justified because the Statutory Committee has told us so." We too shall have seen the report of the Statutory Committee, and from that report we may have drawn entirely different conclusions from those of the two Ministers, but we are not to be allowed to express our recommendations at all.
    1002
    We are told to sit here, and all we can do, presumably, is to make faces at the two Ministers, provided we are within the Rules of Order. We can express our dissent, we can express total abhorrence of the new Order, but all that is left us to do is to vote in the "No" Lobby, knowing that there are enough obedient Members behind the Government to overwhelm us by going into the other Lobby. That is a travesty of Parliamentary procedure, an unwarranted and unwarrantable assault on the constitution, and I appeal to hon. Members to support our Amendment.
    One hon. Member said that we were taking something away from the Bill and putting nothing in its place. That is true. We propose taking this part to which we refer away from the Bill, and what are we going to put in its place? Well, we leave Parliament to take its place. We take away from the Statutory Committee powers that do not belong to it, and while we allow the Statutory Committee to carry on its investigations and make its computations as to the needs of the fund, and its recommendations to the Minister, and while we allow the Minister to present us with those recommendations, we shall consider them and try to understand all that the Statutory Committee wish to tell us—we shall try to understand all the changes they propose—but we refuse to be tied in advance, and we wish to pass this Amendment to leave out the words of which we complain, reserving to ourselves and to those who may sit here after us in this part of the House and those who may sit after hon. Members opposite in that part of the House, reserving to Parliament in short, the rights of Members and of Parliament itself to amend any and all of the proposals that come before it.
    7.56 p.m.
    Mr. SPENS: It has been pointed out that what the Opposition are trying to do is to insist that every alteration that is required in the present regulations affecting the Insurance Fund shall have in the future to be carried out by a Bill in this House of Commons, and that is the intention of the Amendment. I would remind the House that really there has hardly been a first-class Measure in this century where it has not been necessary for Parliament to hand over, either to some body or to some Minister or

    1003
    some Department, the power of legislating, using that word in its broadest sense, either as regards machinery or the details of carrying out that Measure. Many of us have been watching very jealously and carefully the machinery which Parliament has selected for each particular case, because we know only too well that on numerous occasions during this century Parliament has handed over to the Departments the right of making decisions and introducing new rules and regulations which vitally affect hundreds and thousands of individuals, and Parliament has kept no control of any sort or kind over those rules and regulations.
    Various systems have been adopted in Acts of Parliament, and I congratulate the Minister most heartily on the machinery which he would introduce into this Bill. I quite agree that if hon. Members opposite say that nothing is to be done as regards previous insurance legislation in this country, including the first part of this Bill, except by an Act of Parliament, then they will disagree with what I am going to say root and branch. I am not going to argue about that. The case made by the Minister seems to me absolutely convincing to anybody, that if the Statutory Committee is going to be of any use at all, its recommendations must be capable of being carried into law with the least possible delay. At the same time, I should have been the very first to object to any system unless I were satisfied that the control of this House was maintained as regards their recommendations.
    With great respect to the hon. Member, the last speech to which we have listened was a travesty of what this Clause really provides. What happens is this. The Statutory Committee make a report. This is made public. We all know what it is. Just as many commissions or other bodies when they make a report think they can assist things by attaching to it a draft Bill, we are, by this Bill, encouraging the Statutory Committee to assist things by making their recommendations in the form of a draft Order. But just as the report of a Royal Commission or any other committee comes before the Department responsible, so that report and that draft Order come before the Minister mentioned in this Clause, and his duty is to bring forward
    1004
    this draft Order, if it is in a proper form to be brought before Parliament and to be made part of the insurance law of the land; if not, it is his duty to suggest such Amendments as he thinks fit and to put the Order, as so amended, with his reasons for the Amendment, before Parliament.
    On every occasion we get the report and the draft Order suggested by the committee, and the Minister's Amendment and his explanation of it. Then the matter is brought before Parliament, and each House is asked affirmatively to approve the Order so brought before it. If there were anything in the Order to which the bulk of the House objected, it is perfectly clear that the Order would not go through as it was brought before us, and the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) is perfectly right in saying the Amendments would not be dealt with on the Floor of the House, which is not the best method in matters of detail, but there would be a full Debate on the draft Order and opportunities for Members to express their views; and if the Order were not in a proper form, it would be brought back in a form the House would approve. If it were approved by the majority it would go through and hon. Members opposite no doubt hope that they will be able to bring in Orders that they can push through Parliament. That is the procedure in this case, a procedure which, I submit, combines the two things we want, namely, not legislation uncontrolled by this House from outside bodies, but a machinery by which an outside body, whose sole duty is to have regard to the details of some first-class Measure, will be in a position to put their recommendations clearly before this House, and this House alone, with another place, will have the responsibility of making those recommendations law or not.
    I suggest that this is an infinitely better procedure than that to which we have been accustomed in the past, of handing over to an outside body the right of making Orders over which this House, to all intents and purposes, has no control. If I may deal with one point of some importance which came from these benches it is suggested there is nothing in the Bill by which what a body in Part I is doing can be co-ordinated with what a body under Part II is doing. With great

    1005
    respect, the co-ordinating person is of course the Minister who is responsible for both Parts, for the Orders made by this body and the rules and regulations made by the other. But for the moment the point we are on is the control by this House of the Orders under this Clause, and I hope that the House will adopt the machinery put forward here as a machinery which, I think, does exactly what we want, namely, provide the control of this House over the recommendations of an outside body.
    8.6 p.m.
    Sir P. HARRIS: We have heard an eloquent and moving appeal in favour of this new Parliamentary procedure, and I think it should be said from these benches what our attitude is. We listened with great respect to the Minister in his very right appeal in favour of making the Insurance Fund solvent. He quoted rather effectively from the Royal Commission. As a matter of fact, a Royal Commission usually is very sound, but this Commission said that Parliaments tend to adopt the course which is politically easier and are less conscious of the need of maintaining sound principles of social servce, and therefore give increased payments in less exacting conditions. The Royal Commission, in other words, placed the responsibility for these increased inroads into the Insurance Funds generally on Parliament and the Government. Anybody who knows the procedure of Parliament knows the responsibility must be with the Government of the day. We have had an eloquent description of how every successive Government has equally been responsible for pushing burdens on that fund that did not rightly belong to it. But Parliament cannot initiate. The initiative has to be with the Government. The procedure of this House, rightly or wrongly, is that no private Member can initiate expenditure. We have suffered from it in these Debates. During the Committee and Report stages Members have had ideas that they would like to see embodied in the Bill—one special example is that of the children's allowances—but owing to this historical tradition that only from the Treasury bench can proposals that involve increased expenditure be initiated, Parliament has never been able, private Members have never been able, the Op-
    1006
    position has never been able, to increase expenditure.
    Therefore, the responsibility for extravagance, for bad finance, for bad management of this fund cannot rightly be laid upon Parliament as such. In so far, of course, as we have supported the Government of the day in their evil doings, we may share responsibility, but what we are anxious about on this side of the House is complete control on the one hand against the Government going in for extravagant, unsound financial proposals, and, on the other hand, curtailing the rights of the beneficiaries under this fund. The Minister suggested that it might be possible under this particular Clause for the recommendation to go forward for proposals to reduce the contribution to employers and employed. That is a very important principle of policy, vital to the whole system. It may be a very good thing, but the Members of Parliament, responsible for the traditions of this House, want to be able to get control over such vital principles affecting our electors. The House of Commons might not be in favour of that particular method of spending the surplus. It might be a Conservative House of Commons, which would rather, as the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) suggested, see the surplus used for building up a reserve. Or, we might be in favour, instead of reducing contributions, of increasing benefits; but the House of Commons would be paralysed under this procedure; it could only say "Aye" or "Nay." The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) made what I think was a good suggestion, that instead of the Orders being put forward en bloc in one Order which we cannot amend or alter, the Minister should have the power of putting them separately so that each can be negatived or approved on its merits.
    I do not like this particular Amendment, and I think the Mover and Seconder will agree that it is a rather clumsy way of asserting the principle that they are presumably after, of maintaining control by Parliament; but we attach great importance to keeping a hold over the Government of the day and over this new Commission which is going to be responsible for the administration of this fund, so that, when it comes forward

    1007
    with its proposals, Parliament which represents the people concerned, and affords the only opportunity of the insured persons expressing their views, should be able thoroughly to criticise and examine not only en bloc but in detail. The hon. and learned Member for Ash-ford (Mr. Spens) grew quite eloquent over this new machinery. I can understand the hon. Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), who visualises a new Parliament of action such as Sir Oswald Mosley might favour, doing the same—do it now! Do it quickly, without examination without wasting time, without the clumsy procedure of discussion! Do it first and think after! That is the kind of thing we do not favour. We want to get control of the House of Commons over this most important part of our social system, unemployment insurance, and for that reason I do not like the provisions of this Clause, which we consider provide inadequate opportunities for criticism and discussion of something very vital to the people of the country.
    8.13 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I want to deal in a few minutes with the statements of the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens). I think he was rather optimistic as to what really happens in the House. If he had been longer in the House I think he would know more of what the procedure is like. We are, as he says, owing to the crowded state of our business, under the necessity of having legislation not entirely in a Bill but by ministerial orders, and the question as to exactly what is to be done with these ministerial Orders is a very serious one. If any one suggests that our present system, or the system proposed here, whereby the Orders are brought forward, generally as the hon. and learned Member recognises at a very inconvenient hour of the evening, and the House is offered a conglomeration of proposals to which it must say "Aye" or "Nay"—if he really thinks that this is giving the House adequate control, I think he will learn better later on.
    Mr. SPENS: I know the hon. Gentleman wishes to be fair. I was pointing out that this procedure, which requires an affirmative vote of this House and the other House, is infinitely better than the old procedure which was commonly
    1008
    followed until some years ago, when orders were simply put on the Table and became law unless somebody petitioned against them. That was the point I was making. If this machinery is adopted, it is the fault of the House itself if we do not adequately and properly debate matters of this importance.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I am quite aware of what the hon. and learned Member said, but he has missed the point. Whether this House has to approve in a negative way or a positive way, the whole point is that we have got either to take the Order or to leave it, because there is no possibility of amending it. Almost every evening, we get these orders. The Board of Trade are extraordinarily prolific in this matter. An order will contain good things and bad things, but the Government will say "You must take it or leave it." The hon. and learned Member suggests that, if the House does not like it, it will reject the order. When does the House do that? Does he really suggest that this House, as composed at present, ever rejects anything in the way of an order brought forward by the Government? Of course it does not. What we require is a proper examination of proposals.
    The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) thought fit to say something with regard to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). Unfortunately, I have had to make this complaint previously against another Member of the Liberal party, who made precisely the same point. I expect it is sent out from one or other of the head offices of the Liberal party. The one person who has made detailed proposals to deal with this form of legislation by order, so that the House may keep control and consider these matters in detail is the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol, but the Liberal party are quite content to take up a catch word without ever trying to learn. An hon. Member outside has been saying of the Liberals that they are extraordinarily good at criticism but never produce anything constructive. He was an agricultural Member, and he went on to say "The Liberals never really lay an egg at all; if they do lay an egg you never know whose farm-yard it will be in; and if you do get it, it will probably be addled." The Liberal party are very

    1009
    great on prating about things, but never get much farther than crowing. We here well know of the unsatisfactory way in whch these orders are got through. What is essential is that the House should have an opportunity of expressing its views and have the right to amend an order, and not be faced with the alternatives of accepting or rejecting it. We want proper control by this House, and to suggest that the House has proper control merely because an affirmative Resolution must be passed is to suggest what is not really the case.
    8.20 p.m.
    Sir GEORGE GILLETT: It seems to me that the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has really answered most of the criticisms which have been made from the Labour Front Bench and his own benches, because on any main problem of importance the final decision, as he says, rests with the Minister. What difference would it make if we were to have a Bill, as I understand is suggested by the Labour party? They say that a Bill should be drawn up based upon the recommendations of the Committee, and that would give an opportunity for a minute examination. It seems to me that the Debate has gone over a great many subjects which are far beyond the point which the hon. Member who moved the Amendment had in his mind, and that is the question of making amendments to the recommendations of the committee. I agree that we are here making a change in the customs of the House, but if there is any question of vital importance the matter has finally to be decided by the votes of the House. Hon. Members opposite have said that such an Order would never be defeated, but we know from the history of the House that when a matter of supreme importance comes up the existence of the Government may become at stake. Therefore, if we are never going to have the Government defeated, it proves that the questions which will come up will be of such secondary importance that the future of the Government is not considered to be vital.
    This is an occasion when the House might very well make an experiment. Everybody is discussing the waste of time in the House of Commons and the lack of facilities for putting business through quickly, and I do not see why hon. Mem-
    1010
    bers who think something should be done to reform Parliament should not take the opportunity of finding out whether this may not prove to be a useful reform. One recognises that it does take away certain powers of criticism which would be left to the House if the proposal of hon. Members opposite were agreed to, but, on the other hand, one must admit that there would be an enormous saving of time; and finally, as the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green has said, the decision will be the decision of the Minister and the Government of the day. Therefore, I am very pleased personally to support this proposal, as I feel it is an important step in what is needed, and that is the acceleration of business in the House of Commons.
    8.23 p.m.
    Mr. GLUCKSTEIN: I would not have intervened in the Debate had I not felt that it was time that someone exposed what I can only describe as the hypocrisy of hon. Members on the benches below me. This Amendment might conceivably have been moved from any quarter of the House rather than theirs, and I think that I should then have gone into the Division Lobby silently, as usual, had it not been that the hon. Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee) took the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) severely to task for saying something about the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). There is a saying that the pitcher may go once too often to the well, and the hon. Member has gone once too often to the well, at any rate for my peace of mind, or for the purposes of accuracy. I felt that something of the sort might occur, and for purposes of greater accuracy, if I may borrow the phrase, I have obtained for the sum of 5s. a copy of a volume entitled, "Problems of the Socialist Government." This work has been so frequently misquoted by various Members of the House on this very point of legislation by order that I think it may be necessary for the members of the Socialist party to have a meeting to discover which of their leaders they propose to follow, because I understand now that there must be some dispute between them, that is if I read aright the language used by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol.
    I will not worry the House with more than three quotations from this monu-

    1011
    mental work, but they ought to be sufficient to satisfy the House once and for all that the Government's Clause, now represented by the Opposition as a mischievous and revolutionary proposal, has the approval, the solemn approval, in no less than three places, of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol. It may be that other hon. Members of the House think that that opinion is right, but it does not lie in the mouths of hon. Members below me, in the circumstances, to move the Amendment which is on the Paper to-night. On page 43, he is dealing with the panic which will arise at the arrival of a Socialist administration, and then follows an account of the steps the Government ought to take straight away:
    "The Government's first step will be to call Parliament together at the earliest moment and place before it an Emergency Powers Bill to be passed through all its stages on the first day. This Bill will be wide enough in its terms to allow all that will be immediately necessary to be done by Ministerial Order. These Orders must be incapable of challenge in the courts or in any way except in the House of Commons."
    There is no mention there of any Amendment being allowed.
    Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. Member is quoting, of course, perfectly correctly, but he is quoting from suggestions made for dealing with an actual emergency.
    Mr. GLUCKSTEIN: I must proceed, and I cannot allow the hon. Member to put me off. I go on to page 51. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol is there rather more constructive. If the hon. Member for Limehouse had waited until I had read this passage he would have seen that there is not much force in talking about emergencies and crises. He would have found on page 51 that there is approval of the habit—I personally regret it—which has overtaken this House, of legislation by order. The hon. and learned Member says that there are two sorts of legislation, two categories—
    "Acts of Parliament dealing in the main with the more important matters and with principles "—
    while
    "the detailed provisions for the administration of particular services are laid down
    1012
    in Provisional Orders, Orders in Council or Statutory Rules and Orders. Such Orders are made by the responsible Ministers under the authority of the Cabinet and are subject to either negative or positive Parliamentary approval. This method of legislation has been gradually developed until under the present Government the most important matters, such as taxation of the subject by import duties, have come to be dealt with by administrative Orders."
    I would point out to the hon. Member for Limehouse that it is not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read it all"]—I have come to the end of the paragraph. The hon. and learned Member does not go on to say: "a course of which I heartily disapprove and of which my party will see that there is no recurrence."
    Perhaps the best passage is found on page 56, in which, having offered a constructive plan for dealing with the unfortunate citizens of this country in one Bill to be produced at the beginning of the year, he goes on to say:
    "It is idle, once Parliament has decided upon a certain course of action, to discuss its wisdom again and again. It will probably be advisable to pass this Bill before the beginning of each year, that is in an Autumn Session."
    I invite hon. Members' attention to this passage:
    "Once the Bill is passed, most of its provisions can be given more detailed legislative shape in ministerial Orders, which will be submitted formally to Parliament for approval."
    In the face of those quotations I hope that hon. Members of the Opposition will once and for all forbear to tell us that one of their leaders does not approve of the particular course which they have been condemning in no unmeasured language, and I hope that when the time comes they will come into the Lobby with me against this Amendment.
    8.29 p.m.
    Mr. McENTEE: The only good thing in the speech to which we have just listened is that it has advertised a book that would be worth while reading by everybody in the country. The interpretation that has been placed upon it by the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Gluckstein) would certainly not be the interpretation which the public would put either on the passages or on the book as a whole. The second passage quoted by the hon. Member

    1013
    appeared to bear the very opposite construction to the one which he put upon it. If he and I disagree to the extent to which we do, it would be well if other hon. Members could read the book. I hope that the Press will give wide publicity to the name of the book, and in that way the book will get such an advertisement that its sales will go up, and the advantage to the public, for whose interest the book was written, will be considerable.
    In regard to the Amendment, whether hon. Members opposite approve or disapprove of certain things, the public outside will still judge them as far as they are capable of making a judgment. The public will ask whether this is a reasonable method to adopt, and whether it is going to be fair in its workings to the people whom it will affect. The public in my constituency will ask themselves whether the Members that they have chosen ought not to have an opportunity of determining whether the recommendations made by this or any other statutory committee ought to be made known, and whether every Member of Parliament ought not to have an equal right with any other Member in determining whether recommendations should be amended.
    There may be hon. Members with very much greater experience than I, and there certainly are Members with a very much better education than I have had, and they may consider themselves better qualified than I to decide whether a recommendation of a statutory committee ought to be amended, and, if so, how. I do not think that there can be any doubt that the Amendment which we are now discussing is one that would be fair and equitable, and that would give every hon. Member an opportunity of amending any Order that may be made. The Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary, as well as other Members of the Government, may consider that they alone have the qualities to enable them to determine what it is best for Parliament to do. Apparently they take that view, and consequently they are bringing in this Bill in its present form. It may be that Members on this side of the House who are now in opposition will occupy the Government benches, and that they may take the same point of view. I
    1014
    hope that they will not. I hope that they will continue to take the point of view which they have always taken in the past, that that which is right is the thing to do. If they believe in democracy, as they do, they should approach every question of importance in a way that will give the greatest opportunity to those who represent the constituencies to express opinion, either by Amendment or in any other way, upon anything that may be brought before Parliament.
    The Government will get a majority now. Members who are not in the House, and who have not heard a word of the discussion, will vote, as was said by an hon. and learned Member opposite a few minutes ago. The Order will be reviewed, and the Minister of the day, whoever he may be, will determine, in consultation with his friends in the Government, whether it is to be amended or not. Then the rest of us, like mere puppets, will be allowed to say by vote in the Lobby whether the Minister is right or whether he is wrong, but we shall not be able to say that he is right in part and wrong in part. We shall not be able, by any Amendment that we may desire to put down, to say that it would be better in the interests of the people concerned that part of the Order should be passed and the other part should not be passed. No doubt it would be impossible to make any submission to the Minister on this matter. He is too superior. He and his friends in the Government have all the knowledge in regard to these matters, and he has behind him that tame majority who will follow him into the Lobby, right or wrong. But to the rest of the House one can at least make the submission that they are giving away those rights which were given to them by their constituents, of coming here into Parliament and saying that this Parliament is at any rate, as it has been described in the past, a democratic Parliament to which they are sent to maintain the democratic principle. I submit that hon. Members, if they fail to do that, will be failing in their duty to the people who sent them here.
    8.38 p.m.
    Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFIFTH: I think it would have been kinder of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) not to have mentioned the hon. and learned Member

    1015
    for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) in the course of this Debate, because it seemed to have an over-exciting effect on Members above the Gangway and to give rise to a good deal of irrelevant discussion. But I am surprised that the mention of the hon. and learned Member should have caused the Deputy Leader of the Labour party to make the remarkable statement that the Liberal party had never produced any results—had never laid any eggs, I think he said. He might have remembered that, with all its faults, the Unemployment Insurance Scheme, which has been built up by the work of many Governments, has been depended upon by the unemployed of this country for many years, and that they would have been much worse off without it than they are to-day. Moreover, the provisions with regard to old age pensions and health insurance, which were opposed at the time by other parties, have formed a framework upon which every successive Government since the War has leaned in dealing with the difficulties of the day. Those were all eggs laid by the Liberal party, and I think the hon. Gentleman might have remembered that.
    Mr. ATTLEE: May I say that I was quoting from an eminent agricultural Member of this House?
    Mr. GRIFFITH: I really cannot follow the hon. Gentleman into the source, in the Lobby or wherever it may be, from which he gets this interesting tale, but I presumed, since he related it from the Front Opposition Bench, that he would take the responsibility for what he said, and I was pointing out that it was a rather unfortunate remark.
    As regards the Amendment, I feel that in a measure it is unsatisfactory, because it cuts off the Clause at a certain point and leaves nothing in its place; but I should certainly be the last to blame the official Opposition for having adopted that procedure at the present time. I understand that what they desire to do is to express their disapproval of the undemocratic machinery proposed by the Government, and, whatever some of their leaders may have said, if they are coming out now on behalf of democratic machinery, I am entirely with them. The
    1016
    Amendment raises an all-important point. When we have been dealing with matters connected with unemployment insurance, it has happened again and again that proposals which have been put forward and insufficiently discussed, but which have been regarded by Parliamentary draftsmen as adequate to the situation, have been found in the end to lead to entirely unexpected results. In view of the repeated experiences of that kind, I think it is important that Members of the House who are constantly in touch with the unemployed should be given greater power than merely the power to say whether on the whole they think that the Government's proposals had better be carried out or not. We have all our contributions to make from our knowledge of the detail work of this and previous Acts, and, unless we have the power ourselves actually to frame the machinery under which the unemployed will be dealt with, we are not really performing what is after all one of our most important Parliamentary functions.
    I believe that this machinery which is now adopted by the Government, although doubtless intended to produce rapid action, which in itself is a good thing, is defeating a more valuable object still, namely, the control of the people through their elected representatives over the manner in which the most vital elements in their lives are dealt with. I think, therefore, that any proposal which leaves out the power of Amendment is going to lead to a great many mistakes which could have been avoided by the collective wisdom of this House, which is returned here to make its contributions on matters of that kind. To reduce our powers to a mere "Aye" or "No" is not doing justice to the purpose for which the House is elected, and, therefore, although the precise form of the present Amendment may be open to objection, I believe that in principle it is right, and, as a protest against the method which the Government are adopting, I shall certainly vote for the Amendment.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 47.

    Division No. 249.]

    AYES.

    [8.43 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

    Penny, Sir George

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

    Graves, Marjorle

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

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

    Grigg, Sir Edward

    Petherirk, M.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Apsley, Lord

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Potter, John

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolle

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Balley, Eric Alfred George

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Hales, Harold K.

    Pybus, Sir Percy John

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Radford, E. A.

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

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

    Harbord, Arthur

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

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

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Bernays, Robert

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Ray, Sir William

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Blindell, James

    Hopkinson, Austin

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Boulton, W. W,

    Hornby, Frank

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Remer, John R.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

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

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

    Rickards, George William

    Braithwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Robinson, John Roland

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

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

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Ross, Ronald C.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Hurd, Sir Percy

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Burnett, John George

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

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield. B'tside)

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Jamleson, Douglas

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Castlereagh, viscount

    Jennings, Roland

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

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

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)

    Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

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

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Scone, Lord

    Christie, James Archibald

    Lamb. Sir Joseph Quinton

    Selley, Harry R.

    Clarke, Frank

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Law Sir Alfred

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Fortar)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A D.

    Lackle, J. A.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

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

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Colvllie, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Lewis. Oswald

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Liddall, Walter S.

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

    Cooke, Douglas

    Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

    Smithers, Waldron

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Lindsay. Noel Ker

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Soper, Richard

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Mabane, William

    Spender-Clay. Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Spens. William Patrick

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

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Stevenson, James

    Crossley, A. C.

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Stones, James

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Strauss, Edward A.

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

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Macqulsten, Frederick Alexander

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Denville, Alfred

    Magnay, Thomas

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Maitland, Adam

    Templeton, William P.

    Dlckie, John P.

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

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hertford)

    Drewe, Cedric

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

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Dunglass, Lord

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

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

    Eady, George H.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Todd, A. L. S. (Klngswinford)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Mills. Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

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

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Elmley, Viscount

    Mitcheson. G. G.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

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

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Ward. Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Fleming, Edward Lascelles

    Morelng, Adrian C.

    Word, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

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

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeo.

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

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

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Munro, Patrick

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Gibson, Charles Granville

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. I. H.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Wills, Wilfrid D,

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Pearson, William G.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Peat, Charles U.

    Mr. Womersley and Lord Erskine.

    1018

    1019

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Milner, Major James

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Banfield, John William

    Hamilton, Sir R. w.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Batey, Joseph

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Pickering, Ernest H.

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

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cape, Thomas

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    John, William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cove, William G.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    West, F. R.

    Crlpps, Sir Stafford

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    White, Henry Graham

    Daggar, George

    Kirkwood, David

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Lawson, John Jamas

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Edwards, Charles

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    McEniee, Valentine L.

    Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham.

    Griffith, F. Klngsley (Mlddlesbro', W.)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    CLAUSE 19.—(Treasury advances to Unemployment Fund.)
    8.52 p.m.
    Mr. HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 16, line 30, to leave out from "made," to "together," in line 31, and to insert:
    "under the said section before the coming into operation of this section."
    This Amendment and the next two Amendments are consequential on the alteration of the Clause dealing with what will happen to the fund on 1st July.
    Mr. LAWSON: These words are formal in view of the possible date of the commencement of the Act.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page IV, line 10, leave out "commencement of this part of this Act," and insert "coming into operation of this section."
    In line 21, leave out "commencement of this part of this Act," and insert "coming into operation of this section."—[Mr. Hudson.]
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 17, line 24, to leave out "half," and to insert "eighth."
    8.53 p.m.
    Mr. LAWSON: The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained at a previous stage exactly what this meant, and while there were cheers from those behind him because of the very small concession, I think he must have felt that he got off very lightly indeed in view of what he rather expected at an earlier stage of the proceedings. I gather that what it really means is that he has given something like £500,000 a year. When the microscope is put upon it, I do not know that it is even costing him that. Our attitude towards this generally is, Thank you for nothing. At a certain
    1020
    stage of the proceedings, when the public began to understand what it meant to lay upon the unemployed the weight of this great mass of debt, what it meant to the fund and how unjust it was to lay this debt upon people who had no responsibility whatever in the main for incurring that debt, not only the public but certain very responsible semi-official newspapers began to get rather alarmed as to the feeling that was prevailing among Members behind the Government. Those Members were beginning to be rather disturbed. It looked as though the Government were to have rather a rough time. Some of what I would term the semi-Government journals began to be very ponderous as to whether the Government should not really accept responsibility for either the whole or at least part of the debt. It would be possible to give quotations from papers like the "Times" to show that they really were very perturbed about the matter, and that Members behind the Government were not satisfied.
    At that stage the voice of the City spoke. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) came along, speaking for the City, I suppose, and for big business, and asked for what appeared to be something, but which was really nothing. He became, as it were, the head and front of what appeared to be the opposition behind the Government. In reality it was an attempt to side-track the really serious consideration of the responsibility for this debt and its effect upon the fund, so that a nice piece of by-play was taking place. The right hon. Member for Hillhead, with that capacity for terse statement and appearance of great knowledge of finance, speaking with all the weight of big business behind him, made Members round about

    1021
    him believe that he was really doing, and asking for, something. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose and said that he really thought there was something in the position which was being put up by the right hon. Member for Hillhead. Really, the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion had a speech prepared to answer the case against those who held that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to bear the whole weight of the debt. He was delighted to find a sort of coalition between himself and the right hon. Gentleman behind him, and was really pleasantly surprised to find how easily the Members behind the Government were taken in by the Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Hillhead.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to give something, but in reality he gave nothing. The Members behind him were satisfied. The City was happy. The newspapers which thought that there was something in the case for the State bearing the debt, were apparently satisfied, and were taken in by that very expert move. We hear to-night that the right hon. Gentleman is giving effect to this very slight arrangement which he made, for which we shall not even say "Thank you" at this or any other stage. The case still remains where it was. While we shall continue to pay interest to those who loan money, and shall accept the financial responsibility, we say that to lay a great burden of debt upon men who are already afflicted by unemployment, and who have no right to have to accept such a financial responsibility, is the same old story:
    "To him that hath shall be given, and to him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath."
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. K. GRIFFITH: The Amendment does not in any way alter the position which has been taken up from the beginning in so many parts of this House and the country with regard to the neglect of leaving this debt on the fund. The whole difficulty of the matter is that any proposal that could have been made from anywhere except from the Government Front Bench which would have been of any use would have been out of order, because it would have put a burden on the Exchequer. Anything that tended to put a burden on the Exchequer was no use, and therefore the right hon. Gentle-
    1022
    man the Member for Hillhead (Sir It. Horne) did a substantial service in this matter in that he introduced an Amendment upon which a general discussion might take place in order that the feeling of the House might be known. I think that that feeling remains exactly the same.
    Mr. LAWSON: What the right hon. Member for Hillhead did was to hinder a general discussion upon the Clause.
    Mr. GRIFFITH: My memory does not carry me to the same effect as that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), because I happen to remember that by the indulgence of the Chair we were, in point of fact, allowed an extremely wide latitude on the Amendment going beyond its actual terms. What has happened is that the Amend-went which is now being carried is merely a consequence of a proposal which was originally nothing more than a peg on which to hang a discussion. It has no greater importance than that to-day. As it is in its terms a small concession, I cannot imagine that it will be voted against in any part of the House, but it would be a great mistake for anybody in the Government to suppose that they were not putting first things first, and were not, in dealing with this matter, giving their own Bill a fair chance, allowing the new edition of Unemployment Insurance to come out with a fair prospect of success. That feeling remains, I believe, wherever it was originally felt. It may be muzzled in some quarters at the present moment, but I believe that it will be felt very widely up and down the country, and that nothing we do to-night will make any difference to it at all.
    9.3 p.m.
    Mr. CAPORN: The two speeches to which we have just listened are really very amazing when one considers whence they came. One would imagine, listening to the two speeches, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is imposing this burden upon the fund for the first time. In fact the duty was deliberately imposed upon the fund by Members who sit upon the Opposition Benches, with the support of Members who now sit upon the benches below the Gangway. It is really playing with the House and the country to get up at this stage in the history of the fund

    1023
    and charge the Chancellor of the Exchequer with imposing the burden, whereas in truth and in fact he has relieved the fund of a very substantial part of the debt imposed upon it by the Labour Government.
    9.4 p.m.
    Mr. C. BROWN: I was rather surprised to hear the indignant speech of the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Caporn). I do not know whether he was in the House at an earlier stage this afternoon, but if he were he would have heard a very elaborate dissertation upon the question of the debt on the Unemployment Fund delivered by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour was defending the Statutory Advisory Committee, and was again informing the House that the main function of that Committee was to get the Unemployment Insurance Fund solvent. In the course of his argument he called our attention to the fact that a whole series of Governments from 1920 had not had the courage to face the deficits on the Unemployment Fund as they have grown during those years, and that because of the lack of courage on the part of a whole series of Governments, Tory Governments as well as Labour Governments, the huge debt on the fund had been accumulating. He went on from that to justify the setting up of the Statutory Advisory Committee so that in future the fund might not run into debt.
    I should not have risen but for the indignation of the hon. Member. He seemed to suggest that nobody was responsible for the debt on the Unemployment Fund except members of the Liberal party and the Labour party, perhaps a Labour Government, whereas the right hon. Gentleman clearly demonstrated that a whole series of Governments are responsible, because none of them have had the courage to face the situation as the debt accumulated. In view of the history and the causes of this debt I think that the concession the Chancellor has made is a very meagre one. Why should he penalise the unemployed of the future because of a lack of courage on the part of various Governments in the past?
    9.7 p.m.
    Mr. TINKER: We, of course, accept the concession, small though it is. Our objection is to the method that has been adopted. It is no use saying that the object is to clear away the debt altogether and then to accept this first small concession as if the whole thing were being cleared away. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. Caporn) had no right to attack the Labour party. The debt was accumulated for the purpose of doing good to a small body of people, and no one can lay any blame at the doors of the Labour party for what they did. We were hoping to start the fund again clear of debt, and that for the future the contributions would be equal to the calls made upon the fund. That is our position. That is the policy for which the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) argued. I fully expected that the arguments of a previous Chancellor of the Exchequer would have had some effect on the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. What troubles me is that hon. and right hon. Members who know all about high finance get up and talk. I keep listening to them, but one says, "This is the right method," and another says, "No, this is the way it ought to be done." We poor people who do not know anything about high finance and who would be glad to know something about low finance, wonder whether they do know anything about it. The more I listen to them the more I am in the dark. I was hoping that we should have got a larger concession, but we accept it, however small it is.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 20.—(Duties of Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee at respects regulations and advice.)
    9.9 p.m.
    Mr. HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 19, line 19, after the second "and," to insert:
    "of section one of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act, 1931, and."
    This Amendment and the following three Amendments to the Clause are in order to carry out a promise made by my right hon. Friend on the Committee stage that he would make sure that regulations in future made under the Anomalies Act shall have the approval of this House.
    9.10 p.m.
    Mr. LAWSON: As far as the Anomalies Act can be made tolerable this is a great improvement. Those who have watched the operation of the Act consider that it would have been much better if we had had an opportunity of discussing its administration during the past two years. The proposal of the Government means that we are now going to have an opportunity, as the regulations will have to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. Had it been in operation during the past two years it would have had the effect of saving a great deal of hardship to great masses of people; it would certainly have eased the harsh operation of the Act. We are obliged to the Minister for taking this course.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 19, line 31, at the end, insert:
    "(4) Before laying before Parliament the draft of any order proposed to be made under section one of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act, 1931, or under section twelve of this Act, the Minister shall submit the draft to the Committee and the Committee shall forthwith consider the draft and report thereon to the Minister, and the Minister shall consider the report of the committee and may then lay the draft before Parliament either without amendments or with such amendments as he thinks fit."
    In line 37, after "Act," insert:
    "and whenever the draft of any order is laid before Parliament in pursuance of subsection (4) of Section twelve of this Act.
    "In line 38, after" regulations," insert "or order."—[Mr. Hudson.]

    CLAUSE 28.—(Power of Minister to assist schemes for promoting greater regularity of employment.)
    Mr. HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 25, line 7, after "is" to insert:
    "on the joint application of an organisation representing employers and an organisation representing workpeople in the industry."
    This Amendment is to carry out a promise made during the Committee stage to make clear in the Bill our original intention, namely, that a scheme for promoting greater regularity in employment in an industry shall only come into force on the application of both sides, and not on the application of one side only. I understand that the Standing Advisory Committee of the Port Transport Industry see no objection to the proposal.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 32.—(Interpretation of Part I and construction of references.)
    Mr. HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 27, line 28, at the end, to insert:
    "'Period of compulsory elementary instruction' means the period during which under any enactment for the time being in force, other than local bye-laws, parents are under an obligation to cause their children to receive efficient elementary instruction."
    The object of the Amendment is to carry out a promise made in the Committee stage in respect of the potential credit of contributions for all children who remain at school after the age of 14. In order to make clear a position about which some doubt was expressed during the Committee stage, it is proposed to insert these words. I am advised that these words make it clear that even in the by-law areas where children are nominally compelled to remain at school until the age of 15 they will be credited with contributions as though they were required to stay at school until 14 only.
    Amendment agreed to.
    9.16 p.m.
    Mr. HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 27, line 38, at the end, to insert:
    "(3) For the purposes of determining whether an insured contributor has exhausted his benefit rights in his last preceding benefit year, if it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that he has not made an application or claim for benefit in respect of any days in that year in respect of which he would have been entitled thereto if he had made an application or claim therefor, the insured contributor shall be deemed to have received benefit in respect of those days unless there is no reasonable cause to believe that his omission to make the application or claim was with intent to avoid the necessity of proving the matters set out in paragraph (ft) of Sub-section (1) of Section four of this Act."
    This Amendment is proposed in order to meet an anomaly which has recently come to light. It was brought to our notice by a Member of the party opposite who called our attention to the fact that no fewer than 16 of his constituents were, under the existing law, getting round what had been the intention of Parliament. Where a man was out of work for more than 156 days in the year, he only claimed benefit for 155 days, thereby evading the necessity of having to qualify for benefit in the succeeding benefit year by paying a further contribution of 10 stamps. Obviously that was a loophole,

    1027
    because by claiming only 155 days benefit in this year he became entitled in the following benefit year to another 156 days, and by again only claiming 155 days benefit, he could go on to the succeeding benefit year and so on almost ad infinitum. It is in order to close that loophole that we are inserting these words, but I would point out that the Sub-section will only come into operation where the insurance officer is able to prove to the satisfaction of the court of referees that the man concerned was acting with the intention of evading the law.
    Mr. TINKER: Then if the law remained as it is at present we would have continuous benefit for our people—which we have been agitating for—but now that is to be taken away. Would it not be better to let it continue?
    Mr. LAWSON: I understand it is intended that the insurance officer will have to prove that a man has been taking this course with the object of evading the law. I suppose that the man in such a case will have a full opportunity of being represented in the ordinary way and of putting the other side of the case, because it is always possible to misjudge these matters.
    Amendment agreed to.
    9.19 p.m.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move, in page 27, line 39, to leave out Subsection (3).
    I move this Amendment in order to address a question to the Parliamentary Secretary. Among the powers and duties which can be exercised by education authorities under the Education Act, 1921, is the power of providing meals for school children. We are very anxious to know whether those in receipt of unemployment benefit or attending instruction courses will be eligible to benefit by the exercise of that power, which education authorities possess in respect of children below 14. I do not know what will be the answer of the hon. Gentleman, but I think I could give a shrewd guess at it. If the answer is to be in the negative then I shall be glad to know why these young people are to be precluded from participation in the benefits of the Education Act of 1921. The case has been argued already more than once, and I do not propose to argue it again. I ask the hon.
    1028
    Gentleman whether it is intended that the powers referred to in this Sub-section include the power relating to the provision of meals for those attending instruction centres?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I ought to make it clear to the Committee that the Sub-section which the Amendment proposes to leave out would now be Subsection (4) and it is that which commences with the words "The powers and duties of education authorities."
    9.21 p.m.
    Mr. HUDSON: I understand that the subsequent Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) to insert the words "including the provision of meals" would be out of order and therefore I imagine that it would be out of order for me to discuss at any length the question of the provision of school meals. I think I explained during the Committee stage in answer to a question put by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) that the higher education authorities had not got the power of providing meals for children at junior instruction centres and that this Sub-section did not give them that power. The object of the Sub-section is to enable them to apply a great number of their existing services and in particular the school medical service to children at junior instruction centres. The existing services which they do use for children attending junior instruction centres will rank for grant from my Department. The Sub-section however, does not enable them to provide meals for children at the centres. The House will remember that I suggested that the appropriate body to do that in any cases where such assistance was obviously required in order to enable the children to take full advantage of the instruction at the centres would be the Unemployment Assistance Board.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 33.—(Application of Part I to Scotland.)
    9.24 p.m.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I beg to move, in page 28, line 25, at the end, to insert:
    "(5) In Sub-section (1) of Section one for the words 'attend school' there shall be substituted the words 'receive efficient education,'"

    1029
    This is little more than a drafting Amendment. The House will remember that in clause 1 (1) the minimum age for entry into insurance was defined in the words:
    "When a person attains the age at which under the law for the time being in force his parents cease to be under an obligation to cause him to receive efficient elementary instruction or to attend school."
    The words of the Scottish Education Act are that the parent shall be under an obligation
    "to cause him to receive efficient education unless there is some ' reasonable excuse."
    That is the explanation of the Amendment. It is designed to apply the equivalent Scottish words in relation to Scotland.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 36.—(Unemployment Assistance Board and advisory committees.)
    Mr. LAWSON: Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Are you calling the Amendment that is on the Paper in my name, in page 31, line 17?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No; I understand that Mr. Speaker has not selected that Amendment.
    9.26 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I beg to move, in page 31, line 34, after the second "Board," to insert:
    "after consultation with the councils of any county or county borough concerned in the administration of each such area."
    It would be an advantage if county councils and county borough councils were consulted in this case, and I therefore move to put it in the Bill.
    Mr. LAWSON: May I ask exactly what this Amendment means? The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not given us any explanation of it, and I do not know that he will be allowed to speak a second time, except by leave of the House. I am sure that the House would be very pleased to give him that leave in order to understand just what we are doing. The Minister has to answer, but it would be just as well if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would explain what he has to answer.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: The Amendment means exactly what it says. It is clear enough.
    9.27 p.m.
    Mr. HUDSON: The idea that the Government have in mind in proposing the setting up of these advisory committees by the board is that the members will be drawn from a very wide field indeed by virtue of their personal knowledge, experience and usefulness to fulfil the functions which are laid down in the sub-section. We have certainly not contemplated that they should sit on these advisory committees in a representative capacity. For example, I could not imagine that a member of the Charity Organisation Society would be put on a commitee in order to represent that society. Equally, I should not expect that a member of a county council would be put on to represent that county council. It is clear that councils of the counties and county boroughs will be among the bodies from whose members the persons to be appointed to these committees will be drawn. My right hon. Friend is, however, reluctant to see words of this nature inserted in the Bill, because, although those two classes of bodies will undoubtedly contribute their members to the formation of these committees, the members will not sit in a representative capacity. My right hon. Friend is afraid that, if words of this nature were inserted, the members might be regarded as sitting in a representative instead of an individual capacity. I hope that, with that explanation, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not press his Amendment.
    9.26 p.m.
    Mr. LAWSON: It is interesting to know that even non-representative people may be consulted in an advisory capacity, but that the Commons House of Parliament is to have nothing to do either with the appointment of those people or in consultation with them. The House would do well to look at this Sub-section, which says that, in dealing with the members of the Unemployment Assistance Board:
    "(3) For the purpose of securing the advice and assistance of persons having local knowledge and experience in matters affecting the functions of the board under this Part of this Act the board shall arrange for the establishment of advisory committees throughout Great Britain "—
    Even the Minister, however, has not been prepared to accept a very moderate Amendment, moved by one of the hon.

    1031
    Members behind him, to insert the words:
    "after consultation with the councils of any county or county borough concerned in the administration of each such area,"
    That is exactly what we have always said about this board, that they are not only going to be outside the influence of the House, but that, when even a supporter of the Government asks that the local authorities shall have some influence over them and that the advisory committees shall be appointed after consultation with the local authorities in the area, that very moderate request is not acceptable to the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman understands clearly, in refusing that request, just where the Public Assistance Board will go under the powers that are given to it. Not only will it not consult, and will not—because of its peculiar constitution—be able to consult, but time will certainly prove that it will ultimately come into conflict with the local authority, because there is no clear definition of the boundary between the two bodies, and in due course one or other of the authorities will encroach on the other.
    To remedy matters, the hon. and gallant Member proposes that elected authorities shall be consulted before these advisory committees are appointed. The Parliamentary Secretary, however, says, "No, there may be people of great experience excluded from becoming members of the advisory committee, and the Public Assistance Board, in appointing its advisory committee, will, of course, always take cognisance of the local authority, the elected body." It will not altogether ignore them; it has to keep a sort of mask of representative authority in front of it. It will probably send a note on its headed notepaper to tell them that it has appointed an advisory committee and has decided to include so-and-so. I daresay that the board will at least do the local authority the courtesy of acknowledging in that way that it has come into their area and is performing certain functions in their area, but it will not ask the authority for advice. What is the right hon. Member's reason for refusing this very modest request? It would not interfere with the functions of the Assistance Board.
    1032
    I take it that the Parliamentary Secretary says, that what the Government want is the right to put certain people on the board who have great experience. Who are those people who have great experience and who are not members of a public authority? Sometimes, we know, there are odd individuals in various parties who have the misfortune for one reason or another not to be elected to an authority. Those are not the people, as a rule, who are taken by such boards as these, and they are not the persons whom it is intended that the board shall take. It is intended to leave the Assistance Board free to select people who understand the spirit in which it is going to operate its authority. It is a charity organisation society which the Government have in mind in this particular case. If the Government want to give themselves a free hand to select the people, I would not say another word about people who tried to do well and good in their own particular way, but there is a certain type of fussy individual who comes into public life and who exercises himself in social life, and he would wield a lot of authority and give very little in return. Every public man of experience knows that kind of person.
    We can give every credit for public service to certain people, but not to the person who obtrudes himself on public life, who has not been elected, the kind of person you cannot stop coming forward if you use a hammer on him, and who has a very finicky way. Such people are in fact the real descendants of the gentlemen with whom Oliver Twist had contact. The Parliamentary Secretary in refusing to take consultation with the local authorities has in mind, I think, people of that kind, although he perhaps would not admit they were people like that. They are non-representative people who have very rigid views of the social organisation in which they are playing an important part, but to whom it is not very material what happens to the people for whom the organisation exists.
    The Amendment gives point to the Amendment which we really wanted, namely, that the members of the Assistance Board should be appointed by the House of Commons, for if we cannot have some direct control over that board, if they have to be advised, we want them to be advised at least by people who have

    1033
    had public experience and who are elected representatives. That is the least that can be asked. It is a modest request that, in appointing their advisory committees, the board should take counsel with the local authorities. They have no right to operate in any area unless they do that. It is not merely the very essence of the principle of democracy, but it is a matter of decency to the local authorities. The House would not call the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment a revolutionary or a Bolshevik, but he has had experience in local government and he looks at this question no doubt from the point of view of the county council, and he apprehends what might happen in the appointment of the committees. I hope he will stand by the Amendment. In loyalty to the local authorities he ought to stand by it. The Minister ought to face up to the question and give some better answer than he has given.
    The whole essence of public life and its work is involved in a matter of this kind. In the work of the Assistance Board, with its wide powers in administration, in dealing with people and in its work schemes, the advisory committees are going to be very important. It is not necessary to recount the whole of the powers which this body will have and about which they will have to be advised. They are very great indeed. I think it is certain that at some stage or other they will clash with the elected local authorities. I think it will ultimately be found, in the course of two or three years, that, with the functions it has to perform, this body will not be able to live side by side with the elected local authorities without some great modification of the powers of the Board. I hope Members of the Government who are connected with local government will see that some more effective answer is given to this request, and will see that democracy locally will have some consideration even if the democratically-elected representatives of this House are ignored.
    9.42 p.m.
    Sir P. HARRIS: This is an important matter that ought to have the careful consideration of the House before we part with it. Under this Clause the Board are to have autocratic powers to select anybody at their own discretion
    1034
    and to use them as their own advisers. The Board will have great powers of distributing favours, for they will have the power to pay the advisory committee travelling expenses and other allowances. They will be able to distribute their favours—because there is always a certain prestige in having a power of this kind of administering public assistance—entirely according to their own likes and dislikes and, without any regulation, to fix the areas throughout Great Britain. They will be able to select what areas they wish, whether they shall be large areas, local government areas, industrial units or rural units, and whether they shall conform to local government areas or follow the areas now followed by public assistance.
    I am not particularly attracted to the Amendment, but at any rate it gives lip service to a principle of local government. Ever since the Statute of Elizabeth the business of public assistance has been geographical and associated with local government areas. Originally it was the vestry of a parish and associated with the church. Gradually, in the light of experience, it conformed to local government areas. This most vital duty to the mass of the people, of helping them when in distress, is now, for the first time, being divorced from local government and given to an autocratic Board. Does it not seem common sense, if we are to build this machinery on new lines, that we should follow one of two courses, either the course that is suggested by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), or, alternatively, conform as far as possible to the conditions of local government.
    There is a strong and almost unanswerable case for something of this kind in that the public assistance committees are going to continue their functions for limited purposes after the passing of this Bill. They will still be responsible for the non-able-bodied and for those outside insurance. They will still be responsible for those people who find themselves out of work, people who are in trade or business, such as the coster, the small shopkeeper and various classes of society who will not be transferred to the board. They will be working on parallel lines with the board and its machinery. Does it not seem reasonable that when they decide to get advice,

    1035
    and not always to act on their own responsibility, when they endeavour to get local knowledge, that they should be required by Parliament to consult those who have been elected and who have knowledge of local conditions?
    There is a class of well-meaning people who desire to do good but who, owing to their training, knowledge and experience only too often try to do good in the wrong way. There is an institution for which I have great respect, called the Charity Organisation Society, which consists of very well-meaning people, who have a tremendous affection for case papers. They are artists in the card system. Anybody who has any knowledge of the East End has only to mention the Charity Organisation Society, and the people concerned are disturbed.
    Mr. D. D. REID: If the hon. Member were asked to help a person and that person were recommended by the Charity Organisation Society, would he not be quite safe in giving them help?
    Sir P. HARRIS: Absolutely safe, but it does not necessarily mean that when a person has not been passed by the Charity Organisation Society that that person does not require support. They are an embodiment of red-tape of the wrong kind. They mean well, but somehow or other, in the light of experience, it is not wise, it is not expedient, if you are going to make this new machinery work, to hand these important powers to officials entirely to be guided and advised by them. I do not suggest that that will necessarily follow, but I do suggest that if the Minister wants to make this great, almost revolutionary, experiment work it would be wise to link it as closely and as intimately as possible with public authorities. We have a very good precedent under the Education Act. I am very glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education sitting by the Minister of Labour. I want to be fair to the Minister of Labour. There is no one more anxious to do the right thing and to seek advice than the right hon. Gentleman, and I suggest that on this matter he should seek the advice of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Beard of Education.
    Ever since the Education Act known as the Balfour Act has worked through
    1036
    committees of managers, whose business it is to advise the local authorities and to make the machinery of education work smoothly and efficiently. The managers are appointed by the local authority, except in the case of the church schools. Those schools are private institutions, supported by the State, but the trusts are private and the buildings belong to the church and, naturally, the managers are not entirely appointed by the public authorities, but even there, in order to get contact with the public, care is taken to see that a minority of the managers are appointed by the local authorities, the county councils and the borough councils. Surely, that is a good precedent to be adopted in this case.
    I suggest that if the new scheme is to work in sympathy with the public authorities, and if the two forms of public assistance, public assistance for the able-bodied and public assistance for the old people, are to be co-ordinated and to work smoothly, they should be intimately associated with each other, and the only way to associate them with each other is to see that the new advisory committees are appointed after consultation with the local authorities. This is going to be rather a thankless job. It will not be pleasant work. It will not be work that will add very much to the glory of people who undertake it. Very few men or women will be prepared to take it on unless they feel that they are representative in character and have some contact with the authority that appoints them. To leave their appointment merely to the board will mean that you will not get the right kind of men and women. You will get bitterness and you will not get that contact with the locality and with the people concerned that is so essential and vital if justice is to be done, and that can only be brought about by contact with public bodies.
    9.51 p.m.
    Mr. T. SMITH: One thing that astonishes me in this Debate is the quietness of hon. Members opposite. I have been looking across at the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Braithwaite) and wondering when he would begin to protest about the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary. If the Amendment is not to be carried it will mean that the board has power to appoint an advisory committee without consulting anybody except those whom they think

    1037
    fit to consult. Take the position in Sheffield. The hon. Member for Hillsborough has a great regard for Sheffield, or he has had since 1921. I do not know whether he had any regard for it before then. Imagine the board setting up an advisory board in Sheffield, without consulting the City Council. What would the hon. Member for Hillsborough say? If he found that the advisory committee were not carrying out the work properly he would be the first to go to the Minister of Labour and say: "You have made a mistake." The City Council ought to have been consulted on this matter. They are the people who have the responsibility of governing the city and of dealing with public assistance. They could have told you who were suitable for this particular work." I am surprised at hon. Members opposite taking things so quietly. Perhaps the hon. Member for Hillsborough will express his opinion. I have seen him for the, last 10 minutes keenly interested in the discussion, and it would be extremely interesting to hear at least one of the Members representing my city expressing an opinion upon an Amendment of this kind.
    With regard to the Parliamentary Secretary, I am not surprised that he has refused the Amendment. He has become so accustomed to refusing Amendments that it becomes automatic with him. I think there is justification for the Amendment and I hope the hon. and gallant Member who moved it will persist in taking it to a Division. No one could accuse the hon. and gallant Member of being a Bolshevist. No one could accuse him of being an extremist in any shape or form, except perhaps an extreme reactionist at times. He has had a good deal of experience of local authorities and he is jealous of the work of local authorities, and I am satisfied that he has put down the Amendment in the best interests of the people who will have to come under the board. When the board have to appoint an advisory committee, who will be consulted? Is it going to be the Charity Organisation Society? Is it going to be the kind of fussy person we had in the old Poor Law days during the War, who tried to teach working women to make a small wage spin out a long way? Is it going to be the kind of person who told them they could get a good meal off a cod's head, and forgot to ask who
    1038
    would eat the body? We have not forgotten those things. I remember the type of fussy individual who used to tell the working people what they ought to do. They knew all about it, but in reality they knew nothing at all about it.
    What do you expect these advisory committees to do? You want men and women not only with a knowledge of local government, but with wide experience in the administration of the Poor Law and public assistance, and there are plenty of these people knocking about in nearly every area in the country. Whom are you going to consult? Are you going to the public assistance secretary, to ask for the names of some people suitable for the Advisory Committee? Is the Church going to be consulted? Are you going to have a representative of the board going to the local vicar and asking for the names of likely people? We have a right to know. What better method of approach could you have than through these local authorities? They are not being asked to appoint the people; they are only being asked to be consulted. Take the West Riding of Yorkshire, where you have as many differences in dialect and conditions as you have in the counties of Britain. There you have two or three Yorkshires within a Riding. Who are the best people to approach there? Obviously the county council. They can tell the board the names of people who would carry out the duties and do it faithfully.
    I am astonished at the attitude displayed by the Government on this matter. Here you have, for the first time in the history of English law, a non-elected body set up to deal with the relief of the poor, with people outside insurance. There is no precedent for it, and in my opinion it is going to stink in the nostrils of the electorate as time goes on. You have advisory committees suggested, which will be left to the discretion of the board itself, and surely it is only reasonable to ask that the board should consult someone before appointing these advisory committees. The local authorities are the people who know, the people who have had experience. I am astonished that Members representing the great City of Sheffield should sit quietly by and see their own City Council ignored in a matter like this. I hope the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) will be

    1039
    big enough to stand up in his place and defend his own city, defend the City Council that he has so much regard for, that he never misses an opportunity of keeping in contact with, and I hope we shall have the benefit of his remarks on this Amendment. I also hope the hon. and gallant Member will force this Amendment to a Division and that many hon. Members will see that it is carried.
    9.59 p.m.
    Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITE: The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith), who has just sat down, expressed astonishment that supporters of the Government, particularly from the City of Sheffield, have not seen fit to intervene in this discussion. There are two reasons for that. The first is the urgent desire of the distressed areas to see this Bill upon the Statute Book. We are asked, even by the City of Sheffield, which consists of a majority of the hon. Member's party, not so much to indulge in an outburst of rhetoric in this House as to speed this Bill on to the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment, and in view of the fact that the House is working under a Guillotine Resolution, we think it unfair to deprive hon. Members opposite of their opportunities for making speeches of inordinate length.
    Another reason is this: My hon. Friend opposite has said that we who represent the City of Sheffield should be righteously indignant at the suggestion that the City Council should not be consulted when a body is being appointed for the purpose of administering public assistance. I can only say to him that the evidence of the majority party on the Sheffield City Council would have been of no value, because they themselves refused to administer public assistance in the year 1932. They left the whole of the work to their opponents.
    Mr. T. SMITH: Is the hon. Member contemplating a continuance of a majority of Socialists in the City of Sheffield?
    Mr. BRAITHWAITE: No. My hon. Friend was asking whether the present city council should not be consulted. There will not be another election for that body until November next, and in the meantime these appointments will take place, which forces me to repeat my assertion that the evidence of the present
    1040
    majority party on the city council would be of no value, because they have not availed themselves of practical experience in the administration of public assistance. That disposes of the situation so far as Sheffield is concerned, but I wonder if the hon. Member is serious in his support of this Amendment, because under it trade unions could not be consulted on that point. I think perhaps his indignation should have been transferred from these benches to those opposite.
    Mr. T. SMITH rose—
    Mr. BRAITHWAITE: I cannot give way again. It was only at the hon. Member's invitation that I intervened at all. I did not enter the Chamber with the intention of speaking, as I was anxious to see the Bill passed, but as my hon. Friend has invited me, saying that he thinks my affection for Sheffield only dates from the year 1931, may I say that my affection for Sheffield is on a level with his affection for Normanton, which dates from not quite 12 months ago. I can only express the hope that both my hon. Friend and myself will be able to represent these constituencies of our adoption with efficiency and zeal, and that we may both be in this House to meet after the next General Election.
    10.2 p.m.
    Mr. C. BROWN: We on these benches will watch with interest the future activities of the hon. Member who has just resumed his seat, when we are attempting to get trade union representation on bodies of any kind. The hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte), who moved the Amendment, often has Amendments on the Committee stage of Bills on behalf of the County Councils Association.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: This one is not.
    Mr. BROWN: I am very glad to find out that on this occasion at any rate the hon. and gallant Member is acting on his own initiative, because of the experience he has had of local authorities and the good work they have done. I congratulate him on acting on his own initiative on this occasion, and I can assure him that we shall give him an opportunity of going into the Lobby to get his Amendment carried.

    1041
    I rose, however, because of the answer that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour gave to the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment. We all grow increasingly aware of the Government's many deficiencies. Even their supporters are becoming increasingly aware of them with every passing week, and they do not hesitate to call attention to them in various ways. We had an example of that yesterday, but I did not know till to-night that they were so absolutely deficient in gratitude as has been made apparent by the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary refused this Amendment. Let us recall the past 2½ years. Was it not this National Government that turned over to the county councils and the county boroughs the task of administering transitional payment? Was it not this Government that placed on those bodies that onerous and in some senses disagreeable duty? And is it not true that during those 2½ years those bodies have accumulated a very wide experience and great knowledge in all that appertains to the administration of transitional payment? This unemployment assistance, as it is called, which this board has to adminster, is only another name for transitional payment after all.
    What does this Amendment do? It is concerned with bodies who have had the onus of administering transitional payments for 2½ years with all the disagreeable associations of the job and all the disagreeable things they have had to do in administering the means test. The very Government that imposed that task on them and has, through the mouth of the Minister, congratulated them over and over again on the way they have discharged the duty, comes down and tells the House of Commons through the Parliamentary Secretary to the same Ministry that it is not worth while consulting these bodies as to who should, be put on the advisory committee to be set up to deal with unemployment assistance. Could there be a greater example of the complete ingratitude of the Government to bodies upon whom they have imposed all this responsibility for 2½ years? They actually now refuse to take them into consultation in setting up what they regard as these necessary committees. We
    1042
    shall have no hesitation in supporting the Amendment.
    10.6 p.m.
    Mr. TINKER: I want to support the Amendment, and I confess my surprise that it was not accepted. When I saw it on the Order Paper, knowing that Governments sometimes arrange for Amendments to be put down, I thought the Government had arranged to have this one moved. I expected the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) to support the Amendment, because I have heard him on several occasions speak favourably of these matters. The hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment said that in the appointments of these committees there might be grave dissatisfaction and they wanted the considered opinion of these elected bodies. As has been pointed out, many of these men have been administering the means test for a long time, and they would have great knowledge of the right persons to carry on the work, and their advice to the unemployment committees would be of great help. I should have thought the Government would have accepted this Amendment, because it is desired to secure the advice and assistance of persons with local knowledge. Who could have it better than the local bodies elected for the purpose? The Minister of Labour said: "We cannot do this because we want to leave the unemployment committee free and unfettered to pick whom they think fit." I do not think it is dealing properly with the question, and I hope the hon. Members will stick to the Amendment. I can assure them that if they do not, we who have followed the discussion will have no hesitation in forcing a Division.
    Mr. PIKE: Is the hon. Member prepared to say that, in areas where commissioners have superseded the local authorities he and his party will be prepared to regard these commissioners as possessing an equal amount of local knowledge with the ordinary council?
    Mr. TINKER: This Amendment does not deal with that. It speaks about elected bodies, and I am speaking to the Amendment.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    HON. MEMBERS: No!
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 55; Noes, 264.

    Division No. 250.]

    AYES.

    [10.11 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Maxton, James

    Banfield, John William

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

    M liner, Major James

    Batey, Joseph

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Nathan, Major H. L.

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

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Cape, Thomas

    Janner, Barnett

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Cove, William G.

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Daggar, George

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rothschild, James A. de

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Edwards, Charles

    Kirkwood, David

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Lawson, John James

    West, F. R.

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Leonard, William

    White, Henry Graham

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, David (Swansea. East)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Wilmot, John

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

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

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. Groves and Mr. John.

    NOES.

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

    Dickie, John P.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Drewe, Cedrle

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

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

    Dunglass, Lord

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

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

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Hurd, Sir Percy

    Apsley, Lord

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Elmley, Viscount

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

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

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

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

    Fleming Edward Lascelles

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

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

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Blindell, James

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Bossom, A. C.

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Boulton, W. W.

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Leckie, J. A.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

    Gibson, Charles Granville

    Leigh, Sir John

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

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Lewis, Oswald

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

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

    Goldle, Noel B.

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Browne, Captain A. C.

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

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Graves, Marjorle

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney. C.)

    Burnett, John George

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Lockwood, Capt, J. H. (Shipley)

    Caporn. Arthur Cecil

    Grigg, Sir Edward

    Mabane, William

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Grimston, R. V.

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

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

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

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

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Christie, James Archibald

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hales, Harold K.

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Hammersley, Samuel S.

    Magnay, Thomas

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Hanley, Dennis A.

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

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

    Copeland, Ida

    Harbord, Arthur

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

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

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Hellners, Captain F. F. A.

    Milne, Charles

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

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

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

    Cross, R. H.

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

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Crossley, A. C.

    Hopkinson, Austin

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Hore-Belisha, Leslle

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    Hornby, Frank

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

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

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Dawson, Sir Phillp

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Denville, Alfred

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

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

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

    Rickards, George William

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Robinson, John Roland

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Munro, Patrick

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Templeton, William P.

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

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

    Peaks, Captain Osbert

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Pearson, William G.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Peat, Charles U.

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Train, John

    Penny, Sir George

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Scone, Lord

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Potter, John

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

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

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Ward. Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

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

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Pybus, Sir Percy John

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Radford, E. A.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

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

    Weymouth, Viscount

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

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

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Soper, Richard

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Ray, Sir William

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Wills. Wilfrid D.

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Reld, Capt. A. Cunningham.

    Spens, William Patrick

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Stevenson, James

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Reid, James S. C. (Stlrling)

    Stones, James

    Womersley, Walter James

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Remer, John R.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert

    Ward and Commander Southby

    Question put, and agreed to.

    10.22 p.m.
    Mr. WHITE: I beg to move, in page 31, line 34, to leave out from "shall" to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert:
    "have access to the local employment committees set up under the Labour Exchanges Act, 1909, and the Minister shall make the necessary arrangements for this purpose."
    A good deal was to be said for the Amendment upon which the House has just come to a decision. If there are to be advisory committees under Part II, it is desirable that they should have the advice of the local authorities in the making of their constitutions. There is a good deal more to be said for the Amendment which I now ask the House to consider. It is a minor criticism of Part II' of the Bill that it leads to an immense amount of duplication of machinery of officers, and indeed of offices There is, in our view, a good deal of unnecessary duplication in many directions, and now it is proposed to set up duplicate advisory committees. I must admit that advisory committees are essential, because the board can hardly function properly unless it has access to local opinion, but it is entirely unnecessary to set up new advisory committees when, under the auspices of the Ministry of Labour in every Employment Exchange, a perfectly efficient advisory committee is already functioning which, in its composition and experience appears to be
    1046
    an ideal body to act in an advisory capacity to the new board.
    The existing advisory committees are composed, as the House is aware, of equal panels of employers and of representatives of workers' organisations. The employers' representatives are chosen after consultation with the appropriate body of employers' organisations, and the workers are chosen after consultation with the appropriate trade unions. This Amendment covers the Amendment which we have last considered, in that there are also appointed representatives of the local authorities and of the old public assistance committees. The advisory committees ought to be fully comprehensive in their scope because they have to consider all the local conditions and the administration under Part I of the Bill.
    A further point indicates the desirability of these bodies performing advisory services to the Board in that, as has been pointed out in frequent occasions in connection with this Bill, the two bodies being set up are independent, and it is of the utmost importance, where they are dealing with the same people who may be passing from contributory insurance to becoming clients of the Board, that there should be close co-operation and coordination between the two bodies and also a close understanding of their common task. I do not think there could be any bodies more fitted to carry out

    1047
    that duty than the local advisory committees, which are already functioning and have had many years' experience. In appointing advisory committees to deal with the same kind of problem, the question which will immediately arise in any particular area will be the question of personnel. We had some discussion on that question on the last Amendment, when it was pointed out that there might be many people who were willing to do this work but who would in some respects be entirely unsuitable for it, and that this question of personnel would cause the greatest difficulty to the new Board when they came to look for a new committee. The very people who, by knowledge, experience and training, are suited to do this advisory work, and who have all the local conditions affecting the scheme at their fingers' ends, are already engaged in such work. It may be said that the advisory committees already operating in the exchange areas have their own work to do, and would not be prepared to undertake the additional labours which may arise under the new Board; but in fact the existing advisory committees are not overworked at the present time, and they would be much better able than any new body to carry out the functions which they would have to perform. They would have expert local knowledge, and would serve as a valuable link between the two independent bodies which, as has been pointed out, are liable to be hampered in their functions by lack of co-ordination.
    10.27 p.m.
    Mr. JANNER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    After the clear and lucid speech of my hon. Friend, it is not necessary for me to make a long statement, but I cannot imagine that anyone reading the words of the Clause:
    "For the purpose of securing the advice and assistance of persons having local knowledge and experience in matters affecting the functions of the Board under this Part of this Act,"
    could have any alternative but to vote for the Amendment. If the present committees can give advice, as they do, I do not see why they should not be accepted as advisers at this stage. If we are satisfied as to their experience in carrying out their present functions, it stands to reason that they must be the right people
    1048
    to do that kind of work. In my view all the qualifications required for the men who are to come upon the new board are similar to the qualifications which are required for the present committees, and, unless we are going to say that the method of appointment hitherto has been wrong, I think the Minister has no alternative but to accept the Amendment.
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. HUDSON: I am afraid that the two hon. Members who have spoken have not really appreciated the difference between the inactions with which the two bodies to which they made reference are going to be charged. The function of the local employment committee is to advise the Minister of Labour upon placing matters and upon the general running of the Exchange in the particular area. They represent different interests—employers and workpeople and others. In resisting the last Amendment, I pointed out that the members of the new Advisory Committees would be appointed in their personal capacity rather than their representative capacity, and that alone is a reason for the Government not accepting this Amendment. If the House realises that the functions of the Advisory Committees will not be to advise about placing matters in their particular areas, but about entirely different matters—local conditions, the question whether or not differential scales are desirable in one part of the area as against another, and questions affecting individuals—I think they will realise that the mere fact that a man is representative of a body of employers or workpeople on the local employment committee is not necessarily the best of qualifications for fulfilling these functions.
    When I add that the local employment committee is appointed by the Minister, it is obvious that, if you are going to have advice given to the board, it is very much better that it should be given by independent persons and not by persons nominated by the Minister. I am not going to say that the Minister will nominate persons who are not satisfactory, but it has been repeatedly said by hon. Members opposite that it is not only important that they should be impartial but that they should appear to be impartial. Although these members of the local employment committee would

    1049
    undoubtedly perform their task in a perfectly impartial manner, nevertheless they would be open to the suspicion of not being impartial owing to the fact that they had been appointed by the Minister. For these various reasons I am unable to accept the Amendment.
    10.34 p.m.
    Mr. LAWSON: I do not see very well how the Government could do otherwise. What the hon. Member has been asking for is that applicants should have access to the employment committees. If it was the case that they were to act as an alternative advisory committee, I should say it was the case of being between the devil and the deep sea, without knowing which is the sea and which the devil. It is a very good thing that they should have access, so as to get all necessary information, and that they should have the benefit of the experience that they have, but I do not see that we should cut this out and abolish the advisory committee altogether. I do not think too much of the advisory committee but I expect that some individuals, at any rate, will have to have a sort of smoke-screen of representative people who will keep appearances up. I do not see how the Government could accept this proposal.
    Amendment negatived.
    10.35 p.m.
    Mr. C. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 31, line 35, to leave out "advisory," and to insert "administrative."
    We mix up in this Bill all kinds of bodies, boards of assessors, and advisory committees, and obviously, if the Minister accepts the Amendment which I am moving, it will change completely the character of the advisory committees mentioned in this Sub-section. The Unemployment Assistance Board will operate locally through the officers in given areas. I imagine that these officers will function, as designed in the Bill, on regulations made by the Unemployment Assistance Board. It will be their task in the areas to operate those regulations, but we must not forget that in this connection the Unemployment Assistance Board are perpetuating the means test. The application of the regulations made by the Unemployment Assistance Board in the specific areas will be through the local officers who may be advised by the advisory committees.
    1050
    We want to change the character of these committees and to make them administrative. We do not desire to leave the matter arbitrarily in the hands of the officer of the Unemployment Assistance Board, but to ensure that these committees, working in conjunction with him, shall be responsible for the administration of unemployment assistance in the given areas. That is the purport of the Amendment, and we should like to see the character of the local committees completely changed, and some measure of public control over officers to be appointed by the Unemployment Assistance Board. We do not believe that on this matter of assisting the unemployed by means of cash or in other forms all wisdom is in Whitehall. There is a lot of experience in the local areas which could be utilised in this way by administrative committees functioning with the executive officer. He would act on their instructions, always, I suppose, within the regulations made by the Unemployment Assistance Board.
    Mr. E. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    10.40 p.m.
    Mr. HUDSON: The effect of altering the word "advisory" into "administrative" would completely wreck the whole machinery of this part of the Bill. We have set up a machine in the shape, first, of the officer of the assistance board, with an appeal from him to an appeal tribunal. To substitute the word "administrative" for "advisory" would be to erect another body alongside the appeal tribunal, and I have searched through the Amendments and have been unable to find any consequential Amendments which would explain how any conflict of jurisdiction between the new administrative board and the appeal tribunal would be resolved. It is clear that the Amendment if accepted would entirely wreck the Bill, and for that reason I cannot accept it.
    10.41 p.m.
    Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: I am not surprised at the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary. The purpose of the Amendment is to wreck the machinery of the Bill and to face the Government with the kind of machinery they have established. We are asking that there should be some measure of local responsibilty with administrative

    1051
    authority by people having local knowledge and experience in matters affecting the functions of the board. The machinery, as it stands, and as it apparently is to stand seeing that the Government will not accept the Amendment and the necessary consequential Amendments which could have been made in another place, means that you will have a centralised board of a small number of persons sitting in London. These people cannot have the necessary local knowledge to deal with cases which will arise within their jurisdiction. Who is to be responsible for the administration? The Government officers, new local dictators, responsible to a far away body in London, whom no person who has to appeal to the Unemployment Assistance. Board will ever see.
    That is the machinery, and in order to give a pseudo-democratic flavour to this form of administration, Sub-section (3) of Clause 36 deals with the appointment of advisory committees, people who have local knowledge and experience of this kind of work but whose responsibilities are to be confined to giving advice to the board. Presumably there will be a large number of these committees, and their advice, until they cease to operate and become moribund because they have nothing effective to do, will pour into the great dictatorship which sits in Whitehall. They are a fifth wheel to the coach. The purpose of the Amendment is to switch local responsibility from a person who is a civil servant to a body of persons who, though non-elected, have local knowledge and experience.
    The Government are making a serious change in our methods of government. It is a highly centralised system of administration, and there is no real link which can be effective between the person who comes within the operation of Part II and the central authority, the Unemployment Assistance Board. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the appeal tribunal but that does not meet our difficulty. We feel that where the standard of life of unemployed people is being settled, it is far better that it should be done by a body of people who have this local knowledge, this knowledge of the problem with which they are dealing, referred to in Sub-section (3),
    1052
    and not by an official. I ask hon. Members in all parts of the House whether we are asking for anything unreasonable. I think I am right in saying that this is the first time we have ever had a diffused service of this kind, spreading throughout the length and breadth of Great Britain, not based on a definite figure of what is to be given week by week, like health insurance and unemployment insurance. I think this is the first time in our history that we have left, at any rate the initial decision, and, in the majority of cases, the final decision in such matters to an individual who is a State officer. This is a revolution in our constitutional history. It is certainly a revolution in our constitutional practice.
    The only serious argument which can be adduced against making these committees administrative committees with executive authority is this—and I admit that there is a case—that as the State is meeting 100 per cent. of the cost, it cannot devolve its responsibilities to local bodies. I admit that argument as between the State and local authorities. I remember one case when I was in office, in which I distributed £500,000 to local authorities in aid of schemes of work and, as 100 per cent. of the cost was met by the State, I insisted, and I think rightly, on 100 per cent. of the control. That is right because local authorities are bodies which have an existence apart from the State. But in this case we are asking for local bodies who would be appointed by the Unemployment Assistance Board and would act under their general directions. Therefore the argument as to the payment of 100 per cent. of the cost by the State does not apply in this case.
    I appeal to hon. Members whether this is not a proposal which ought to receive a good deal more consideration than it has received up to the present. It is an attempt to apply the general policy of the Unemployment Assistance Board to local conditions, to allow local conditions to be studied and the national policy to be interpreted by people who have local knowledge. Unless the House is prepared to accept that principle, then all it is going to do is to hand over a large proportion of the unemployed population to a virtually uncontrolled bureaucracy, to a body outside the control of Parliament,

    1053
    to a body of officers in the country enjoying power which no civil servants at the present time enjoy and with only one safeguard for the people who feel aggrieved, namely, the appeal tribunall.
    I submit that this is making a travesty of liberty. It is making it utterly impossible for the unemployed person who falls out of Part I and into Part II to-get a square deal. I am satisfied that the great mass of the people who fall out of Part I and who have to appeal to the Unemployment Assistance Board will do so with very downhearted feelings, because they will feel that they are merely in the hands of a vast machine, with no local colour, no local touch and no local sympathy. All that the Bill holds out to a person of that kind who has been turned down or feels he has a grievance against the officer of the board who represents the board locally is an appeal tribunal. I hope that this House will reconsider its views and support this, one of our last endeavours to improve the Bill so far as it can be improved and to bring into it a little more of democratic organisation and a little less of the bureaucracy which is scattered through almost every Clause.
    10.52 p.m.
    Major NATHAN: I must confess that the remarks and arguments by the Parliamentary Secretary in opposition to this Amendment were singularly unconvincing. They rested, as far as I understood them, upon the basis that there are no consequential Amendments upon the Order Paper; that the scheme of this Amendment would upset the scheme of the later Clauses of the Bill. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that there is plenty of time, if this Amendment be accepted, between to-night and the resumption of the Debate on the Report stage for consequential Amendments to be put on the Order Paper, or the Minister himself could see that they were inserted when the Bill goes for consideration in another place.
    The main purpose of my rising is, however, not so much to controvert the arguments advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary as to ask him this question upon the plain words of the Sub-section which is now under consideration. The Sub-section provides that advisory committees are to have the function of
    1054
    advising and assisting the board in the performance of its functions. The Parliamentary Secretary has, in the remarks which he addressed to the House, pointed out the reasons why, in the judgment of the Government, those functions should be limited to advisory functions. I want to ask him what meaning he attaches to his own words in the Bill, "advice and assistance." If he refuses this Amendment, and therefore confines the committee to being an advisory committee, and for the reasons given by him, how does he suggest that the committee is to give, not only advice, but also assistance to the Board in the fulfilment of its functions? How is a purely advisory committee to be able to assist the board except by advice? The words "and assistance" following the word "advice" must be given some meaning in a Statute. How is the committee to assist the board in making provision for the improvement and re-establishment of the conditions of those who come within the purview of the board, and how it is to assist the board in granting and issuing to those persons unemployment allowances—those being the functions of the board under the previous Sub-section—if in this Sub-section it is denied the possibility of taking any administrative action? My hon. Friend's Amendment would enable the advisory committee to give that assistance for which the Clause provides in defining the purpose and the objects of the advisory committee. The Parliamentary Secretary on behalf of the Government denies to the committee, in refusing this Amendment, the possibility of being anything more than advisory. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to be good enough to enlighten the Committee as to what meaning, according to the plain words of the Statute, is to be attributed to the words "and assistance" if he refuses to allow the committee to be an, administrative committee as well as an advisory committee.
    10.56 p.m.
    Mr. J. WILMOT: There is one point in this Clause to which attention has not been drawn, namely, the provision that the board which appoints the members of these committees is empowered to pay the members
    "travelling and other allowances (including compensation for loss of remunerative time)."

    1055
    I would make no complaint against this provision if the functions of these local committees were administrative. My own view is that the extension of payments of this kind, in view of the onerous duties which fall upon them, would be desirable in many cases of local government. We have had boards of guardians functioning for many years carrying on the most onerous and difficult tasks, which very often meant almost a full-time occupation, and the Government of the day have always resisted proposals that these services should be remunerated in this way. At the present time we have the local committees appointed by the county councils which administer the public assistance machinery under the present law discharging no less difficult duties, which involve expenditure of enormous time and trouble, and for all this work no payment has ever been made.
    Under this new Bill, when these vast administrative functions are to be taken away from democratically-elected people and to be vested in autocratic authorities—another extension of the new despotism—these advisers are to have no administrative functions at all and will have none of the heavy work which is at present carried on by public assistance committees of local authorities. These people are singled out for payment not only of their properly incurred expenses, but for loss of remunerative time. We have no idea what sort of persons this board will select as their adyisers, or what sort of estimate is to be placed upon the value of their lost remunerative time. It is surely an astonishing thing, after the long years of experience we have had of voluntary committees administering this kind of work, when voluntary duties have become so heavy as to become a real burden on the time of those who discharge them, a problem which makes it increasingly difficult for working people to secure adequate representation upon these bodies by reason of the expenditure and loss of time involved, that every appeal for these people to have proper remuneration has been rejected.
    It being Eleven of the Clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
    Bill, as amended (in Committee and on re-committal), to be further considered To-morrow.

  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1933, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the rural district of Cuckfield, in the administrative county of East Sussex, which was presented on the 17th day of April, 1934, be approved."—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  EVICTIONS, BARRHEAD.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
  11.2 p.m.
  Mr. MAXTON: I must apologise to the House for detaining it, but as I understand that the other House has only just risen we, the Commons, cannot seriously object to doing a quarter of an hour longer than our elders and betters in another place. The matter that I wish to raise was dealt with at Question Time to-day by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in what I regarded as an unsatisfactory way. Perhaps he was limited by the rules and regulations at Question Time. I certainly felt that I was limited by the rules and regulations at Question Time. This is not what one would regard as a matter of great national importance. Perhaps it is of no interest to anyone outside the small town in Scotland where the thing occurred and which happens to be the town in which I have lived for over 40 years. The persons concerned have been known to me for many years and one of them I hope and believe that I can claim as a friend.
  The local authority, carrying out its duties under legislation passed by this House, set about a slum clearance scheme. They made the best calculations they could as to the needs of the town. They condemned as unsuitable for habitation a number of dwellings and proceeded to build the houses that they believed would be adequate to rehouse the people who were displaced. When they had completed their scheme and proceeded to the allocation of the houses it

  1057
  was found that they had made miscalculations and that there were 50 families whom they could not accommodate. They were left in the various buildings that were condemned. Two families were evicted from a particular property by the owner of that property under, as the Under-Secretary explained, an eviction order from the sheriff. Why that eviction was initiated I do not know. The houses were condemned and there were no other occupants wishing to go in. There was no possibility of drawing rent. Why that particular proprietor should evict them from that particular property I do not understand.
  The local authority had no alternative accommodation to offer them. There was no alternative accommodation available in the town, where the men have lived and brought up their families. They went to occupy another of the condemned properties, which was not owned by a private proprietor but had been acquired by the town itself. One of the men had a family of eight. They were doing no harm to anyone. They were not offensive or objectionable tenants and yet, on some authority which I have not yet been able to discover and about which the Under-Secretary was unable to inform me at Question Time, these people, who were put out of their original homes by the operations of this Government—quite benevolent operations admittedly, the operation of re-housing slum dwellers—were visited at these (houses in the middle of the night. After the men, their wives, and families had retired for the night and were in bed, the police walked in, dragged the men out of their beds, took them down to the police station, and locked them up for the night. There was not the faintest danger of these men running away, there was no danger of them committing a crime, and one must regard this simply as a piece of jackboot Prussjanism, just sheer, petty officialdom trying to demonstrate power against inoffensive citizens.
  Surely that is not the spirit that is actuating the great war on the slums that the Minister of Health commenced so bravely with a blare of trumpets—" We are going to carry on a war against the slums; we are going to abolish the slums." Here are two men and their wives and families doing a thing which an intelligent local authority would have arranged for them to
  1058
  do, and they are subjected to this kind of treatment. I am asking the Under-Secretary of State on whose authority these arrests were made, if this method of handling the housing of persons displaced from their homes has the approval of the Scottish Office and His Majesty's Government, and if he is ready to use his influence to see that these people, whom the local authority, although they dishoused them, have been unable to provide with alternative accommodation, have that accommodation provided for them and that no further police proceedings are taken against them.
  11.7 p.m.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The hon. Gentleman has asked me several definite questions, to which I shall not be at all loath to reply. He asked me, as representing the Secretary of State for Scotland, whether we have any power of acting in the circumstances that he has described, and he has, so far as I know, accurately described the occurrences on a night late in April. Let me, first of all, deal with the authority under which those occurrences took place. The apprehension of the two men who had, without the consent of the owners, taken the occupancy of two houses, belonging to the Corporation of Barrhead, which had been closed previous to demolition, was under the authority given by the Trespass Act of 1865, and the relevant ruling Section is that when such an occupancy without the consent of an owner takes place, the police are enjoined to apprehend the persons found in that occupancy. My hon. Friend asks on whose authority it was done. The authority was the authority given to the police by that Section. If my hon. Friend, as I think he does, seeks to ask at whose instance the police acted, then I can reply to him that my information is that it was at the instance of a responsible official of the Barrhead Corporation, who were and are the owners of these two condemned houses. That is the simple fact. What subsequently happened is of importance. The two men who were apprehended and put into the police cells for the night were brought before the magistrate next morning in accordance with the Act and there pleaded guilty to the offence. They were then released without bail and the case

  1059
  was continued. My hon. Friend will therefore see that at this moment it is impossible for the Secretary of State or myself to interfere in the matter which is sub judice. With regard to the action of the police, neither the Secretary of State nor I have any locus or authority at all. It is entirely a matter arising under the Act to which I have referred. I need hardly say that as we have no authority to interfere that the action of the police in this matter cannot be regarded as throwing any light upon the policy of the Government with regard to slum clearance, which seemed to be the matter most exercising my hon. Friend.
  I do not think, in the circumstances that I have stated, it is for me to say whether the action of the police, undertaken on that complaint, has or has not my approval because we have no authority in the matter, and, as we have no authority, we have, I think, no opportunity of expressing approval or disapproval. I may add, however, that I am very conscious of what my hon. Friend remarked in pointing out that it appeared that the housing authority, the Town Council, had no alternative houses to offer these men, but I would point out to the hon. Gentleman, as I am sure he knows, that it is not the function nor within the power of the Department of Health, which is concerned from the Governmental point of view with housing, to deal with the housing of particular persons. That is a matter for the local authority and it is therefore entirely without my purview when a question is pointed out to me of an individual person in a particular district who is unable to get a house. On such matters I can only draw the attention of the local authority.
  I do not think—and this is the only point on which my information is not at one with the statement of the hon. Gentleman—that he is correct in stating that the local authority had completed its slum clearance programme, and found itself short of houses. My information is that the local authority has had 180 houses approved under the 1930 Act and of these only 102 have been completed, leaving 78 under completion.
  Mr. MAXTON: They are not started.
  Mr. SKELTON: I can give only the information at my disposal. It is a
  1060
  fact that in the 102 houses which were completed those two families were not selected as tenants, but the selection of tenants, so long as it is within the provisions of the Act, is a matter which is purely in the hands of the local authority, and I must therefore disclaim any responsibility for that matter. It is without my purview and out of my power to insist in any way on local authorities selecting particular people to occupy houses either slum clearance or other. Therefore, on the whole matter I reply that the action of the police was, so far as I know, in strict consonance with the provision of the Act.
  Mr. MAXTON: But not with ordinary humane considerations.
  Mr. SKELTON: That action was taken at the instance of an official of the local authority owning the houses. So far as the proceedings are concerned, the matter is at present sub judice, and in any event neither the Secretary of State nor I have any power of interference with the action that has been taken. Should the case be proceeded with there may then arise the question of sentence, which will introduce a different situation, and my hon. Friend knows that he is perfectly at liberty to ask the Secretary of State to consider the suitability of the sentence, and so forth. But that situation has not arisen, and in the circumstances I do not think there is any further explanation I can give to my hon. Friend.
  11.16 p.m.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I trust the House will forgive me if I pass a few observations on the remarks of the Under-Secretary. First let me thank him for his courteous and painstaking reply. He has been at pains to get the facts and was very courteous in his statement. I am glad to see there is only one small point of variation between the two of us. The Under-Secretary stated that they had completed 102 houses and had 78 still to complete. Those who know the place know that nobody knows when the local authority are going to start on the 78. What is the good of approving the houses if they are not started I would sooner have 5,000 houses started than 5,000,000 approved and not started. It is true that there are 180 approved, but they have built only 102. In the meantime two

  1061
  decent men have been turned into criminals. Neither of these men has ever been in criminal trouble of any kind. I put this question seriously and not flippantly to the Under-Secretary, for whom I have a great regard. I was critical of him when he took his present job, but he has acquitted himself with great capacity and great humanity. Surely he is not going to tell the House of Commons the Scottish Office have to stand by and allow eight children and a woman to be without a home? The thing cannot be done. The local authority may do that; but, say what they like, the Scottish Office could act. For one thing they are the defenders of public order, and when certain things happen public order may be endangered, as the turning out of eight children would endanger public order.
  I see men here, who are not of my political way of thinking, who if they saw eight children turned into the street would rebel. When public order is in danger the Scottish Office act with ruthlessness, and I say this is a public danger and a public menace. This is not the first time this has happened in Barrhead. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) will remember what happened in his Division. I remember that the lawyer who defended him came from his Division—Mr. Cassels I think he was. I understand that the police did not, on the first night, put them into prison, but they gave notice that they were going to make an arrest; they gave the people a chance to get out. I think the hon. Member for Hamilton will agree with me, because he knows the facts better than I do. In Barrhead, no notice was given. The persons were just arrested and taken down into Clydebank.
  Mr. SKELTON: The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) is not correct in saying that the police did not give notice. I ought to have mentioned that several days previously the police were at the houses and warned the people that unless they left certain results would follow. So notice was given.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: As far as I know, no official notice was given. All that happened was that there was a personal conversation with the police and the people did not take that as a notice. The official warning given in the Hamilton
  1062
  case was a sheriff's notice—as we say in Scotland, it was a proper blue notice. The theory of Scots law is, I think, that unless there is a chance that a man will not turn up next morning or that he is going to create public disorder, he is allowed to go home. In this case the man was not going to create any public disorder. He was simply going back to his bed, but he was detained for the night. Two families may be only two families, but they create a human problem, and the Under-Secretary of State should not allow the Barrhead Town Council to throw those people out, because he does himself less than credit and less than justice.
  It is not without responsibility. It is true that he can argue in the abstract that he has no power, but in actual practice he has great power. He has power in connection with great matters of public policy over these local authorities. Instead of turning out the people, the Barrhead Town Council should bend their brains to building new houses and not building them at a slow rate. Imagine a town like Barrhead building only 100 houses. The Under-Secretary has great powers of pressure. Under-Secretary's have, in the main, been very capable, as Mr. Westwood was, and they have applied themselves well to their problems. I trust that the present Under-Secretary will see that the little town of Barrhead is not allowed to get into disfavour by an action of this kind.
  11.25 p.m.
  Mr. SKELTON: I would ask the leave of the House to say a word in reply. There is no question up to date of two families, with eight or any other number of children, being turned out; they are still occupying the houses, and the two men, who were released without bail, have gone back to them. I am familiar with the case at Hamilton to which the hon. Member referred, and I am well aware of the anxious situation which arises from the point of view of order and from every other point of view when people are turned out with nowhere to go, but that situation has not arisen here; the question with which we are dealing this evening is entirely that of the propriety of the action of the police, and there, as I have said, both in theory and in fact, the situation, both legal and administrative, is that neither my right

  1063
  hon. Friend nor I have any power of interference. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) went into the wider question of the housing situation in Barrhead. That does not arise directly out of this Debate, but I may say that there, as in other places where there is a five-years programme for slum clearance, we are in consultation and communication with the town council. I did not, however, refer to that, because I did not think that that was the direct topic with which we were concerned.
  Mr. MAXTON: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say he has absolutely no power to intervene in the matter unless some public disturbance can be arranged for?
  Mr. SKELTON: I hope I have made it clear that this action that took place under the Trespass Act of 1865 of apprehension by the police is one in which I have no power to intervene. The Statute makes it clear that we have no power to
  1064
  deal with action of the police which proceeds from the complaint of the owner. The Statute is so framed that there is no power of intervention at all. That is the main question that has been asked me and that is the way I have to answer it.
  11.27 p.m.
  Mr. MCGOVERN: Do I understand that these families are to be allowed to remain in possession and are not to be turned out into the street, and, if there is a danger of their being turned into the street will the hon. Gentleman guarantee to intervene with the authorities to prevent that?
  Mr. SKELTON: That is a question that I may well take up with the local authority but at present there is no sign of that situation arising.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  ELECTRICAL GOODS (IMPORTS).
  ELECTRICAL GOODS (IMPORTS).
  BURMA (PILGRIMS).
  BURMA (PILGRIMS).
  POLICE (TRAFFIC DUTY).
  POLICE (TRAFFIC DUTY).
  COUNTERFEIT COINS AND NOTES.
  COUNTERFEIT COINS AND NOTES.
  ROYAL NAVY (SHORE RATION STRENGTH).
  ROYAL NAVY (SHORE RATION STRENGTH).
  AGRICULTURE, CARNARVONSHIRE (WHEAT).
  AGRICULTURE, CARNARVONSHIRE (WHEAT).
  TRANSPORT (HEAVY MOTOR VEHICLES).
  TRANSPORT (HEAVY MOTOR VEHICLES).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
NORTH WALES ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BLACKBURN) BILL.
Read 2ª (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SHIPLEY) BILL.
Read 2ª (according to Order), and committed.

PARLIAMENT (REFORM) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I have to begin by apologising to your Lordships for the long postponement of the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill after the First Reading. The reason, as perhaps your Lordships know, was to be found in circumstances over which I had no control, but I do feel that it has put your Lordships' House to very considerable inconvenience. The First Reading took place litany months ago now, and the arguments submitted on one side and the other have perhaps become a little forgotten; and I am afraid that makes it necessary and incumbent upon me, out of respect for your Lordships, to recite again to some extent the arguments which were then dealt with.
Let me say in the first place—because that is a point which was raised upon the First Reading—that there is nothing unprecedented in the course I am venturing to take as a private Peer in your Lordships' House. On the occasion of the First Reading the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition called attention, as he most properly should have done, to the necessity for safeguarding
68
the Prerogative in matters of this kind, and he recited the precedent of the Marquess of Lansdowne's action in 1911. If he had considered that precedent but a little further, he would have realised that the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, was a private Peer on the occasion when he was responsible for that Bill for the reform of your Lordships' House; and if he had gone a little further even in that same year and had looked a few pages further back in the OFFICIAL REPORT, he would have found that the late Lord Balfour of Burleigh, a very distinguished member of this House but also not in the Government, was responsible for a Bill which he promoted, called the Referendum Bill, nearly allied to this question of the reform of the House of Lords. I may also say to the noble Lord that they also, both of them, spoke upon the Motion for the First Reading, and spoke at great length upon the Motion for the First Reading; so that I think I may say to your Lordships that in what I have ventured to do up to now, I have not been at all unprecedented.
Although that is so, I should like to say at once that I realise that a private Peer is at a great disadvantage in making a Motion of this kind, because we are dealing with a measure of great, fundamental importance, and undoubtedly the persons who, above all others, ought to deal with a matter of this kind are His Majesty's Government. I frankly admit that. I would myself welcome the co-operation of the Government with your Lordships' House in this measure. I go further. What I would hope for would be not the co-operation but the initiative of the Government in this matter. But your Lordships who are familiar with this question are aware of how long this issue has been pending in the country and with what hope many of us have looked forward to some measure for strengthening and reforming your Lordships' House, and how long we have been disappointed. Therefore, I hope we shall be forgiven, those of us who are private Peers, if we submit this measure to your Lordships' consideration and the consideration of the country.
I must revert for a few moments to an argument that I ventured to submit to your Lordships on the First Reading; that is to say, to the argument of the

69
risk of the position in which this country stands once there is no proper treatment of the reform and strengthening of your Lordships' House. It is in fact, my Lords, impossible to conduct, the representative institutions of a democracy without an adequate Second Chamber. I do not know that the thing has ever been tried except, I believe, in the Kingdom of Greece. I know of no other country in which the Constitution provides only one Chamber. Every Constitution up to now; has provided for two Chambers, and if I say two Chambers, of course that means two efficient and adequate Chambers. The risk is very great. I gave some examples on the last occasion on which I was addressing your Lordships. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition treated my examples with a certain amount of contempt. He thought I had a distorted imagination, that. I frequented cinemas too often and lived in an atmosphere of that kind. I was only quoting the spokesmen of the Party to which he belongs. I think he was a little unkind to Sir Stafford Cripps in the way he treated the matter. Sir Stafford Cripps is at all events a live wire, unlike some occupants of the Labour Benches, and a live wire is a method of power, and when the Labour Party come back to power I venture to say that Sir Stafford Cripps will be a very influential member of it.
I am not going to trouble your Lordships with quotations more than I can help. I might, of course, have recited almost numberless examples. In the current Quarterly there is an article by my friend Colonel Cuthbert Headlam, dealing with this matter. I do not know whether the attention of all your Lordships has been drawn to it, but if not I would respectfully suggest to the noble Lord and others that a study of that article would convince them of the extreme doctrines of certain friends of the noble Lord, integral members of his Party—speaking with disdain of the present form of Parliamentary procedure; speaking of the necessity of ousting the Courts from the interpretation of the decisions of Parliament; suggesting that the Prerogative of the Crown will in the future be exploited in the interests of reaction; and proposing that the discretion of the Crown in the choice of the Prime Minister should be re-
70
moved. Those are the sort of extreme doctrines to be found in that article, with full quotations, as being the doctrines of the extreme section of the Labour Party. Not the extremist section. I am not speaking of the Communists. I do not think they have anything to do with the Communists. I mean the extreme section of their own friends.
I would, however, try, if I may, to bring home to your Lordships what may be expected from the moderate representatives of the Labour Party, if it should happen that that Party should be returned to power. I notice that one of their prophets said:
"A Labour Government would have to take vast powers and legislate under them by ordinance and decree."
I do not say that it was one of the leaders of the Party, but I want to say that that is what is really in the minds of the Labour leaders. Sir Stafford Cripps said this:
"First we must have a mandate to make our legislative machine truly democratic and efficient, for without that we shall be able to do nothing. I will not recapitulate my views in detail on this topic, the abolition of the House of Lords and the House of Commons reform …."
and there were other things added. So we see that those two advisers of the public were suggesting that what a Labour Government ought to do would be to legislate by decree and to abolish the House of Lords. That is the prospect which is in front of you if by a wave of opinion the country returned the Labour Party to power. I need not say, of course, that if these things, the abolition of the House of Lords, and what would follow from it—legislation by decree —were the settled wish of the country, we have nothing to say. The people rule here, and we should accept it; but the point is that what we are not prepared to accept is a temporary, ephemeral decision of the electors, possibly upon some wholly extraneous issue, and that on such an issue all these things with which the very safety and prosperity of our country are bound up should be sacrificed.
In the light of this sort of utterance, what do the Labour Party say? Here is Mr. Lansbury, speaking on June 14 last year:
"We shall use our power to pass all forms of legislative enactments—Emergency Power Bills, Orders-in-Council, Pro-

71
clamations by His Majesty the King, Provisional Orders, and all other forms of constitutional procedure."
Then I noticed also a passage in the speech which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition made upon the First Reading, of which I shall be very glad if, in the course of this debate, he would kindly give us a little further explanation. He said that his action
"does not mean that we on this side of the House are content with the House of Lords as at present constituted."
And then later:
"Some day, I think, this House will be taken over and dealt with by a Government which has a clear majority in the House of Commons, and, more than that, a Government that has a united body of opinion behind it."
The House of Lords is to be dealt with! In the light of what I have already read to you, I think that this utterance of Mr. Lansbury and the utterance of the noble Lord can be easily interpreted. The use of every form which Mr. Lansbury proposes, and the dealing with the House of Lords which the noble Lord proposes, have only one meaning. They mean that your Lordships' House will be either destroyed or rendered impotent, and that, with the power which that will give the Labour Government, they will, under the Parliament Act, pass the necessary measures to enable them to legislate henceforth by decree. That is what is in store for the country.
Now in the passage which I have ventured to quote from Mr. Lansbury he spoke of constitutional procedure. It is because it will be constitutional procedure that it is so dangerous; and what I want, if I can, most respectfully to impress upon your Lordships is that all these things will be done, if they are done, by the friends of Mr. Lansbury and of the noble Lord opposite, under the powers which at present exist in the Constitution. There is no question of revolution. It is not a question of appealing to force. The Labour Party would have it in their power strictly within the terms of the Constitution to do these things. Under the Parliament Act they are all-powerful for the first two or three years, certainly, of the Parliament. They could operate under the clause, the celebrated clause of the Parliament Act, by which, having submitted a Bill passed by the House of Commons three times to
72
this House, they can, notwithstanding your Lordships' objection, pass it over your heads.
So that these things which I have described could be done. Under the powers which exist in the Parliament Act they could abolish the House of Lords. No one could stop them. There is not an authority in the world that could stop them. It is absolutely in their power. They could enact a sort of universal "Dora"; that is, instead of having to go through all the forms of Parliament, they would proceed summarily, and, having put into a Bill—we are very familiar with it, because we remember "Dora"—the power to legislate by decree, they would not want to go any more to the House of Commons or the House of Lords. They would not be exposed to the criticism which is the very life of a representative institution. There would he no appeal to public opinion against them, because the thing would not be discussed at all: it would be passed by decree. I sometimes cannot understand why some of my friends are blind, if I may use such a phrase, to the profound depth of the abyss which lies in front of them unless something is done.
I am surprised at many things, but I am surprised especially at the attitude of noble Lords who represent the Liberal Party in this House. They of course do not agree with the Labour line; in fact, judging from a recent correspondence, there is very little love lost between them. They value settled government and our institutions, and yet they seem to be willing to allow them to run these tremendous risks without stretching forward a finger to prevent them. I had in the winter a, friendly correspondence in the newspapers with my noble friend Lord Denman, and in that correspondence he laid it down that the Second Chamber should not have power to prevent a Labour Government, commanding a working majority in the House of Commons, from passing its measures into law within the average lifetime of a single Parliament. That was a sort of absolute doctrine that he laid down. Of course, that was never heard of in the British Constitution until the Parliament Act passed. It was never dreamt of that you should have an absolutely all-powerful House of Commons. But the Liberal Party have progressed so far that they now think, if my noble friend Lord

73
Denman represents them—and he is a very distinguished member of that Bench—that this absolute doctrine ought to be accepted.
I cannot share this astonishing dogma that anything the Labour Government want to pass, if they have a majority, they ought to be entitled to pass, whatever it is—whether it is the destruction of your Lordships' House or the destruction of the Crown for that matter (though I do not imagine for a moment that the Labour Party desire that). But whatever they desire, according to my noble friend Lord Denman, they ought to be allowed to do it without any check or hindrance within the limits of a Parliament. I cannot share that view, and I do not think, if I may say so, that such a doctrine is fair to the electors. I confess that I do feel that. some of us are blind to the position in which the electors are placed as a General Election. Just consider for a moment. They are not persons whose whole life is devoted to politics. They have many other occupations and preoccupations. They have got their trade or industry, they Can spend very little time, comparatively speaking, in considering politics, some of them hardly consider politics at all; and yet you are going to throw this tremendous weight upon them, that if they make a mistake in one Election because they are guided by other more prominent, though less important, issues —if they make a single mistake and return a majority of Labour representatives to Parliament, then they are to Lave no second chance. It is to be settled. They may be interested in a number of political things of less importance. Certain things may not be very popular at the time. There may perhaps be a Betting Bill or a Tithe Bill or other Bills which, excellent though they may be, may not be very popular for the moment; and these electors, who are thinking mostly about their own trade and industry, go to the poll and feel an impulse of inidignation at these smaller measures and vote for the Labour candidate.
Then the noble Lord says: "You have gone and done it. There is no other chance. If they come and want to destroy the British Constitution, we of the Liberal Party will say nothing—just let them do it." I say that is not fair
74
to the electors. You have no right to put them in that position, and it is not true democracy, but the reverse, which the noble Lord is professing. True democracy is to give the people a full opportunity of judging which they cannot have on the spur of the moment in a hurried campaign, and I venture to suggest, as so often before, that the true believers in the people, the true professors of democracy, are to be found on this side of the House and not on that. There must, therefore, I suggest to your Lordships, he an adequate Second Chamber, and it is in order, if possible, to provide what we believe to be an adequate Second Chamber that I am asking your Lordships to read this Bill a second time.
Let me just say one or two general words of introduction. What is an adequate Second Chamber? I am going to make an admission to noble Lords opposite. It must be in the true sense of the word conservative. I do not mean conservative with a big "C "; I mean conservative with a little "c." That is what it is there for. I mean, in order to give the people time to consider. It is essentially conservative, and if the noble Lord and his friends set themselves the task of creating a Second Chamber—I suppose they would really like to do without one altogether—they would have to make it conservative. It has no other meaning except a body which will act as a restraining and modifying influence. Therefore in this Bill undoubtedly it has a conservative tendency in that sense, conservative again with a little "c."
And may I say to the noble Lord (Lord Ponsonby) that what I am proposing is not what he said on the First Reading: it is not an imposture. I do not want to conceal anything. I do not want to gerrymander—I think that is what he said. It is not "a specious pretence." All that sort of strong language, may I say to the noble Lord, does not advance his cause one inch. This is a genuine attempt, if we deserve your Lordships' confidence and assent, to undo the harm which has been done in the past, doing not more than we can help, only as much as is absolutely necessary to undo the harm which has been done in the past, and to have an efficient Second Chamber. I am not going to say one word, of course, against the present constitution of your Lordships' House. Having been

75
a member of it for I do not know how many years, and having felt a deep regard for its members and for its forms, I am the last man in the world to say one word against the present constitution of your Lordships' House. It is an hereditary House undoubtedly, fundamentally, but it is heredity reinforced by very constant creations, and I think it has done its work in a way which has deserved and has received the confidence of the country. It has a great tradition and a great reputation, and in any proposals which we make to your Lordships for modifying it I hope you will believe that we are deeply resolved not to sacrifice this tradition and this reputation.
I come to the actual provisions of the Bill. They are briefly described in a Memorandum which your Lordships will see printed on the first page. The Bill is divided into two Parts. There is Part I which deals with the constitution of the House, and there is Part II which deals with its power. It is proposed for the constitution that the Lords of Parliament in the first place shall consist of Peers of the Blood Royal; that is Clause 1 of the Bill. The remainder of the House is mostly described in Clause 3, and in Clauses 4, 5, and 6 in greater detail; partly hereditary and partly an outside element; Bishops in the same proportion as the Peers who are to be retained, or approximately, and in Clause 8 we retain, of course, the Law Lords as they are called—that is to say, the Lords learned in the law who form the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Let me say one or two words about these elements in the proposed House. First of all, the hereditary element. As I have said, what is essential in a Second Chamber is that it should receive the confidence of the country, and the hereditary element, I stoutly maintain, deserves the confidence of the country. It consists of gentlemen very familiar with public administration in their counties and in their estates, many of them having served the Crown in office. They are trained in a great tradition of moderation. They have realised and announced over and over again that they will always accept the considered judgment of the nation when once that has been really ascertained. That is a matter, as I said on the First Reading, which is a delicate matter. It
76
requires considerable training and experience to know what the considered judgment of the people is. They have that tradition. They are independent. I am not going to say one derogatory word of the great assembly of this Parliament other than our own, the House of Commons. I am not going to say one word against them or their constitution, but they are liable to difficulties which we do not experience. They must consider the passing phases of opinion amongst their electors. They are very much, also, at the mercy of those who control the electors, people who, in a rather derogatory phrase, are known as wire-pullers; they are very much at their mercy. No doubt, being men of responsibility, they resist those tendencies, but they must have a certain effect.
Your Lordships' House is free from any of those difficulties, but there is one circumstance which may threaten the independence of your Lordships' House that has been very prominent in public discussion whilst House of Lords reform has been before us. Your Lordships well know the history of the Parliament Act, and know that that Act was carried by a threat of the Ministers of the day to create sufficient Peers to overwhelm the natural majority in your Lordships' House—what is called, I think, swamp, in the political jargon of the day—a most undignified proceeding, and not an appear to reason at all. It is an appeal to force. I think that that is a most objectionable method of settling the difficulty and quite unnecessary as the law stands, and quite unnecessary as the law will stand if your Lordships are good enough to accept this Bill. It is said that we are going to destroy the Parliament Act. We are not going to destroy the Parliament Act. We are going, if your Lordships agree, to amend the Parliament Act; we are not going to destroy it. The Parliament Act provides that if a Bill is passed three times through the House of Commons and sent up to your Lordships' House, then it is passed whether the Lords like it or not. We do not abolish that method. What we do say is that before your Lordships' veto is to be ignored there ought to be a decision, not of the existing Parliament only, but of the new Parliament.

77
Is it a great deal to ask? It appears to me to be a most reasonable thing. Here you have issues of very great importance, issues going down to the very foundation our position and our Constitution, and it is certainly not unreasonable that before this last appeal is made to the House of Commons a new House of Commons should be consulted. If the decision of the new House of Commons is signified by a single Resolution, coming as the members of that House would do fresh from the electors, that is sufficient to maintain in its full integrity all the protection which is sought by the Parliament Act in order that the will of the people should prevail. Noble Lords opposite have no right to have any success except by the will of the peole. It is not a question of "We have got into office and we ought to have our way while we are in office." Nothing of the kind. The thing is, what do the people of Great Britain want, and to ask for a Resolution of the new House of Commons coming straight from the polls as the final deciding circumstance which should permit the putting into force of the Parliament Act seems to me profoundly reasonable.
But, as I shall show, we do not propose even that without a limitation. I said just now that the House of Lords, as we should wish to see it, would be still partly hereditary. What do I mean by that description? I am speaking in the presence of a great number of your Lordships, and I do not conceal from myself that in suggesting a reduction in the numbers of the hereditary Peerage I am asking a great deal. That is perfectly true. It is not that I wish to speak with any kind of disrespect of noble Lords whose circumstances make it necessary for them to live, not in London, but in the country. I do not think that there is any reason why one should speak of them with anything except respect. They are not idle men; on the contrary, they work very hard for their neighbours, their counties, for the public in their counties. But, as a matter of fact, they do not and cannot live in London and be in constant attendance in your Lordships' House. I deplore that; I wish it were otherwise. I certainly do not find fault, do not even think that there ought to be any fault found with noble Lords who are placed in that position, but undoubtedly it does involve a difficulty. They cannot follow
78
the changes of political life and the issues of public opinion like noble Lords who are able to attend, and, therefore, the fact that they have the power to act does involve an element of suspicion in the public, perhaps undeserved, of which one ought to take account.
I think almost every reformer, or would-be reformer, of your Lordships' House realises that these considerations involve a certain reduction in the membership of this House, I mean in the hereditary membership of your Lordships' House. I am not going to use any vulgar phrase about backwoodsmen, because I do not believe in it. I do not in the least feel that there is any kind of objection to what circumstances necessarily force upon a great. number of noble Lords, but I do think that in the circumstances it would be better that those who cannot be present here themselves should be represented by those who can. That is the way I will put it. That is to say, their authority should be relegated to noble Lords who can take general part in the business of Parliament. Therefore that involves a certain reduction in the hereditary element. We have fixed the reduced number at 150 Peers. That and the limitations on the other element in the Lords of Parliament will have the incidental result that it will be impossible to overwhelm the opinion of this House by a sudden creation. All these things are of great importance.
How are these hereditary Peers who are kept in the House to be appointed By a system of election, of course, amongst their own colleagues, and by a system of proportional representation. I was asked upon the First Reading about that element. There is no doubt that any such representation of the hereditary Peerage must be. by a process of proportional representation. There is no, difficulty whatever about that. It is provided for by Clause 7 of the Bill. If noble Lords want to have any precedent, it has been tried in several parts of the world without any difficulty. I do not know whether it gratifies noble Lords opposite to say that it has been tried in the Irish Free State. It has been tried in South Africa. It has been tried with great success in New South Wales. There apparently everybody is satisfied with it.

79
I have said the number is 150, but of course there is nothing sacrosanct about that number. It may be that your Lordships would wish to vary the number, and of course we should be very ready to accept any such decision. There is a particular case which I may mention specially, perhaps, the case of the Scottish Peerage. The Scottish Peers are already Representative Peers and they sit by a provision of the Act of Union between England and Scotland. There are 16 Scottish Representative Peers who sit by virtue of the Act of Union. I certainly think it would be a very strong measure for us in this Bill to disturb the Act of Union between England and Scotland. For my own part I am quite free to say that if noble Lords from Scotland desire a modification in the Bill so as to preserve the provisions of the Act of Union in this regard, as far as I am personally concerned I shall be very ready to support them. I hope your Lordships will, too. That is an example which shows that we are quite prepared to modify the numbers if it should seem right to the House to make a modification.
I have dealt up till now with the hereditary Peerage, but there is also to be an outside element which is fixed at a similar number, at 150. As I said on the First Reading the actual provisions of the method by which this outside element should be appointed are not to be found in the Bill itself. There is the machinery by which they are to be appointed, the machinery of Resolution by both Houses of Parliament, but the actual provisions are not in the Bill. I am very anxious that Parliament itself, both Houses, should contribute their wisdom to determine the exact character and method of appointment of this outside element. Therefore it is that Clause 6 provides this method by Resolution. In the unofficial report, with which I think your Lordships are familiar, upon which this Bill is founded, two methods of appointing the outside element are mentioned: one eletroral, by election, and one by nomination—election, I think it is, by the county councils and nomination by the Crown. I will not conceal from your Lordships that in my humble judgment the method of nomination by the Crown is the one that ought to be preferred. I think there is a great
80
deal more to be said for it—more on every ground, on the merits themselves, and also because it is more in consonance with the tradition of the House that the authority of members of the House should come from the Crown itself. Therefore, on that issue I should be in faovour myself of nomination.
I would like to point out to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, who spoke of gerrymandering and all the rest of it, that if he had had time to read this unofficial report, which was published in The Times, he would have seen that there was a very strong desire upon the part of my colleagues not to incur this charge of gerrymandering. We spoke of a fair representation of Labour and Liberal opinion being possible by the means of this nomination principle. If he will give himself the trouble of looking at The Times of November 11, 1932, he will, I am sure, himself confess how very frank we are who wrote the report in our desire to avoid the charge of being purely one-sided in our conception of the new House of Lords. I need say very little more as to the actual provisions of the Bill. The non-elected Peers would, of course, be entitled, if they thought fit, to stand for the House of Commons. In Clause 11 that is provided. Then there is the question of women. We do not propose in our Bill, nor did we in the report, to touch the vexed question of women Peerages. But we did suggest that whatever method was adopted for the outside element, where it was election or nomination, that would be an abundant opportunity for making such provision for the representation of women in this House as might be thought fit. I must apologise for having taken so much time over the Personnel of your Lordships, House.
Now I must say one word about the powers which we suggest, the actual provisions in the Bill as to powers. First, as to money. The House is aware that, according to the best opinion, as the Parliament Act stands now almost anything could be passed under the section which provides that a Money Bill is to be passed straight through Parliament. Not even three times has it to be submitted to your Lordships' House. After an interval of a month it has to be passed into law. I do not for a moment dispute that the

81
House of Commons ought to be supreme in money matters. We have never Contested that for a moment, but we do suggest that it would not, be right under the cover of a Money Bill to pass a measure which really envisaged other things besides money—ordinary legislation which would be enacted, as it were, underneath. Therefore there is an amendment of the formula of what constitutes a Money Bill, which your Lordships will find in Clause 12 of the Bill. The object is as I described it and as described in the Memorandum. The new formula is designed
" … to make it clear that a Money Bill contains only provisions for the raising or appropriation of revenue and other like matters and for no other purpose."
That is the provision as to the Money Bill formula. In the Parliament Act there are the general words "or other financial purposes," as well as those which I have described, and the words "other financial purposes" are so wide that they cover almost everything. Those words, of course, are left out in the new formula.
Then we propose also that the authority who should interpret this formula should no longer be the Speaker alone, but should be the Speaker presiding over a Joint Committee of both Houses. Of course we have nothing whatever to say against the high reputation of the present occupant of the Speaker's Chair, but I need not say to your Lordships that the Speaker is the servant of the House of Commons, and one cannot tell what gentlemen in the House of Commons will in the future be called upon to fill the Speaker's Chair. Therefore it appears upon every ground reasonable that a matter which concerns both Houses should be decided by a Joint Committee of both Houses, with the Speaker as Chairman, and that is provided for in the Bill. So much for the money clause. I am aware that in these money provisions we have not fulfilled the wishes of my noble friend Lord Strachie, who, though he sits on the Liberal Benches—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: He is sitting behind you.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I cannot help being gratified; but I can only say that we cannot go quite so far as he does in his suggested Amendment to my Motion for Second Reading; and that we feel bound—and I am sure your Lordships' will agree—to maintain
82
the right of the House of Commons to deal with what is really and truly genuinely financial business. That we do not desire to interfere with in any way. That is provided in the Bill.
I pass from the money clause to the other clause which I have already broadly described, a clause dealing with the power of the House of Commons to overrule a decision of the House of Lords. Our new clause is No. 13 in the Bill. I must remind your Lordships of what I have already said, I am afraid at too great a length, that as matters stand there is absolutely no limit to the power of the House of Commons. They may, as I have said, enact a sort of perpetual "Dora," or they can abolish absolutely lock, stock and barrel your Lordships' House. That is their present power. After the greatest and deepest consideration in the committee to which I have referred, we thought that the smallest measure of reform which would deal with that particular difficulty was the one which we have inserted in the Bill—not to give your Lordships any final authority, but to postpone the final decision for a Resolution of the new House of Commons. But even that we did not propose without a particular limitation. It was not to be a casual vote of the House of Lords which would give us this special relief; under the Bill it must be an absolute majority of the Lords—that is to say of the new Lords. As they stand reformed, it must be an absolute majority of all the Lords of Parliament voting together before the Bill is held over for the new Parliament. That extra precaution is inserted, showing, I venture to think, the great efforts that we have made to be as moderate as we can in providing a remedy.
I am afraid that I have been too long already, and I have only one or two more words to add. We are very far from thinking our Bill perfect. We are very far from thinking that any private Peers are in a position to dictate to Parliament what its reforms should be. We come, cap in hand, to beg your Lordships to help us. We would far rather that the Government should do it. We know that they are in a far better position both to draw a Bill and to pass it. In fact we can do nothing, we know—this Bill can never pass—without the consent or assistance of the Government. We have n illusions whatever on the subject, and i

83
treating this Bill in your Lordships' House in its subsequent stages we shall not only welcome, but we hope for, your Lordships' assistance in amending the Bill. Any Amendment which the House wishes of course will be inserted in the Bill, but will be inserted with our cordial assent. All we want to do is to get the wisdom of Parliament—the wisdom of this House—to devote itself to the solution of this vital problem.
Please do not let any one think that we arrogate to ourselves any super-wisdom to guide your Lordships in this particular respect. But do, my Lords, realise the danger in which we stand. Let my last words be those, to reinforce what I said at the beginning. I am not speaking for the moment to noble Lords opposite—I shall not command their assent—but think of how your Leader, you who sit on these Conservative Benches, has warned you over and over again of the danger in which we stand. I noticed a passage in an utterance of his only a few days ago. These are Mr. Baldwin's words in a foreword to Politics in Review this year:
"We are faced with the intensive propaganda of Socialism, and if there be any who are inclined to hold this lightly, the success which it achieved at the recent election for the London County Council must surely have shaken them out of their complacency."
That is what I am afraid of: the complacency of noble Lords.
Have we a right to be complacent? We are faced with this great danger of a temporary victory of extremists. Are we to do nothing, is this great historic House to do nothing, to stop it? Are we to have no reform, but only the old, old answer: "Let it alone; let it be"? My noble friend here is going to move the rejection of the Bill. I suppose there is no man in this House with whom I generally agree more thoroughly than with him. He would say—he will say, I am sure—" Why not leave this historic House alone?" My Lords, we have no right to leave it alone. Of course it involves sacrifice, sacrifice of many things which we hold dear, things which I myself hold most dear. But we must be prepared to sacrifice. I should hate to think that this great Assembly at the end of its great tradition should shrink from the sacrifice which is necessary in order to save the country. My Lords, I move the Second Reading of the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª (The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD REDESDALE LORD REDESDALE had given Notice that on the Motion for the Second Reading he would move that the Bill be read 2ª this day six months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is a source of great regret to me that in moving the rejection of this Bill I find myself in direct opposition to the noble Marquess, for whom, in common with the rest of your Lordships, I have the deepest respect; and it is, of course, a tremendous undertaking for one relatively so little known in your Lordships' House to oppose the noble Marquess, who so recently led the House with such great distinction. Nevertheless, it will be no novel experience to your Lordships to have to obliterate for a moment your personal feelings of respect and esteem for an individual, and look upon this matter solely on its merits. And your task will be made that much easier by the knowledge that the noble Marquess would be the very first to welcome, and indeed to expect, such obliteration.
I feel bound, in spite of what the noble Marquess has just said, to preface my remarks by expressing the opinion that a measure of such great importance, a measure in effect altering the Constitution of this great country, should, if they were going to support it in any way whatever, have been introduced by the Government and not by a private member. The fact that this is not the case encourages me to hope that the Government are to give it no sort of blessing whatever. On the other hand, I understand the noble Marquess to have said a moment ago that he and his friends could not proceed with the measure unless they had the support of the Government.
THE MARQUESS OE SALISBURYI said it would be impossible to get it through Parliament.
LORD REDESDALEI observe that a similar Motion to mine—namely, one for the rejection of this measure—stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Snell. I naturally have no idea what the noble Lord is going to say, but it is perhaps not unreasonable to assume that his arguments will follow the line of those advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, when he moved the rejection on the First Reading. It is, perhaps,

85
unnecessary for me to tell your Lordships that my reasons for opposing this measure differ wholly from those of Lord Ponsonby, so much so that at the First Reading, strongly as I feel on this subject, I found myself unable to go into the Lobby with the noble Lord, and so subscribe to the terms of his Motion. I think for the first time since I came to this. House I was obliged to abstain from voting.
Lord Ponsonby clearly takes a very different view of the value of your Lordships' House from that held by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, who occupied the Woolsack during the first Socialist administration, and I should like to read to your Lordships two sentences from a speech Lord Haldane made during a debate on the same subject, at a time when he must have shared the most intimate counsels of the Socialist Party. That was in 1925. Lord Haldane told us this:
" It is not my business to give advice to His Majesty's Government, nor would they thank me for it. But if I did, I think it would assume the form of a single sentence: 'Let well alone.' Things are not worse than they were; they are better than they were, and. I doubt whether anybody elected from outside, anybody nominated by the Crown, or nominated by a selection from among your Lordships' members, which might not always be a selection of great wisdom, would do better than your Lordships' House, as constituted at present, has done."
That was the view of one of the great leaders of the Socialist Party nine years ago.
I am, of course, perfectly well aware that logically the hereditary principle is not easy to defend and, indeed, so far as the noble Marquess is concerned, after what he said at the First Reading no such defence would be necessary; but logic is not everything, and one must be guided in all matters by facts and results, and the fact is that, generally speaking, a man who has spent all his life in politics and public affairs is more likely to have a son capable of following in his footsteps in that particular line, than a man who has never paid any attention to either, especially when that son has been brought up in the atmosphere of public work, and has always been aware that the day would come when he would have to bear his part as a duty, and a very welcome duty at that. There are natur-
86
ally exceptions. Men have come to your Lordships' House from the very humblest homes in the land, and it should be, and probably is, their proudest reflection that they have rendered service of incalculable value by so doing. The doors are closed to no one. Equally, there are examples, happily very few, of men who having started with every conceivable advantage and, having proved themselves to be utterly worthless, have fallen to the greatest depths.
You could not have a better example of the hereditary legislator than the noble Marquess himself, head of the Cecil family, whose political record is so well known to everyone. Who says there is nothing in heredity? Surely, just as an example, one reason why our textiles are the best in the world is that those engaged upon that work have been bred and born to it for generations. Why are our seamen the best in the world? For precisely the same reason. You can go on piling up examples. You do not hear the cotton operatives of Lancashire saying that they cannot go on making good fabrics unless they have the assistance of some North Sea fishermen. Neither do you hear North Sea fishermen affirming that they could catch larger and more fish of they could only call in some Cotswold shepherds to help them. Surely, each man must do that job for which by nature and training he is best fitted. I am a firm believer in heredity. The noble Marquess himself said at the First Reading:
"If you get rid of the hereditary principle you will wreck centuries of tradition."
He also said:
"The hereditary principle penetrates the whole structure of our society."
That of course is perfectly true; and may I remind your Lordships that denial of the hereditary principle is a direct blow at the Crown? Such a denial is, indeed, a blow at the very foundation of the Christian faith.
Where is this demand for the reform of the House of Lords? My experience is that you hardly ever hear of it except in this House. In the ordinary way, when you hear people talking politics they seem to me to be concerned with Locarno, Geneva and the Navy, or rather perhaps the lack of a Navy such as that to which we have always been accus-

87
tomed and upon which our very existence depends. You hear them discussing the conduct of foreign affairs, the plight of agriculture, the highly satisfactory results of the Government's financial policy, and the consequent decline in unemployment. These are the things you hear people talking about, not the reform of the House of Lords. In my opinion this House stands in no need of reform. All it needs is a restitution of the powers it held in former days, the repeal of the Parliament Act. It reminds me of a peculiar type of man, well known to every one of your Lordships, who although he is in a perfect state of health, is for ever convinced that some quack remedy of which he has heard or of which he has seen an advertisement will do him some good. He has no idea of what good it is going to do him, but he simply cannot resist trying it.
Are we in need of a remedy? I would ask your Lordships this, and I do hope that during the course of this debate, if I am wrong, I may be told so, but above all I should like to be told wherein I am wrong: Does any one of your Lordships know of a country where the laws and conditions of life generally are fairer and more generally satisfactory to every class of the population than is the case in this country? I do not know of one. I do not believe such a country exists, and if that is so, and if a system of government is to be judged by its fruits—and I for one know no other way of judging it—then are we not bound to admit that there cannot be any very serious practical defect in the system under which the justice and freedom we enjoy in this country have in fact been developed?
Now, who are those who wish to see this reform of the House of Lords, and why? I will tell your Lordships why they desire to see this reform. Their names will be furnished in the Division List. The reason they desire this reform is simply this, and they make no secret of it: they say quite openly they are afraid that in the event of a violent Socialist Government coming into power in this country that Government will wish to abolish the House of Lords. But they believe that if such a Government came into power and found a reformed Upper Chamber of some sort they would tolerate it. Well, would they? I do hope your Lordships will make no mistake about this. Of course they would not. If such
88
a Government came into power they would tolerate precisely nothing that interfered in any way whatever with their plans and arrangements, and they would abolish anything that did. Such people would find no greater difficulty in abolishing a Constitution dated 1934 than they would one of greater antiquity.
The abolition of the House of Lords would not be the end of the world. It has happened before, and history would repeat itself. The people of this country would not put up with single-chamber government for long, and the House of Lords would be reinstated, as it was once before. But of course, if all this had happened in the meantime, it would he the reformed House that would be reinstated, not the House as your Lordships know it. A House of Lords destroyed by its enemies would quite certainly rise again, as it did before. But a House of Lords destroyed by itself would be dead for all time. I should like to impress upon your Lordships what I believe to be the absolute truth, and that is that once you have given this Bill a Second Reading you will in fact have completed that destruction.
What is this House of Lords which is said to stand so sorely in need of reform? It is the finest Second Chamber in the world, the envy of all civilised countries, not one of which has anything like it, or ever can have. It is composed of men from every walk of life. There can be no profession or trade which is not represented here. Its members are free to say what they please and vote as they believe: they are bound by no pledges extorted from them at election times by wavering electors. They are incorruptible by fear or favour. Taken as a whole they are an honest lot of men, whose one and only desire is the good of the country, which means the good of the people. They have no axe to grind, and even if they had they would not choose your Lordships' House in which to grind it. There are in this House, as outside, good and bad men, clever and stupid, hardworking and idle; but the truth is that the undesirables who do exist take no part whatever in the work and deliberations of your Lordships' House: indeed, they never attend. Surely, when you have an institution of this sort that has worked admirably for centuries, that has been abolished once by Cromwell but

89
found necessary ant reinstated by the wish of the people, amidst scenes of unparalleled rejoicing, it is wise to consider with the utmost care and the deepest deliberation before discarding it in favour of something reformed, new, and untried.
What would it be, this reformed House? It would be an elected Upper Chamber. Well, ask those countries which suffer from this with no alternative. They know that an elected Upper Chamber involves all the horrors of popular representation, with its pledges, wire-pulling, self-seeking, scheming and the like, and only to achieve in the end what is in fact single-chamber government. It is certain that if you are to have an Upper Chamber at all it must be filled either by the hereditary principle or by election. There may be something to be said against the hereditary principle but nothing compared with that of election. In any ease, I submit that you could not have a more perfect combination of the defects of both systems than is contained in the measure at present before your Lordships.
In advocating the retention of the present House of Lords no one can be said to be seeking any personal advantage. No one gets anything out of sitting here. There is no honour or glory; no reward of any sort is looked for or even to be had: a certain amount of expense, which some can ill afford, a certain amount of Committee work (sometimes incredibly dull)—the whole thing is regarded as a duty and as a very solemn obligation, and is for the most part quite cheerfully undertaken as such. In plain English my view is this: someone has got, to do the work in this place, and the question your Lordships have to decide, and the only question, is, how will the interests of the people of this country be best served in this matter If any man could persuade me that the people of this country would derive any benefit whatever from the abolition or alteration of the House of Lords I would be the first to support such an alteration. But I do not believe that the people would benefit in any single respect by the provisions of this measure; and for that reason, and for no other, I oppose it.
In my opinion it w mild be in the nature of a breach of trust to allow the passage
90
of this Bill and so alter the Constitution without a very definite and emphatic mandate from the electorate. After all, what are your Lordships doing here at all? You are here at the will of the people, in the service of the people. When the people of this country say: "We wish you would go and make room for a decent lot of trustworthy men who will really have our interests at heart," then, and not one moment before, will be the appropriate moment for your Lordships to turn your backs on this Chamber, regretting, and regretting bitterly, that you have fallen short of what was expected of you. Your Lordships have received no such message, and in my opinion the likelihood of anything of the sort coming to pass is extremely remote. I have been as brief as possible, because I know that very many of your Lordships will wish to take part in this debate. I seldom address your Lordships, because it is my invariable experience that by sitting still sooner or later I hear what I would wish to say said so very much better by someone else, and I am sure to-day will prove no exception. In conclusion, I would only add that I do most earnestly trust that the unusual business of further wrecking a Constitution which has been the admiration and envy of the civilised world for centuries will be attended with at least equally unusual caution. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all words after ("That") and insert ("the Bill be read 2ª this day six months").—(Lord Redesdale.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, you will notice that there are in the Paper six Amendments to the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill—four for the rejection of the Bill, one reasoned Amendment for rejection, and, finally, one Amendment of qualified approval; and I am making a short statement as to how I propose to put the Question in order to enable these last two Amendments to be put, if the House so desires. The first Question after the speech of the noble Marquess was: "That this Bill be now read a second time." An Amendment has been moved by Lord Redesdale, and instead of putting the Question: "That the word 'now' stand part of the Motion," I shall, in order to preserve the last two Amendments and in accordance with the precedents that have been examined on

91
similar occasions, put the Question as follows:
"The original Motion was 'That this Bill be now read a second time,' since when an Amendment has been moved to leave out all the words after 'That' for the purpose of inserting the following words: 'the Bill be read a second time this day six months.' The Question I have to put is that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion."
The result will be that if, on a Division, these words stand part, the Bill is read a second time and no further Amendment can be put. If, on the other hand, they do not stand part, I must then put the Question: "That the words 'the Bill be read a second time this day six months' be inserted." If the House decides to insert these words, the Bill is rejected and no further Amendment can be moved. On the other hand, it would still be open to the House not to insert these words, in which case Lord Strachie could then move his reasoned Amendment for the rejection; and, if that was not carried, Lord Rockley's words of qualified approval could then be inserted. In this way it would be possible to give a chance for all the Amendments to be moved, but it is, of course, possible that the House will arrive at a definite decision for approval or rejection at an earlier stage.
LORD SNELL LORD SNELL, in whose name also there stood a Motion for the rejection of the Bill, said: My Lords, in a sterner and more ancient arena even than your Lordships' House those who were about to die were privileged to salute their judges, and before the thumbs of your Lordships are turned down on the defenceless little group on these Benches I claim the privilege of saying that if we are to be sacrificed we should prefer it to be as units in a common slaughter in which your Lordships shared than as victims of a carefully designed and conspicuously unfair discrimination. Your Lordships may perhaps feel that the duty of presenting the views of the official Opposition to this measure which has been submitted to your Lordships by one of the oldest and most respected personalities of the House should have been entrusted to someone with a longer record of service than myself. I do not intend in the least degree to excuse myself to your Lordships, even though I shall have to try your patience a little longer than usual to-day, but I
92
feel I may remind your Lordships of the fact that our range of choice of speakers is far more limited than we think it should be.
My first desire is, in view of criticisms I shall have to make later, to say that there is no one among my noble friends who does not recognise and admire the persistent loyalty to conviction and the exemplary devotion to duty of the noble Marquess who has presented this measure. If our faith in his political sagacity equalled our respect for his sincerity we should, I think, receive with more patience the Bill that he has presented. My next duty is to remind your Lordships that this very difficult controversial question has not been brought before your Lordships by us. I think we should never have raised it, at least not in this form, but since it has been raised we shall deal with it with the courteous but complete frankness that I feel we owe both to your Lordships and ourselves. We have tried to the best of our ability to serve your Lordships' House under every sort of disadvantage, relieved only by the generous and never-failing courtesy of your Lordships in every Party. So far as I understand the purpose of the noble Marquess, it is still further to protect this House and the nation from the operation of principles which have been, at any rate, the inspiration of my own life—the principles of social organisation and co-operative endeavour, which, I maintain, are at all times better than selfish economic individualism, and those principles I must and shall advocate on all proper occasions. The noble Marquess believes that the views of myself and my friends are more dangerous to the welfare of the State than are his own, but there are many millions of our fellow-countrymen who believe the exact opposite. They do not believe, and we do not believe, that the future prosperity of England depends upon the permanence of entrenched privilege but upon the growth of social equality, upon co-operation, and upon the faith of the people that every Party in the State will deal with them with fairness and with honesty.
So far as I understand the mind of the noble Marquess, he regards this House as a self-anointed, superintending providence which is entitled to prevent the nation from obtaining what, at any given time, it most desires to have. Not

93
in plain words let it be said, not avowedly but almost disingenuously, by implication rather than by explicit declaration, it is proposed so to alter the Constitution of this House that the principle on which our country has hitherto been governed—the principle that when the will of the people has been ascertained at a properly conducted Election that will shall prevail—shall now be ignored and that the ultimate authority irrespective of the will of the people shall reside in this House.
NOBLE LORDS: Oh, no.
LORD SNELL: On the First Reading of this Bill, the noble Marquess said:
"there is a danger connected with the authority of the people in legislation, a danger that it would not be the deliberate judgment of the people, but a passing majority that was responsible for legislation."
That principle, as stated by the noble Marquess, is not to be effective when a Conservative Government is returned. He said:
"We should shrink from giving any chance to the Labour Party."
And later:
"The dangers which await this country in the event of a Labour success are so demonstrably formidable"
that
"the Conservative Party, at any rate, and I should hope the Liberal Party too, are determined to resist those dangers"—
resist, I must remind your Lordships, not by argument, not by an electoral success, but by, I was going to say gerrymandering but I will say manipulating the Constitution.
Then your Lordships' House is to become, by statutory authority, what we believe in practice it has always been, a jealously guarded committee of the Tory Party. The noble Marquess, in fact, proposes to make Toryism safe for eternity; the will of the people is to be honoured only when it returns a Conservative Government. There is no suggestion that this "would not be the deliberate judgment of the people, but a passing majority." But when a Labour or a Liberal Government is returned, then not the people but the House of Lords as to be the deciding authority. We believe that it is possible to call a device of that kind by many names, but no one would call it democracy, and very few
94
would dream of calling it politically fair. I remember that Macaulay dealt with a matter of that kind in relation to an even more authoritarian body than that which the noble Marquess proposes to establish. He said:
"I am in the right and you are in the wrong. When you are the stronger, you ought to tolerate me, for it is your duty to tolerate truth. But when I am the stronger, I shall persecute you, for it is my duty to persecute error."
The new formula runs: When a Conservative Government is returned to power by the will of the people, it is the duty of all men to obey, because (to quote the noble Marquess) "the final, ultimate conclusive authority in this. country is the people," but when a Liberal or a Labour Government is returned to power by the same supreme authority, it is the duty of a Conservative House of Lords to restrict, to disregard or to defy the will of the people on the ground that when they voted they did not know what they were doing. Now, the operation of that principle gives the noble Marquess and his friends complete control both in victory and in defeat.
I do not want to follow the noble Marquess in his speech this afternoon too closely because many other speakers desire to take part, but your Lordships will have noted that once again there was the emphasis on the risk of a Labour Party being returned. Is there no risk in leading the people to believe that they are not properly treated? The noble Marquess has introduced again the question of leadership in the Labour Party. Fundamentally, that is our business and not his. But the noble Marquess has rather got into the habit on this question of treating your Lordships' House to a succession of bogies. It happens to-day to be Sir Stafford Cripps. I can remember when Mr. Chamberlain was the great bogy and when Mr. John Bright was the great bogy, followed by Sir CharlesDilke, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Keir Hardie and Mr. Ramsay MacDonald. This procession of bogies passes very quickly, and the noble Marquess is already out-of-date.
I should like to remind your Lordships that the noble Marquess is not the real parent of this Bill. If a blood test were taken of it, it would be found to be the off-spring of Fascist authoritarianism which has left a trail of blood and cruelty throughout the whole

95
of Europe. In politics, as in biology,like produces like. It pretends to offer security and national unity, but what it conceals are the concentration camp and the prison. I have been engaged in public advocacy for nearly fifty years, and I have never said one word in favour of lawlessness or violence, but have always pleaded that the will of the people expressed through the ballot box would be effective and final. I have been content to believe that my own ideals were perhaps born out of their due time and content to hope that they would be fulfilled in days that I shall not see. The workers have been constantly and splendidly law-abiding and we shall try our best to keep them so, but if the political dice are to be loaded against them, if now that they have organised power in the land, the Constitution is to be manipulated unfairly against them, then they may seek to defend their liberties by all effective means.
What is the kind of House of Lords which it is proposed to create? From the standpoint of equity there is less to commend it even than the present House. I dislike intensely criticising an assembly that has been generous to me and good enough to listen to my speeches without too obvious impatience, but I hope it will allow me to say—for I must be frank with your Lordships—that at its best it seems to me rather a picturesque anachronism, a solemn place in which it is almost improper to smile and really bad form to display enthusiasm for public causes. My admiration for your Lordships' House has never passed the bounds of decorum, but I confess that I would prefer to see it ended as a respected relic that has come down to us from ages past rather than, as the result of any suicidal assumption of partisan policy, it should be displaced as a public nuisance. This measure continues one of the most striking disadvantages which the present House possesses. The late Lord Salisbury, whom, when I was a very young man, I find the great privilege of hearing speak—and I hope I may say I did not differ from him more profoundly than I do from his distinguished son—said in Edinburgh in 1894:
"We belong too much to one class, and the consequence is that with respect to a large number of questions, we are too much of one mind. Now that is a fact which appears to me to be injurious to the
96
character of the House as a political assembly."
What chance would there be of that proportion being altered in a reformed House?
The noble Marquess, on the First Reading of this Bill, said that the hereditary Peers
"are to be elected by proportional representation. Therefore noble Lords whose opinions differ from the majority, whether they sit on the Liberal or Labour Benches, will have all the representation to which their numbers entitle them."
Well, my Lords, we are twelve in this Assembly. It is probable that at the next General Election ten million Labour votes will be given, and on that basis of twelve our proportion in the reformed House will be about two. I suppose that another result of it will be that we shall no longer be permitted to disturb the comfortable torpor of your Lordships' House. I can only say that if that sacrifice is required of me I shall try to bear it as I have tried to bear all the rebuffs of my life with what I hope will be a becoming fortitude.
What is the justification that the noble Marquess offers to this House? It was, he said on First Reading, to "put up a fence to prevent it [the country] going over the precipice a second time." The nation, happily, has never gone over the precipice the first time. That is a view which is not new before your Lordships' House. The Duke of Wellington, on the occasion when the Second Reading of the Reform Bill passed this House, rose and said:
"Reform, my Lords, has triumphed, the barriers of the Constitution are broken down, the waters of destruction have burst the gates of the Temple, and the tempest begins to howl. Who can say where its course should be stopped? Who can stay its speed? "
My Lords, history has proved that there was no justification for that very anxious despair. Heaven knows there has been no excessive speed in our legislation. The barriers of the Constitution have been strengthened, not destroyed; the gates of the Temple are still erect. The character of the British Constitution may possibly be changed by the Labour Party, but it will be by underpinning not by undermining.
I desire to make a few remarks on the Bill itself, leaving it to my noble friends

97
to criticise the details of an entirely inflammable measure. I will deal only with its main provisions. They involve 150 Peers chosen by both Houses of Parliament in which the Conservative Party is in the great majority. There are also to be 150 hereditary Peers, five Lords Spiritual, four of the Blood Royal and so many Lords of Appeal. There are 733 members of your Lordships' House, and one wonders who are to be the favoured 150. There are some 500 of your Lordships who rarely attend. But those who do not attend nray show a quite irritable desire to continue to exist. Your Lordships, we are told by the noble Marquess, are all determined to act as trustees on the ground, not of rights, but of obligations. They are to be the safeguards of the British Constitution.
Let us look for a minute at the sense of responsibility and trusteeship that is afforded by the present House. The number of Peers and Bishops, excluding the members of the Blood Royal and minors, amounts to 733. In the years 1932 and 1933 the number of working days were just 100. The attendance throughout those two years totalled 8,116, which, had the whole of your Lordships attended, would have been completed in eleven days. The average attendance, however, was only eighty-one. Thus 650 people, who we are told are here with obligations rather than rights and determined to act as trustees, were absent every day; 287 never made one attendance. Included among them there were eight Dukes, twelve Marquesses, fifty-eight Earls, thirty-one Viscounts, one Bishop and, I regret to say, 178 Barons. One noble Lord who is most keen about the establishment of authoritarianism in this land has never even put himself to the inconvenience of expressing his allegiance to His Majesty the King. With my standard of morals, for what it is worth, I should be ashamed to enjoy the privileges of your Lordships' House whilst ignoring its duties. The maximum attendance present in the House was on November 10, 1932, when 208 of your Lordships were present; thus more than 500 were absent. There is another test, that of actual participation in the work of the House. In the two years 1932 and 1933, those who spoke over five columns of the OFFFCIAL REPORT numbered 102. Of those, created Peers numbering
98
forty-eight spoke 1,652 columns, and hereditary Peers numbering fifty-four spoke 1,322; and when you remember that some of the hereditary Peers were on the Government Front Bench and had to make long official speeches, you will see that, judged either by attendance or by actual participation, the hereditary element has rather neglected those obligations of trusteeship to which we have been referred. I could continue those statistics for some time, but I pass on to a rapid conclusion.
I have said that this kind of experiment such as is proposed by the noble Marquess is not a new one. The same kind of proposals were made in the later years of the Commonwealth, and they were not successful. Cromwell set out to create a Second Chamber which would act as a "check or balancing power." It was to be composed of 63 persons to be selected by Cromwell himself. They were to be "men of rank and quality, who will not only be a balance unto you, but to themselves while you love England and religion." Cromwell appointed two of his own sons, three sons-in-law, and two brothers-in-law, or one-ninth of the whole House from his own family. There were seven English Peers, one Irish Peer and one Scottish Peer, five sons of Peers, and four baronets. Eighteen, or more than one-fourth, represented the hereditary landed families. It will not surprise your Lordships to recall that the experiment lasted only six months.
It was noticeable then, as now, that the idea was to reconstitute the Chamber with reference to those who represented particular views. The Army in its petition made an irritating demand: it asked for
"able and faithful persons, eminent in goodness and such as do keep adhering to the cause."
That last touch, my Lords, is delightful. If only those who came to your Lordships' House kept "adhering to the cause"! Then the proportion of the Parties would be better, and different from what it is now. I hope I shall not be thought rude if I say that if anything is proved, it is that at any rate Liberalism is not hereditary. My noble friends on the Liberal Benches have my genuine and really respectful sympathy, because we, too, have our wandering sheep. But our sorrow is mitigated by the possibility that on some bleak and stormy night in the

99
not distant future some of them at any rate may once again seek the comfort and the shelter of the fold.
This Bill, I believe, is the most dangerous revolutionary measure that has been presented to any Parliament in my time. If it were passed into law its effects would be incalculable, but they could not be good. Your Lordships would scorn to accept advice from these Benches. That is both your privilege and your responsibility. I nevertheless conceive it to be my duty with my last words here to-day to advise you, in the name of political fairness and justice, in the name of the precious and hitherto undisturbed tranquillity of this Realm, to reject with haste and with emphasis this mean and dangerous class-war measure.
THE EARL OF MIDLETONMy Lords, we stand in a very peculiar position tonight. On previous occasions when we have debated this question we have, I think, all agreed that a case has been made out for some change. The last two speeches have given expression, very eloquently and very completely, to absolutely divergent views of the situation. The first was the well-expressed speech in which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, stated the case for doing nothing. He will permit me to say that it is impossible for those of us who have sat in this House for a long period to go back thirty years and imagine that all that was then agreed must now pass away, under conditions which make it more necessary than ever that we should take a step forward. With regard to the noble Lord who has just sat down, I hope he will not take it unfriendly if I say that his speech, based on the conception that a particular Party was to be entrenched for all time in power here, really took no note of the provisions of the Bill which, as I will endeavour to show him in a few moments, enable the Party entrenched on these Benches to be put into a minority under conditions which are conceivable and which, indeed, have happened in the past.
Our difficulty really is that noble Lords approach this question as if it were a new one. I have often wondered, since the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill vas placed upon the Order Paper, how it can be that in this House, where we do not put forward Motions
100
simply in order to damage the Opposition but do so from sheer conviction, two leaders or former leaders of Parties in the House should find it necessary to put down Motions for the rejection of a Bill the principle of which was agreed by every Party in the House years and years ago. There are two facts—indeed three—which nobody can dispute. The first is that up to 1909, when a particular declaration was made, there had been a consensus of opinion of all those who had led this House that reform was necessary, and before 1909 there was one special Committee, presided over by Lord Rosebery, and on which sat amongst others Lord Halsbury, who certainly represented probably the most completely Conservative feeling that was ever known in this House, who produced a Report which even now would make a very considerable change in the composition of the House.
That is not all. In 1909 a new chapter opened. Mr. Asquith not merely passed the Parliament Act, but passed the Preamble to the Parliament Act, and passed it with an undertaking of his own—a statement that the reform of this House did not brook delay. That statement was taken up from those Benches and was fortified, and that statement is on record —as clear a Parliamentary pledge by the Party which he represented as any Parliamentary pledge that ever was given. And now what has happened since? Every operation either in this country or abroad has surely shown us the absolute necessity of the point of view then so universally adopted. Look abroad if you will. Look at the progress of democracy. In 1909, I do not think it is too much to say that democracy and Parliamentary government were at their height. Parliamentary forms were something like sacred. The object of democratic movement was to fortify Parliamentary action. How are matters to-day? I do not speak with that knowledge of foreign countries which the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, possesses, but I believe there is no one here who will question that progress has been all in the opposite direction.
Democracies in many countries in Europe, and even in the United States of America, are handing over a great deal of the Parliamentary power to one individual. Why? Because there is this desire

101
to get things done more rapidly; to get forward with the work. I am not sure that my noble friend Lord Salisbury has sufficiently weighed the fact that delays which were worth whatever they were worth when placed in the Parliament Act in 1911, now mean a much larger item in Parliamentary action than they did in those days, owing to the pace at which things have gone in the last twenty-five years. We ought not to put that altogether out of our minds, and in this astounding march of events I ask your Lordships to remember that the House of Commons has had immense additions made to the electorate. There is certainly-throughout this country a pressure, especially from the newspapers, for rapid and continuous action. I am one of those who believe that the present Government, the National Government, have tackled more questions and have succeeded in bringing about more action than any Government that we recollect during a similar period, but that is not the view which is taken by the newspapers. They are always attempting to ask the Government to give us more prosperity. Prosperity while you wait!
In those circumstances what has been the movement in your Lordships' House? In 1909, I submit, there was a far larger number of men advocating opinions which were then considered extreme than there are now members advocating opinions which are now considered extreme. However admirable the personnel, your Lordships less represent opinions in the country than in 1909. A few figures were given by Lord Snell, but I am afraid I must ask your Lordships to listen to figures which certainly have disturbed my mind immensely. I owe them to the courtesy of the Clerk of the Parliaments, who has made researehes which I think will clearly prove to most members of your Lordships' House what a deteriorating effect there has been on the attendance of this House, and the debates in this House, by the fact that so large a body of Peers belong to one side only. What are the numbers of Peers? In order that there should be no attempt to make a case by one Division or one year, I have taken three periods of five years each—five years from 1869, five from 1909, and the last five years—and I, or rather the staff of this House, have examined what was the attendance during those periods.
102
In 1869 there were 460 Peers; in 1909 there were 150 more; and in the present year there are 768 Peers, or, again, 150 more. Therefore, while in 1869 there were 460 Peers there are now 300 more available for attending this House. What effect has there been upon the attendance? In the first period, taking the whole of the five years, there were altogether 480 sittings, and over 100 Peers attended on 209 occasions. The average attendance was 160, or one-third of the whole House. In the second period from 1909 there were 545 sittings, of which 240 were attended by over 100 Peers, and the average attendance was 170, or just over one-fourth of the House as against one-third in the previous period. In the last five years the sittings were much the same, the number of those attended by over 100 were much the same, and the average attendance was 135 out of 766, or possibly 740 or 750 in the earlier years, and not one-third or one-fourth, but one-sixth of the whole House. Thus we have had a progressive deterioration in the attendance.
Why is that? I Because there are, I believe, taking the Conservative whip at, this moment nearly 500 Peers, taking the Liberal whip, I believe, about 100 Peers, and taking the Labour whip—I had been putting the figure at twenty, but Lord Snell tells us that the representation is only twelve. There are in addition 150 independent Peers and Bishops. The same thing happens with the smaller attendances. There are now three Parties in the House, and therefore a certain number must attend. In the first period of five years there were only seventy-three occasions on which under fifty Peers attended; in the second period there were ninety-three occasions on which under fifty attended; and on the third occasion 122 occasions on which under fifty attended, and then the average was only 32 out of 760. I wish it to be clearly understood that I am not snaking any attack on individuals who de not find it possible, generally, to attend this House. I attack solely the system which makes their attendance here utterly needless and useless. I know well a number of men who have got county duties to perform, and I know the irritation which is felt when you have been bidden to take the

103
chair somewhere, as I was to-night, and I have to write and say that I cannot attend because of business here. The incredulous smiles which come on the faces of those to whom one makes that excuse justify me in saying that a man may well be unwilling to put himself in that position when he knows that by coming he is merely giving a vote in favour of the Government probably by twenty to one.
There is another point. Take City men. The number of men who can guide us on finance is not very large in this House. I have over and over again asked men in the course of the day to come here in the afternoon for one of the Divisions which may take place, and the answer I have had is: "Well, I have a meeting, and it may be that what I say may greatly influence action. Can I influence any action by adding one more to the majority of the Government?" My Lords, it is impossible to argue the case. And what is much worse is its effect on our debates. It used to be said in old days that one of the justifications of having younger men in this House who had not had experience was that they got trained in oratory. That is all gone. There is nobody for them to address, there is no one to answer. I remember being very much struck by seeing a letter once, which was one of many, at a time when there was a disparity of numbers between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party but when there was no disparity in power of speech. On those Benches opposite there were as many men who had held office and who could make effective speeches as there were on this Bench, and I can tell your Lordships of an occasion when, sitting on this Bench, were four such orators as Lord Beaconsfield, Lord Cairns, the late Lord Salisbury and Lord Granville; and yet Lord Beaconsfield, aged as he was, had in his own hand written to several of his supporters to beg them that, with the strong speeches that would be made in opposition, they would not leave it to the Government alone to justify the Party to which they belonged. That was the time when debating was really carried on because the Parties were near enough in numbers to make it possible.
But what is the case now? I can best illustrate it by a conversation which I happened to hear, I think three or four years ago, between a very well-known
104
editor and a very eminent member of this House. My friend had attacked the editor because he had given so poor a report of a particular House of Lords' debate and of a particular speech. And the editor's reply remained with me. He excused himself on the ground that his reporters avoided that Gallery like the plague. They said to him: "We can make nothing of the decorous whispers which pass between the Front Benches." And he said that "in the absence of those ebullitions of polemical controversy which you get in the other House I have to flog my best reporters"—that is the expression he used— "to get them to go into that Gallery at all." Do you think that the country is not aware of these things? Do you think that that which is really a deterioration in our proceedings is without effect?
Think what happened last Thursday night. You had a question on which the strongest possible opinion has been expressed—I am not giving my own view in any way—as to whether the landed proprietor is, as he has always been in the past, entitled to claim anything which is discovered between his property and Australia, at whatever depth. A strong view was taken by the Government on public grounds that oil should be bored for wherever it may be found. Whether they were right or wrong, that is a subject on which there is immense difference of opinion in the country. And what were the numbers by which it was decided? Recollect, the Division was taken after strong whips on both sides. I had at least half a dozen personal letters asking me to be present and vote for the views held, and the Division was not taken at one of those moments when numbers are decreased by the festivity of the hour, but between five and six o'clock. There were 42 for the Government and 33 against. Seventy-five out of 768! Can anybody say that seventy-five represents the views which may be held, and can anybody doubt that if by the mere fact of so few voting the Government had been defeated by nine there would have been very considerable feeling in many quarters?
If I might give one more instance, I happened to take part three or four years ago in proceedings on a Private Bill in which a great municipality sought to extend its boundaries. I had not the

105
smallest interest one way or the other, but it happened, rightly or wrongly, that your Lordships rejected the Bill and the municipality went, without it. I saw the promoters a few days afterwards and endeavoured to put the matter to them in the best light. They would not have objected had it not been that less than 100 Peers had taken the trouble to come down and vote on a matter in which they had been concerned, on which they had spent thousands of pounds, and on which they felt they had a right to some consideration on the part of a larger number of Peers.
I have left to the last the worst case of all. I wonder how many of your Lordships know how many of those who have the right—which I esteem a very high one, though I am not one of those who have ever had any doubt with regard to the conduct of this House—how many of those who have the right to sit here have in the last three years never gone to the Table to sign, and never taken their seats at all? We are now 768 in number; of those 190–190, my Lords, one fourth—have never taken their seats in this House. I for one say that those men have no right to come down here on a special occasion and record their votes. I hope I am not going too far, but I feel it is wrong and injudicious. The French have a motto:"Les absents out toujours tort,"and I think the British working man, to put it more colloquially, has not very much feeling as regards the rights of the man who does not do his job.
I think it is absolutely realised that the time has come when the question of representation must be considered, and if I may say one word with regard to what, fell from Lord Snell it would be this. Lord Snell has regarded this Bill as an attempt to entrench Conservatism in full power here for all time. I am not going into the details of the Bill. I do not agree entirely with all the details in the Bill, but perhaps Lord Snell will allow me to say this, that by a very slight change, a very reasonable change, in the numbers as put down by my noble friend, I have ascertained that, supposing those who are brought in from outside are brought in as they ought to be, in proportion to the representation of Parties in the House of Commons at the time—not
106
from the House of Commons or by the House of Commons, but in accordance with the feelings of the country at the time—there would actually have been a minority on this side of the House for six or seven years from 1910; I take that date because it was a very important time. With regard also to the position of hereditary Peers, I will only ask that some of your Lordships opposite who have doubts as to the qualification to remember that Lord Rosebery's Committee, which was thoroughly representative, desired that while there should be a proper representation of this House, which I regard as absolutely vital, it should be of men with certain qualifications so that outside it could not be said that it was a mere question of heredity.
There is another point. The noble Lord used several times an expression that the country was not to be, not jockeyed but words to that effect, into giving back the whole power to this House. There may be some of us who think that Lord Salisbury's suggestion that all Bills except Finance Bills, if rejected on three occasions and by a sufficient majority, should be referred back to the country, is too wide; but I believe very few of us do not feel that some provision to prevent one House from entirely changing the Constitution at one Election would be reasonable, and that this House ought to have some powers with regard to it. The noble Lord made a good Parliamentary speech, if I may say so, on that point, but, I would put it to him, does he really think that if the next Election were fought, as it might be fought, solely on the question of payments to the unemployed, the millions of votes passed on that question should subsequently be used in order to abolish this House, which has nothing, and can have nothing, to do with payments to the unemployed? That is the sort of thing Lord Salisbury is anxious about.
Before I sit down may I make one appeal to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading? I do not know anything that has ever happened in this House which has more astonished many of us than to see his name down as moving the rejection of the Bill. What is Lord Reading's special relationship to this Bill? He was a Law Officer of the Crown and one of the most prominent members of the Gov-

107
ernment of Mr. Asquith, and he was therefore a consenting party to the declaration that the reform of this House was an immediate necessity and did not brook delay twenty-five years ago. Think what his career has been since! There is no man who, by the favour of his Sovereign and to the full satisfaction of his fellow-countrymen, has filled so many high posts and has had so many opportunities of realising what the Parliamentary difficulties are in other countries. He has been Ambassador to the United States, where at this moment the Parliamentary difficulty is as acute as it is in any part of the world. He has been Viceroy of India, where the question of setting up a Parliament, in which he is engaged, is taxing all our statesmanship to the last degree. He has been Foreign Secretary; and there is no man in this House who, taking politics and finance together, is more conscious of the considerable dangers and difficulties of hasty action and of what is occurring in Germany, in Spain, in France, and in other countries. That he, now and here, should proceed not to make this Bill, as it could be made, one which is in accord with the views of any one who wants the amendment and not the destruction of your Lordships' House—that he should himself come forward as Leader of his Party to give the final stroke to this Bill seems to me one of the most inconceivable and unfortunate things that have ever happened in this House.
We know what the position of the Government is; we know that they have, say, two years in which to carry out a programme which is almost endless. Unless your Lordships by a very large majority signify your acceptance of your past responsibilities, of the opinions of those who have gone before us, you cannot expect the Government to move at all. I can only say that those who have made up their minds to thwart this effort on which my noble friend is so gallantly engaged—those who vote against us on the principle of the reform of the House of Lords have against them the opinion of every man who has led this House for the last fifty years. They have against them the opinions of Lord Salisbury and the Duke of Devonshire, of Lord Rosebery and Lord Ripon, of Lord Lansdowne and Lord Curzon, and my noble friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) who led us for many years with great acceptance,
108
and I believe also, if he were speaking for himself alone, of my noble and learned friend who now leads the House. In view of such evidence all I can say is that we at least may ask that in this measure of reaction we may feel we are relieved of any jot or tittle of responsibility for the mischievous results of such action.
THE MARQUESS OF READING THE MARQUESS OF READING, who had also put down a Motion for rejection, said: My Lords, the speech of the noble Earl who has just concluded his observations naturally would lead me in any event to reply, and without delay. Certainly the answer to his speech "brooks no delay." But do let me say this to him: I think he has completely misconceived the position so far as I am concerned. I am not in the slightest degree affected by the observations he has made regarding the Motion which I have placed on the Table of this House in relation to this Bill. The proposal which I have made is that this Bill should be rejected, and to that proposal I adhere. I see no reason to change or to modify anything that I have already said on the First Reading of the Bill. But the noble Earl is quite wrong and unjustified if he assumes from that, that I close both my ears and my eyes to any proposal that might come forward for the purpose of reforming this House. That is a totally different consideration. I did think at one time, when the noble Earl was speaking, that he was intending to put some views before us which were of a more moderate description, and which might, at any rate, lead to a little more favourable consideration from other parts of the House.
THE EARL OF MIDLETONMay I interrupt the noble Marquess for one moment? I did not like to detain the House long. I thought I had indicated all three points, and that there was power in this House, in Committee, to meet a number of the views which are not wholly extreme; in fact, the views of all those who do not wish for the destruction but for the amendment of this House. I did not like to elaborate the points in detail.
THE MARQUESS OF READINGI think I followed with great care what the noble Earl said, and he will forgive me if I say he has not really answered the point I am making. I do not know at this moment, nor do I think any of your

109
Lordships know, unless he has indicated them privately, what the suggestions are that he would make. Certainly he took up time—quite properly, I am not complaining of it—in addressing your Lordships, and during that period there was an ample opportunity, if he wished to take it, at the earliest moment in the debate of indicating the proposals he would like to see carried, and thus of giving us an opportunity of considering and discussing them during the course of the debate. I desire to take my standpoint quite plainly and frankly upon this. I believe that in the observations I am about to make I speak not only for myself but for all those who are associated with me in politics, even though there may be differences on certain other points.
I am firmly in favour of a Second Chamber. I believe thoroughly in a Second Chamber, and until a better Second Chamber is proposed I believe in this House as a Second Chamber. Until, again, more effective propositions are placed before your Lordships for acceptance, I believe that this House as now constituted, although not perfect—no human institution is—although not perhaps quite logically defensible, nevertheless does excellent work, and I would not hesitate to say that this House has the respect and the confidence of the country, not so much because of the basis upon which it is constituted, but rather, I would say, in spite of the fact that it is constituted on an hereditary basis. Perhaps no greater compliment could be paid to those who compose this House than to recall that this is the case. One must of course bear in mind in all fairness that all who sit in this House do not sit here by virtue of heredity. I read quite recently—I can only give the figures as I read them; I have had no opportunity of checking them—that during the last sixty years half of the membership of this House has been constituted; in other words, and to put it more plainly, half of the members of this House are members because of constitution during the last sixty years. That was rather borne out by some of the figures to which the noble Earl referred.
I do not wish in the time that I am about to take, which I hope will be very short, to travel into the various arguments put forward by the noble Earl or
110
some of the other speakers who preceded him. What I do desire is to call your Lordships' attention to the proposals before us. Do let us consider them as practical measures. I listened with the greatest interest to everything that fell from the noble Marquess who moved the Second Reading of this Bill, and, if I may be permitted to say so—I am sure he will not misunderstand me when I do —I admired his speech to-day infinitely more than I did the one made by him on the First Reading, although I did at that time admit that I thought it was in every way excellent. But to-day he has, I think, surpassed even himself. He made a speech which would appeal, and must appeal, to a number of your Lordships. It was followed by a Motion which amounted to the rejection of the Bill, but on different grounds, needless for me to say after your Lordships have heard the speeches, from those advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Snell.
My grounds of opposition to this Bill are these. Assuming, as I must, that in substance the Bill will take in its final form the shape in which it is now presented to you, it is a Bill which I believe is fraught with real danger. I do not go quite so far as the noble Lord, Lord Snell, in my expressions of apprehensions with regard to it, but I do say that I think he was justified in this observation, which I wilt make in my own language, that if your Lordships were now to accept this Bill as it stands, to amend the Parliament Act in what was almost its most important provision, to prevent the will of the people prevailing in a single Parliament, to insist upon another Election taking place before the Government can carry important measures to which they attribute the greatest importance and in order to pass which they have been returned to power—I do believe that if you do that, and if that is the effect of the measure which we pass, not only shall we not be strengthening this House, but believe that, in the long run, and I speak after careful thought, it would result, in changes of this House which am sure none of your Lordships at present contemplate, and I rather am inclined to think that it would mean the abolition of this House and the Second Chamber.

111
For my own part I believe, and all those who are associated with me believe, in a Second Chamber. But I do ask your Lordships to think what this Bill means. There are two main principles—and I am not going into detail—involved in this Bill. One of them means the continuance of the hereditary basis for membership of this House. I will deal with that a little more in detail in a moment. The other, and to my mind almost the more important, is Clause 13, which proposes, as indicated quite clearly by the noble Marquess in his speech to-day, that on the third rejection of a Bill by your Lordships' House the Bill shall not go to the Sovereign for assent—
THE MARQUESS or SALISBURY: By an absolute majority.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: —as it would under the Parliament Act, but that there should be an interval. I ask your Lordships to bear in mind what that means, because it is in my judgment that interval which is of such importance in the matter we are now considering. The point is that there should be not only an interval of time but also that there should be the event of another Election, that there should be another Parliament elected, and that the new Parliament must first pass a Resolution affirming the Bill, which would then be sent up a third time to your Lordships before it would go to the Sovereign for assent. I think I have described what is in the mind of the noble Marquess and what is involved in his Bill. It is right, of course, that it should be said that that is only to be done by an absolute majority. I understand that what the noble Marquess means by that is that, assuming a House consisting of 320 members in all, there would have to be 161 members voting for rejection.
I ask your Lordships to pause for a minute to consider what that means. We live under a democracy we in this House, as of course the members in the House of Commons, follow the will of the people. The noble Marquess himself said quite emphatically that that was his view, that that was his desire, and he believed it was the desire of all your Lordships. But if you have a House of Commons, returned with a large majority or a small majority, which proceeds to pass a Bill to which your Lordships are opposed, you may insist upon a Dissolution before that Bill can become effec-
112
tive. That was the particular point fought out in bitter issue in 1910, which resulted in what is now known as the Parliament Act. That point had reference not merely to the Budget, but to past history over a number of years into which I do not wish to travel. Constantly Bills had been thrown out by your Lordships' House and what was said was: "We will pass them when there is a mandate from the country again"—that is, after another Election. The point made—I only mention it so that we shall bear it in mind—was that of course so long as there was a Conservative Government in power no such difficulties arose. It was when you had either a Liberal or a Labour Government that the question would arise.
I quite frankly admit, and I think it should be stated in fairness, that the answer which might be made among better answers by the noble Marquess if he were replying at once would be: "Yes, but a Conservative administration would not propose measures such as would come from the Liberal or Labour Benches." There is a good deal of truth in that. I am quite prepared to admit it. After all, the Liberal and Labour Parties are progressive Parties. Far be it from me to suggest that the Conservative Party is not a progressive Party, but I think we might use the small "c" to characterise the measures which would be introduced by the Party with the big "C" so that there should not be too much progress made. That is a position to which I think your Lordships' House ought to object. We ought not now at this moment, especially at this moment, to ask that the Parliament Act should be amended, and amended by a Government such as this Government is, for you cannot leave out the Government. The noble Marquess, though he proposes this measure as a private member, is bound to admit—nobody knows it better than he who led this House for so many years—that the Bill would be useless unless and until His Majesty's Government assisted and supported it. I take it that at this moment the Bill is not supported by the Government. I say that because I assume that if the Government intended to support the Bill they would have proposed it, but I am not in their secrets and I know nothing about it.

113
But I would ask your Lordships, when we went to the country in 1931 and the majority was obtained which caused this Government to continue in power with all the influence and authority it has had until now, had any one in mind at that moment that this National Government was to amend the Parliament Act, to go back to the days before 1911, to reopen the old difficulties that occurred then? I feel quite certain that any one of your Lordships who puts that question to himself must answer it in one way. I speak in the presence of a number of those who were members of that Government, both on my own side and facing me at this moment. I was a member of it myself. All I wish to say in general terms is that when we went before the country on that occasion, and placed our views before the country, and asked the country for its confidence, the people had no idea that we wore then proposing or had in mind at all an amendment of the Parliament Act for the purposes indicated. What we had very definitely in mind was the condition of the country, and the exigencies of the time brought about a tremendous majority which it would be vain to spend any time in analysing at this moment.
I would ask the National Government and the noble Marquess and those who support him to pause for a moment and ask themselves whether at that Election the will of the people prevailed. Was there any reason why they should not have expressed their views as they did, so that measures introduced by the Government based upon the vote which had been given to them should not be passed within the lifetime of that Parliament? Yet that is exactly what there would be power to do if the proposals of the noble Marquess take effect. The answer would be: "Oh, no, you cannot pass your Bill during this Parliament, whatever your majority. Those who gave their votes to you may have been mistaken. They may now see their mistake. They may have misunderstood the issue. It is quite possible they misapprehended all that was involved. Therefore there must be another opportunity given them before this Bill can become effective." I submit that that is a most dangerous doctrine.
Although the language which the noble Lord, Lord Snell, used on the point was very strong, I am not surprised that as a member of the Labour Party he did ex-
114
press himself strongly, and even vehemently; because our people have been, and are, law-abiding beyond a doubt. I think we are entitled to say, without arrogance, that we have been the admiration of foreign countries, largely because of the way in which our working people throughout the country have behaved during these times of difficulty; and in that I am perfectly sure the whole House will agree. Nevertheless, your Lordships are now asked, after what you have seen, after what they have done, and after the proofs which they have given of their courage in times of difficulty and of their calmness in times of great depression, to say that when such men have given a vote, they may so easily be mistaken that there must be another opportunity given. I can only say that to me this measure is for that reason one which is most objectionable, and, so far as I am able, I shall oppose it. So long as there is a clause of that character in this Bill, or in any Bill of this kind introduced into your Lordships' House, I shall do my best to prevent it passing into law, because I believe, as I have indicated, that it would really be a danger to the country if you were to pass it.
All that I desire to say in reference to the other part of the Bill, over which I passed a little hastily, that is, the part dealing with the hereditary principle, I will try to condense into very few sentences. My objection is not that there is nothing in heredity. The noble Lord, Lord Redesclale, said that he did not agree with those who took that view, but I do not think that that is the view of many of us who are opposed to the hereditary principle for legislators. No one would be so foolish as to suggest that there is nothing in heredity; but may I ask another question, I hope not discourteously or unfairly: Would any of your Lordships entrust your destiny to a man merely because he is the son of his father? Would you not require to know something more about him? Just conceive what you are asking the country to do if you pass a Bill of this character. The noble Marquess says that out of a House of 320 members, 150 are to be elected by the hereditary Peers; there are to be two Arehbishops and three Bishops, naturally of course the Princes of the Blood Royal, and the Lords of Appeal or those who have held high judi-

115
cial office, and then, in addition, 150 who are to be elected in some way which we do not understand, because it has not yet been put before us, but on some basis which is to be decided by a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
Just conceive for a moment what the Bill we are asked to pass means. Your Lordships are asked to consolidate in this way the hereditary principle as the basis of membership of this House, and at the same time to pass this part of the Bill, to which I have already made a rather long reference, interfering as I think with the will of the people as pronounced at the last Election. You are asked to do that; and what does the Bill do besides that? What else is there in it? There is, it is true, the reference to Money Bills and the Speaker's Committee, upon which I say nothing because I think that that is far less controversial than anything else that there is in the Bill. But leaving that aside, what else is there in the Bill? I submit to your Lordships that there is absolutely nothing; and I am speaking with the Bill before your Lordships. What is to be done with regard to the 150 members who are to be chosen from outside is not determined at all. Notwithstanding all the Committees which have sat, notwithstanding all the inquiries—and they have been many—and all the thought and attention given to the subject, notwithstanding everything that has been attempted, no means have yet been found of arriving at a solution sufficiently satisfactory to be put into a Bill, or even to command the assent of various Parties in the House.
At this stage, and with this Government in power, without whose assistance this Bill can never become effective, I say that it would really be a breach of trust, as I understand it, if this Government were to go out of their way at this moment to say that they supported a Bill of this character unless it had the support of all the three Parties in the State and of all those who are entitled to express their views. Because they have been placed in a position of trust as a National Government for a particular purpose: to look after the social needs and exigencies of the country, to help us out of the difficulties into which we have passed. I might (if I had any voice or time left) pause to ask them whether really at this moment the international
116
and the national situations and the problems involved are not sufficient to preoccupy their minds without their troubling themselves about this question, which has been a matter of domestic controversy for so many years—whether they have not enough to do in dealing, for example, with matters which have arisen with the Dominions.
I say to the noble Marquess in all sincerity that, although I am against this Bill and am resolutely opposed to it, particularly because of Clause 13, that does not mean that I should always be opposed to everything proposed for the reform of this House, or to give effect to the views expressed in the past and at the time of the Parliament Act. Quite the contrary. But I would remind him that we have not been taken into confidence in this matter; we have had no part in this committee. So far as I am aware nobody has consulted any of the Parties except the Conservative Party. The noble Marquess who has put forward this Bill has, I believe I am right in saying—he will correct me if I am wrong—put it forward as a result of the deliberations of a committee composed entirely of Conservative members of both Houses, and it had no other authority. If that be so, how can it be that your Lordships are asked to pass this Bill now at this moment, in the times of difficulty through which we are passing, with all the anxiety which must exist that we should avoid internal acrimony and controversy, with all the necessity which there is that we should work together, and above all that we should keep the confidence of the working people in the fairness and justice of the governing powers of this country, that they may be able to rely upon our doing nothing which would be taking advantage of them because of the last Election? I do believe that if you take that into account and bear all those things in mind, it is inevitable that your Lordships should refuse to pass the Bill as now presented to your Lordships' House.
THE SECRETARY or STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I do not intervene in order to attempt to answer the arguments which have been adduced during the discussion to which we have been listening, however great the temptation some of those arguments may have afforded. I rise because I think it will he for the general convenience of

117
your Lordships' House that I should state at this stage what is the attitude of the Government for whom I speak on the Motion which is now under discussion. When this Bill was originally introduced in your Lordships' House in December last by my noble friend Lord Salisbury, I expressed the view that it was proper that the Bill should be given a First Reading in order that the proposals which had been formulated by my noble friend should be printed and that your Lordships might be given an opportunity of considering them on their merits; but I was careful to state that, in giving that advice to your Lordships, neither I nor His Majesty's Government were in any way committed to approval of the actual proposals which might ultimately be found to be contained in the Bill. The Bill now comes before your Lordships for Second Reading and for consideration on its merits.
For at least a quarter of a century past the question of the reform of the House of Lords has been a subject of much political controvery and discussion. It has given rise to a variety of proposals for the reform of the personnel of the House of Lords, and for an alteration in its powers. Those discussions have shown that grave differences of opinion existed as to the nature and extent of the alterations which are desirable in the constitution of the House, and equally grave differences as to whether any, and if so what, changes ought to be made in its powers. The Bill now before your Lordships deals with both topics. The first eleven clauses are concerned with altering the composition and constitution of the House. The last two clauses contain proposals for modifying the power of the House so reconstituted. When I addressed your Lordships in the First Reading debate I informed your Lordships that the Government had not considered the matters dealt with in the Bill. This is not to say that they are not matters of grave moment; on the contrary the proposals embrace constitutional reforms of a sweeping character, and it is difficult to conceive any matters on which it is more important to act with care and deliberation. But these subjects formed no part of the crisis which brought the National Government into existence, and it is certainly true to say that they were not one of the sub-
118
jects which were discussed at the last General Election.
I would add further that, although it is the undoubted right of any member of your Lordships' House to bring forward proposals on any matter which he deems it desirable to debate or to enact in the public interests, and while there is no private member of your Lordships' House who is better qualified to exercise that right than my noble friend, it seems to the Government that proposals for constitutional reform of this magnitude are best initiated by the Government of the day, if they are to be brought forward at all; and that in another place there is very little prospect of their receiving any real consideration unless they are brought forward as a Government measure.
So far as the present Session is concerned, it is perfectly plain on considerations of time alone that it is quite impossible to accept any legislation dealing with these matters, even if it were decided that such legislation were desirable. Whether it is desirable that such legislation should be introduced; whether such legislation, if it be desirable, ought to be brought forward during the lifetime of the present Parliament; whether it is possible to reach agreement as to. the nature of any changes which ought to be made, are matters to which the Government are giving consideration, but with regard to which it is hardly likely to be possible to reach an early decision. In these circumstances, the immediate question for decision is as to the attitude which the Government ought to adopt upon the present proposals. They have come to the conclusion that it would not be possible or proper for the Government to vote for the Second Reading, since that might be construed as involving an acceptance of the principles of the Bill and an assent to the proposition that it is desirable not only to alter the constitution but also to modify the powers of your Lordships' House in the direction of increase.
On the other hand, to vote against the Bill might be considered an affirmation of the view that no change is desirable either in composition or in powers, and certainly no such decision has been reached by the Government. In these-circumstances the members of the Government do not propose to take part in the Division which will take place on

119
Thursday. They desire to present no obstacle to the further consideration and discussion of the proposals contained in my noble friend's Bill, if your Lordships think it desirable to give it a Second Reading. Indeed, they would welcome the expressions of opinion from all quarters of the House upon the proposals themselves, both on the matter of principle which is now being discussed, and on the innumerable matters of detail, some of which amount in themselves to questions of principle, which will arise in Committee if the Bill receives a Second Reading. There can be no doubt that the expression of views from various quarters of the House will be of great value to the Government in considering what conclusions it ought to reach. I ought, however, to make it clear that it is not possible to hold out any hope that this Bill, or that any Bill dealing with this subject, can pass into law during the present Session; and I can only assure your Lordships that the question whether any legislation of this character ought hereafter to be brought forward is a matter which the Government are considering, but upon which we should not think it right to reach any hasty decision.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I rise in a situation of some little difficulty. I understand, through the usual channels, that it has been thought desirable that I should speak next, and I rise to do so, but I speak, as my noble friend who has just spoken will recognise, under conditions of extreme difficulty, because the whole situation has been transformed by the speech which he has just made. If I understood my noble friend rightly, and I do not think it is possible to misunderstand him, his view is that this subject is one which certainly requires grave consideration, that it is a subject which ought to be dealt with at some time, and that the Government are the people to deal with it, but that they are not prepared to say yet whether they are going to deal with it or not, and all that they are prepared to say is that they will not allow this particular Bill to pass the House of Commons. That, if I understand my noble friend correctly, is the position which the Government have taken up.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAMNot that they will not allow the Bill to pass, but that
120
considerations of time make it impossible for the other place to consider it.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOODI accept the distinction, but recognise it makes very little difference how you put it, because the Government, if they liked, could find time, and therefore when I said that they would not allow it to pass I do not think I was going further than I ought to have gone. Nevertheless, in spite of this statement on behalf of the Government, I understand that it is still open to your Lordships to discuss the Bill, and I will shortly explain the views which I hold. I confess that I have the greatest difficulty in understanding the position of the Liberal Party in this matter. I really do not understand what they mean. They say very strongly that they are in favour of a Second Chamber, and that they would vote against any proposal to abolish the Second Chamber. They say they believe in the importance of a Second Chamber. I cannot believe that they think that the present Second Chamber is a satisfactory one. I cannot believe, for after all they are very intelligent men, that they believe that. They must see that the present Second Chamber is open to the greatest objection, and therefore I confess that I do not understand their attitude in saying that they are in favour of a Second Chamber, while declining to indicate in the slightest degree in what respect or in what way they would amend the present Second Chamber. No suggestion of any sort or kind have they made in that direction.
Of course I understand the view of my noble friends on my left, who think that no change should be made on the ground that this is an ancient institution and you should not touch it. I believe that that is the sort of view inclining to revolution. Therefore I confess I do not agree with them, but I thoroughly understand their position. As for the Labour Party's position, I understand it fully. It is perfectly simple. They think no Second Chamber is really essential. This is a very weak Second Chamber: therefore preserve it as long as possible. The principle is perfectly clear and I have no quarrel at all with that point of view, except that I am going to give some reasons why I do not think that that is really the wise policy for a Labour Party to adopt.
What is the purpose of a Second Chamber? I think it has only got one

121
purpose of importance nowadays. The only function that seems to me really valuable in the Second Chamber is that it can take care that any legislation proposed is in accordance with the settled will of the people of this country. That is the only purpose for which a Second Chamber ought to exist, and any Second Chamber should be judged by the extent to which it carries that duty into execution. I hope my noble friend Lord Snell will acquit me of any desire of establishing what I think he described in a picturesque phrase as the permanence of entrenched privilege. That is not my purpose at all, but I do believe in a Second Chamber. I do think that a Second Chamber is desirable, and I think so because I think there ought to be some machinery for making it quite certain that in matters of importance the legislation proposed is in accordance with the real settled will of the people.
I say frankly that I do not think the House of Lords as at present constituted can possibly discharge that duty. That seems to me to be quite clear, because I do not think that a House that has so little representation of what is, after all, at least half of the opinion of the country can possibly be entrusted with the duty of deciding what measures ought to be further considered before they are passed into law. Therefore I do not think that the House as at present constituted can do the duty of a Second Chamber, and that is why I am unable altogether to subscribe to the view of the Liberal Party in apparently desiring a Second Chamber and not making any effort to reform the present one. It may said: "Well, but why is it necessary to have a Second Chamber at all if your only object is to secure that the will of the people shall be effective? Why cannot you trust the House of Commons?" May I venture to appeal to my noble friends on the Labour Benches? Are they satisfied that the present House of Commons now represents the will of the people? Is that their view? I do not think any of them would say that. One may doubt as to what would he the result of a General Election held to-day, but I do not think there is any single person in the country who suggests that you would have a House of Commons returned which was at all like the present House of Commons. Whether it would
122
be a majority on this side or that side may be a question, but that it would be a House of Commons like this it is impossible to imagine.
I heard Lord Reading, if he will allow me to mention his very interesting speech, make a very eloquent protest against the idea that the present House of Commons should be allowed to deal with such a question as the reform of the Second Chamber. He thought that a monstrous thing. Why?. Because they were not elected for any such purpose. Yes, but if they really represent the views of the people, if it is contended that whatever is the view of the House of Commons ought to prevail within a single Parliament, why should not they act on that? That is the contention which my noble friend put forward—that it is monstrous to say that the will of the people as expressed in the House of Commons should not prevail within that Parliament. Well, but then that means that whatever they propose ought to be passed into law within that Parliament.
The noble Marquess may hold that this particular measure was not in the minds of the people when they voted, and therefore it ought not to be passed. But that is just what is always said about any measure that is passed by the First Chamber to which there is strong objection. You will always find people who hold that that particular measure ought not to be passed because it was not part of the decision given at the last Election. And the only way that you could find that out is by some machinery of government by which that point could be put in some way or other to the people. There is no other way of doing it. And that is the purpose for which a Second Chamber should exist. If you do not have that purpose you do give a possibility of a tyranny being set up by a First Chamber without any appeal at all. That is the whole ease, and the question which is to be decided is whether it is possible to constitute a Second Chamber so fair and so impartial that it can be trusted to exercise this duty of delaying legislation until the will of the people is known fairly and justly, and not to exercise it with Party prejudice or the like.
I am bound to ay that I do not think the present House of Lords is so constituted. The figures given by my noble

123
friend Lord Midleton, and my noble friend Lord Snell, are sufficient to show that it is not a body which is really suitable to entrust with those duties. I admit that I have the very gravest doubt, to put it mildly, whether the Second Chamber, as proposed to be constituted by this Bill, would be such a Second Chamber as could be entrusted with those duties, because I am afraid—though I am sure that is not the intention of the authors of the Bill—that a Second Chamber so constituted would almost certainly have a permanent Conservative majority, and that is evidently not what would be desired. But, all the same, I think it very essential that we should try to consider whether some Second Chamber could not be constituted which would be impartial and which would be such a body as you could entrust with this very important constitutional duty, a duty which does seem to me an essential part of a democratic constitution.
It is not for me to draft Bills, but I do feel that it would be possible to have Second Chamber constituted something in this way—consisting, let us say, of 300 members, 100 appointed each Parliament by the Prime Minister of the day, to hold office for three Parliaments. The result would be that the House as constituted would represent the settled will of the country for three Parliaments. It would be entirely impartial in that sense. If there were a succession of Labour Governments it would be almost wholly a Labour House: if there were a succession of Conservative Governments it would be almost wholly a Conservative House: but if, as is the most probable case, there were an oscilliation of opinion, then you would have a fair representation of whatever that opinion was. I think a House constituted in some such way as that might well be the proper way of dealing with this very grave problem. And as far as the hereditary element is concerned, I personally would allow the hereditary members of the House of Lords to speak in that House, though I would not allow them to vote, unless they were also nominated as Lords of Parliament, with the right to vote in the way I have described.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer. I wished to explain the position which I hold. I venture very respectfully to urge this on my noble friend and his friends: Are you quite
124
sure that the only protection that is necessary is the protection against the Left? Is it not, at any rate, possible that you may find yourselves faced with a revolution towards the Right? Look at the condition of Europe. There have been revolutions towards the Left, but there have been more striking revolutions towards the Right. My noble friend used some very strong language about dictatorships. I do not quarrel with what he said, but is it not a conceivable thing that a House of Commons elected under some great emotional stress—indeed, the present House of Commons if it had that desire—might be returned with a strong feeling towards the Right and might use its power to impose legislation which might not amount to dictatorship but might amount to a very serious interference with our liberties? Is not that a matter that ought to be considered? I think some change in our Constitution is desirable. I believe that change ought to take the form of a thoroughly impartial Second Chamber whose duty it should be to see that no measure involving a really serious change in our institutions should be passed until it was quite certain it was what the people desired.
I believe that a true solution of this question of the Second Chamber can never be arrived at by a Party decision, whether of the Right or of the Left. It can only be arrived at by agreement, and I appeal to the Opposition to consider whether this is not the time for them to take a really statesmanlike attitude on this question, and to see whether by some agreement a really satisfactory change in our institutions cannot be carried through, and this difficult question set at rest. After all, what is inevitably before us? Sooner or later we shall be plunged into another constitutional quarrel. They come back with a majority; they form their Government; they introduce their legislation. Suppose it is rejected in this House? Then they stage a great agitation, either for the wholesale reform or, more probably, the abolition of the Second Chamber. What is the result? Years are consumed in this constitutional struggle, and meanwhile the whole of their social reforms are held up, whether they are right or wrong, held up perfectly fruitlessly.
Is it not better to try and get rid of this question by agreement, if agreement

125
can be reached? I have listened very carefully to the speeches made in support of this measure. It seems to me there is a disposition now to see whether some common solution cannot be found, a solution which will not be in favour of one Party, not in favour of the permanence of entrenched privilege, but in favour of a real solution of the constitutional question that has long existed in this country, which has caused a great deal of trouble, and which can only be settled, I am convinced, by agreement between the Parties.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, I understand that the arrangement made is that the House should now adjourn until a quarter past nine, when the debate will be resumed, and I would suggest to those of your Lordships who are here that if it is at all possible your Lordships should return at a quarter past nine, not only because there will be some very interesting speeches, but also because it is a little hard on those members of your Lordships' House who are willing to take the less attractive time if they have not got a reasonable audience to listen to them.
[The sitting was suspended at a quarter before eight o'clock and resumed at a. quarter past nine.]
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I would like to approach this Bill in the first instance from the point of view of a Scottish Representative Peer. In the Bill as it stands the Representative Peers of Scotland are relegated to a position very different from that which they occupy under the present arrangement. The position would be that the sixteen elected Scottish Representative Peers would be entitled, having been elected, to vote in the election of the 150 Peers to sit in your Lordships' House. That is not a position which we feel is one that would be right. We think that the proper position is that the arrangements of the Act of Union should be adhered to, and that the Scottish representation in the House should remain under the new system, if and when it comes into force, as under the old. As the noble Marquess in the course of his remarks this afternoon indicated—at least I understood him to indicate—that that was a position which he is prepared to accept, I do not think it is necessary for me to say more at this stage. The suit
126
able Amendments will be moved if the Committee stage is reached, and I would only say that we are very grateful to the noble Marquess for having consented to meet us to that extent. So much I can say from the point of view of the Scottish Representative Peers, and I am quite certain that that represents the views of all of them.
When I turn to the question of the merits of the Bill, that is a matter on which I expect there may be a division of opinion among the Scottish Peers as among other Peers in your Lordships' House. It has been suggested that we are to vote for this Bill and thereby indicate our willingness to undergo reform. If that were all I think it would be easy. There is not one of your Lordships who is not prepared, if need be, to sacrifice his own position, if that were a necessary part of the process of securing a more efficient Second Chamber, but reform of the constitution of your Lordships' House is by no means all that this Bill contains. The first eleven clauses deal with the reform of the constitution of the House. Then we come to Part II containing the amendment of the Parliament Act. If I may be permitted the expression, the sting is in the tail. Clause 13 is the clause which, I am bound to admit to your Lordships, troubles me most.
The noble Earl, Lord Midleton, said that there would be a heavy responsibility on anybody who rejected this opportunity of showing his willingness to assent to the reform of the House which is so urgently needed. As I say, if that were all it would be so easy, and if the noble Marquess who has introduced this Bill wants proof of the difference let him introduce a Bill consisting of Part I of this Bill. I do not think that there would be a three days debate on the Second Reading of that. I do not think I am doing the noble Marquess any injustice when I say that without Part II he would have no use for this Bill. That seems to me to he just the reason why it is so difficult to vote for the Second Reading merely as a gesture in favour of reform.
I do not dispute the need—in fact I am profoundly convinced of the need—for a strong and efficient Second Chamber. I am not ashamed to say that I believe in the hereditary principle. I believe that the Second Chamber ought to have an

127
element of the hereditary principle and I think the arrangements suggested in Part I of this Bill are very likely as good as anything we could have. As to the powers, if you have got the powers and if you could be quite sure they would be always wisely used, I should have no hesitation in saying: "Let us have reform on those lines." But those are two very big "ifs." For one thing we know perfectly well that we shall not get the powers and what I ask myself is: What is going to be the result of giving a Second Reading to this Bill? Will it be said that the House of Lords is willing to puts its head under the axe and be reformed; that we show our willingness to submit to reform and to become more efficient, more suitable for conducting our business than we are? Or is it going to be said that the House of Lords want to reverse the Parliament Act and go back twenty years and secure powers which the country has indicated it does not want them to have? That is what I am afraid of.
The noble Viscount who leads the House has told us that it is quite impossible that this Bill can go very much further. In the circumstances it seems to me that it is really sufficient to limit the discussion to that which we have on Second Reading. I am not convinced that it is wise to pass this Second Reading in view of the criticisms which are bound to be made. We had some constructive criticism from the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, before we adjourned, as to what might be done to better the constitution of the House, but I cannot believe that there is more to be gained by passing the Bill than there is by rejecting it. I would gladly be relieved of the necessity of choosing. If I have to choose, I shall want to be convinced that I am not committing myself to the principle of greater powers, and I cannot see how it is possible to give a vote for the Second Reading without committing oneself to that principle, which I think is a dangerous one. There is only one other word I should like to add which I should have said when talking of personnel. It is a small matter, but holding the opinion I do I think it is not right to leave it unsaid. If we are going to reform the personnel of this House, then I think we ought to have the introduction of women as members of your Lordships' House. I firmly
128
believe in the principle of equality in that respect, and I do not think it would be right for me to discuss the personnel of the House without making that clear.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMANMy Lords, I was rather disappointed when the noble and learned Marquess who represented the Liberal Party's views this afternoon gave vent to such very strong opposition even to the idea of considering the various proposals in this Bill. I thought the Liberal Party at any rate stood for free discussion. They do not seem to be very heavily represented here at this moment; but it did disappoint me to think that they really had given up altogether any idea of free discussion. You would have thought that their wish for free discussion would have been reinforced by the fact that twenty-three years ago through their leader, of whom the noble Marquess was a very prominent supporter and lieutenant, they pledged themselves to introduce some measure for the reconstruction of the Second Chamber within the lifetime of that very Parliament. Their energy in carrying out that undertaking has been very carefully concealed from the world at large.
The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, twitted us with supporting a Bill which emanated from a committee composed entirely of Conservative Peers. What have the Liberal Peers been doing all this time, since the pledge which they gave in 1911? Would it not have been better if they had been sitting in committee during that time, and had produced proposals which could have been considered either before or with the proposals of my noble friend Lord Salisbury? So I cannot share the view of the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, that whether one can or cannot agree with the whole of the proposals in this Bill, it ought not to be discussed at all. Some people have said—I think the noble Lord who has just spoken said—that the discussion on the Motion for Second Reading would be quite sufficient, but I think the details of this Bill are so elaborate and so difficult that it would be quite impossible within the compass of the time which a Second Reading debate can occupy to do justice to all the different points of view which arise. I cannot see any harm In passing the Second Reading and having a discussion in Committee; and at any rate ascertain

129
ing what the opinion of the House is, on many of the ingredients of this Bill. It may be that many of them will be rejected or amended. For my own part I cannot profess to agree with half the proposals contained in the Bill, but if it resulted in the end in some agreement on one or two points, it would he well worth while to have had a discussion in Committee.
I think we ought to be very grateful to my noble friend Lord Salisbury for having undertaken the very troublesome and somewhat thankless task of suggesting to us that we might discuss it. Having said that, I hope he will not mind my saying that I want to reserve my right to vote against a considerable number of the proposals which he has made. With regard to Clauses 3, 4 and 5, which relate to the future composition of the House, I hold very strongly the view that it is a great mistake to mix up hereditary and elected members in one Chamber. I would much rather have them all elected or all introduced here under the same principles under which they are here now. Except, of course, for the Peers of the Blood Royal, Arehbishops, Bishops and Law Lords, it is a very great mistake that one section of this House should sit under one qualification and another under a different one. But it is not possible to discuss that point without understanding better than I think we can to-day exactly how the other 150 are to be chosen—those who are not already members of this House. It does confuse matters a little to talk of the hereditary principle as if noble Lords who compose this House were all here under that qualification. There is a great deal to be said for heredity, but I do not want to go very far into that question now, except to say that in regard to animals or vegetables any sensible person wishing to make a good collection would pay the very greatest attention to heredity. Heredity in the human species is only coming into its own rather tardily. We are getting to consider whether mentally-defective people ought to be allowed to propagate their species. That is about as far as we have got up till now.
I venture to say that it is very easy to argue that there is great value in the hereditary principle even in the human
130
species, and that the son of a great administrator or statesman will have some of the qualifications of his father, but that merely regards the hereditary principle as such. We are not all here merely on account of the hereditary principle. This House is perpetually recruited from people who have done the greatest possible service to the country in various capacities, and thus it is made a very much stronger and more efficient body. What has the system in fact produced in this House? There are here—I take my figures from the last edition of Dod—143 who were Members of Parliament. At any rate they can be said to have met with the approval and support of the people of this country at an election. Then there are 104 Privy Councillors and thirty-eight Peers who have been members of the Cabinet. There are twenty who have been Viceroys or Governors-General, eleven who have occupied minor Governorships, and ten who have been Ambassadors. Besides that there are here, as everyone knows, a large number of noble Lords who have attained very great distinction in science, industry, law, local government, and so on, and there are three Field-Marshals, two Admirals of the Fleet and one Air-Marshal.
Although some of those noble Lords overlap one another in their qualifications, I do not think it would be far wrong to say that you could get even out of them, apart from those who do magnificent work in other than political directions, 300 noble Lords already in this House who would be as good as any 300 who could be selected under the proposals of this Bill. I should like to see the whole of the 300 selected from members of the present House of Lords. I am quite certain that no other process of selection would provide you with a better team, either from the points of view of ability, experience, or the variety of their lives and pursuits. If the question were raised as to how you could best balance the Parties in this House, I would far prefer that the Prime Minister of the day should have the right to put before His Majesty names of a sufficient number of Peers, to enable him, if he so required, to have a better balance of opinion in the debates in this House. Of course, the number would have to be limited, but I think that

131
would be a more satisfactory way of equalising the balance as between Parties.
But someone may say: "If you are so satisfied with the ability of the members of the House of Lords as at present constituted, why not leave it alone?" My answer to that would be that there are two points which I think are strong arguments in favour of a change. One is the large numbers of this House. My noble friend Lord Midleton demonstrated the great disadvantage of the overwhelming numbers of the members entitled to be present in this House. I think he proved his case up to the hilt, and if the only result of this Bill were to reduce the numbers of this House it would be well worth passing. The other argument, which always seems to me to be rather difficult to contend against, is that a man ought not to have the right to belong to one of the legislative bodies of this country merely because he is the son of his father, and still less because he is the great-grandson of his great-grandfather. That argument, I think, can very well be met by saying that, although the members of this House should be selected out of the present number of Peers, they would have to pass through the test of a very efficient tribunal of their fellow Peers. Therefore, they could not come here merely because they were the sons of their fathers, but they would come because being the sons of their fathers, they were also regarded as the right people to come to this reduced House.
With regard to the powers of the House, I again feel myself in some difficulty in supporting the Second Reading, unless I make it clear that I feel very great compunction about voting for Clause 13 of this Bill. As for Money Bills and proposals with reference to tacking, I am fully in favour of that. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, in his very pessimistic review of this Bill, did suggest that some members of the Liberal Party, as it was in the House of Commons in 1911, had very great doubts about the wisdom of the proposals dealing with Money Bills. But Clause 13 does not seem to me to be desirable from many points of view. In the first place it seems to me too direct a repeal of the Parliament Act; and, secondly, it involves the consideration of any question in all the obscure variegations of a General Elec-
132
tion. Under Clause 13, if this House disagrees with a measure three times and the last time disagrees by a majority of the whole 750 members of this House, then the measure cannot become law until there has been another Election. I do not think that that is from any point of view a desirable proposition. I do not think any single question can be said to have met with the approval of the voters of this country during the confusion of a General Election, when every sort of slogan and catch-word and side issue is being dragged across the path.
I do not think it would have the effect which my noble friend thinks it would of getting a clear decision on any particular point, and it would be far better, if it were possible to do so, to introduce into this Bill the principle of a referendum. A referendum could be taken during the existence of any particular Parliament before the great excitement of a General Election was affecting the people of this country. It could be regarded, and should be regarded, as a matter in which, if the people voted against the proposal of the Government the resignation of the Government was not thereby necessary. That would help to do away with some of the Party bitterness that might be involved. The Government of the day might even wish for a referendum themselves on a subject which had been rejected by this House on one or more occasions, and I do not see any other way of getting any reasonable indication of the wishes of the people of this country on any single, particular measure than by a referendum.
People may say that it is very difficult to draw up a referendum in clear enough language, that it would be distorted by all the wire-pulling electioneerers and so on. That may be so. But it is far more easy to do that than to get any particular question singled out from the rest at a General Election and voted upon so that we may be able to come here and say: "The people of this country have voted for or against that particular thing." So I venture to hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading; will discuss it most carefully, amend it drastically in Committee, and give us the opportunity of finding out what arguments there are for and against any particular clause, and what the weight of support for one or other may

133
be. Then we may be able in the future, if His Majesty's Government are willing to consider the result of our deliberations, possibly to make a change which would be for the great benefit of this House and the country.
LORD CARNOCKMy Lords, I rise to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. I may start with flattery. I know that the composition of your Lordships' House is perhaps unique, but may I venture to say that your Lordships' House is not only unique in its composition, but unique for quite another reason, and the reason is that it does its duties as a revising Chamber with rectitude, probity, and knowledge. That can hardly be said about any other Second Chamber in the world. Your Lordships, I suggest, represent the feelings of the man-in-the-street—I say John Citizen or the "Little Man" of the cartoons—more nearly than another House, and why? Because the Party whip does not crack in this House. There are no sheep-dogs trying to drive us into an uncongenial fold. There are no constituents watching every vote or criticising every word which we say. Here, in this House there is a free vote, based nearly always on knowledge, conviction and experience, and, may I perhaps say, intelligence. It is for this reason that I do not believe your Lordships' House is unpopular in the country. It is true that we, as at present constituted, act only as a brake, and perhaps not a very strong brake. The car of State—I must say car, for if I say the ship of State I shall begin mixing my metaphors—can only be delayed and cannot be stopped, and some of us may fear that this car may drive to headlong ruin. I hope that unfortunate event will never happen. Nevertheless, the brake that we do have is better than no brake at all.
It is quite obvious that a Chamber based on the hereditary principle lays itself open to criticism and stone throwing. After all, we all live in glass houses. In this House we are living in a glass house, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, for I may venture to say that this House, based as it is on the hereditary principle, performs its duty to the satisfaction of all thinking persons, and is probably the finest revising Chamber in the world. Naturally everybody knows the reason for this proposed
134
reconstruction. What is it based on? My Lords, it is based on fear, fear of changes in our political, in our financial, in our social lives. Thus it is hoped to fix on the car of State a brake more efficient than the one that at present exists. The swing of the pendulum might bring in a small majority determined to force revolutionary changes on this country, which would be profoundly distasteful to the majority of intelligent and thinking persons. There is the reason for this Bill; but I venture to say that whatever form of reconstruction is effected, if the desire for these revolutionary changes exists even in a small majority, your Lordships' House will be swept aside like chaff before the wind. However well constructed the brake may be those at the steering wheel will abolish it. The better and the stronger the brake the more eager will they be to destroy it.
I should think that the tendency in Europe at the present moment is not to strengthen Parliamentary procedure, but to abolish it altogether. I imagine that constitutions, however carefully drawn up and with whatever care they are safeguarded, are being torn up almost daily. Not so far from where I am now speaking, there is a Second Chamber with a sword of Damocles hanging over it by a very attenuated thread. And this Second Chamber is not an elderly one. It is a new one, made only a few years ago. For a time in the past this House did indeed prove itself a shield and buckler between the people and tyranny. May I quote from Professor Dicey's work on the Constitution? He is well known as an expert on constitutional law and so I hope your Lordships will allow me to read from the l920 edition of his work.
Writing after the Parliament Act was passed, he said:
"The passing of the great Reform Act itself was delayed by their Lordships for somewhat less than two years and it may well be doubted whether they have since 1832, even by their legislative veto, delayed legislation really desired by the electors for as much as two years. It must be remembered that the Lords in recent years at least have at times rejected Bills supported by the majority of the House of Commons which as had been proved by the event had not received the support of the electors. Hence it cannot be denied that the action of the House of Lords has sometimes protected the authority of the nation."

135
As I say, I am quoting from the 1920 edition. Writing of the time before the Parliament Act was passed he said:
"No doubt the House of Lords do very rarely either alter or reject a Money Bill … they have only on special occasions exercised that power."
Again Professor Dicey writes (of course before the passing of the Parliament Act):
"This veto in the first place has, at any rate since 1832, been as a rule used by the Lords as a merely suspensive veto."
I quote from Professor Dicey simply to emphasise the fact that even before the passing of the Parliament Act your Lordships exercised no stronger powers than at this moment obtain. I feel therefore that our powers are really as strong as they were before the passing of the Parliament Act.
Now, my Lords, may I quite frankly tell you the reasons why I oppose and object to this Bill? The stronger this House is the more determined certain persons will be to get rid of it. It is not now unpopular in the country, but there is a danger that if it becomes more powerful it might become unpopular. The doctrine of primogeniture is part and parcel of our social system. To strike at this might raise questions which would be very difficult indeed to answer. The constitution, the composition of the House as at present formed has worked very well indeed, and has guided this country safely and with great prosperity—perhaps more so than any other country—through what I say are the most difficult years in the history of the world. So why change it? No other country in the world can say that; so why change it? Our finances are the admiration of the world, and our stability is an example to all; so why change it? May I quote a French proverb:"Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien." The whole question of the House of Lords is not a vital question at all; it is not discussed on Tower Hill and in Hyde Park; no tub-thumper mentions it, because he knows perfectly well that the people trust the House of Lords.
It is said that the number of members in this House is inordinate, and of course it is. I forget what the number is, but I must own that the House never seems crowded to me. Your Lordships must remember what noble Lords on the other side forget, that members only come to this House to speak on subjects with
136
which they are familiar. It is true that you can read long pages of speeches, but those pages are spoken by experts; they are not spoken by people who know nothing of what they are talking about. They are spoken by people who know. I, for instance, would not dream of coming into this House and talking about coal or agriculture, because I know nothing about them, but I occasionally come and talk about things about which I think, perhaps wrongly, that I know something. Those lists of statistics which noble Lords on the other side give us are quite wrong; they do not really show what happens in this House. I feel rather ashamed when I am talking about this subject; I feel that we should not raise this question of altering the composition of the House of Lords, for the reason that those persons who fish in troubled waters will jump at this chance. We are raising questions which have been quiet since the War, and I regret that these questions should arise now. We can conceive that the cry of "The Lords versus the People," which has been dead for a long time, may once again be heard. That is what I am afraid of.
I am also afraid of another thing. I speak with a certain amount of diffidence because I am talking about law, of which I know how ignorant I am, but there are noble and learned Lords in this House who will undoubtedly correct me at once if I am wrong. Supposing this Bill passes and we get a strong and powerful House of Lords, what then? It is said that whatever the Government decide upon they have to get through the House of Lords, but may I suggest this: there is a way of governing this country and not dealing with the House of Lords or with any House of Parliament at all; I mean by Orders-in-Council. It is quite possible to conceive that a Government who are determined to make such revolutionary changes in this country as they consider necessary may start to govern by Orders-in-Council. I am not sure, but I think they would be quite right in doing so. When I say that they would be quite right, I mean that they would be within their constitutional and legal power. It would mean governing, like foreign countries do govern, by administrative orders. I know perfectly well that if a Government governed by Orders-in-Council, it would be necessary

137
afterwards to pass an Act of indemnity. It is possible that those persons who have acted under the Ordinance may have acted illegally, and they would have to be protected. You can imagine an Order-in-Council abolishing this House, and an Act of Indemnity might come some time later.
I think I am right in saying that Pitt tried it and failed, but although he failed in the past it might be tried again and succeed. Therefore, I bring forward this point, that whatever be the powers in this House, they can be destroyed. Although the noble Marquess may by this Bill build a house, I fear he is building on sand. I hope that it will not be the case, but I fear that it is so. The house that I wish to see built is a house of bricks—the bricks of tradition, continuity, and history—and I think that a house built of those bricks will keep out the "big bad wolf."Before we pass this Bill, more revolutionary than the Parliament Act, more revolutionary than the Reform Act, I ask your Lordships to ponder well. Are we justified in committing hara-kiri for no reason? I myself would willingly commit the "happy despatch" if I thought there was good reason, but I feel profoundly that there is no reason whatsoever, and on those grounds I support the Amendment moved by Lord Redesdale.
THE EARL OF GLASGOWMy Lords, I propose to support this Bill, because the reform of this House as part of the Constitution is to my mind the most important question of the day. I wish to speak from a different angle to that from which most of your Lordships have approached this subject. It has been said that there is no mandate for this Bill—the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said so and I feel considerable diffidence in differing from him—but in my humble opinion there was a mandate for this Bill in 1931. The overwhelming majority of the National Government was given to safeguard the people from the inefficiency and ineptitude of the Socialists, who, by the statements of their leaders, are a revolutionary Party. What better way is there to protect this country from hasty and revolutionary changes, whether they come from Socialists, Communists, or even Fascists, than to strengthen the Constitution, and for us
138
to do our part and reform your Lordships' House?
I implore your Lordships to support this Bill. I have got a foot in both extreme camps, and I know what I am saying. I am in close touch with what is going on in the subversive world, and I understand well the ideals of the other extreme, the Fascists, and so I do not want—none of us want—to have either of those medicines given to us; but if we fail to strengthen the Constitution we shall get one or other or both. I want to see democracy given one more chance. I may be told that. I exaggerate, and that the Socialist Party are not revolutionary; but there are thousands of pink Socialists who are camouflaged Communists and who help by every means in their power the traitors who work in our industrial organisations, and these men, we also know, are well supplied with Russian money. All over the country there are organisations with innocuous names, to which old ladies subscribe, such as the British Anti-War movement, banned by the official Socialists and helped by the camouflaged ones. This movement, ostensibly out to stop war, has for its main object the supporting of civil war in this country.
The Socialist Party are not what they seem, and I hope that the people of this country will take their heads out of the sand and find out what is going on. As to exaggeration, I have heard noble Lords state in this House that Communists cut no ice and their movement is stagnant. I think it was the late Lord Ilosebery who, in reply to someone who said that the Liberal Party was as dull as ditchwater, said: "Yes, but there is a lot of life in stagnant water if you could only see it." If you could only see —that is the point I want to make. It is because hundreds of thousands of young men in this country do see it, and also because they see that all safeguards can be quickly swept away by a subversive Government, that they have formed rallying points throughout this country under a leader. It is certainly no exaggeration to say that, with the advent of the Socialist Party as His Majesty's official Opposition in another place for the first time in the history of this country, the stage has been set for that struggle between extremists—between patriots and traitors—which has

139
led to the failure of democratic Government in many countries in Europe.
This is no time to trust to luck or to hope we will muddle through, or, if the worst comes, go down with the flag flying, as was said in effect by Lord Redesdale. These are pre-War methods. We live now in a changed world. We have got to use foresight and look ahead. This Bill is designed to remove in great measure those anomalies which are the target for the enemies of the Constitution, and also of course for men of good will; and if this Bill passes your Lordships will gain, I believe, in the esteem and confidence of the nation. As things are at present, a chance majority in another place can sweep away all constitutional safeguards in three Sessions. If your Lordships in your wisdom see fit to support this Bill, sudden action to abolish your Lordships' House will be impossible without some sort of violent upheaval or some kind of dictatorship; and those who dare to strike the first blow on those lines have got to reckon with the people of this country. This country is the cradle of democracy. We want no dictatorships here, nor any further restrictions on our liberties: but if your Lordships do not support this Bill and do not see your way to help it on as far as possible, we will, I am sure, have moved a step nearer to that autocratic form of Government which is so prevalent on the Continent to-day.
LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUXMy Lords, on rising to address your Lordships for the first time I crave that indulgence which is usually afforded to one who has not previously enjoyed that privilege. The demand for Parliamentary reform arises in this country from various sources. On the one hand we have those who would like to see your Lordships' House abolished, and of this section there are two kinds of opinion. Firstly, we have the extreme Socialists who, retaining some belief in our democratic Constitution so far as the House of Commons is concerned, wish to see your Lordships' House abolished because they feel it stands in the way of their policies being carried out by a Socialist Government. Then we have the Fascists and Communists who regard Parliamentary Government as entirely unnecessary, and who desire to set up a dictatorship. On
140
the other hand we have the apprehensive Conservative who desires to see your Lordships' House made a barrier to Socialism, and secondly the moderate Socialist, rare though he may be, who does not wish to enter into the controversy as to the abolition of your Lordships' House and merely wishes to diminish its obstructive powers. All these groups of opinion have really the same view of your Lordships' House—namely, that it is bound to be either an ineffective anachronism or purely an obstructive piece of constitutional mechanism.
I suggest that nobody who, in principle, approves of democratic government can possibly agree with any one of these groups of opinion. To those who believe in dictatorship I would say that the possibility of any one brain being able to govern or direct our vastly complicated system is very small, and a fact that is very often forgotten is that dictatorship is only a temporary and opportunist measure. It has no principles. What is to come after? Are we to have an hereditary dictatorship, or do the supporters of dictatorship in this country really believe they can find a superman to govern the country? If so, they must have very great faith in the power and virtue of any Party, in which case their criticism of our Party system is very much misguided. Obstruction of the democratic impulse can only serve to stem the tide of progress, and to the apprehensive Conservative I would say: "You are mistaken in your beliefs. Merely to erect barriers against what you feel to be revolutionary legislation is not to prevent legislation; in practice it is very often the contrary." To seek fresh powers of obstruction is, as I shall try to show later, to accept a base and disrespectful view of your Lordships' House.
During the past thirty years the prestige of Parliament has been gradually diminishing until to-day we find that it is probably less highly regarded by the majority of people than at any previous time. This state of affairs cannot go on any longer unless we are willing to see Parliament superseded in this country by a dictatorship as has happened in many other countries. The great outstanding feature of our Parliamentary system is the ease with which it can adapt itself

141
to the needs of the day. Will it not be a great tragedy if to-day we fail to take full advantage of that adaptability and so reconstitute our Parliamentary system as to preserve us not only from dictatorship but from economic disaster? If we seek the main reason for the weakness in our present Parliamentary system we find it, in the fact that Parliament lacks most of the finest brains of the country owing to the circumstance that they are ill-adapted to the rough and tumble of constituency politics, and it all too frequently occurs that unless a man of brilliance happens either by birth or good fortune to become a member of your Lordships' House, the country is deprived of his services in the sphere where, at the moment, they could probably be best utilised.
At the moment we have a two-chamber government, one House of which is elected and reflects in an exaggerated degree the inherent instability of democratic politics, while the other, by the illogical nature of its appointment and the emasculated condition of its power, is unable to correct time disequilibrium which is often liable to arise. We all know that honourable members who sit in another place are overworked, and cannot give sufficient time to the most vital functions in our economic life, because of the overwhelming work which the social problems of the country demand. Surely this is a most lamentable state of affairs. Reform there must be, not only as to the constitution of your Lordships' House but as to the Constitution as a whole. Do not let us treat this matter as one which only concerns your Lordships' House, for it really concerns the Constitution as a whole. Let me beg of you to regard this matter of reform more in terms of function than of power. What your Lordships' House needs today is not an increase of power to be used in a negative way, but the positive exercise of important Parliamentary functions. The proposals at present before your Lordships' House, if accepted, can only tend to intensify rather than diminish the inconveniences of government at the present time.
Your Lordships are being asked to say that the interests of the nation demand a Second Chamber with stronger rights of obstruction. These may be accompanied by certain changes in the
142
personnel of the House, but, nevertheless, they only amount to a further ossification of our Parliamentary system, and the net result would be to stem the tide of progress and to defeat the purposes of democracy. The contents of this Bill which the noble Marquess has introduced are nothing less than a method to disguise his feeling and, I am afraid, the feelings of several other of your Lordships, of mistrust of democracy. Let me tell your Lordships that democracy has a far greater mistrust of the widespread system of hereditary, votes than your Lordships have of democracy. The power of the hereditary principle to-day does not lie any longer in our political life, but purely in our social life. Your Lordships' House is treated with deep respect throughout the country so long as those who, I hope they will forgive me if I refer to them as Back-Benchers, do not arrive en masse and swamp any important measure with their votes. So soon as this reserve majority is brought into force, the prestige and confidence that remain to this House dwindle into the background.
I should like your Lordships to consider for one moment the Coal Mines Bill when I suppose your Lordships' House had a far bigger attendance than on any other previous occasion since the War. What happened? Your Lordships put down certain Amendments and, if may be allowed to say so, very excellent Amendments, which if they had been adhered to would have improved that Bill tenfold. But your Lordships had to give way gracefully to another place simply because the votes recorded by that reserve majority carried no weight, and did not give sufficient moral power to enable you to stick to your points, whereas if the votes recorded had been simply those of the noble Lords who attend this House regularly, I submit that your Lordships could have struck to your arguments and would have achieved far greater success.
The noble Marquess who introduced this measure intends to bring in some outside element, and although I am entirely in sympathy with his wishes I cannot at the moment see that that is either practicable or desirable. Before any such new element can be introduced into your Lordships' House, surely there

143
must be a formation of groups outside Parliament who would be in a position to nominate their representatives to the Upper House. It would be of no advantage to your Lordships should people from outside be appointed to sit in your Lordships' House unless they have some authority or representative standing. Not only would their valuable time be wasted, but it would only tend to enlarge the enormous block of Conservative votes which at present exists in this House. I am afraid the noble Marquess must have had that idea at the back of his mind the whole time, and that when he proposed to introduce Lords of Parliament who need never turn up unless there is an important measure to be passed or defeated, he hoped to enlarge the present block of Conservative votes. Surely, it is more important to try to place your Lordships' House once again in a position of being able to do useful work and help in the overwhelming task of Parliament instead of merely acting as a blockade.
Whatever the opinion of your Lordships' House may be to-day, there can be no doubt that at one time it exercised a function vastly more important than it does now. This power was held in virtue of much greater responsibilities. When your Lordships' ancestors were gathered together here in this House they represented almost the whole of the economic power of the country, which in those days was probably an agricultural community. The Lords Spiritual, moreover, represented the only creed and Church in existence. To-day the position is changed. Those two responsibilities no longer remain. The economic power is elsewhere and the creeds of to-day are many and various. Our simple organisation could not go on for ever, and we find that about 1600 we entered the mercantilist period, during which our economic structure became more complex. The merchant arose, and insisted upon an ear being given to his problems. He became a power in the State and we find that our purely agricultural economy became a mixed economy of agricultural and mercantile functions. With fresh discoveries the wheels of foreign trade were set in motion, and foreign trade with its double aspect of imports and exports combined together with certain theories about the balance of trade to produce a policy of mercantilism.
144
During this period, which lasted until about the end of the eighteenth century, the question of leaving private enterprise to itself never arose. We had ample Parliamentary machinery to cope with the problems of the day. But where the whole point lies is that while since that day vast changes have taken place in the social and economic worlds, we find ourselves to-day trying to cope with our work by employing the same machinery. Towards the end of the eighteenth century fresh problems arose. The industrial revolution occurred, which brought with it rapid growth in factory methods and machinery with the gradual decline of agriculture. Our trade grew and our population grew. But this was not the end of the vast mass of fresh work that was suddenly imposed upon Parliament. A new class arose, bringing with it fresh problems—first the industrialist, and later the financier, with even more subtle problems. All of this only goes to show how much more complicated and overwhelming is the work at present being imposed upon Parliament. Now if the principle that your Lordships' House should represent the active economic and political power was good and valid for the Middle Ages, it should equally be the case that modern classes and functions should be represented upon the basis of their functions. To deny this is to make tradition a (lead and encumbering thing instead of a living and glowing principle in our national life.
And here I would like to point out to your Lordships that my plea is not merely for reform, but for the revitalisation of the Second Chamber, and this can only be accomplished by giving it constructive and responsible work. The old function of the last defender of a beleaguered breach in a defensive wall is noble and picturesque, but it implies defeat. This theory of leaving private enterprise to itself is comparatively modern. As a Government policy it dates back to 1848, when Sir Robert Peel threw in his hand and forsook the old policy. That mistake we begin to realise to-day. Parliament has been recompelled to interfere, and to interfere with ineffective machinery. As I see it, Parliament more and more will have to assist in the development and adjustment of our basic industries, and if this is to he not mere interference, it must be in virtue of the fact that

145
Parliament contains representatives of every important industrial function. Now, it is up to your Lordships' House to assist the more important functions; it is up to us to reform ourselves in the quickest and simplest way so that we can once again be in that position of being a helpful wheel in the working of Parliament and not, as some of your Lordships would like to see us, purely an obstructive body.
I myself would merely like to see our numbers drastically reduced to the number the noble Marquess has suggested, 150. Let us not worry about bringing in outside elements until we see more clearly the best way in which the Parliamentary system can be reformed. If some such simple step as this reduction of numbers can be taken, it would have a very great effect throughout the country. It will go a long way towards restoring the confidence and prestige of this House, and, furthermore, it will clear the way for any new blood which may be introduced at a later date. No new powers for your Lordships' House would be tolerated in the country so long as this overwhelming number of reserved votes exists, and I submit, therefore, that if we wish to see restored some of our lost powers, such a simple step as I have suggested would be a great step in this direction.
Some reform of our Parliamentary system must come about very soon if we are to avoid the menace of a dictatorship. Unless our Parliamentary system adapts itself very soon to the needs of the day, and unless it consciously reforms itself so as to carry out the functions demanded of Governments in modern circumstances, it will be done away with here as surely as it has disappeared in Russia, Germany and Italy. We can preserve ourselves only by reconstructing our Parliamentary system, so as to retain democratic control without exposing ourselves any longer to the dangers of its inherent, instability. I ask your Lordships to refrain from seeking petty powers of obstruction such as the noble Marquess suggests in his Bill, and to cause a much more serious investigation to be made into the much larger question of the adequacy of our Parliamentary system as a whole.
THE EARL oF KINNOULLMy Lords, it is my privilege to-night to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, on the very eloquent maiden speech that he has delivered, and I am
146
sure I shall be voicing the wish of all sections in this House when I say that I hope he will be a frequent contributor to our debates in the future. It is with considerable diffidence that I venture to address your Lordships to-night after the spate of oratory to which we have listened, and I can assure your Lordships that I shall be as brief as I possibly can. The noble Marquess who moved the Second Reading of this Bill made his intention perfectly clear. He stated quite definitely that the intention of this Bill was to retard future Socialist legislation in the event of a Socialist majority being returned to the House of Commons. Lord Snell threw out the allegation of bogies. I rather thought myself that the noble Marquess, if I may say so with respect, visualised a sort of Stalin in this country. The noble Marquess appears to regard the people of this country as children—as people who do not know their own minds and who are liable to be led away and ensnared into voting for something that they do not want. I do not think that is the case.
First of all I would like to say this. I have said it at previous General Elections, and I say it every day of my life on public platforms, that at the next General Election the Labour Party will put forward a programme of Socialism pure and simple. Therefore there will be no excuse for anybody being led away by some remote, issue into putting into power a Government which will do something they do not want. I think the noble Marquess is going too far in suggesting that the people of this country, when they elect a Government, do not know what they are voting for. Now what would be the effect of this Bill? It would be to perpetuate Tory control. It is well known that this House is nothing more than a Tory committee. Noble Lords who sit on this side of the House—I think there are twelve of us—and a few noble Lords who sit on the Liberal Benches can do nothing whatever if the Government put on their Whips and want to get a measure through. But this Bill would perpetuate Tory control and give this House power to hold up legislation almost indefinitely.
If this were a question of whether we were to have two-chamber or one-chamber government it would be a different thing. Personally I do not know that I am in favour of two-chamber

147
government: it is a very debatable point; but if it is decided that an Upper House is needed, then surely that Upper House should be elected by the people. The noble Marquess in his Bill wishes to have the Upper House elected by hereditary Peers themselves. I am not quite clear as to how the representation is going to be secured—whether the noble Marquess intends that the representation should be as we are at present situated here, that is, a very small number of Labour Peers, a not very large number of Liberal Peers, and a vast majority of Conservative Peers; or whether he means that the representation should be as in another place, where the people have elected a certain number of representatives of all Parties, and that we should be equally representative here. If that were the case one might think more about it. There is also the proposal for a twelve years run without any election at all.
I was very interested in my noble friend Lord Sneil's figures. I was rather amazed by them, because it would appear from what he said that practically two-thirds of the members of this House never take the trouble to appear here at all. It is perfectly true to say that the vast preponderance of noble Lords who come to this House and contribute to the debates have been in public life, have been members of another place, and have retired, as it were, into this House. Well, if this Bill were passed, it would definitely mean that the hereditary Peers would elect their representatives, who would be practically the same noble Lords who come here to-day. In other words, the old gang would be back here with practically full power. It would be a virtual dictatorship of the House of Lords. It would therefore be a dictatorship of the Tory Party. In my opinion this Bill is the very antithesis of democracy. I have always thought that Conservatives, whatever their faults, were good sportsmen, but I must say that on this occasion I think they are not showing that sporting spirit with which I had credited them. Because they foresee a future when they may be down, they want to put a stop to it now. They always want to have the last word, and this Bill will not allow the people to choose.
I should like to refer to the speech of the noble and learned Viscount, the Leader of the House. I was very interested in his speech, because he made
148
it perfectly clear that the Government this Session do not see that they have any mandate to monkey about, as it were, with the Constitution. But what I do want to know is this: Does this mean that the Government are considering next Session that they have a mandate to do something about it? Does it mean that the Government are definitely going to undertake no proposals whatever for a Bill of this kind, or does it mean they are going to think about it in the meantime and foreshadow it in the next gracious Speech? I would like to ask the Government that question. I shall conclude by saying that this Bill, if it should ever become law, is bound to lead to a political deadlock whatever Party may be in power, whether Liberals, Socialists, or possibly even Fascists, and that deadlock may lead to consequences which it is perfectly impossible for any person to-day to foresee.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, it is getting rather late for your Lordships' House. It is only on such occasions as this that we have an opportunity of sitting after dinner. In fact I have been looking at old copies of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I find that in the year 1927, seven years ago, a Resolution was introduced by my noble friend Lord FitzAlan, and as a result of that Resolution, which was on the same subject as we are discussing to-night, we actually sat after dinner. I hope that if the Bill which the noble Marquess has introduced comes into force we may sit in this House after dinner more often. In fact this House may be democratised, to use a word which was used by my noble friend just now, to a greater degree than it is today, in spite of the fact that certain members who have spoken this afternoon have suggested that this is not a Bill to democratise the House but a Bill to continue Conservatism or Toryism, as was said by one member.
I desire to congratulate my noble friend Lord Salisbury on having introduced this Bill. Various members who have spoken have suggested that the noble Marquess had no right to introduce this Bill as a private member, and that it would with greater propriety have been introduced by the Government. I entirely agree with that; but the Government do not come forward and introduce a Bill of this

149
nature, and therefore what is left to members of this House but that a distinguished member like Lord Salisbury, who has taken a greater part probably in the proceedings of this House than any other member sitting here to-day, should come forward and do what the Government have failed to do?
My noble friend Lord Redesdale, in moving the rejection of the Bill, suggested that there was no demand for the reform of the House of Lords, that he heard no one speaking about the question of the reform of the House of Lords, and heard them speaking on every other question but that. That may be so, because in certain quarters this question has been damped down to such an extraordinary degree that the ordinary person in the street does not talk about it; but I would like to remind the noble Lord that at conference after conference of Unionist associations both in this country and in Scotland, and at General Elections for the past fifteen to twenty years, this question of the reform of the House of Lords has formed the subject of the greatest consideration and has formed part of the various programmes which have been submitted at those conferences and at the General Elections. To come here this afternoon and suggest to your Lordships' House that this is a matter of which no one in the country is thinking at all seems to me an absolute inversion of what has actually happened.
I listened to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Snell, on behalf of the Labour Party in this House, and I regret that he is not here now in order that I might be able to reply to him in his presence. I could not help feeling as he spoke, and certainly as his speech proceeded, that he was in a very difficult position. He seemed at one moment to be condemning the Constitution under which we were sitting in this House, and yet at the next moment he was telling us that it was a Constitution under which the Conservative Party had absolute sway; in fact, if I may put it this way, he is really holding the fort for the extremer members of his own Party, who, when they are ready, would like to sweep away this House altogether and get rid of us holus-bolus. He said there are certain extreme sections of my Party who brush aside the noble Marquess's reference to Sir Stafford Cripps, and he suggested that what Sir Stafford Cripps said
150
to-day might have no effect, or he inferred that what Sir Stafford Cripps said to-day might have no effect to-morrow. But as my noble friend Lord Salisbury has said, it is always the live wire that counts in the long run in a political Party, and we all know that Sir Stafford Cripps is a live wire. He might have added that Major Attlee, another member of the House of Commons and the present Leader there of the Labour Party, is also a live wire of that Party, and he thinks, according to his public speeches and according to a pamphlet published not long ago, exactly along the same lines as Sir Stafford Cripps. Therefore, to say that there is no risk for the future, to say that we need have no anxiety as to what may happen if the Socialist Party gets into power in the future, seems to me absolutely wrong.
I think that there is another reason as well why this House should be reformed. It is because, so far as I have been able to learn, there is a feeling in the country —and I have talked to a great many people on this subject—that the hereditary element as it exists to-day in this House ought not to continue, but that this House should be reformed to some extent to enable outside elements to be represented in it. As to what extent the hereditary element ought to be represented is a matter of opinion. The noble Marquess said in his speech that he had in his Bill arranged for 150 of the hereditary element to be included. That number may be the right number or the wrong number, but that at least some hereditary element should be left in this House is, I believe, an absolute essential. There are others in the country who think that the House ought to be reformed in order to exclude the hereditary principle altogether and to include only the elective principle, but if that were done I think that probably it would lead much more quickly to a difference of opinion between the House of Commons and this House than if there were only a certain number of elected members and a certain number of the hereditary members who already sit in this House.
My own view is that, whilst there may be many details in this Bill with which different noble Lords may disagree, today there is a demand in the country for a reform of this House, and that there

151
actually is a demand in this House itself for reform. That being the case, the noble Marquess in introducing this Bill has rendered a great service, and the House should respond to that by passing the Second Reading of this Bill at least in order that the details of the Bill may be considered in Committee. For myself I should like to see the Bill go further. I should like to see the Bill go through Committee, I should like to see it go through Report, I should like to see it go through the Third Reading stage, and I should like to send it to the House of Commons, in whatever form it may leave this House, in order that we might hear from the House of Commons what they think, first, of the question of the reform of this House, and, secondly, in what way it ought to be reformed.
There is one other point I should like to mention before I sit down, and that is to thank my noble friend the Marquess of Salisbury for the way he has acknowledged the representation of the Scottish Peers, that there should be no interference with their position under the Act of Union. My noble friend told us in his speech that if an Amendment is moved in Committee in order to preserve the position of the Scottish Representative Peers he will be ready to accept it. I can assure him that in Scotland the Peers will be very pleased to hear that,
152
and on behalf of the Scottish Peers and others in Scotland I should like to thank the noble Marquess for what he has said he will do in that connection. I only wish to say again that I believe the noble Marquess has done the country a great service in introducing the Bill and in moving its Second Reading. I sincerely hope that your Lordships will see your way to give the Bill a Second Reading and to pass on this great measure—because it is a great measure —to the House of Commons for their further consideration.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and debate adjourned accordingly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I would remind your Lordships that we meet to-morrow at half-past two o'clock. I rather gather that the indications are that it will not be necessary to sit after dinner to-morrow, but it may possibly be a little late before we rise.
House adjourned at five minutes before eleven o'clock.

CHURCH HOUSE (WESTMINSTER) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment, agreed to.

WORKINGTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
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 the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Walthamstow Corporation.
And also the Certificate that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Post Office (Sites).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

SOUTH DOWNS PRESERVATION BILL. [H.L.]
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill; namely:

E. Granville,

E. Iddesleigh,

V. Elibank,

L. Redesdale (Chairman),

L. Stonehaven:

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Wednesday, the 6th of June next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.