Sitting of 30 May 1934

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Stockport Extension Bill (by Order),
Head the Third time, and passed.
North Wales Electric Power Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 7th June.
Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation (No. 2) Bill,
Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.
Nottingham Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    SAAR TEERITORY (PLEBISCITE).
    Sir CHARLES CAYZERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement as to the decisions come to by the Council of the League of Nations for the holding of the Saar Plebiscite and for maintaining the authority of the Saar Commission?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay Mac Donald): On the 19th May the Council of the League decided to adjourn its consideration of the preparatory measures in view of the Saar Plebiscite to its next Extraordinary Session, since the report of the Committee of Three appointed by it in January to consider the matter and to make recommendations was not yet ready. An Extraordinary Session of the Council opened at Geneva to-day and I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the present position in the Saar territory?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The purpose of the hon. Member's question is not very clear, but if he has any specific points upon which he desires information I should be glad to supply it if he would put a question down.

    PRISONERS (TREATMENT).
    Captain CUNNINGHAM - REIDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state which nations, if any, have declared their intention to adhere to the code of minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners adopted by the Assembly of the League of Nations in October last?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Secretary-General of the League of Nations, acting on the instructions of the Assembly given at its 14th Session, has approached the Governments of States Members and non Members of the League, and has asked them whether, in view of their existing or proposed laws and regulations, they are in a position to consider the approval and the practical application of these rules in whole or in part. This information is required in order that the next Assembly may be in a position to decide whether it is possible to recommend the Governments of Member States to adopt the rules in question. My hon. Friend will thus understand that there is no question, as yet, of the adherence by any State to these rules, but I may add that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have recently informed the Secretary-General that they approve of these rules, and that they already apply them in practice.

  DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.
  Mr. OSWALD LEWISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any further progress has been made towards the conclusion of an agreement on disarmament betwen ourselves and other great Powers?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancnas South-West (Mr. Mitcheson) yesterday, the General Commission of the Disarmament Conference only met that day for the first time after a long adjournment.

  159
  I regret that I am unable, as yet, to make any statement in regard to the progress made at Geneva.
  Mr. LEWIS: Does the Prime Minister's answer mean that, all efforts to secure a general agreement on Disarmament having failed, all that remains is to try to find the least disagreeable method of expressing the fact?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, that is not quite the case.
  Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: On the contrary, does it not mean that His Majesty's Government are pressing in every way to bring about a solution?

  UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).
  Mr. LEWISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will inform the President of the United States that no further token payment on account of War debt will be made by Great Britain if, despite such payment, this country is to be regarded as a defaulting debtor within the meaning of the Johnson Act?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given yesterday to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cardiff South (Captain A. Evans) by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to which I have nothing to add.
  Mr. LEWIS: Will this House have an opportunity of expressing an opinion before any further token payment is made, in the circumstances set out in the question on the Paper?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the hon. Member will renew that question a few days later, when he will see how the situation stands.

  BRAZIL (ASSYRIAN SETTLEMENT).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position with regard to arrangements for transferring the Assyrians to Brazil or elsewhere?
  The PRIME MINISTER: According to a report submitted to the Council of the League on the 17th May by its Assyrian Committee, the mission which visited Brazil to investigate the scheme for the
  160
  settlement of the Assyrians in Parana reported favourably on that scheme. The committee pointed out to the Council, however, that the transfer of so large a population raised problems more difficult than was generally realised; that it was too early therefore to express an opinion whether the scheme for settlement in Brazil could be put into effect; and that the next step would be to enter into detailed negotiations with the Brazilian Government in the hope of working out a plan acceptable to that Government. The committee is to meet again in Geneva this week to consider the matter further.

  GERMANY (BRITISH SUBJECT'S ARREST).
  Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the reasons given by the German Government for the arrest of Mr. Pembroke Stephens, Berlin correspondent of the "Daily Express," on 15th May?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that the occasion for Mr. (Stephens's arrest at Aken, near Dessau, on the 15th May was that of suspicion of being engaged in industrial espionage.

  ROYAL NAVY (MEDITERRANEAN CANTEEN TENANCIES).
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty for how many years the average canteen tenancy in Malta had been held before their transfer in June, 1918; and whether contracts were carried out satisfactorily prior to the War?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): We are all very glad to see the hon. Member in his place again.
  The duration of the tenancy agreements varied considerably from a few months to several years. It is therefore not practicable to compute their average period. So far as is known, the agreements in force before the War were carried out satisfactorily under the conditions then obtaining.
  Mr. WILLIAMSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the transfer of the Mediterranean canteen

  161
  tenancies to the Army and Navy Canteen Board in 1918 was a temporary war-time measure, and that the secretary to the commander-in-chief stated, on 8th March, 1916, this course had been decided upon on account of the scarcity of certain foodstuffs, the restriction imposed upon exports from Malta, and the increasing difficulties encountered by private firms in meeting requirements; and, in view of this, will he state what opportunities have been offered to previous tenants to tender for contracts since the War?
  Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The canteens in the Mediterranean were taken over by the Navy and Army Canteen Board in 1918 owing to the inability of the Maltese canteen tenants to meet requirements satisfactorily under the conditions then obtaining. The statement attributed to the secretary to the commander-in-chief doubtless had reference to these conditions. In 1920, when the policy was reviewed by the three Service Departments, it was unanimously agreed that the tenant system should not be revived, and that all the canteens then managed by the Navy and Army Canteen Board should be taken over permanently by that organisation, which was reconstituted as the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes. As the tenant system has thus been abolished, no opportunity can arise for previous tenants to tender for agreements. Considerable purchases of provisions are made, however, by the Victualling Yard, by His Majesty's ships direct, and by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes, from Maltese traders.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Do we understand from the First Lord that no opportunity is ever likely to be given to the previous holders of these tenancies to obtain the old business again?
  Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: No, sir, I do not think there is the slightest chance of going back.
  Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of this expression of preference for private enterprise as against nationalisation?

  EAST AFRICA (ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE).
  Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies
  162
  whether the report of the commission of inquiry into the administration of justice in criminal matters in East Africa has now boon considered; and if the report will be made available for Members of the House?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): Certain questions arising out of my consideration of this report have been referred to the Conference of East African Governors. The report will be presented to Parliament in the course of a few weeks.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    COLONIES (JAPANESK IMPOETS).
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can now state what action has been taken by any of the Colonies with regard to the imposition of quotas upon Japanese imports?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate, some time is necessary for the preparation and passing of the legislation required to bring the quota system into operation and it is not yet possible to prepare any general summary of the action taken, but every effort is being made to bring the system into operation with the least possible delay.
    Captain MACDONALD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say which Colonies have indicated their desire to adopt the amendments?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir, I could not say that at this moment, but I can say that the reply has been generally satisfactory.

    SHIPPING INDUSTRY.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the fact that of the entrances from and clearances to European ports, out of 17,800,000 tons of shipping using United Kingdom ports in the first four months of this year, no less than 9,530,000 tons, or 53½ per cent. was foreign; and what steps he proposes to take to improve the British share of shipping using United Kingdom ports?
    Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Yes,

    163
    Sir, and I should perhaps draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the corresponding percentage for foreign vessels for the year 1913 was 52.8 per cent. and, therefore, only slightly less than the percentage for the first four months of this year. The question of assisting British shipping is under the urgent consideration of the Government.

    COCOA BUTTER (IMPORTS).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of cocoa butter have increased from 2,800,000 lbs. in the first four months of 1933 to 4,977,000 lbs. in the first four months of this year; and, as all this cocoa butter can be produced in this country from Empire cocoa beans, what steps he proposes to take to deal with the growing foreign competition?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am aware that the figures are substantially as stated by my hon. Friend. Cocoa butter is only one of the constituents of the cocoa bean, and the demand for it in this country is in excess of the demand for the other constituents. In these circumstances the requirements of the United Kingdom manufacturer can be better met by importing the extra cocoa butter than by importing the raw bean and exporting or destroying the other surplus constituents.

    LEVANT FAIR
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he can make any statement with regard to the results of the enlarged Levant Fair at Tel Aviv, Palestine, which was due to close on 26th May; and whether he has any information as to the amount of orders for British goods which have resulted therefrom?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Whitechapel and St. George's (Mr. Janner) on Thursday, the 10th May. No further information is yet available.

    INDIA TEXTILE AMENDMENT ACT.
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that in the India Textile Amendment Act, 1934, an alteration has been made to Class 158 J which will have a serious
    164
    effect upon the trade between Lancashire and India; and what he proposes to do regarding it?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): The India Textile Amendment Act, 1934, as a whole is satisfactory to this country. On the particular point to which my hon. Friend refers representations wore unsuccessfully made to the Government of India by His Majesty's Government, but my hon. Friend will not overlook the fact that this country does actually enjoy a preferential advantage of 10 per cent. under this head, which is a gain as compared with the position as it existed until quite recently.

  NAVAL AND MILITAEY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Pensions how many disabled men were receiving a course of inpatient treatment at the end of April, 1934, and the number of applicants who have been refused treatment allowances?
  The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): At the end of April last, approximately 2,600 officers and men were in receipt of in-patient treatment, apart from cases in mental hospitals. The great majority of these would be in receipt of treatment allowances, but I have no record of the precise number who were found ineligible for them.
  Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Pensions bow many first claims to pension have been received during the 12 months ended 30th April, 1934; and of that number how many claims have been admitted and how many have been rejected?
  Major TRYON: 3,550 fresh applications in respect of disablement were received during the year referred to. In the same period 300 claims were recognised by way of either monetary award and/or medical treatment according to the circumstances of the case.
  Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: May I ask whether those who have been rejected have any right of appeal to the appeal tribunal?
  Major TRYON: No, Sir, as the hon. Member knows, they have not, but the present Government, like their predecessors,

  165
  feel that the present arrangement is best both in the interests of the State and of the ex-service men.
  Mr. DAVID DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while disabled men have been receiving treatment and since their discharge their wives and children have had to be maintained by the Poor Law authorities?
  Major TRYON: That supplementary question arises out of the previous question, but not out of this question.

  AGRICULTURE (BUTTEE IMPORTS).
  Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he proposes to take to protect the British dairying industry from foreign competition, having regard to the fact that the imports of foreign butter were 1,233,000 cwt. in the first four months of 1934, as compared with 1,121,000 cwt. in the same period of 1933?
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made on 22nd February last with regard to the Government's milk policy. The Financial Resolution covering the proposals I then outlined will come up for consideration by the House to-morrow.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: As the right hon. Gentleman's statements have indicated that the trouble is due to increasing Dominion imports, and these figures show that there is an increase of imports from foreign countries, does not this call for reconsideration on his part?
  Mr. ELLIOT: I am not at all sure to what my hon. Friend is referring, but an opportunity for debate will arise to-morrow, and we shall then be very glad to meet that and other points.
  Mr. HASLAM: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is bearing in mind the considerable increase in the imports of butter from the Netherlands, in view of the negotiations going on with that country?
  Mr. ELLIOT: Certainly, all those points are being borne in mind. The milk policy which has been outlined in the House is designed to raise the low level of prices, from whatever cause arising.
  Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Is it not the case that there is a corresponding increase in the imports of butter from the Dominions as compared with the figures given in the question?
  Mr. ELLIOT: It would not be advisable to debate that matter at Question Time, but we can go into it to-morrow.

  DERELICT AREAS.
  Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Minister of Labour whether the Government are yet in a position to make a further announcement with regard to the relief of the derelict areas?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): No Sir, not yet.
  Mr. BATEY: When does the Parliamentary Secretary expect to be in a position to make a statement; and is it the intention of the Government to hurry up the commissioners' reports, so that the House can debate the matter before the Summer Recess?
  Mr. HUDSON: The reports have not yet been received, and it is obviously undesirable that the investigation should be unduly hurried.
  Mr. BATEY: Can the hon. Gentleman say when it is expected that the reports will be received, so that we can debate them?
  Mr. HUDSON: When the investigation is completed.

  PRECIOUS METALS.
  Captain CUNNINGHAM - REIDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he proposes to introduce legislation to carry into effect the recommendation of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, in his report for the year 1933, that it should be made an offence for dealers in gold and silver articles to break up or melt articles brought into their possession within a stated period, such as seven days?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave on the 15th instant to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis).

  HIS MAJESTY'S LIEUTENANTS.
  Sir PARK GOFFasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the official designation or title of those of His Majesty's Lieutenants for English counties who are not also peers is Lord Lieutenant; and will he notify the local authorities concerned when cases in which the correct designation is not employed come to the notice of the Home Office?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The title "Lieutenant" is statutory, being used in Acts of Parliament from the 16th century onwards, and the designation officially used in all cases is "His Majesty's Lieutenant of the County of" The style "Lord Lieutenant" is, however, commonly used colloquially and in general correspondence, and is applied to the holders of such office whether they are peers or commoners. I do not think it necessary to communicate with local authorities in the matter.
  Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Am I correct in understanding my right hon. Friend to say that, in describing as "Lord Lieutenant" one of His Majesty's Lieutenants of a county who is not a peer, the correct legal title is employed?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: That title is commonly used, I think. It has grown up through long custom.

  POLITICAL PARTIES (UNIFORMS).
  Mr. VYVYAN ADAMSasked the Home Secretary whether any and, if so, what action is now contemplated by the Government in regard to the wearing of political uniforms?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The Government have been giving careful consideration to the question whether it is necessary, in the public interests, to propose legislation for the purpose of dealing with certain undesirable new developments on the part of political organisations and, should the occasion arise, they will not hesitate to submit to Parliament such proposals as they deem necessary for the purpose of dealing with any activities, which constitute a threat to public order or security, by strengthening the law relating to the preservation of public order. Developments are being closely watched.
  Mr. PETHERICK: Is the Home Secretary aware that, if the suggestion contained in the question were carried out, it would merely have the effect of advertising a faction?
  Mr. BERNAYS: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the example of foreign countries where political uniforms have been suppressed without any evil repercussions?
  Mr. ADAMS: Would it not at least be more decent to limit the wearing of blouses to the female sex?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take on Friday?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Friday, the business proposed is the Licensing (Permitted Hours) Bill, Second Reading: the Palestine Loan Bill, Committee stage; and the Milk (Money) Resolution. Report stage.
The Licensing Bill is being presented to-day, and arrangements have been made for copies to be made available to Members in the Vote Office at five o'clock this evening.
Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I understand that the Bill to which the Prime Minister refers is to be made available this evening. Does he think that that is an adequate opportunity for the consideration of the Bill? We are not aware of its terms, but it raises a matter of some public importance, and the Debate is to take place on Friday morning. That gives, I suggest, very little opportunity for consultation——[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I assume that, before the Second Reading of an important Measure, the public of this country have a right to be consulted, and this gives no opportunity for that consultation. I should have thought that, if the opportunity for consultation had been given, it might have shortened the Debate in this House.
Captain P. MACDONALD: Can the Prime Minister say how many Clauses the Bill contains?
The PRIME MINISTER: On the point of consultation, I think that, if my hon. Friend will cast his mind back, he will recollect that notice of this Bill was given

169
on the 17th of this month, before the House rose, and its contents were indicated. There is no extension, and I think my hon. Friend will find, when he sees the Bill, that it may very well be taken on the notice we have given.

LICENSING (PERMITTED HOURS) BILL,
"to make provision with regard to the power to make, and the validity of, directions under paragraph (b) (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section one of the Licensing Act, 1921, as respects a part of the year only, and to the power to fix, and the validity of decisions fixing, the permitted hours on weekdays where such directions are so made," presented by Sir John Gilmour; supported by Sir Godfrey Collins, Mr. Douglas Hacking, and Mr. Skelton; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 124.]
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 127.]
LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 126.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [6TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1934.

      CLASS IV. BOARD OF EDUCATION.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £26,604,018, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry Grants-inAid."— [Note.—£15,500,000 has been voted on account.]
      3.8 p.m.
      The PARLIMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): The Memorandum on the Board of Education Estimates for 1934 shows a total of £42,104,018. As a result, however, of the partial restoration of the cuts in teachers' salaries, announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last April, there will be a further addition of about £1,500,000. That addition is not, of course, shown on the Estimates, but the real total is somewhat over £43,500,000. I need hardly say that my Noble Friend the President and myself were highly gratified that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to restore half the cut in the teachers' salaries, and I feel sure that the teaching profession will much appreciate the principle which he laid down, that the particular special measures taken in 1931 should be dealt with first. Apart from that addition, the net increase in the Department's Estimates this year is £43,117, and, in view of the fact that there is such a small increase on so large a total, I do not suppose that the Committee will expect any very startling development of educational policy to be announced. I shall be surprised if anything sensational or dramatic is deemed to be contained in the observations which I am about to make.
      The figure reflects the policy which the Board have consistently pursued since 1931 of sure and steady progress, and of
      186
      employing resources which are by no means unlimited in securing those aims which are most needed. I will not pretend that that has been an easy task. It has been difficult. Our passage through the years has in some ways been a kind of educational Odyssey, steering between Scylla and Charybdis so as to avoid the savage fangs of the one and the unfathomable depths of the other. Sirens too, have not been lacking, to lure us from our path with seductive voice and counsel. The Committee will recollect that, when confronted with similar enticements, that much-enduring man Odysseus bade his crew bind him to the mast with ropes. My Noble Friend the President of the Board of Education has not found it necessary to take precisely similar steps, but I am sure that he has used all his powers of restraint, control and moderation to save us from analagous perils.
      In view of the small change in the Board's Estimate compared with last year, I do not propose on this occasion to undertake the same exhaustive analysis of the figures that I made last year. I propose, first of all, to deal with the reason for the small increase, and at greater length to deal with the general questions of policy which I think may be of more interest to the Committee. The Board's Estimate shows a reduction of grants to the local education authorities of £116,000 and of £66,525 to bodies other than education authorities. Economically-minded critics will probably be disappointed to learn that these small savings have been more than counterbalanced by the increase in teachers' pensions of £243,700. That increased cost will grow automatically for many years. We have also to remember that the Teachers' Superannuation Act, which pensions teachers on back service without any contribution from them, has been estimated to be a free gift to the teaching profession from the State equivalent to an annuity of about £4,500,000 for 40 years.
      The reduction in grant of £66,000 to bodies other than local education authorities is mainly due to a reduction in the number of students in the training colleges for teachers. A few years ago the service was considerably over-recruited in consequence of an anticipation of the raising of the school-leaving age,

      187
      but that anticipation was not realised. There has consequently been a fall in the number of children in the schools. In view of those two facts, it has not only been possible but necessary to slow down the rate of recruiting to the training colleges. The Board pays capitation grant in respect of students to the training colleges, and that amount has therefore been decreased pro rata. The reduction of £116,000 in the grants to the local education authorities is due to two factors; first, to the increase in the product of the 7d. rate which, under our somewhat complicated grant formula, serves to reduce the amount payable by the Board to local education authorities; and, secondly, to the reduction in the average attendance in the elementary schools. Part of the grant which is paid by the Board to the local education authorities is based upon the average numbers in attendance and as we have estimated this year for a reduction of 80,000 children the Board's grant will be correspondingly reduced.
      But increases of cost due to teachers' pensions, and decreases due to the gymnastics of the grant formula do not in themselves give a good picture of the realities of the position. If you want a better picture hon. Members should turn to the estimated expenditure of the local education authorities for this year which shows an increase of £185,000. It is estimated that the Exchequer and the rates between them this year will have to find about £82,000,000. Those who from time to time declare that education is progressively starved, are using somewhat immoderate language. I do not believe that any other country in the world has so successfully maintained and increased expenditure in the sphere of educational service as our own. It was only a few years before the War that Mr. Asquith, then Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Liberal Government of 1906, characterised the Board's Estimate as colossal. I have looked up the figure to see what it was; it was about £13,000,000. Faced this year with an expenditure from the Exchequer alone of £42,000,000 I have not ventured to inquire from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the appropriate epithet.
      I am well aware that an expenditure of £82,000,000 between ourselves and the local authorities is not enough to please
      188
      all the friends of education, and I doubt if any figure ever will be. Given a completely free hand, it is highly probable that I should produce a much increased Estimate, but education is only one of the many services which require the support of the taxpayer and the ratepayer. The hon. Baronet the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), who is an educationist of repute and speaks on educational matters as the mouthpiece of that section of the Liberal party with which he is associated, said in this House a month or two ago:
      "The needs of national defence are always paramount."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1934; col. 1920, Vol. 288.]
      I infer from that statement that in his view the needs of the Army, Navy and Air Force have a prior claim to our national resources, and must take precedence over the needs of education.
      Mr. COVE: He does not recognise that statement.
      Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: It is in the OFFICIAL REPORT. In the past 12 months the Board have been urged simultaneously by educationists to restore teachers' salaries; to raise the school-leaving age; to give maintenance allowances, I assume without exemptions; to press on with reorganisation; to build more nursery schools; to reduce the size of classes; to increase the number of teachers; to provide free milk for all school children and to give free dinners to all children of poor parents. Many of these reforms are desirable and some of them are already under way; to carry them all out in the immediate future would require a surplus very much larger than that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to show in last April.
      Consequently, I cannot estimate for the immediate realisation of all those projects, but I propose to discuss with the Committee the policy of the Board with regard to several of them. Unhappily, I am debarred by the rules of order from discussing one which is occupying a good deal of attention, the raising of the school-leaving age, as to raise it on a national basis would require legislation. I do not gather that educational authorities are by any means unanimous in the policy of raising it piecemeal up and down the country by means of by-laws. For instance, my own county of Lan

      189
      cashier has definitely decided against that solution of the problem, and I believe the London County Council has done likewise.
      But I propose to deal with one question which is in many ways closely related to the problem, namely, reorganisation under the Hadow scheme. The Board has from time to time been subjected to criticism on the ground that, while favouring the. adoption of reorganisation throughout the country, it has in its administration restricted the building of new schools, except where countervailing economies have been secured, in order to meet the pressing needs of newly developed areas. But it seems to me that that criticism ignores the crisis that we were faced with in 1931 and the fact that even last year, when framing these Estimates, we could not foresee with certainty the recovery that has taken place. In spite of those difficulties, we have made very substantial progress with reorganisation throughout the country, and the figures I am going to give will emphasise that fact. In March, 1931, there were 1,350 departments qualified as senior containing 319,000 children of 11 and over. In March, 1933, there were 2,340 senior departments containing 700,000 children of 11 and over. So that in two years the number of children within the ambit of the senior schools has more than doubled and progress is continuing steadily. In the year ended 31st March last we approved the building of 86 new schools and the enlargement of 118 more, and we have approved 91 premises and equipment for instruction in handicraft and domestic subjects, besides a larger number of proposals for rebuilding and altering schools and for obtaining new sites. The position to-day is that 50 per cent. of the children of 11 and over are now in reorganised schools and, if you include juniors and infants, as we ought to, the proportion is 60 per cent. I anticipated that during this Debate I might hear something about the Board having placed an embargo on new school building. In view of those figures, if anyone has prepared a speech containing that allegation, there will still be time to substitute some other criticism perhaps less damaging but better justified.
      In that connection, I should like to say a word about capital expenditure. These Estimates are no index of the capital
      190
      expenditure to be approved during the coming year. The loan charges and maintenance charges for the next 12 months cannot figure in the Board's Estimates until next year. During the last two years, it is true that we have had to conserve our resources, but, in spite of that, our figure of capital expenditure has amounted to over £7,750,000. That is a remarkably good record considering that at no time during that period did we anticipate the national recovery that has taken place. As regards future capital expenditure, it must be borne in mind that these Estimates cannot in the nature of things reflect the expenditure which may or may not be incurred in the next 12 months. All proposals for such expenditure which may be put forward, and which may be necessary, will be sympathetically considered, particularly those that further the policy of reorganisation.
      The Committee will appreciate that it is difficult, in developing our scheme of reorganisation, to continue at all times the same rate of progress as we have made in the past, because those areas which lend themselves most easily to reorganisation should make the most headway, but we are now coming to be left with the more difficult cases. We are approaching, as it were, the hard core of the problem. For instance, take the very difficult position of the voluntary schools, a difficulty constantly, consistently and conveniently ignored by the Board's critics. In March, 1933, in the council schools only 32 per cent. of the pupils were still in unreorganised departments. The corresponding figure in the voluntary schools was 58 per cent. That shows that the problem is becoming more and more a voluntary school problem. But it is also a rural problem, both as regards non-provided and provided schools. It is a rural problem because in the country areas it is naturally difficult to get suitable accommodation in many cases for central schools, and there are also the geographical difficulties of disstance and transport. I note, in passing, that in the Liberal party's recent and stirring "Address to the Nation" it is laid down that the next step in the development of the education system should be to carry forward the reorganisation programme based upon the Hadow Report. It is always agreeable, and indeed

      191
      reassuring, to be advised to take a step which you have already taken, and the Committee will be gratified and relieved to know that the Government are doing and have been doing in the past precisely what the Liberal party recommend should be done in the future.
      Now I will say a word on three or four subjects before I come to one that I shall have to deal with at greater length. With regard to the black-list schools, we are proceeding with their removal from the list. Last year we removed 114, and plans have been approved for the removal of 163 more. To a considerable extent this is a voluntary school problem, because of the capital expenditure involved in the removal of these schools. It is also a problem of the congested urban areas and of the practical impossibility of improving schools because of the great difficulty of getting appropriate sites. The fact remains that in December last two-thirds of the worst of these schools had been removed from the black list.
      As regards large classes, there is the point of view which I heard the other day of a child who was looking through the railings of a London school playground and, when asked by a kind-hearted soul why he did not go inside, replied: "Too many teachers." On the other hand, the point of view with which I am chiefly concerned is naturally that of the teachers. It sounds a platitude, but one of the greatest benefits that we could achieve would be to ensure that all teachers are asked to manage classes of manageable proportions. There has been a considerable fall in the school population, which will help in that direction.
      We are making progress in the reduction of classes throughout the country. At present the average number of pupils to teachers in elementary schools is 29. I believe that involves a proportion of teachers to children higher than any that we have had hitherto. We have recently made a special investigation in the areas of those authorities where unduly large classes were known or suspected and, as a result, we have been able to make improvements in two-thirds of the cases, and in the area of another 100 authorities we have also carried out striking improvements in that direction. The Committee are aware that we are reducing the number of teachers this year consequent upon the fall in the school population,
      192
      but I can assure them that the reduction which will take place will certainly not be proportionate to the reduction in the number of children. The Committee will also realise that large classes are in many cases due to unsuitable accommodation, and that is the case very often of the voluntary school where it is not possible to provide additional accommodation for the children. At the same time, we are making progress. It is not likely to be sensational, but we are gradually ameliorating the position step by step.
      Part of the demand for smaller classes arises naturally from a desire to employ more teachers. Last year when I spoke on these Estimates I admitted that my Noble Friend and I were very anxious with regard to the position of the large number of students coming out from the training colleges that summer, and I am glad to say that the position of those students is very much better than was anticipated. The number who completed their training last July was about 8,600, compared with an average of preceding years of about 7,500. By December last all but some 1,400 had obtained posts, and, from the notifications of employment which we have received from time to time since, that number has been reduced to about 800. Nobody wants to see a single competent teacher out of a job, but, even if it be assumed that all the 800 are still seeking employment—and it is not a just assumption, as it very often happens that a teacher just coming out of college is not prepared to accept the first job that offers, but waits for something more suitable—the position is much more reassuring than was at one time anticipated.
      Mr. COVE: Those are the figures for last year.
      Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Yes. This summer the output of the training colleges will be 1,000 less than in 1933. I think that, as the result of the prudence which we have exercised, we shall find that the unemployment position among the teachers is certainly not serious. We are also steadily endeavouring to obtain an improvement in the quality of staff and are increasing the proportion of certificated teachers to the number of teachers of other grades.
      I now come to a subject which I know to be dear to the hearts of all parties— the question of the physical condition of

      193
      the children in our schools. I am well aware that there is an impression in many quarters that the physical condition of the children is deteriorating in consequence of prolonged economic distress. For instance, an hon. Member opposite a short while ago stated in this House that:
      "We are hearing almost every day statements of medical officers of health up and down the country that the health of the children is declining, mainly in families where unemployment is rife."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd April, 1934: col. 1414, Vol. 288.]
      A statement of that kind should be received with considerable caution unless supported by the clearest of evidence. The reports which I have received from up and down the country certainly do not confirm it. I cannot quote all these reports, and I know that if I quote any particular one I shall be told that I am selecting it for my own purposes, but I must draw the attention of the Committee to the report of the school medical officer for the North Riding of Yorkshire dated February, 1934. The area in question is partly agricultural and partly industrial, containing as it does towns like Thornaby and Eston near Middlesbrough which have suffered a great deal from industrial distress. According to this report, out of 13,000 children medically examined, there were only seven really bad cases, and the number of those children pronounced subnormally nourished declined from 6.64 per 1,000 in 1930 to 3.97 in 1933. The school medical officer writes:
      "Malnutrition, the sequence of absolute lack of food, was not established. On the other hand, and as so often reported, the real cause appeared to be improper feeding, there was a sufficiency of food of a kind, but of the wrong type; there is also the malnourished child from the home of the well-to-do, a condition often associated with physical ill-health."
      He goes on to quote a report from the school medical inspector for Thornaby and Eston, who writes:
      "There has been great depression throughout my area. About 60 per cent. of the men are unemployed, but an amazingly high standard of nutrition is maintained. The few that are under-fed do not suffer from lack of quantity but of quality of food, and this is not because of poverty."
      I am not quoting that area as typical of the whole country. It clearly is not, for the percentage of malnutrition is not so
      194
      low in the country as a whole. I quote it for this reason. It is apparently not generally realised that malnutrition may and obviously does occur in certain cases, not on account of poverty, but on account of unsuitable feeding or organic defects and delicacy. For example, from a recent investigation which was carried out, it was found to be comparatively rare for the brothers and sisters of a malnourished child to show any signs of mal-nourishment.
      As regards the country as a whole, the figures of malnutrition show very little change from last year. In 1931 the number per 1,000 was 11.2, in 1932 it was 10.7 and in 1933 it was 11.1. There is just over 1 per cent. of the children coming within that category and it would certainly be unreasonable to draw any inference from the fractional increase in 1933 as compared with 1932, but, nevertheless, 10 per thousand are 10 too many. Increasing and energetic steps are being taken to combat this evil. The principal factor in the fight to check malnutrition so far as the Board of Education are concerned is obviously the provision of meals by local education authorities. This year 190 out of 316 authorities have exercised the powers under the school feeding Sections of the Education Act, and it is expected that 10 more are shortly to adopt those powers. Those authorities cover about 70 per cent. of the school population of England and Wales, and, as they are almost entirely authorities in industrial areas, somewhere between 90 and 100 per cent. of the children in industrial areas are covered by authorities which exercise those powers. The others are mainly in rural areas, in seaside towns, or small country towns where our experience goes to show that the problem of malnutrition is of small or negligible proportions.
      The Board has not allowed the financial stringency of the time to impede the desires of local authorities to spend money on the provision of meals, on which they pay the grant at the rate of 50 per cent. In 1928 the net expenditure of the authorities on this service was £227,000; last year it was £560,000. In 1928 the number of authorities exercising their powers in this matter was 145; last year it was 190; and this number is to be increased by about 10 more. In February of this year the authorities were feeding

      195
      about 292,000 children either with ordinary meals or milk and about 212,000 of these were being fed free of charge. The point of these figures is that, although only 1 per cent. of the public elementary school children are reported to be suffering from definite malnutrition, free meals and milk are being provided for over 4 per cent. In addition, there are about 900,000 children receiving one-third of a pint of milk daily for the payment of one penny under voluntary schemes organised by the National Milk Publicity Council.
      It has been represented to me that all local education authorities should be urged to provide free dinners for the children of the poorer classes. In view of the large expense which such a proposal would involve, I do not think it could be justified unless it were clearly established that the existing permissive arrangements are inadequate. I do not think that is the case. It is the function of local education authorities not to relieve poverty but to ensure that the children coming to school are not prevented by lack of food from getting the full benefit of the education provided. To say that all poor children, irrespective of their physical condition, should be fed at the expense of educational funds is to imply that the resources available for the relief of poverty and distress in other directions are insufficient. I cannot accept that suggestion. The principle is that expenditure on the provision of meals out of educational funds should be related to the educational capacity of the children and should be based on a selection by school medical officers of the children, supplemented by reports from their teachers. Such selection should include not only children definitely malnourished but children who also show any symptoms of sub-normal nutrition.
      To make the provision of meals universal for all poor children would contradict that principle and would impose on local education authorities the duty of supplementing out of educational funds the assistance given from other sources for the relief of economic distress. In any event, the experience of some of the most distressed areas shows that it is possible to keep malnutrition in check by providing dinners or even milk only
      196
      under a system of medical selection, which would include all children suffering from subnormal nutrition but not those children who, though poor, are able to take advantage of the education offered to them. I hope the Committee will forgive me for the time I have spent on this exceptionally important matter which I can assure them is one which is constantly engaging the attention of my Noble Friend and myself.
      I have seen from time to time in the educational Press suggestions that the Board is placing an embargo on various services for improving the physical condition of the children. Let me say at once that no embargo has or is being placed on the school medical service. Last year we approved 17 proposals for new clinics and 124 forms of inspection and treatment, including the appointment of additional medical officers, dentists or specialists, school nurses, the equipment of clinics and many other forms of expenditure, and this year we have allowed in the Estimates for an increase in the cost of the school medical service.
      I come to secondary education. The Committee will be glad to know that the numbers in our secondary schools are steadily rising. In October there were 8,000 more in our secondary schools than in the previous year, and the fact that there were no less than 1,100 new admissions is remarkable because in June, 1933, there were 80,000 fewer children between the ages of 10 and 12 in our elementary schools than in 1932. The remainder of the increase is accounted for mainly by a sensible tendency on the part of the children to remain at school unless there is suitable employment available for them.
      Let me say one word about Circular 1421, of which no doubt the Committee has heard. That circular substituted special places for free places. Children who win special places are now admitted free or their parents pay either a part or the whole of the fee according to their means. There are two points to be considered now that we are able for the first time to see the effect of that policy. In the first place, although there has been a decrease of 80,000 in the number of children between the ages of 10 and 12 between June, 1932, and June, 1933, and although there has been an increase in

      197
      the average rate of fees charged, yet over 1,100 more children have been admitted to our secondary schools. The second point is that the percentage of pupils paying no fees has decreased from 51 to 49 but the percentage of those who are paying full fees has also declined from 48 to 42. And whereas 51 per cent. were admitted free in 1932, 58 per cent. in 1933 were paying either no fee or partial fee. I recollect that there were some very gloomy forecasts made both in and outside the House when Circular 1421 first saw the light of day. False prophets are treated much more tenderly to-day than in times gone by, and I will only say to hon. Members opposite in the words of the late Lord Balfour:
      "They prophesied and they were subject to the weakness of all prophets; the event contradicted them."
      A word as to technical education. The Board is pursuing its policy of endeavouring to secure co-operation between neighbouring authorities in important industrial areas. The Yorkshire Council for Further Education has now been established for several years and has carried out a successful policy of regional coordination in its area. The Union of Lancashire and Cheshire Institutes is adopting a similar policy, but there are other large industrial and commercial districts where co-ordination of this kind is desirable. For instance, there is the West Midlands, the great industrial area between Coventry and Wolverhampton. In that area the Board has been engaged with the local education authorities in formulating a scheme for the co-ordination of technical education. There is also the area in South Wales, in which the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) knows I have taken a personal interest. Progress there is much slower than I could have hoped, and perhaps hon. Members who represent constituencies in that area might help me and reinforce my inadequate powers of per suasion. Regional co-ordination does not only apply to technical education but also to art instruction in its relation to industries which depend on design and fine craftsmanship, such as textiles, pottery, glass and so on.
      The Board has had the advantage of a series of conferences with the Industrial Art Committee of the Federation of British Industries, and one of the matters discussed has been the regional co-ordination
      198
      of art instruction. We hope to set on foot a policy of voluntary co-operation on a regional basis on the lines that art classes and art schools are allocated for the several areas with a central art college for the region as a whole. The response to our proposal has been encouraging, and I hope that in the next 12 months we shall make considerable progress in achieving our aim. Last year and during the present year we have approved a number of important new proposals for building or re-housing technical colleges; for instance, new buildings at Coventry and Dudley, a new technical college in Middlesex and an extension of a technical institution at Willesden. There is also an important proposal for a new technical college at Barking, to serve not only the needs of the older urban districts but of the new towns springing up on the north bank of the Thames, including important industrial concerns like the Ford motor works at Dagenham.
      I have kept the Committee at great length, but before I finish I would like to say a word or two about constructive policy for the future. I regard the corner-stone of elementary education as the policy of reorganisation of our schools on the lines of the Hadow report. It is the Board's intention to press on with this policy as rapidly as financial circumstances permit. I believe that the reorganisation of elementary schools on the lines of the Hadow report to be the greatest educational advance that this or any other country has made in the last 20 years. What I say is not based on theory, but on experience and practice, as far as we can obtain it.
      All the reports from the Board's intelligence service, the inspectors, confirm the great advantages gained by children in reorganised schools. Every type of child, whether clever or backward, is found to benefit in the senior schools. Clever children do not mark time; the school is no longer a waiting-room in which they kick their heels until the longed-for day of release. They are grouped in appropriate age groups and are taken forward to more advanced work. But perhaps most profit is gained by the children who find it somewhat difficult to learn from books. They are children who have plenty of intelligence but not much literary skill. They belong to what we

      199
      might call the non-academic class of child. These children in the reorganised schools are sorted out into their appropriate groups or streams, and it is much more feasible to offer them a range of work selected and simplified according to their needs, and to distribute them so that they can get greater individual attention than they could get when they formed, as they did in unreorganised schools, a small section in a class much of whose work was beyond their understanding and outside their interest. The so-called dull and backward children need no longer remain at the bottom of the school in the lower classes. They are gradually taken up in their appropriate group and are given a curriculum suitable to them. They get instruction which is really interesting to them. The traditional subjects are often uncongenial to them, and if instruction is to have a vital interest it must be and is made more realistic.
      Practical instruction is a feature of the reorganised school and every type of child gets the advantage of it. The result is apparent in the first-rate work which is being produced, and undoubtedly it will have a very great influence on the craftsmanship of this country in the future. It is not only in the senior schools that the good effect of reorganisation is felt. It has an influence on the junior and infant schools. They can now be treated as separate institutions, and the separation from the seniors makes the younger children a more distinct and therefore an easier educational problem for their teachers. The younger children are no longer hampered by the presence of dull and backward scholars who are out of place in a curriculum and environment planned for their juniors. In their last year in the junior school the children gain at an early age valuable lessons in responsibility and leadership, and when they take their place in the senior school they get the salutary lesson of having to find their proper place again at the bottom of the school.
      The practical work in the junior schools is most encounaging. There is nothing forced about it. The children like it, though I did hear of one small boy who was heard to remark the other day "Oh, 'ow I 'ate my 'obby." But he was the exception that proves the rule. There
      200
      again the conditions of teaching are very much better under the new regime. I know that the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) will bear me out when I say that there is a vast difference between teaching a class of the same age group and teaching a class composed of children of four or five different age groups. After all, in the matter of reorganisation we have to remember that the primary condition of success is bound to be the teaching. I regard the headmastership of any of these senior schools as one of the most important jobs, if not the most important job, in the whole of the teaching profession.
      Let me refer to another point. According to our inspectors, when it is possible to make a comparison between adjacent areas similar in general economic and social conditions, but differing in the progress made with reorganisation, it is found that there is an unmistakable superiority in the intellectual attainments of children in the reorganised areas over the children who are still in unreorganised schools. A striking example of the success of reorganisation is provided by the Union of Lancashire and Cheshire Institutes, the body concerned with technical education in those and neighbouring counties. According to their recent report they have been led to reorganise their preliminary courses in order to make them more suited to the better prepared students now coming forward from the senior schools and to bring them into closer connection with the senior technical courses.
      At the same time there is always the question of finance to be considered, and progress towards our goal must be slower than many of us would like. The policy of reorganisation was introduced by my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), and it is a policy which is being carried out by my Noble Friend the President of the Board. In some ways perhaps one might liken him to Moses on the Mountain of Nebo. He sees the Promised Land before him, but, unlike Moses, I hope we shall be able to enter it with him.
      In the secondary schools we are trying to introduce greater freedom in developing a variety of courses and to enable the schools to be less subject to what has been called the tyranny of matriculation, so that we may avoid a curriculum which

      201
      might otherwise become too academic. Changes of this kind are not easy to bring about because there are always certain vested interests, but I believe that a sounder public opinion is being built up on the subject. Nowhere can public opinion assert itself more effectively than amongst the employers of labour. In that connection we are trying to get, and are gradually succeeding in getting, a much closer liaison between industry and commerce on the one hand, and the educational system on the other. We are trying to induce employers to interest themselves far more than hitherto in the educational system and to familiarise themselves with what we are doing and in the products we are producing, in the hope that they will recruit their staffs a good deal more scientifically and carefully than they have done in the past. We also hope that the sympathy of employers will be stimulated so that they will allow their young employés far greater facilities for part-time education in the day-time, instead of leaving those employés to get their further education in evening classes after a long day in the shop or factory.
      I have tried to portray, and I hope that I have succeeded in showing the Board as being active in well doing. I have given, I am afraid at great length, a progress report, but, even so, I have had to omit a great many topics upon which I should like to have touched— for instance, selection of children at 11 plus for admission to secondary schools, the problem of the first school certificates, the influence of the cinema and the wireless in teaching, and many other matters. In some ways my survey has had to resemble the annual report of the chairman of a public company to his shareholders, but with this difference, that they look for cash profits and dividends, whereas most of us will have departed long before any estimate can be formed of the real success of our measures. At the same time, we are confident that the best investment this nation can make lies in the education and training of its children. But it is a long-term investment, and progress cannot, in the nature of things, be sensational or spectacular; indeed, for many reasons it had better not be, lest we had to retrace our steps or build houses of cards only to kuock them down. I said in the Estimates Debate last year that I hoped I
      202
      would show the Committee that we had kept intact the fabric of education. This year I have tried to show the Committee, and I hope that they will gather from what I have said, that we have done a great deal more, and that we have enhanced and enlarged it.
      Mr. MORGAN JONES: May I ask one question? I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman could not touch upon certain subjects, but I would like information upon one subject. I understand that the Board have recently arrived at some arrangement whereby they make an additional grant to denominational colleges in future. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether that is so, and, if so, what is the amount of the financial commitment, and whether there is a change in the proportion of students not attached to any denomination who may enter denominational colleges?
      Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I should like an opportunity to verify the information which, I think, I have on that subject. The position of the denominational colleges, as a result of the restrictions we had to make in the number of entrants into training colleges, was different from that of the local authorities, and the denominational colleges were definitely very considerable losers by our restriction. In order to get them out of this difficulty—I am speaking now from memory—we have, for this year only, given them a grant to help them out. If I gave the hon. Member an exact figure I should be wrong, and I will give it to him when I reply.
      4.4 p.m.
      Mr. COVE: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
      Last year, on a similar occasion to this, it was my pleasant duty to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his most excellent statement in regard to the Estimates. This afternoon I can unreservedly reiterate my congratulations. I have listened for 10 or 11 years to Estimates being expounded from that Box, and I have felt that no Minister of the Crown has been so successful in expounding his Estimates as the present Parliamentary Secretary has been. But part of his cleverness is that he has taken us away from realities. He has painted a beautiful picture, and we have been extremely interested in his literary

      203
      allusions, and have entered into his classic jokes, but the tendency has been to obscure the reality of the policy the Government are pursuing, which reality is unadulterated reaction in the field of education. I am not asking the Committee this afternoon to take ray word for that statement. It might be contended that I was making an ex parte statement, that I was biased because I happen to speak from the Labour benches, or because I happen to have been, for my sins, at one time a teacher in an elementary school. I am not this afternoon going to ask the Committee to accept my word, but, if the Committee will allow me, I am going to ask them to accept the word of a body whose opinion, I believe, cannot be disputed—an impartial body, a body which has no political affiliation, a body which has wider administrative experience of education than any other body in this country. I refer to the body which is known as the Association of Education Committees, a body which, in its national organisation, represents the local education authorities up and down this country.
      The hon. Gentleman gave a beautiful picture of progress, though he was very careful to emphasise that he had no story of sensational progress to put before the Committee, but the Association, which is impartial, non-political, with experience, as I have said before, of educational administration unmatched, says the complete opposite of almost everything the Parliamentary Secretary has said this afternoon. A short while ago—in December—an official deputation of that body approached the President of the Board of Education, the Parliamentary Secretary and the permanent officials of the board, and brought to the notice of the board the circular which was issued during the crisis of 1931. The hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. Leckie) was among the deputation, and he will be able to recall it. This body went before the Minister and reminded him that the Circular governing the administration of education in this country, imposing drastic economies on account of the crisis in 1931 in every phase of educational activity, was still in operation, and was still the policy of His Majesty's Government. An hon. Member opposite is pleased, but it does not bear out the
      204
      statement of the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon. Let us see what that Circular says, because I want to get the voice of the education authorities to this House, it I may. The spokesman of the deputation said:
      "I address myself first to the resolution adopted by the Annual General Meeting of the Association in June last."
      What was that resolution?
      "That the time has now arrived when the embargo of the Board of Education on the provision and improvement of school buildings should be lifted."
      Then the spokesman went on to say:
      "It has been suggested that no embargo in fact exists."
      That is what the Parliamentary Secretary has suggested this afternoon. The Committee has been led to believe that really there is no embargo, that the situation is being met in a very reasonable and progressive manner, although not in a sensationally progressive manner— still, the needs of the time are being met. But what does this spokesman of the education committees say—not a Labour politician, but a person representing the collective opinion of the most experienced men in this country in education administration, and men, moreover, who not only have education at heart, but who represent the ratepayers. This spokesman, representing this body of opinion, says:
      "We are unable to accept that view."
      There you have, in a statement of the spokesman of the education authorities, a fiat denial, a complete refutation of the assertion that no embargo has existed. They go into further details, and I hope that I shall be allowed to mention them, but first let me read the paragraph of the circular issued during the crisis:
      "As regards new developments (including the provision of additional teachers) the financial provision to be made by Parliament will, it is hoped, suffice to cover grants in respect of

      (a) new projects to which the authorities are already contractually committed, but which have not yet fully matured;

      (b) any essential new need, e.g., of new housing estates;

      (c) urgent repairs and treatment of the worst "black list" schools.

      Paragraph 12 of the same memorandum-lays it down that any new developments in any sphere of education with which local authorities are anxious to proceed will be

      205
      judged on their merits, and in particular in the light of the probable extent of the annual additional charges involved. Generally speaking, however, it will only be possible to consider additional annual charges in such cases in so far as they are covered by countervailing economies."
      Before there can be expenditure on one branch of the service, there must be countervailing economies on another branch of the service. I want categorically to ask the Parliamentary Secretary who, I hope, will reply further to this Debate: Has the circular issued during the crisis in September, 1931, imposing restrictions upon developments in the education service, been scrapped? There can be no reversal of policy without that circular being scrapped, and, as a matter of fact, the fine words of the Parliamentary. Secretary butter no parsnips in this respect. He may come down here and give us a very excellent speech, but the reality would be the scrapping of the economy circular. Can he get up and say definitely that there is no embargo? Can he get up and say definitely that the policy of the crisis has gone, that with the revival of trade—and he found great pleasure in it this afternoon—with the returning prosperity, there has also been a return of real progress in the educational world? Can he say that definitely and categorically? Let me go further. I am relying on this document this afternoon, and I want to read it because it is authoritative. Says the spokesman of the authorities:
      "I have made careful inquiry as to the extent to which the judgment of local authorities of the needs of their areas for new schools is being set aside, and I am startled by the volume of the response."
      Here is a local authority charged by Parliament with responsibility for meeting the educational needs of an area. They go to the Board and say, "We have a number of children for whom we are not at present able to provide and we want this or that new development." They ask for permission to proceed and we are told by the spokesman of the education authority that he has been startled by the number of occasions on which such requests have been turned down by the Board. Is not that more important for us to realise, than what was contained in the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon?
      "Examining the replies very carefully"—
      206
      the statement continues—
      "to find some thread of principle running through the policy of the Board, I find that in general all new proposals for the amelioration of the conditions of very young children, of ailing children, of defective children and, in general, all proposals for the extension of the provision of the playing fields are rejected by the Board. Approval is not generally given to the provision of nursery schools, of open-air schools, of playing fields or of schools for defective children."
      The whole category of educational activities—stultified and starved by the present Administration! That list, as a matter of fact, practically covers the whole of the activities in the educational world. I do not want to exaggerate, but I say frankly that I did not realise the extent of the stark reaction that is being pursued by the Board until I studied the statements by the education authorities. I do not think that any hon. Member here would say that those statements are not true. Is there any hon. Member who will say that a body of responsible persons, representing Conservatives and Liberals I should imagine, and people who have no political colour at all, per-sons with the greatest experience in educational administration—that this competent body is making false statements? It is clear from the evidence submitted by them that the embargo on educational activities still exists, that finance dominates the policy of the Board, and that, in the educational realm, the crisis of 1931 is still upon the children of this country, who are being denied that educational opportunity which any civilised country ought to give them. The statement goes on to contrast the policy of the Board of Education with that of the Ministry of Health. I am not going into that question in detail, but I will read the final statement. It was addressed to the President of the Board himself, and it was as follows:
      "We ask your Lordship to consider that this policy is not in accord with its immediately past policies: that hurt is being done in the denial of the educational needs of the children of the country; that the children to whom you are by your policy denying the benefits of the schemes of reorganisation enjoyed by others are losing those benefits for all time"—
      Then follows a tremendously strong statement, and I hope the Committee will realise how strong a statement it is for these people to make. I have been

      207
      criticised by many of them for making too strong statements and for taking up an attitude which they regarded as extreme. They have criticised me in their journal more than once, but this is what they say themselves in continuation of the statement which I have already quoted;
      "—that by your policy you are denying health and physical betterment to large numbers of children sorely in need."
      Could there be a stronger or more serious statement than that? The Parliamentary Secretary treated sympathetically—in words—the question of the feeding and health of children. Here is a representative of the education authorities saying that you are denying health and physical betterment to large numbers of children who are sorely in need. They proceed:
      "We beg that you will take immediate and vigorous steps for the revivification of a department whose charge and concern should be primarily for the children who cannot speak for themselves."
      At the end of the report I find this:
      "Lord Irwin replied to the deputation. The discussion on the above statement was, by agreement, regarded as confidential."
      I have not anything to complain of in that and it may have been regarded as confidential there but the House of Commons has a right to know what was the policy enunciated, even at that discussion and the country has a right to know. It is wrong that the Minister's reply should be regarded as confidential. It is a matter of high public policy. It involves millions of children. It involves the whole educational outlook and future physical well-being of those children. The House of Commons has no right to allow that to pass as confidential in the board room at Whitehall. It is a matter of the greatest public importance and if we cannot have a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary to-day I am going to suggest to my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Opposition Bench, that the position in the field of education is serious enough for us to have these Estimates brought up again for discussion. I have discovered that the short time at our disposal to-day is not sufficient to deal with such a serious situation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] It is not my fault that this Debate has to end at half-past seven o'clock and, as I have been asked to speak on behalf of my party, I am going to try to put forward their point of view as strongly as I can. I ask the Parliamentary
      208
      Secretary to give us definite facts —to tell us categorically that the policy enunciated during the crisis is no longer the policy of the Government, that the policy of the starvation of the mental and physical needs of the children is no longer the policy of the Government. It has been suggested that there is no embargo such as I have indicated. I quote this from the official organ of the education authorities dated 2nd February:
      "A borough authority a few days ago submitted a scheme for the building of a school peculiarly necessary to meet the needs of the area. A curt—not discourteous—communication was received that the Board were unable even to consider it."
      The local education authorities ask: "Is this embargo?" They point out that:
      "the general policy of the Board stated explicitly in Circular 1431 is that no new schools shall be built in any area other than a newly developed housing area unless the cost can be met out of countervailing economies."
      They ask is that an embargo on development or not? Of course it is an embargo on development. The Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon prided himself on the wiping out of black-listed schools. Last year in these Debates I read some descriptions of schools which I was ashamed to read. Any hon. Member who cares to do so can look them up and I can supply many other eases of filthy and insanitary buildings. Teachers are supposed to teach the children in the classroom cleanliness and hygiene when the physical conditions in the school are filthy in the extreme. Many of these blacklisted schools still exist throughout the country. The Parliamentary Secretary prided himself on the fact that his Department was tackling the problem. Let us see what the education authorities say about that. It is not what I say. It does not matter what I say but it does matter what the education authorities say.
      Viscountess ASTOR: It depends on how long you take.
      Mr. COVE: The Noble Lady has to keep quiet for once. I am determined on that this afternoon. The education authorities' official organ says:
      "Even the black-list schools are to be preserved for the benefit of mankind. Proposals for the rehabilitation or reconstruction of the very schools which have come under the Board's condemnation have been disallowed."

      209
      The Board has condemned schools and that is a noble action in itself. No doubt the present Administration prides itself on the fact that it has condemned schools but the amazing thing is that we find on the authority of the education authorities' journal that even where they have condemned schools, permission to reconstruct has not been given. The local authorities say they have been prevented from dealing with black-list schools. They add:
      "The Minister of Health has initiated, developed and is carrying on a campaign for the abolition of slum housing. The policy of the Board of Education, for which Mr. Ramsbotham answers to the House of Commons, has for its immediate object the perpetuation of slum schools which his predecessors in office have condemned."
      They ask "why" and they go on to say:
      "Is the truth that while Mr. Ramsbotham asseverates and reasseverates his love of education and what it connotes, that this love is not shared by the Government he so faithfully serves?"
      I am not going through all these figures but an examination of the Memorandum on these Estimates is enough to disprove the statements made from that Box this afternoon. Perhaps I may be allowed to say a passing word of praise for the Labour Government against whom I voted so often. Anybody who takes up this Memorandum and examines it can see when the Labour Government was in office. One can see merely by the statistics when Sir Charles Trevelyan was President of the Board of Education with my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) as Parliamentary Secretary. I refer hon. Members to page 18. In 1930 proposals representing in round figures £13,000,000 were approved by the board. In 1931 the figure was £7,000,000; in 1932 it was £4,000,000 and in 1933, £2,500,000—drop after drop. Take the medical service. In 1930 it was £349,000; in 1931, £160,000; in 1932, £59,000.
      Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: Hear, hear!
      Mr. COVE: That cheers the heart of the hon. Member opposite. Diehards' hearts always beat high over economies on children. We go from £59,000 in 1932 down to £29,000 in 1933. During the whole period of the present Government, economy, lack of expenditure in every sphere of the education service, is shown. The hon. Gentleman talked about large
      210
      classes. I hope he has read the speech of the President of this Association to which I have referred. He will find there that you still have 400,000 children in classes of 50 and more. I believe I am not far wrong in saying that, though I am speaking from memory. At any rate, large classes still exist, and the Minister did not tell us this afternoon that as far as anyone can find out—and I do not think he will deny this—for the first time for ever so long there is going to be an increase in the number of children in large classes.
      Now let me turn to the physical side, and here I want to make a statement about which I want to be rather careful. Many of my hon. Friends and many people in the country are beginning not to put their full faith in some of the reports that have been issued in various parts of this country with regard to the malnutrition of children. I will not go further than this, but there is a feeling growing up, and many people are suspicious, that the examinations and reports are not as objective as they might be, that more opinion and feeling enter into them of a partisan character than is good. Everybody who is connected with the distressed areas knows that children are ill-fed and ill-nourished. What is happening in the Rhondda Valley?
      Viscountess ASTOR: I will tell the hon. Member what is happening there.
      Mr. COVE: All last winter the teachers, with other citizens, were engaged, week after week, in organising concerts and sales of work—with twopenny and threepenny tickets—spoiling the full advantage that the children ought to get, as a matter of fact, from the education service, in order to provide boots for the children to go to school. Everybody knows, or ought to know by now, what malnutrition is, though I have tried to find out what it is technically, and I find that the doctors themselves do not know. They do not accept any test universally. They do not agree. They do not know what it is, technically. It used to be thought that if a lad or a girl was growing big and fat, that was all right, but you can feed children up like you can fatten pigs, without the resiliency there. It all depends on the type of food you give. You can fatten without strengthening. Go down to Eton or Harrow, go to Winchester, go to Rugby, go to Marlborough, and see the

      211
      physique there, on their playing fields. Then let us bring children up from my constituency in the Avon valley, children of the unemployed, or let us bring the children of the Rhondda Valley up, and place them side by side on the playing fields of Eton and Harrow and compare their physique. That will show the amount of malnutrition that is taking place in the great distressed and derelict areas of this country. I am prepared to accept that test. I was looking through Paten's list of schools, with beautiful pictures of the playing fields. The fee for Harrow or for Eton is, what?
      Viscountess ASTOR: Oh!
      Mr. COVE: Keep quiet. I am going to have my say, and I will thank the Noble Lady to keep quiet. Look at those lists of fees—£200 a year, £180 a year, £150 a year, with pluses. To-day you are spending round about £12 per head to educate a child in an elementary school, and I say that the process of economy pursued by this Government is a class policy of the most rabid description. You cannot have equality of opportunity in a capitalist world of any kind, but the nearest approach you can get to it is by giving some equality of opportunity within your educational system. The educational system has been a greater contributor towards equality of opportunity than any other social service in this country. The Parliamentary Secretary is content with the reports that have been sent him about the physical condition of these children, I beg him this afternoon, in this House, not to be content with those reports. Some investigation must take place which will reassure this House and the conscience of this country that these children are not being ill-fed. We are not satisfied as it is now.
      Such an investigation took place in Newcastle the other day, with regard to children under five, it is true, but it was the sort of investigation that I suggest. An investigation was undertaken into the physical condition of poor children and of the children of the better-to-do, and what did they find? Nearly half the number of children in the poorer class were found to be below the standard height, compared with only 5 per cent. of the better class children. In weight, more than half of the children in the poorer class were below the standard, as
      212
      against 13 per cent. of the better class children. Only 2 per cent. of the poorer children were above the standard height, as compared with 25 per cent. of the better class children; and in weight only 11 per cent. of the poorer children were above the standard, compared with 48 per cent. of the better class children. With regard to anaemia, only 20 per cent. of the poorer children passed a test satisfactorily, and 23 per cent. were found to be definitely anaemic. I understand that that is not due to malnutrition either. According to the standard set, there was no anaemia among the better class children. A study of the histories of the children showed that 49 of the 125 poorer children had suffered from acute or chronic chest trouble, compared with only 5 of the 124 better class children. That calls for nursery schools.
      Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, hear!
      Mr. COVE: Not nursery schools out of the pocket of the Noble Lady. We freely admit that she has been interested in this question, and she wants to tell us all about it now, but I submit that the provision of nursery schools ought not to depend on the pocket of the Noble Lady.
      Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, hear!
      Mr. COVE: It ought to depend on the pocket of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is now clearly established —I think this investigation establishes it—that from the ages from 1 to 5 there is tremendous need for much better attention being paid to the physical needs and general well-being of children. One further point—and I am sure the Noble Lady will be pleased to hear that. I want to ask the Minister, What is the policy of the Board with regard to the raising of the school age by by-law? I had always assumed—and most innocent people like myself had assumed also— that if a local education authority wanted to raise the school age, made an investigation, and came with a request to the Board, the Board would say that the responsible local education authority had come to this conclusion and that therefore the request should be granted. But what do I find from an answer given by the Minister? He says:
      "Proposals for such by-laws have been submitted to the Board during the last two years by the local education authorities for Burnley and Huddersfield, but the Board were unable to approve them."

      213
      That is unsensational progress. He goes on:
      "The question has also been discussed, either formally or informally, between the Board and the local education authorities for Cheltenham, Colne, Lowestoft, and Northumberland, and has been deferred for further consideration."
      That is unsensational progress.
      "It is understood that the Gloucester City Local Education Authority are also considering the question."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1934; cols. 1547–8, Vol. 288.]
      Has the Board of Education come to a definite policy on this subject? Am I not right in inferring from that answer that the Board has decided that there shall be no raising of the school age by bylaw? Why the hesitancy? Why the turning down in the cases I have mentioned? Why the deferring of the question? One would have imagined, if the Board were of this mind, that where a local education authority had decided to raise the school age, that would have been quickly approved; and the only inference that we can draw—unless there is a denial from the Front Beach, which I very much hope will be forthcoming—is that the Board has now determined that the age shall not be raised by by-law. The policy of the Government in this respect, as I said in the discussions on the Unemployment Bill, is that they have now decided that there is to be no raising of the school age and that the policy of the Government is to be found, as the Minister has said, in the Unemployment Bill.
      I say again that that is class legislation within the field of education, throwing thousands and thousands of these lads into industry, out of work, and then junior instruction centres. There never was an occasion when it would have been better for the children or for this nation that the school-leaving age should be raised. We shall have in the next few years hundred of thousands of children more in the field of industry than we have had in the past few years. Unemployment is going to be rampant; now is the time therefore when we should raise the school age. From the benches opposite the idea has been put abroad that money spent on education is waste, that it is spending and not saving. There is no higher form of saving than the spending of money on the development of the
      214
      bodies and minds of the children of this country. It is capital development. We give too materialistic an interpretation of saving. What is saving under modern capitalist society? It is generally regarded as building up factories, adding to capital equipment for further production, bank balances and capital accumulations. Spending on these children is capital accumulation of the finest kind in which the country can invest, and the Government are rendering a great disservice to the children and are not meeting the needs of the modern situation if they still hark back to the policy enunciated in the crisis of 1931. I ask the House to agree with us and to see to it that the physical condition of the children is rectified and that they have a chance of the full education that they deserve.
      4.49 p.m.
      Sir PERCY HARRIS: We have just listened to an eloquent and moving speech from the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove). Everybody who knows him knows with what deep conviction he speaks and how much he feels about this vital problem. I would like to add my congratulations to the Parliamentary Secretary. I envy him his masterly handling of difficult figures and complex problems which he showed in his rapid survey of the whole problem of the education of the children. I do not think that any Minister is able to get so many words in so short a period as the hon. Gentleman. He seemed to be able to rush through the problem without an error or a mistake and without losing the thread of his argument. Whatever we may think of his opinion, it shows that he has his heart in his work, and that he thinks all day of his responsibility in is difficult jub.
      I wish that we had the annual report of the Board, which is usually a very remarkable document. It loses some of its value because it comes out rather late in the day, and particularly this year because it will come after the discussion of the Education Estimates. I pay a tribute to the value of the report when I say that it is a handicap to be without the valuable facts and figures which it contains. It may be that we are taking an earlier opportunity than usual to discuss the Estimates. It is also unfortunate that we should have only half

      215
      a day for this discussion. That is quite inadequate to the size of the problem and the number of hon. Members who wish to take part. I hope that both sections of the Opposition will co-operate to get the Government to give another half-day so that other Members may have an opportunity of expressing their views, because education is entitled to a full day's Debate once a year.
      We are not only without the annual report of the Board, but without the annual report of the Chief Medical Officer. After the remarks of the hon. Member for Aberavon, the Minister will agree that it is most important that the annual statement of the Medical Officer should be available when we come to our annual survey of education, because his work is an essential part of education in these days. In the last Debate we did not have the advantage of the report for 1932, which did not come out until November, 1933. It is always one of the most remarkable documents published by His Majesty's Stationery Office. I believe that when the history of public health in this country comes to be written. Sir George Newman will be shown to have contributed more to it than any one medical man or public officer in the country. His reports are comprehensive, fair, incisive, well written and have real literary merit, which is usually missing from most public documents. They are so clear that for the meanest intelligence it is difficult to avoid his point. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary steeps himself in the recommendations and the criticisms contained in that report.
      I wish specially to call attention to page 11 of the 1932 Report, because it contains a complete answer to the criticisms in the Ray Report about extravagance in the administration of public health by education authorities. Replying to the suggestion that because expenditure in some areas was so much less than in others there must necessarily be extravagance, Sir George Newman says:
      "Because an authority takes an unduly narrow view and makes inadequate arrangements, thus securing a low unit cost, it cannot be seriously suggested that other authorities should come down to the same ineffectual level. On the other hand, other factors sometimes operate in the production of a low unit cost such as the provision of treatment facilities by charitable
      216
      organisations at little or no cost to the authority. During the past year, the financial aspects of the service were meticulously examined in 14 representative areas by officers of the board, and their reports indicate that, with small exception, a reduction of expenditure could he effected only by a definite decrease of efficiency.
      "Finally one word should be said upon the second question, 'would an increased expenditure producing even better results than at present be a true national economy?' The answer from a medical (point of view must clearly be in the affirmative, though not necessarily in the affirmative for all branches of the school medical service. The dental work, for instance, is an example. There can be no doubt that a substantial increase in expenditure would not only result in sorely-needed extension of that service, at present little more than initiated in most educational areas, but it would be definitely economical in the sense of ensuring the ultimate value of the preliminary inspection and treatment of the teeth. To make a child's teeth sound at eight years of age and neglect them thereafter is not in the long run economical, but rather extravagant; to provide dental treatment effectually in area A and neglect to do so in area B is partial, inequitable and nationally ineffective; to fail to follow up the business in later school life or in adolescence is short-sighted."
      Are the Government in this matter shortsighted? Are they seeing that area B is brought up to the standard of area A? Are they effectively discharging their duty and meeting the criticism of their own medical officer and adviser at the Board? I rather hesitate to trespass on what my Noble Friend desires to say, but I think that Sir George Newman's report on nursery schools is most pertinent. There is no better friend of nursery schools and no one who in and out of season has more advised the Board of Education in the interests of real economy, which is the well-being of the State, to undertake a progressive policy in the organisation of nursery schools. I wonder how much the Board's own medical officer is listened to. He points out that there are at present 58 nursery schools recognised by the board, and says:
      "Owing to financial stringency the recognition of new nursery schools has been temporarily suspended, but the last school to receive recognition affords an excellent example of adaptation of existing premises to meet the needs of a small area."
      He states that there is a growing con-census of opinion that these particular schools are valuable, and adds:
      "The children coming from a nursery school into the infant department at five

      217
      years of age are physically better and are more amenable to ordinary discipline than the child who has remained in a poor home. Some 'emergency nursery centres' have been established in certain slum areas at Middlesbrough and elsewhere."
      There are two pages of the report giving facts and statements showing the advisability of pressing on without delay with nursery schools, but I will not read them; I will hand them to my Noble Friend who may desire to quote them. We understand that the bar of the national emergency is now removed. I think, therefore, that we have a right to command the Parliamentary Secretary, as representing the board, to outline the Board's policy towards nursery schools. The hon. Gentleman's very long speech seemed to cover everything, but he forgot even to mention one thing. Perhaps he meant to put it in his peroration. He forgot to mention the two words "nursery schools." In the light of the advice of his own accredited official, he is bound to give a lead to the country without waiting for local authorities to take action. He should stimulate them to make this most economical investment of public money in order to prevent evils arising in the life of the child because of early neglect in providing these most useful and well-proved institutions.
      On the question of elementary education, the hon. Gentleman was very complacent and satisfied. I am afraid that the best that can be said for the Board is that there has been two years of masterly inactivity. It has been a close time for circulars, at any rate. We have been spared them during these years, and that has been some consolation. Those monthly bombs which came from the Board and disturbed local authorities have ceased to be fired. We have to be thankful for small mercies. The fact is that the clock has been set so far back in the past year that it was not possible to put the hands any further back without bringing the machinery pretty well to a standstill. I understood from the peroration of the Minister that he agrees in principle that the time for inertia is past and the time for activity has arrived. The severe financial stringency which faced the country has passed, and the Government may take whatever credit is due to them for that fact. Now they can go to the local authorities and say: "There is a good time coming. Owing
      218
      to our sound financial policy there is money in the coffers. The country is no longer bankrupt. Therefore, go straight ahead with the good work of education and we will sympathetically consider your proposals."
      There is another reason, and perhaps a more practical reason, for a forward policy. There are new facts which the Board cannot ignore. The Minister passed over them lightly, indeed, he hardly referred to them. There is the fact that a very large number of children are pouring out of the schools and entering the labour market to compete for the available jobs and to be, I am afraid, contributory factors adding to the number of the unemployed. Compared with last year there will be this year an extra 200,000 children above the normal leaving the schools and entering industry. According to the estimates of the Board, there will be, roughly, during the next four years 800,000 children above the average leaving the schools and entering industry. The usual number is two and a quarter millions.
      That is a big problem. It may be that the conditions of industry will so improve and that there will be such a revival of trade—I hope there will be; I do not want to be a pessimist—that we shall be able to deal with the problem. Even if things are normal and do not become worse we shall have a very difficult problem before us to absorb the big army of two and a quarter million children entering industry when it is supplemented by an extra 800,000 children above the normal. The Board cannot shut its eyes to that problem. To his credit the Minister of Labour is facing up to it. He has realised the seriousness of the position and, rightly or wrongly, has made provision for it in the Unemployment Bill. These persons, however, are children and they are the Board's care. The Board is primarily responsible and they cannot shift the responsibility on to another Department. To the credit of the Minister of Labour he is prepared to shoulder the responsibility that the Board of Education has tried to avoid.
      There is another side to the picture, and that is why I would emphasise the necessity for a new alignment of policy on the part of the Board. While these children are pouring into the labour market they are pouring out of the

      219
      schools. There is a steady decline of the school population. From a statement made by the Minister, in answer to a question which I put last November, there were last year 5,640,000 children in the schools. By 1937 it is estimated that the number will have been reduced to 5,140,000 children. There will, therefore, be a falling off of 500,000 children in the schools. The Government must have a policy in regard to what is to be done with those vacant places. They cannot shirk it. The local authorities are entitled to a lead in the matter.
      I have a great opinion of the noble Lord who presides over the Board of Education. He is one of the great figures in the State. No one admires him more than I do. He fills a great post with ability and capacity. I was pleased when he took over the position of Minister of Education, but he cannot sit in Olympian silence and feel that he can get out of responsibility because he happens to be in another place. I wish he was here. The responsibility is with the Board. The country demands a lead and the local education authorities want to know how they are to deal with this new problem. The Board is a partner. It finds part of the money and has a right to say: "Are we to have smaller classes? Are we to maintain the same number of teachers for a smaller army of children in the schools, or, alternatively, are we to deal with them in another way?"
      The newly-elected London authority, to its credit, is very much conscious of the problem. They want the school-leaving age to be raised, and they want the Board of Education to deal with that question. It would be out of order for me to deal with that matter now. It is a very controversial subject. There are, however, bye-law making powers. The Act of 1921 anticipated a situation of this kind. Certain authorities have already exercised those powers. What is the Government's attitude to the authorities who desire to do that? A London conference has been summoned, and various local authorities in London have agreed to attend. They are going to discuss frankly and freely the alternative policy of raising the school age by bye-laws. What is the attitude of the Government to be? In greater London there is a very difficult and complex problem. It would be a fatal blunder to raise the school age in one
      220
      part of London and not to raise it in another part, to raise it, say, in Croydon and Hendon and not to raise it inside the county or, alternatively, to raise it inside the county and to fail to do so outside. The Board exists and is paid for the purpose of directing the policy of the country. If it is going to sit as a passenger, silent, indifferent, apathetic, without a policy, we might as well sweep the Board away and economise in that direction, and leave this work to the Treasury or some other financial authority. The Board is the Department of the Government which deals with education and it has a direct responsibility to deal with this problem.
      I agree with the Minister as to the immense progress that has been made in organisation. In London 88 per cent. of the schools have been reorganised and by next year 77 per cent. of the children will be in reorganised schools. That is a great triumph. In the Hadow Report, to which the Minister rightly paid a great tribute —he recognises that report as his guide, philosopher and friend; he is steeped in its philosophy—it is stated that there should be a four years' course to be effective. Will he accept the whole scheme as outlined so that when the reorganisation is complete children over 11 years of age shall be required, in order to make the new education effective, to stay at school for four years? He ought to give the country a lead. Let him say: "We are against raising the school age by by-law and we are going to stop any schemes of that sort," or let him say: "We will sympathetically receive any suggestions on those lines."
      I understand that West Riding and Lancashire authorities will meet next week. The Board have turned down Huddersfield. I do not think it is wise to take small areas. If you are to raise the school age by by-law it must be done by large areas, so that you will not have children coming from one area and taking the jobs in another area. That is what has brought about the breakdown of the county council's experiment.
      Sir ALFRED LAW: Have not the suggested by-laws to be submitted to a poll of the parents of the children, in accordance with the Education Act of 1921?
      Sir P. HARRIS: I do not think so. The only authority to which they have to be

      221
      referred is the Board of Education. There is nothing that requires that there shall be a ballot of the parents of the children concerned. If the organisation is to be effective, there must be, first, a four years' course. That point is made clear by the Hadow Report. In the second place, they insist upon the necessity of proper buildings. If the schools are to be suitable and to be effective for their purpose and if there is to be a new atmosphere, the buildings must come up to something near the standard required for secondary schools. The hon. Member for Aberavon was right on this point. During the last 12 months the Board has, time after time, turned down proposals for new buildings or for reconstruction. I am told that in Lancashire and Yorkshire time after time proposals for rebuilding schools have been turned down by the Board, although that is part of the essential provision for carrying out reorganisation.
      There is also the question of equipment to be considered. The Hadow Report constantly dwells upon the necessity of broadening the syllabus of education if it is to become acceptable to the children in the schools. Obviously, a world run by black-coated people would soon come to an end. Trade would stop, fields would go unploughed, and machinery would come to a standstill. If the extension of the school age is to be acceptable to the parents, the children must be brought more into contact with real life. There must be greater variety in the curriculum and the opportunities for manual and mechanical work should be brought up to the standard required in technical schools. But there again, unfortunately, the Board are at fault. No encouragement is given to local education authorities to bring these new schools up to the standard required in the report. The report suggested that there should be a parallel division of senior schools into, on the one hand, grammar schools to provide literary education, and, on the other hand, modern schools with modem equipment, modern machinery and all that is required to give a really effective practical education such as would enable children to enter a factory or workshop equipped as are children who enter the literary professions or commerce or trade. Last year I referred to a remarkable report
      222
      by four inspectors sent out by the Board of Education to study Continental methods. I think I can claim some credit for the journey of those four inspectors, because I have constantly pressed on previous Boards the necessity of studying Continental methods. Their report is most emphatic on the necessity of the development of technical education in this country if our young people are to be efficient for their work and our industry is to hold its own with industry in Continental countries. On page 47 they say:
      "To an English observer the equipment of Continental technical schools appears to be lavish. … This applies to the schools in Belgium, and especially to the trade schools. Even the smallest are provided with some machine tools, and the largest are as fully equipped with machines and precision instruments as a modern industrial firm."
      Then they make four practical proposals. First, they suggest an increase in the number of junior technical schools. The Parliamentary Secretary was apparently conscious of the importance of that problem, because he referred to it, but progress last year was comparatively slow. Secondly, they suggest a considerable increase in the number of junior vocational schools. Thirdly, they speak of the inadvisability of leaving the training to evening classes, and say how important it is to remedy a state of affairs under which the bulk of our children who receive such training acquire it after a hard day's work in factory or workshop, when they are too tired to take advantage of it. They insist on the necessity of proper opportunities for attending day continuation schools. Finally, and this is a practical point in reference to the new system of senior schools, they urge the proper equipment of senior elementary schools, saying:
      "In view of the fact that the great majority of skilled workers in our industries need intelligence, alertness and flexibility, rather than specialised skill, the manual instruction work undertaken in the senior elementary schools should be broadened in scope; it should include work with a considerable variety of materials, simple machinery should gradually be installed and team work should be encouraged"
      That all means money, find also a complete reorganisation of the character of these senior schools. I know from personal experience how those schools are handicapped by insufficiency of

      223
      materials, of equipment and of machines. I suggest to the Board that if they really mean business, if they really want to be worthy of their responsibility, they should outline a practical policy for making this reorganisation of schools not merely a figurative reorganisation but a real reorganisation, giving us a system of education suited to the needs of the country and comprising, before long, a four years' course. The Board exists, and I want the Board to function, and not any longer to be afraid of its shadow. The Board of Admiralty has a policy; the War Office has a policy. The Ministry of Labour has outlined a policy in its great Bill which, however we may disagree with it, at any rate was an attempt to deal with one of our economic problems. The Board of Trade has its policy. What is the policy of the Board of Education? If the Board is to be effective, if our education is to be on the right lines, the co-ordination of which the hon. Gentleman has spoken will not be enough. A real constructive policy is wanted, so that our education in the 20th century may be up to the standard and meet the needs and requirements of a 20th century population.
      5.21 p.m.
      Mr. GODFREY WILSON: I should like, in the first place, to join with those who have congratulated the Parliamentary Secretary on the admirable way in which he has presented these Estimates, but, unlike the speakers who have preceded me, I shall not go on to disagree with everything he has said. The two previous speakers have referred to elementary education, and I want to say something concerning higher education. I wish to bring before the Committee's attention the Regulations laid down by the Board of Education in relation to State scholarships in universities in England and Wales. Perhaps I may be allowed briefly to give some account of these State scholarships, showing how long they have been in existence and the object for which they were instituted. It was in 1920 that a grant was first made from the Treasury for State scholarships, in order to encourage the flow of pupils from grant-aided schools to the universities and, generally, to encourage individuals, who could not afford a university
      224
      education, to take it. The scholarships are restricted in value; the maximum payment for tuition fees is £50 a year, and the maintenance grant cannot exceed £80. The tenure of the scholarships is three years, though they may be extended to four.
      The Regulations laid down by the Board are many in number, but there are only three to which I wish to refer. The first is the educational test. Every candidate for one of these scholarships must have passed one of the examinations known as the higher certificate examinations conducted by the various universities in England and Wales. There are half-a-dozen or more of such examinations. The next test is the financial test, or, in other words, and to use an expression more familiar in this House, the means test. Every parent or guardian of a boy or girl who wishes to enter for one of these scholarships has to make a statutory declaration showing what his means are and stating how much he himself can afford to pay towards the boy's or girl's education at the university, and the scholarship, if awarded, varies in value in accordance with that declaration. The maximum value, as I have said, is £50 for fees and £80 for maintenance, but the actual value of the scholarship may be less if the parent is shown to be capable of providing something towards the cost.
      The third regulation to which I wish to draw attention, and to which I and many others in the House take particular exception, is that boys and girls, in order to be eligible for these State scholarships, must be pupils in full-time attendance at a secondary school recognised by the Board of Education for purposes of grant, or, in other words, grant-aided schools. They are schools which the Exchequer already subsidises in a very substantial manner for the education of boys and girls. I suppose everybody in the House will admit that the first two regulations, that dealing with the educational qualification and that imposing a means test, are reasonable—I think they will be accepted even by the Opposition who sit below the Gangway but as regards the third regulation I maintain that discrimination between grant-aided schools and any other schools in the country is entirely unjustified. These State scholarships are paid for by the taxpayer, and the field should be

      225
      open, and there should be no favour. The opportunity should be open to all who fulfil the first two conditions, the test of educational qualifications and the test of means. Any boy or girl in any school in the country who has satisfied those two tests should be allowed a perfectly free and open chance of getting one of those State scholarships. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO."] I hear an hon. Member of the Opposition say "No." I know why. He wants to force parents to send their children into grant-aided schools, and to do away with the whole tradition of our educational system. This is not a question of one law for the rich and another for the poor; the regulations as they are at present are one law for poor X and another law for poor y, and that is quite unjust.
      As a general rule, I am prepared to agree that there are probably more boys and girls in the grant-aided schools who are in financial need than there are in the other schools. The Committee should not think that I am speaking from the point of view of the great public schools such as Eton, Harrow and Winchester, where there are very complete and adequate endowments to help pupils, but I am speaking of schools where there are no such facilities. They are not grant-aided, and are struggling schools. They are excellent in their way, and I could mention a number of them. It is not fair actually to specify any schools that I have in mind, but they are among the so-called public schools. It is difficult to define a public school, but in those I have in mind the endowments are extremely slender. There may be excellent boys and girls there who have only a one-in-20 or one-in-30 chance of getting an exhibition —comparatively, a negligible chance. Those schools are not already a charge upon the State in respect of grant, and the boys and girls from them satisfy precisely the same educational tests as are demanded for State scholarships they also satisfy the test of being able to show financial need; yet the children are debarred from State scholarships. If I could prove that there was only one boy or girl in this country who was excluded from the benefit of education in a university on account of the regulations, that would prove the necessity for a change in the regulations.
      226
      But it is not a case of one; it is a case of very many.
      The crisis of 1931 affected a very large number of parents who would have been able, looking forward under normal conditions, to afford to send their boy or girl to a university without requiring a State scholarship, but that crisis changed the circumstances of many parents in such a way that they are not able to face the expenditure required, and yet they are debarred an equal opportunity under these regulations. All I ask is equality of opportunity. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) used that phrase in his speech. I have heard of parents who are faced with this alternative, whose children at the moment are at a school which is not grant-aided, that they cannot afford to send their children to a university and they have to ask themselves whether they should take their boy or girl away from the schools where they are being educated in order to make the children eligible for a State scholarship. The Board of Education points with pride to the academic successes which State scholars have succeeded in attaining. I think I am right in saying, speaking from memory, that 89 per cent., or perhaps a little greater, have succeeded in getting first or second-class in honour examinations in a university. That leaves a very ominous 10 per cent. who are only getting third class. After making allowance for failure for illness, or some other circumstance which does not depend upon the intellectual powers of the scholar or upon whether he has been lazy, there is still a large percentage of failures, which ought not to be the case. There are 20 or 25 of the 300 scholars who are elected now who fail and who ought never to be encouraged to go to a university. They have been chosen while perhaps 20 or 25 who were much better capable of benefiting from a university education than they have not been allowed to compete.
      The point that I want to impress upon hon. Members is that we are doing an injustice to boys or girls who have to earn their living on their academic record. It is a real unkindness to send boys and girls of that kind to the university and to let them come out with a third class. They

      227
      might have been much better employing their time learning something else than competing in the higher educational circles with those who can get first or second class. I do not know what percentage of scholars get first class, or second class, the latter is not of very great value in the educational world. I have been challenged to produce figures comparable with those to which the Board point sometimes in regard to scholarships. I have taken the trouble to get the records of my own college for a period of 10 years. I do not think my college differs very widely from others, but in those 10 years we had 131 scholars, and they took 217 honour examinations. Perhaps it is unnecessary for me to say that one may take more than one honour examination in the process of getting a degree. Out of those 217, there were 135 first-class. That is a very good record indeed; 62 per cent. of our scholars get first-class. I do not know how that compares with the State scholars of the Board of Education. The number in the second-class was 69, that is to say, 32 per cent., and only 13 were third-class. That is almost exactly 6 per cent. The percentage of third-class does not differ very widely from the percentage of third-class of State scholars, but the percentage of first-classes is better. A third-class may not be quite such an injury or be so disastrous to the ordinary boy or girl who comes up from a public school and who may not be dependent upon making a living afterwards in the educational world, as it is to one who comes up and, having get a State scholarship, only obtains a third-class.
      There is no discrimination between one school and another in any other form of assistance—and there are many of them. Local education authorities are able to make grants for suitable candidates to go to universities, and there are leaving exhibitions from schools, and scholarships at Oxford and Cambridge. The whole thing is open and free to all, and depends upon educational qualifications and, in nearly every case, upon need. It is open to everyone, and there is a fair field and no favour. Why should not the State scholarships be equally free? What would hon. Gentlemen opposite say if the colleges of Oxford and
      228
      Cambridge were to say, "We shall not allow people to be eligible for scholarships who come from grant-aided schools"? We could not stand against the uproar for five minutes. Everyone will agree that the way in which the scholarships at the Oxford and Cambridge Colleges are awarded is fair and free from favour.
      Mr. COVE: What would you say if the endowments were taken away from the public schools?
      Mr. WILSON: That goes a little outside, but I can answer the point in this way, the endowments of the public schools benefit and give help to boys and girls who need it. There is a needs test in every scholarship. I am not speaking for the great public schools which are heavily endowed, but for the small schools which have only very small endowments. Unfair discrimination exists between those schools and the grant-aided schools. The only attempt which has been made to justify the discrimination is that, if the field were widened, and boys from any school, subject to the fundamental conditions which I have mentioned, were eligible for a State scholarship, it would mean a large reduction in a number of State scholarships available for boys and girls in the grant-aided schools, or it would mean an increase in the national expenditure. I would not for one moment support anything which would now increase the Vote required for this purpose.
      Let us think for a moment; either I am correct in my statement that there is a considerable number of boys and girls who, owing to these regulations, are prevented from getting to the university and getting the benefit of the higher education, or the number is so small as not to affect the number of scholarships which would normally be given to boys and girls in grant-aided schools. If the number be large, so much the greater is the injustice against which I complain; if the number be small, so much the less will the number be of scholarships available for boys and girls in grant-aided schools be affected. I do not want to press the Board too much at this stage, but I would like to make this practical suggestion, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to accept it when

      229
      he replies. Let the Board test the actual facts over a year. Let the Board announce that they are prepared to consider applications from boys and girls in schools which are not grant-aided. Let the parents of the boys and girls send particulars of their children having passed the examination test and a statutory declaration as to their means, precisely as is required under the regulations now. Let the Board then say, having examined those statements: "We will let you have a chance with the others." That would show what the numbers are likely to be, and it would show what effect it would have on the number of scholarships available for the grant-aided schools. If, as I believe would be the case, it showed that there are a large number of deserving boys and girls who ought to have as great a consideration as those in grant-aided schools, let the Board say, "We will let you compete on the same terms as others."
      I am speaking for all universities, and the view which I am expressing has received the support of every University representative in this House except one. I have been in touch with other universities, apart from Oxford and Cambridge, and I have talked over the matter with their vice-chancellors. I have not met with a single vice-chancellor who does not agree with the point of view that I am putting. I have spoken with school masters at some of the larger schools, and I find that it is almost unanimously agreed that the regulations should be amended.
      5.44 p.m.
      Dr. G. MORRISON: I ask the indulgence of the Committee on venturing to raise my voice in this Chamber for the first time. I promise to be brief, and I can make that promise the more confidently as some of the subjects on which I should most have liked to speak would be excluded by the Rules of the House. I should like, first of all, to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the very interesting and able statement which he made. He interested me from the very beginning when he spoke of the reorganisation of the schools which has been in progress. He is justly proud of what has been done, and we must all rejoice that so much has been done in the time; but the hon. Gentleman knows as well as the rest of us that, so long as the
      230
      senior school course remains shorter than the four years which the Hadow Committee considered essential, so long must it remain a truncated and incomplete thing. I hope that before long we shall be able to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on its proper completion.
      I regret the delay in raising the school-leaving age, on general grounds. It was always, in my opinion, a sound policy; now it is an urgent need. I regret that delay also on the special ground that, until England does something in the matter, no money is forthcoming to enable Scotland to do anything. As to the question of allowing authorities to raise the age by by-law, no one can object to the Board's exercising its discretion if it finds that the local conditions are not suitable, but one would like to feel that no difficulties are being put in the way. Without going into details, one may say in general that difficulties of accommodation and difficulties of staffing are now much less than they would have been three years ago. One was glad to hear, during the Debates on the Unemployment Bill, that the interim solution, as I may call it. afforded by the junior instruction centres is not to be a bar to the raising of the age at some future date, one hopes before long. In the meantime, it is up to all of us who are concerned to make that second-best alternative as good as it can be made. Now, when the expected great and rapid expansion of those junior instruction centres is about to take place —in their first year some eight or 10 times as many young people will be accommodated in them as before—one hopes that a good standard of staffing, equipment and environment generally will be set up and maintained. It is of the utmost importance for many reasons that the prestige of these institutions should be high, and in that connection there is one point that I should like to mention. I understand that some education authorities are willing to lend the services of their medical officers for these centres, and I was glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that the Board is not likely to be niggardly in the matter, but will look with an indulgent eye on any such schemes. I mean, of course, medical service for those who are not insured under the National Health Insurance scheme.

      231
      The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has referred to the question of nursery schools. One of the most important discoveries made in the course of the medical inspection of schools has been that many of the defects which are discovered in the course of the medical inspection of schools are defects which could very easily have been remedied, and with much better results as regards after-life, if they had been found during the pre-school years. One hopes that the Board will give a lead and begin a forward policy in connection with this and some other matters. Reference has been made to recruitment for industry, and one welcomes the increase in the number of consultations between home and school on the one hand, and between school and industry and commerce on the other. There is one matter to which I should like to refer in that connection. Speaking as an old headmaster, I am afraid that in giving vocational guidance our methods of what I may call vocational testing have been somewhat rough and ready. I contrast them with something that I was able to see a year ago in an elementary school in Rome. That school, which was of the ordinary size, had attached to it a completely equipped psychological laboratory, intended to serve that school and three or four others. In charge of it were two ladies, trained psychologists, one with a medical degree, and it was interesting to see the large number of delicate, expensive and elaborate machines for all kinds of testing for response to stimuli and so on. While this was mainly for the benefit of those who were about to leave school, it was being done throughout the school course, and very accurate records were being kept. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the possibility of doing something in that direction a little more scientific than what we have been doing in the past.
      There is only one other matter that I should like to mention. As regards the size of classes, the latest figures that I have been able to get show that between 1931 and 1932 the number of classes with 50 pupils or over fell from 8,571 to 7,986. I think the hon. Gentleman mentioned a later figure, but I did not catch what it was. The numbers, however, are still appallingly large, and it must be
      232
      common knowledge that the modern enlightened methods, which make much use of individual work and practical work, pre-suppose smaller classes. I would express the hope that there may be further reduction, and that the process will be speeded up.
      5.54 p.m.
      Mr. WEST: I am sure the Committee would wish me to congratulate the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Dr. Morrison) on the thoughtful, interesting and instructive maiden speech which he has delivered. As I understand that there is still quite a number of would-be speakers, and the time at our disposal is but short, I do not intend to detain the Committee for long. It seems to be a custom, when these Estimates are introduced each year, for the Minister to mention the fact that practically two-thirds of our expenditure on education goes in teachers' salaries. I would not complain about that except that I think that it gives a wrong impression to the country generally. People seem to have the idea that teachers are extravagantly paid, but to-day there are still many thousands of women teachers who, even after the restoration of half the cut, are receiving less than £3 a week; there are thousands of men teachers 30 years of age, with eight or nine years' service, who are receiving less than £5 a week; and even in London, which is perhaps the highest paid area in Great Britain, the average salary for men teachers is very little above £5, and the maximum is still under £7 a week. When one considers that most teachers do not begin to earn until they are at least 21 years of age, and sometimes older, I think that very few Members of the House would consider that the salaries present paid to teachers are at all extravagant. In fact, they are in my opinion still a grossly underpaid class of public servants.
      Another point which the Minister stressed was that he had not received much evidence of malnutrition in this country. He seemed to think that one had to go to distressed areas to find such evidence, and that even there it was lacking. I do not think he need go so far as that. If he would go only a mile or two from this House, to the Royal Borough of Kensington, he would get plenty of evidence if he sought for it at

      233
      all. He would find, in the northern division of the borough, an infantile mortality of 120 per 1,000, and, in one ward, of 140, or twice that of Poplar. He would find a disease rate in children double the disease rate in the southern part of the borough, and he would find, if he would investigate in conjunction with the medical officer of health, an abnormal number of cases of malnutrition. I suggest that, if the Minister would take a trip to Kensington, he would discover that evidence which at present he finds lacking in his journeys up and down the country.
      We are frequently told that the country is weathering the storm, that we are out of the crisis, and we see evidence in the financial journals of the increased stability and wealth of the country. If that were really true, this ought to be a year, not only of rejoicing from the benches opposite, but of pronounced development from an educational point of view. It ought to be a year of abnormal expenditure on education. But that has not been the case. The Minister himself admits that in the last two years there have been economies amounting to nearly £7,000,000 a year. With regard to buildings, he seemed to think that what I would call the slum schools were to be found only in non-provided areas or in rural areas, but again he need not go so far to find slum schools—he can find them in London. Having taught in many parts of London, I believe it would be fair to say that practically one-quarter of the schools of London could well be pulled down and re-built in any decent five-year educational plan in this country. I know of schools within a mile of this Chamber with playgrounds for 40O children of which the area is less than that occupied by this Chamber. We talk about cleanliness in the class-rooms, but I know of schools where you will find 200 boys with two towels to keep themselves clean in recreation-time and lunch-time, though cleanliness is next to godliness.
      As regards books, I do not pretend that the equipment from the point of view of books in many of our schools is what it was in pre-war days. Hon. Members on this side will recollect the reading lessons when there was one book for a class for a year, and when, if you told a boy to go on reading and he
      234
      happened to have lost the place, he could still go on, because he knew the book by heart. Things are not so bad now, but everyone knows that the provision of reading books in our schools in this country is generally woefully deficient. Again, in a large number of schools in London the lighting is still by gas, and, while the first rows in the class-room are warmed by the fire, the children at the back are frozen. The Minister admits that there are still many hundreds of classes in our schools with more than 60 pupils, and many thousands with more than 50. In London I have had the pleasure of teaching classes with only 30 or 35 pupils, and it was never my experience that, with a class of 30 boys, I had too few in the class. In fact, I think it is true to say that no teacher, however clever and conscientious he may be, can teach in any reasonable fashion a class of more than 45 or 50 children. Modern methods and modern teachers stress the importance of individual tuition, but when you have a lesson of 40 minutes for a class of 60 children, by the time you have gone round and said "Good morning" and "How are you?" the time is up. It is impossible and stupid to think that there can be. any real educational efficiency so long as thousands of our classes exist with 50 or more boys or girls in them. Indeed, in my opinion there is every reason for saying that, instead of a decrease of £7,000,000 in the Education Estimates for the last two years, this Government and this country ought to have been spending £10,000,000 more. It would have been a far greater thing to boast about this year if we could have said that we were spending £10,000,000 more on education and £10,000,000 less on military Estimates than the reverse, as has been the case in the last two years.
      I often wonder why Conservatives as a whole seem to be opposed to educational development, though I know there are individual exceptions. Is it because they have realised through statistics that poorer children, who have had little opportunity, come out very well in examinations in comparison with others? I wonder if it is because they fear that in competition the working-class child will be at least as good if he has the opportunity. If that is not the reason, what is it? I wonder if it is because the average Conservative realises that in the

      235
      last 60 years, as we have spent more on education, as we have had better schools, and perhaps better masters and equipment, they have seen that the whole tendency has been towards a more democratic outlook. I wonder if some of them think, as the old Tories used to think, that more education means the downfall of Tory ideas and traditions. If it is so, they ought to put on the other side of the scale the obvious truth that, as we have spent more on education, we have produced, from their point of view, better workers, better thinking workers, more productive workers, and from the sheer mercenary point of view, from the business and profit-making point of view, the better educated our workers are the better for the economic standing of the country. Even from the lowest point of view that is true.
      I do not feel at all pessimistic when I look back on the progress of the country in the last 60 years generally. Not being a pessimist, I can see very well that during that period there has been, from almost every point of view, very great progress. There have been less drinking, less crime and less distress. Although there are many factors contributing to that improvement, I believe that increased and better education is the biggest single factor. If that be true, it would be sound common sense and sound economy not to decrease but to go on increasing educational expenditure, making it more efficient, and giving the poorest children an equal opportunity with the richest. It would pay the State from every point of view, and, in my judgment, it would be the best investment in which the country could indulge.
      6.3 p.m.
      Captain SPENCER: I should like to add my modest congratulations to the Minister on his speech. I welcome more than anything else the definition of the picture that he painted. We hear a great deal of the pictures painted by educationists. My great complaint against them usually is that they are very indistinct and hazy. That, at any rate, cannot be said of the Minister's speech. He has had two very difficult years in which to function in the Department, and it would be ungenerous on our part not to recognise that, in spite of the difficulties, in spite of the crisis through which
      236
      the country has passed, the educational structure as a whole has survived pretty well. I can never agree with those who seem to think that, the more money you spend on education, the more efficient it is bound to be. On the other hand, I believe that very often, in a time of crisis such as we have passed through, the Department is inclined to think that by petty economies it can do something really worth while, and the great danger that they have been up against in the last two years is in falling to the temptation of making small economies which might do damage to the educational structure far out of proportion to the amount of cash that they save. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) trailed his coat, principally at the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) and my hon. Friend in front of me, and I will not tread on it, but there are one or two points to which I should like to refer in connection with secondary education. I cannot go into any great detail on the question of pensions. The Minister touched on it, and I hope that he is giving the matter very careful attention. I would just remind him that, at any rate at present, the teachers are suffering in perpetuity a cut in respect of pensions which was only imposed to meet a national emergency, and I will leave it at that.
      I should like to say a word upon the separation of the matriculation and school certificate examinations. I welcome the decision that has been made to bring the school certificate examination more into alignment with the requirements of the present position. The whole tendency in the past, and the influence of the examination, has been to stereotype the curriculum, to eradicate individuality and to bring all the schools to one dead and dull level. In my opinion, that is a very bad thing in the secondary schools. Indeed one of the reasons which make me enthusiastic on the question of education—here I part company with hon. Members in front of me—is that I believe if you followed their policy to its logical conclusion you would deprive our secondary school system of its most valuable feature, that is, the variety that has always existed throughout those schools. As Pope said in another connection;

      237
      "What shocks one part will edify the rest;
      Nor with one system can they all be blest."
      Of nothing is that more true than of the secondary schools. Anything that the Board can do, through the alteration of this examination or in any other way, to preserve the variety and individuality of the schools instead of stamping it out, would be welcomed by every true friend of education. Another fault of the examination is that it has led to the desire to accumulate facts rather than knowledge. It was Huxley who once, speaking of his science students, said:
      "These students study to pass and not to know, and outraged science takes her revenge. They do pass, and they do not know."
      That is one of the curses that have been put upon our schools as a result of the demands of the matriculation examination. Then my hon. Friend will have two great difficulties. First of all, he will have to contend with a very large body of employers who demand a matriculation certificate as a passport to employment. I had a case brought to my notice two years ago of a young fellow, whom I knew, who applied for a post in a firm in one of our large cities. He told them he was a Bachelor of Science with honours from Manchester University, and he was granted an Interview. The gentleman who interviewed him said, "What have you done? What can you show me?" He replied, "I am a Bachelor of Science." The man said, "I know that, but have you passed matriculation?" That is the attitude of a surprisingly large number of employers, who seem to think that this certificate is a wonderful thing, and unless a person is the proud possessor of it, he is not worthy of being offered a post.
      Perhaps an even greater obstacle will be the parents. You come up there against a quite natural family pride and a certain amount of jealousy where you get boys going to the same school, particularly in industrial areas, and a certain amount of social prestige is lent to the mother of William, who passed his matriculation and who will look down her nose at the mother of Thomas, who has not been so fortunate. There is, no doubt, also a reform needed in the character of the examination itself, which
      238
      should be based more upon the actual curriculum of the schools and less upon the requirements of universities than it is at present. There is too much tendency to make the examination approximate to the intermediate or preliminary examination in universities, to save the tutors and professors a certain amount of work.
      I think that this school certificate examination should be, in its essence, a test of what the boy or girl has done at school, and the certificate a badge of proficiency and of attainment. Secondly, I should like to see more oral and more practical work in examinations. English, a subject in which I am particularly interested, is very much neglected. It tends to be more and more a test of the candidate's memory—whether he can reproduce from the text book, or from the skilfully compiled notes of his teacher, just those things which the examiner is likely to ask him. I think there is room for more oral work in connection with English, and, of course, foreign languages generally. There should be more room for practical work. At present what is called group IV in the school certificate examination, which embraces these practical subjects, is an outcast in many cases and schools only resort to it as a last resort for what they look upon as their border-line cases of pupils who come very near the margin of mental deficiency.
      Then there is required a fairer assessment as between subject and subject. If you are to have these passports, which the child is to carry with him for the rest of his life and be asked for by employers, you should not have the anomalies which arise at present. I have two examples which are very striking. One pupil who took this examination passed up to the standard of good in two subjects, credit in three, passed in two, and failed in one, and get 1,099 marks. He failed although he had reached a pass in no fewer than seven subjects out of eight. Another pupil in the same school get no "good," one "credit," five "satisfactories" and two "fails." with 281 fewer marks, and passed. That is obviously an anomalous state of affairs which ought to be remedied.
      The Minister congratulated himself upon the way he got away with Circular 1421, I cannot allow him to get away quite so easily as that.

      239
      Circular 1421 as put into operation was a totally different thing from Circular 1421 as it was laid before the House. There was all that blessed elasticity brought into play, and all that concession made which we know that Wales received in greater abundance than any part of the Kingdom. The fears that we had when the Circular was first issued were very reasonable and well-founded fears. It is in the administration of that circular that those fears have been removed, and as a result, no doubt, to some extent of representations that were made on the subject by local authorities. I agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) who said in this Chamber not very long ago that it would be an excellent thing if we could have a close season for circulars, and then we could have some time to think about them before they were issued, and, having had some time to think about them, we should not waste time afterwards in explaining them away and whittling them down.
      There is another example of a circular which at the time caused considerable perturbation, and reasonably so. There, again, we had the usual explanations that the circular did not mean what it seemed to mean, but that it had an inner meaning which would be expounded to the authorities concerned. There was talk in that circular about extravagant staffs. It appeared, at any rate on the surface, to recommend larger classes, and whatever may have been the case in the primary schools, there is no doubt that in the secondary schools there has been an increase in the size of Glasses. Whereas in 1930 those possessing more than 30 pupils amounted to something like 3,600, in 1932 they had gone up to 4,800, so that Circular 1428, at any rate, coincided with the increase in the size of classes. Of those at the present time above the limit, some are science classes with more than 35 pupils, and I would like to appeal to the Minister on that point. In science it is not merely bad for teacher and pupil, and not merely inefficient, but positively dangerous to co-am, as I have seen, 37 children into a laboratory constructed to hold two dozen children, and to put a teacher there with responsibility for all that
      240
      might happen. It is putting too much strain on the teacher. It is impossible for him to do justice to his pupils and to the subject of which he is in charge, and at the same time to look, as he is bound to look, after the safety and well-being of those children in such a confined space. Under Circular 1428 there are, no doubt, authorities which are afraid to do what they ought to do, namely, to increase their staffs in order to make proper provision for the children in those swollen classes.
      There is one other thing to which I should like to refer in regard to Circular 1428. It is suggested in connectiin with the circular that in order to economise staffing, pupils at the top end of the school should be transferred to some other school where a suitable course might be provided. That would be a very bad thing and would have a very bad influence on the spriit of the school. A number of these schools are old schools and have a tradition. Those which have not an old tradition have been building up a tradition for the last 20 years. There is an esprit de corps about the school. Boys are proud, though some might not think it, after leaving some of those secondary schools, of the fact that they are old boys of those schols, and it is a thing we ought to foster and encourage. If at the age of 16, when he is about to become a leader in his school, a boy is to be taken away and put in some other strange institution, it will do a great deal of damage to something which is far more valuable than the few pounds which may be saved in that connection. These are comparatively minor points, and I end as I began by saying that I think that, on the whole, our educational system has been in good hands, and has suffered very little considering the very difficult times through which the nation has been passing.
      6.21 p.m.
      Mr. ERNEST EVANS: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education in the course of his speech to-day, compared himself to the chairman of a public company delivering his annual address. That analogy had occurred to me before he himself mentioned it. In the course of his speech he used phrases which shareholders have now become quite accustomed to hear. He emphasised the necessity for what he called conserving

      241
      our reserves, and warned his hearers against expecting any sensational or spectacular results. His warning was delivered at the proper time, because we certainly have not had either sensational or spectacular results. At the same time, I join with othe rspeakers in congratulating my hon. Friend upon the very charming and interesting way in which he presented his annual report to the Committee. Above everything else, I welcomed the great change in the tone and temper of his speech to-day from what occurred on the last occasion, when it seemed to me he was more concerned with defending his Estimates against those who criticised the expenditure of public money upon our educational services. To-day he was more concerned with defending (his Department in respect of justifying what they had been doing in the course of the last year. I do not want to say anything which will detract from the value which he has claimed for the services of the Board of Education during the past year.
      I welcome very much the figures he gave showing the great improvement in regard to the buildings of elementary and secondary schools. He must not rest content with what he has done. There is still a great deal of room for improvement in regard to the buildings of our schools, particularly in rural areas. I emphasise the point because it has relation to what he said about the physical condition of the children. He spoke with justifiable pride of the provision which is being made for the feeding of school children, but, as far as rural areas are concerned, it is possible that the benefit the children gain by the provision of meals may be more than counterbalanced by deficiencies in two directions—the one the deficiency of the school itself, and the other the matter of transport. When I come up from Wales to London I have to pass through an area which includes about six elementary schools, and I cannot help observing in the early hours of the morning, and at all times of the year, the children who have to walk several miles in all sorts of weather in order to get to school. It may very well be that, by reason of the insanitary condition of the buildings and the dangers which they incur as a result of the early morning walk in all weathers, whatever may be done in the matter of feeding the
      242
      children may be more than counterbalanced by the defects arising from those two considerations, I emphasise and press upon the Minister the necessity of securing an improvement in the sanitary condition of schools in rural areas. The Minister of Health has recently sought and obtained powers from Parliament with a view to meeting the dangers which may arise from the drought, and I would ask the Board of Education whether they cannot get into touch with the Ministry of Health—because they do not seem to be spending the £1,000,000 very rapidly; I doubt whether they have spent any of it so far, as I have not heard of a single grant being made—to see whether there is a chance of getting hold of part of that money with a view to improving the water arrangements in schools in rural areas.
      I also welcome what the Parliamentary Secretary said about the reduction in the number of large classes, and, in view of one statement which he made, I would emphasise that the importance of the reduction in the size of classes is not to be measured by the prospect of giving employment to a larger number of teachers. We are concerned in advocating the reduction in the size of classes not from that point of view, but from that of advantage to the children by giving them the education which they need and which will be useful to them in the future. I also welcome what he said in regard to technical education, where there is also room for further improvement. I was reminded of a remark made by the late King of the Belgians in a foreword to a pamphlet issued by the Minister of Education in Belgium. He said:
      "Technical education is one of the essential elemeents of the economic life of the country: its value contributes to the progress of our industry. One cannot conceive a nation compelled to export in order to live failing to seek every means of lowering the net cost of its products. Experience shows that this cost depends chiefly on improved methods. But to give its full yield, modern technique demands qualified workmanship which will be trained in schools capable of introducing students to the most modern processes."
      That matter applies equally to this country, and therefore the Board should go further in the encouragement of technical education. At the same time, one must enter a caveat that technical education should not be substituted for the

      243
      general education provided by the general educational system of the country.
      There are one or two criticisms I should like to make in regard to the educational structure of the country. I approach the subject from two ends. One is from the point of view of early childhood, emphasising the importance of developing the whole idea of nursery schools and their efficiency, and the other is from the end of encouraging every local authority which by means of by-law seeks to raise the school age. I was a little disappointed at the reply which the hon. Gentleman gave yesterday in answer to a question as to the attitude of the Board of Education to certain local authorities which were anxious to raise the school age. It did not seem to incorporate the spirit which we expect from the hon. Gentleman, and which we are entitled to expect from the Board of Education. It was rather a discouragement. I believe that the general opinion of the Committee is that it is up to the Board of Education to give every encouragement to every local authority which is anxious by means of by-law to raise the school age where that is possible.
      I should like to ask a question with regard to Wales. I have heard the figures showing the grants made by the Government to education in Wales covering several years. I will take only three years. In 1932 the grants to all branches of education in Wales amounted to £3,909,323, and in 1933 it had dropped to £3,688,423. I can understand that there are various causes for that, including the reduction in salaries of teachers. In 1934 the grant went down still further to £3,605,656. I shall be obliged if the hon Gentleman, either now or on some future occasion, can give some explanation of the very considerable decrease in the amount of grants made to Wales. I, in common with many who are interested in educational matters in Wales, regret very much that the Secretary of the Welsh Department, Sir Percy Watkins, has left the Department. We appreciate the great energy and enthusiasm which he displayed in respect of all educational matters in Wales; at the same time, I think that we can congratulate the Board very heartily on the choice of a successor
      244
      in a man whose character and personality, I am sure, will enable the Board to view Welsh educational matters with great favour and energy. I still feel that there is a lack of co-ordination with regard to our whole educational system. We find the most recent illustration of that fact in the Unemployment Insurance Act, in the fact that the responsibility for juvenile training centres is entrusted to the Ministry of Labour. I believe that to be a mistake, and it is only illustrative of the common failing in regard to the educational system of this country. The President of the Board of Education ought to be President of a board of all education in England and Wales. He is not. Many educational activities are entrusted to other Ministers, which means inefficiency. Just as the whole of the finances of the country are in the charge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so in regard to education you should coordinate your system so that the Board of Education is the responsible authority. Only in that way will you promote the highest efficiency.
      6.31 p.m.
      Viscountess ASTOR: The hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. West) asked why it was that Tories were always against education. If he will make inquiries he will find that some of the finest educationists have been Tories. In fact, good educationists are never politicians, and the trouble with the Labour party is that they have made education a political question. Really they are not any keener about it than any other party. No party is keen about education. Education is not a very popular subject; if it were, we should have had a better system long ago. I resent very much the endeavour to make it a party question; it is much too important for that. It is far above any party question. The Trades Union Congress used to say that the party stood for education, but they put it so far down on the agenda that they could never discuss it. There has been very little vision on this subject for the last 15 years. Women used to be classed with criminals, lunatics and paupers, and they have had no say whatever in the education of their children until quite recently. In spite of this lack of vision, we have probably the best educational system in the world. It is not yet good enough for some of us, and it will not be developed in the right direction

      245
      unless there are some people who are constantly pressing its importance on the attention of the Government.
      I have heard hon. Members on the Front Bench make the most beautiful speeches about an uneducated democracy carrying a torch in their hands, but I have never heard one of them speak with a torch in his own hands about education. I really believe that the Parliamentary Secretary would do so if he were a free man, and had his own way. I congratulate him on what he wants to do. It is all very well to criticize the Government, but after all, we alone, among all the countries in the world, have not had to make during the last two years great reductions in our expenditure on education. I (have been appalled at the fact that some of the States in America have had to close down their schools. We have not opened as many new schools as we would like, but, at any rate, there has been no closing down of schools. The time, however, is certainly coming when the Government will have to have a more progressive policy in education and give a lead to local education authorities. I was glad to hear the delightful maiden speech of the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Dr. Morrison), because it showed that he is a progressive educationist. Some university Members have not been progressive at all in the matter of education. It is absolutely essential that we should raise the school age. The Noble Lord the right hon. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) is now talking about the necessity of raising the school age. I wish he had seen the necessity for it five years ago, and that the Labour party had seen the necessity for it when they were in office.
      Mr. MORGAN JONES: We did.
      Viscountess ASTOR: Do not talk nonsense to me. The Labour party put in a perfectly ridiculous little Clause in a Bill which even their own party could not support. I do not want to fight on this subject, but it is monstrous that local authorities which desire to raise the school age should be prevented from doing so when the Government are boasting that we have passed the worst of the financial crisis. On this matter the country is ahead of the Government, and the Parliamentary Secretary would, I think, get a vote from the House for raising the school age if it were put before them.
      246
      Then there is the question of large classes, which means a waste of education. There are three causes of wastage in education. There is first the large classes, and then there is the wastage in the new buildings. Some schools seem to have been built for eternity, whereas Miss Margaret McMillan made the discovery that you can get much better schools for a much less expenditure. The third cause of wastage in education is one which is very near and dear to me, that is, the wastage in the case of children whose health is such that they cannot take advantage of the opportunities offered to them. The Parliamentary Secretary says that children should not be prevented by their physical state from getting the full benefit of the education given. I am not much good at figures, but I have some figures here which, I think, he should know. We have 1,750,000 children between the ages of two and five years; 175,000 of these children live in real slums and many more in overcrowded conditions. I used to think that all children benefited from infant welfare centres but apparently only 50 per cent. get the benefit of this infant welfare, that is, children up to two years of age.
      It is the children between two and five years of age who should be the special concern of the country. That is a gap in our treatment of young children. Of the children entering our elementary schools at five years of age between 40 and 50 per cent. show signs of rickets, while 27 per cent. are physically impaired; I do not mean mentally deficient. Our school medical service is enormous, and little wonder, because 194 children in every 1,000 between five and 15 years of age required treatment in 1932, and 174 more in every 1,000 required medical observation, while 613 in every 1,000 required dental treatment. These are facts which we must face. We also have to face the fact that there are nearly 58,000 children in special schools for blind, deaf, the tuberculous, epileptic, mentally deficient and crippled children. The chief medical officer of the Board has called attention to the neglect of pre-school children in every report for the last 15 years; he is one of the most efficient medical officers in the world, a man of outstanding ability and vision. I must read to the Committee what he has said. In 1922 he said:

      247
      "After the first year of life the young child has to bear a heavy burden of environmental neglect, associated with bad housing, poverty and absence of hygienic supervision."
      In 1923—
      "There can he no doubt at all that the effective health supervision of the children between two and five is a public health and educational problem of great importance and urgency."
      In 1925—
      "One significant fact in medical inspection is the serious degree of physical defect in the children on their first admission to school. I place this in the forefront of the medical problems of the elementary school."
      In 1926—
      "The school medical service is called upon to deal with a yearly recurring burden of disease coming into the schools. It is not a defect here and there, which can be put right, and that is the end of it. It all too often is a degenerative process."
      In 1928:
      "At present the pre-school child gets very little chance at all, and that is the plain reason why in these precious neglected years the seeds of disease are sown."
      In 1929:
      "We shall never be in a position to deal satisfactorily with our school medical proplems until we improve the physical condition of the children between infancy and school life."
      That has been going on for 15 years. We have done very well and made splendid progress in infant welfare work, but from two to five years of age children from overcrowded areas have been neglected and are going to be neglected, although we know the remedies. In 1908 the Consultative Committee issued a report dealing with the advantage of nursery schools, and in 1933 it reported again, and strongly advocated their extension. As far back as 1918 the Board empowered the establishment of recognised nursery schools. In 1931 we were just getting going, and then came the Economy Act. I know of 33 projects which were stopped, and now that we are restoring some of the cuts which were imposed then, I press on the Government that they must restore the cuts which were imposed on nursery schools. They are a vital necessity. We have 5,000 children in the open-air nursery schools while 174,000 children between the ages of two and four are living in slum conditions.
      248
      What is the effect on the children of open-sir nursery schools? It has been proved over and over again that children taken from the worst conditions of overcrowding and housing, and from the worst parents, show marked improvement after they have been in the nursery school for a little time. I should like to show hon. Members the picture of a little boy two years of age who was rickety, malformed and listless, a hopeless kind of child. Within one year he was one of the most beautiful boys I have ever seen, alert and strong, and a child of which anyone could be proud. We have proved that children taken from the worst homes by the time they reach five years of age are half an inch taller than an ordinary child and five lbs. heavier than other children. We have also proved that rickets can be eliminated entirely. The figures show that of children who have not been to a nursery school 27 per cent. have rickets, whereas only 7 per cent. of the children who have been to a nursery school suffered from them. Take the case of the Margaret McMillan School at Deptford. Of the 62 children admitted this year 50 per cent. had rickets, not to mention other defects, but of 48 children who left at five years of age two months ago, 93 per cent. had a perfectly clean bill of health. That is extraordinary. Many of the diseases that are developed in later life are caught between the ages of two and five. That has been proved. Then surely it is false economy to economise in any way in the health of the nation and of the children whom we are educating. Children who go from the open air nursery schools are healthy in body and mind and alert. Sir George Newman stated:
      "In the case of the slum child the nursery school secures a new order of child life. It is almost magical in its rapid growth, showing a triumph over the handicap of home and environment and circumstances."
      I could go on quoting for hours. It really is almost magical. Some day the country will wake up and realise what Margeret McMillan was and what she has done. Her beneficent influence has extended to all countries. It belongs to no class, no party and no country. I have taken people who did not believe in nursery schools down to Deptford. I took a leading Member of the Government, who said he could not spare more than half an

      249
      hour, but he stayed one and three-quarter hours, and even then I could hardly get him away. At such places one can see what is possible.
      Members of the Labour party talk about democracy and equality. I am convinced that the only way in which we shall get equality and really true democracy is by beginning to deal with the children at a younger age than at present. If I had a child carefully nurtured I should not care for it to go into an elementary school at five years of age with other children who may have come from dirty homes, but if you took my child at two years and took at two years also the child from the worst home in England, and you put the two in a nursery school, I would be perfectly willing for my child to go. Apart from health it is creating a new social order. You should see the children. They learn how to co-operate—that blessed word of which we hear so much talk. In overcrowded homes the best mother in the world has an impossible task. From the age of two to five the only place where a child can play is on a floor which is apt to be dirty, or in the street. Naturally the child has a grim time. Only a month ago I saw a child in a Nursery School which had come from a very tragic home. I found it grabbing everything and holding on to its food and its toys. I said to the teacher. "You have a problem there." The teacher replied, "Wait and see." In 10 days' time I saw that little toddler again. She was playing happily with the other children and sharing her toys with the best will in the world.
      It is really astonishing what effect the nursery school has. At a very early age it eliminates greed, fear and disease; psychologically it has a wonderful effect. It teaches children companionship and everything that is beautiful in life. The hon. Lady the Member for East Islington (Miss Cazalet) said that when we had the wonderful houses to be provided under the new housing schemes open-air schools would not be necessary. I think she was wrong. Some of these new houses are death traps for children of two to five years. They have no backyards and they are built on the edge of the road. Apart from that, if a woman has to look after many children, even in a good house, those children cannot be looked after properly. With due respect to the hon. Member for
      250
      the Scottish Universities (Dr. Morrison), I do not believe we need psychological clinics. It is far better to put children in open-air nursery schools, and to watch them there.
      It may be said that all this is talk, and I may be asked what proposal I have to make. I have a very good proposal to make, and I hope the House of Commons will stand by me in pressing it on the Government. It is amazing what you can do with a Government if you push hard enough, particularly when by-elections are going against the Government. I am all for by-elections going against a Government that is large and powerful and strong. It has a very good effect. When I used to press for the raising of the school age my Socialist opponents used to go to the mothers in back streets and say, "Lady Astor is going to take the children away from you." To me education is not a party subject. I believe in an educated democracy. I cannot conceive anything that would make me more bitter than to have a child which I felt could not get an equal chance with other children although it had equal brains. When I talk about education I talk of something about which I feel very strongly.
      We know what the Government spend on medical services. At present the sum is £4,500,000. I could give the figure of expenditure on the blind and the tuberculous. If we had a scheme to build open-air nursery schools for 50,000 children it would not cost more than £1,000,000, and, as the Chief Medical Officer has said, a great deal of disease is preventable, and that expenditure would save further expenditure later on. I beg the Government to think of the matter from that point of view. Let us have a really big constructive scheme for open air nursery schools; £1,000,000 is not very much to spend. Think of what we have spent on sugar beet. No better investment than £1,000,000 on nursery schools could be made at the moment. I have come back from devastated areas, and I have seen what open air nursery schools mean. You cannot build an open air nursery school in any area unless the community there is ready for it. There are communities ready for these schools, and there are education authorities ready. But unless the Government will give a grant we shall never get the schools. I beg the Parliamentary

      251
      Secretary to be courageous and to save the lives and the health of thousands of children. If I were a child of very poor parents in the slums I would almost rather die in infancy than face life with a deformed and crippled body. I beg the Government to go forward on the road, which will not only be good for the country but may be a paradise for thousands of little children.
      6.57 p.m.
      Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I share the regret of hon. Members that these proceedings are to terminate so soon and, that being the case, the Committee will understand that when I try to deal with the points which have been raised I must deal with them in a much more perfunctory way than I would otherwise do. Before I concentrate on the main points, I would answer the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) on a point he raised with regard to voluntary training colleges. The position is that we are making this year a special grant of £20 for each place that they have lost this year, owing to our restrictions. The total sum for the one year, and it is non-recurring, will be about £10,000. We hope that that sum will go some way to relieve the difficulty though we know it will not go the whole way.
      The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) spoke at considerable length on the subject of the embargo which the Board of Education is alleged to have placed on new school buildings, and he quoted at considerable length from an article written by the Secretary of the Association of Education Committees. I am sorry that the hon. Member did not rely on his own eloquence and originality which we always enjoy hearing, and that he has borrowed second-hand diatribes from the writer in question. I had seen the article myself, and whether or not it represents the opinions of local education authorities, of whom about 250 are members of the association, I do not know, but I am not prepared to adopt the writer's views as either impartial or accurate. It would have been very much better if the hon. Member, instead of relying on an article, had given me facts that contradicted what I have given to the Committee. I was at considerable pains to state what we have done, the number of schools built, and so on. If I could be given definite instances of
      252
      local authorities having complained that they had had proposals turned down, I would be prepared to deal with them, but I cannot deal with a second-hand tirade contained in an education journal.
      The hon. Baronet also referred to the circular dealing with capital expenditure. The new building which has taken place is very considerable though within the limit of Circular 1413, and, as the hon. Baronet knows, that circular gives discretion for proposals to be approved on their merits. The whole thing is largely a matter of administration. When I was speaking about capital expenditure I explained to the Committee that the future attitude of the Board will be that where the proposals for necessary capital expenditure are made, they will be sympathetically considered, particularly if they promote reorganisation.
      Sir P. HARRIS: Is the veto in Circular 1413 now removed in spirit?
      Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: That is a very vague phrase, which the hon. Baronet is rather fond of using. As Circular 1113 stands it is perfectly possible under it to carry out a large measure of reorganisation.
      Mr. MACQUISTEN: Circular 13 has been misrepresented by the hon. Baronet up to now.
      Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: That may be. The hon. Member for Aberavon in the course of his remarks stated that we had only to look at the figures of educational expenditure to see when the Socialist Government was in office. That is perfectly true, but he would get exactly the same information if he looked at the unemployment figures. At all events, it would be a mistake to base the progress of education on expenditure; that is a fallacious method of measuring it. The hon. Member alluded to the expenditure of £200 per annum on a child at our public schools and compared it with the £12 spent on our elementary schools. Apart from the fact that the £200 is spent by the parents out of their own money, I have no hesitation in saying that the education at any of our elementary or secondary schools is just as good as it is at any public school that he mentioned. He referred also to the raising of the school leaving age by by-law, and wished to know whether the Board

      253
      were endeavouring to oppose the raising of the school leaving age by by-law in various areas, or whether they were agreeable that such procedure should take place. The position is quite simple. As I explained to the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) yesterday in supplementary answer, the by-law procedure is subject to approval by the Board, and in considering whether or not the authority should be authorised to raise its leaving age there are various points which the Board can quite properly take into consideration. The hon. Member mentioned one, that if the school leaving age is raised in one area it may cause an infiltration of children in search of employment from the surrounding areas where it is not raised. He gave the example of the Greater London area. That is one consideration which the board have to take into account in coming to a conclusion whether or not an authority shall be allowed to raise its school-leaving age. Another point which he raised which seems a sound one is educational. It would clearly be most unwise to allow authorities to raise the school-leaving age where they cannot make appropriate provision, not only in accommodation, but also in that practical instruction to which we attach so much importance in the schools. If it has happened that the Board has not been satisfied that this provision has been made, the authority may no doubt consult with the Board and decide to take steps that will be sufficient. Another consideration is the state of employment, where there is very little unemployment and the few children who are unemployed are staying on, as they are in some cases, voluntarily. Finally, there is always the factor of expenditure. These conditions, two of which the hon. Baronet will agree are reasonable, are vital in taking account of the giving or withholding of permission by the board. The hon. Baronet also said something about equipment. I think he meant practical equipment. As far as I am concerned, that is one of the first considerations authorised in any school. Practical instruction and domestic science are a sine quâ non of the board's approval. When he said that he did not want reorganisation to be merely a figure, I entirely agreed with him. As far as we are concerned, it is not a figure, it is becoming a very real thing.
      254
      I now come to the point raised by the junior hon. Member for Cambridge university (Mr. G. Wilson) in the matter of State scholarships. He and I have had various correspondence and conversations on this matter, and I am afraid that we still remain in disagreement. I will tell the Committee why. As my hon. Friend pointed out in 1920 this scheme of State scholarships was first introduced and 200 were awarded. It served the very valuable purpose of encouraging boys from the grant-aided schools—and at least 70 per cent. of those boys are from public elementary schools—to go to universities, not only Oxford and Cambridge but all universities. It was right to encourage them, because the flow of children from the poorer classes to the universities was nothing like as large as it should have been. The scheme worked very satisfactorily; admirable material was forthcoming, and in 1930 the numbers were increased from 200 to 300. If I were to adopt the suggestion made by my hon. Friend it would inevitably result in throwing open the field of these 300 scholarships to non-grant-aided schools and the number of children from the grant-aided schools who would get the scholarships would pro tanto be somewhat diminished. That is an almost inevitable Conclusion. If I had any reason to think that the quality of the children coming from these grant-aided schools were inadequate, then I might be very much more sympathetic towards this proposal. My inclination and my views are, however, decidedly to the contrary. Not only is the quality entirely adequate, but I could do with more State scholarships to children from grant-aided schools. Some parents, of course, who have not sent their children to grant-aided schools find when the time comes that their resources are not what they expected. None the less, I do not think that this justifies the State in saying that it will diminish the existing number and let in others. My hon. Friend gave figures from his own college as to those who only get third-classes. I think that the percentage was much the same as among State scholars.
      Mr. G. WILSON: What about the second-classes?
      Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Speaking from memory, I think that the percentage of first-classes was rather similar. The

      255
      figures are pretty good considering that over 90 per cent. of these State scholars get first or second-classes, and the number that get third-classes is precisely the same number as that of which the hon. Member has had experience in his own college.
      The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Dr. Morrison) made a speech which all hon. Members much appreciated, and we all hope that he will intervene again on educational matters. He referred to vocational testing in our schools. This happens to be a subject in which I have taken a good deal of personal interest, and I was interested to hear his experience of the psychological laboratory attached to the schools in Rome. He hoped that we should do something of the same sort here. A certain amount of psychological work of the kind he mentioned is going on. Hon. Members are aware of the National Institute of Industrial Psychology, and local authorities in Willesden, Birmingham and elsewhere have utilised the services of experts from this Institute for the purpose of testing the children in their charge and of giving vocational guidance. Even if the result were to improve or diminish the number of misfits in the country by a small percentage, it would be well worth while. Although all these methods may be, and probably are, in their infancy, I think it is worth while for local education authorities to look into the possibilities of giving more scientific and more efficacious vocational guidance than they do at present.
      The hon. Member for St. Helens (Captain Spencer) dealt with matriculation and the school certificate. He knows as well as I do the difficulties with which the situation is fraught. We are not, so to speak, masters in our own house. There are vested interests whose opposition it is necessary to remove. They are not entirely under the control of the board, and it may take time to remove these difficulties. He quoted the increase in the size of classes in the secondary schools as the result of Circular 1428. I am aware of the figures, but it is due to the bulge in our secondary schools which should be eliminated by 1937, and when that is through the position will be far more in accord with what I should like to see.
      256
      The hon. Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans) asked me about a decrease in certain figures of expenditure on Welsh education. I have not had time to look these figures up carefully, but at first sight I think he will find that the explanation is the decrease in the salaries of the teachers. I promise to look into the matter and, if there are any other reasons, to let him know. He also spoke of lack of co-ordination, and thought that the President of the Board should be in charge of all education all over the country. We are not seeking to have greatness thrust upon us but I will bear his recommendation in mind.
      The Noble Lady gave us one of her very interesting and well-informed speeches upon the care of the pre-school child. I incline to emphasise that word "pre-school" because, strictly speaking, from the point of view of the Board of Education my concern is with the school child.
      Viscountess ASTOR: I spoke of children in nursery schools. I hate to interrupt, but that point is decided. We had that battle, of whether the nursery schools should be under the Minister of Health or the Board of Education, and they are officially under the Board of Education, so they are yours.
      Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I agree that the schools are, but the question is whether all the pre-school children are. The Noble Lady is interested in the position of nursery schools. There again it must be remembered that in 1931 and 1932 we were faced with the necessity for financial restrictions and there was a cessation of nursery school building. I do not wish to indulge in any prophecies as to what may now occur. I can only state that within the last month or two the Board has authorised two more nursery schools, one at Swansea, and I think one at Bradford. There is nothing to prevent local authorities from submitting urgent cases or where it is considered that the circumstances have altered, from bringing fresh proposals before the beard. I do not know what the result may be but I think the Noble Lady realises that where the provision of such a school is found to be urgently necessary it is unlikely that the Board are going to be adamant for all time.
      We have had a very interesting Debate upon a subject which vitally concerns the

      257
      future of all the children in our schools and therefore the future of the nation as a whole. In our educational system it is our business not only to teach these children to read and write and to use the tools of learning but to train them to think their own thoughts and not always the thoughts of other people. In the process of realising this aim it was inevitable that we should reach a stage at which hundreds of thousands of boys and girls on leaving school are susceptible and vulnerable to mass propaganda and suggestion and prone to regard the written or the printed word as gospel. Education has been defined as the art of preventing a man from being humbugged by a newspaper and I am sometimes inclined to think that a reliable educational barometer would record the advance or decline, of our educational system, in inverse ratio to the net sales of certain of our daily journals. The surest defence against that influence lies in our schools where it is our intention to train the mind and where the mind can be trained, to form calm, fair and dispassionate judgments and opinions. I have said recently outside and the Committee will forgive me if I repeat it now that ready-made thoughts seldom fit and the mental equipment which our children can be taught to fashion for themselves however scanty is preferable to the editorial reach-me-downs of the "murder and misconduct" press. In my view, and I think in the view of the Committee, the safety and stability of the nation depend upon the power of its citizens to form independent judgments and it is only by education that that power can be secured.
      7.20 p.m.
      Mr. MORGAN JONES: It was not my intention to take part in this discussion, but inasmuch as the Parliamentary Secretary has resumed his seat at this stage I may be permitted to make a few general observations without entering into any detailed criticism of his speech which would indeed be rather unfair, since he has already replied. I should like to make clear, however, that while I join with other hon. Members in congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary upon his excellent presentation of his case, I do not regard his apologia for the Board of Education as very convincing. Because we find it unconvincing we do not propose to take a Division now
      258
      at half-past seven o'clock as we wish to keep the discussion of these Estimates open so that if time permits and an opportunity is accorded us we may return to this subject and go into it in greater detail on a future occasion.
      In making one or two general observations on the Parliamentary Secretary's statement I would refer first to the question of reorganisation. I think he will agree that the late Labour Government applied itself as strongly as it could to the task of carrying forward the work of reorganisation in the schools, and judging from the hon. Gentleman's remarks in the earlier part of these proceedings the present Government is engaged in the same task. Speaking not by way of criticism, but rather by way of expressing a hope, may I say that reorganisation ought to mean more than the mere transference of children from one type of school to another. From my point of view, reorganisation will miss its point and its purpose unless the 11 plus child is given an educational opportunity of different content from that which has been given under the old educational regime. I am not sure that in some parts of the country reorganisation has meant much more than mere transference from one school to another and that is largely useless. The Hadow Committee linked up the idea of reorganisation with the idea of raising the school age and we on this side would equally associate those two ideas. I would have been very glad had the Parliamentary Secretary been able to give us some hope to-night that the Government looked upon the proposal for the raising of the school age, nationally, in a more favourable way than is apparently the case.
      It is not necessary that the Government should await a favourable political opportunity to raise the school age nationally because anyone who studies the trend of public opinion in relation to this subject must realise that education authorities are moving in that direction. They are certainly studying the proposition—to put it no higher. I agree cordially with those who take the view that it is not much worth while for one isolated education authority to be prepared to do it. At any rate if it could be done in a regional way, over large areas, it would be much more efficacious than if it were done in the more isolated way I have suggested. I would urge upon the hon. Gentleman that

      259
      whether education authorities have already put up proposals and guaranteed proper facilities for practical instruction or not, and whether the proposals made would pass an exact educational test or not, the question still remains: What is to be done with the 400,000 young people who will flow into the industrial market in the coming years? To my mind, poor as may be the accommodation and the educational equipment in some of the schools as they now are, it would be infinitely better that our children should be kept in those schools than that they should be left to flow out into the streets with nothing to occupy their time.
      I wish to associate myself with the compliments which have been offered to the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Dr. Morrison) upon a most excellent and interesting maiden speech. I am sure that we shall all look forward, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, with the liveliest anticipation to his future incursions into debate. I was particularly attracted by that portion of his speech which referred to the Rome laboratory and the psychological tests that are being applied there. At an educational conference which I attended during the Recess an educational expert spoke on this very subject. I am at one on this point with the hon. Member, who, I was glad to see, welcomed the idea sympathetically. I am sure there is a strong case for embarking on some sort of experiment of this kind. As an old teacher, like myself, the hon. Member knows that those who have children at 13 or 14 in their charge would like to be able to assist those children in determining what their future careers should be. It is not always easy to do so. A child is not always very clear as to what he or she wants and the parents are often not well-informed as to the child's capabilities. It seems to me that a psychological test properly considered would enable headmasters whose responsibilities in this respect are bound to increase in the coming years, to assist parents much more efficiently.
      I associate myself heartily with the remarks of the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) in relation to the question of nursery schools. I know her interest in that matter and, with her, I am sorry that progress in the provision of these schools has not been maintained.
      260
      As I have said, we do not propose to challenge a Division on the Question now before the Committee, but we desire that this Vote should be kept open for discussion upon a future occasion.
      Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £26,603,918, be granted for the said Service," put, and negatived.
      Original Question again proposed.
      Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.— [Captain Margesson.]
      Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order).
  Read a Second time, and committed.
  7.31 p.m.
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I beg to move,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill is referred that they amend Part I of the Schedule thereto by striking out in the second column, paragraph (c), of Item 7, the words 'or the demolition thereof and the erection of a new bridge.'"
  If hon. Members will turn to the Schedule to the Bill, on page 6, they will find under Item 7 of paragraph (c) that power is taken for
  "the reconditioning of Waterloo Bridge or the demolition thereof, and the erection of a new bridge."
  The Motion, it carried, would mean that the decision already arrived at by this House two years ago, when the same question was discussed at length, shall stand and that, so far as Parliament is concerned, Waterloo Bridge shall be reconditioned to take four lines of traffic, and shall not be demolished with a view to the erection of a new bridge in its place. I feel that some apology is due to the House of Commons and to Parliament that Parliament should again be troubled with discussing a matter which they considered so fully and dealt with so decisively on the 1st June, 1932, almost exactly two years ago. I think there can be no doubt whatever that had the same London County Council as promoted the Bill two years ago been still in office they would never have dreamed of asking Parliament to reconsider the decision

  261
  which was reached at that time. Indeed, we know that this is the case, as when the new London County Council, under the leadership of Mr. Herbert Morrison, proposed that application should again be made to Parliament to provide 60 per cent. of the cost of pulling down the old bridge and building a new bridge, Sir Percy Simmons, on behalf of the party who were in a majority on the old Council, moved an Amendment to this effect—I take it from the "Times" of the 28th March:
  "Having regard to the fact that the Waterloo Bridge controversy had extended over 10 years, the Council, in order to secure finality, was not prepared to reopen the question, as the late Council had decided to end the controversy by accepting the offer of the Government of a grant of 60 per cent. towards the cost of reconditioning the old bridge."
  If the late Council would not have applied to Parliament to reconsider this matter —and there is little doubt that, even if they had applied, Parliament would have refused to reconsider it—I am at a loss to understand why the present predominantly Conservative House should change the opinion which was expressed two years ago simply at the instance of a small Socialist majority on the London County Council, the more so as the decision again to appeal to Parliament was only carried by the small majority of 24 votes, 77 members voting for and 63 against. A great many of us in this House know and respect Mr. Herbert Morrison as a most able political organiser, and these being the facts, Mr. Morrison is now suggesting that Parliament two years ago decided that Waterloo Bridge should be reconditioned rather than pulled down without having had the case of the Port of London Authority and the river users generally before their mind. I submit that this is a travesty of the facts of the case. May I remind the House, first of all, that in the Memorandum which was sent round 2 years ago to every Member of the House by the promoters of the Bill, on page 4, the case of the river users was fully emphasised? I will quote two sentences:
  "From the point of view of the navigation of the river, the provision of a bridge with fewer than the present eight river arches is of the utmost importance, as the action of the tidal current upon the course of a vessel makes the navigation of the archways of the existing bridge very difficult."
  262
  Further down it emphasises the great advantage of the new bridge for the river traffic beneath it, and points to the increasing use of the river as a traffic way by colliers and other craft. This, it urges, is a most important factor for the House of Commons to consider. Secondly, at the time when this Bill was under consideration by the House of Commons two years ago, I need scarcely remind the House that the case of the river users generally was discussed at length in the public Press of the country; and thirdly, and most important of all, I would ask the House to remember that the report of the Royal Commission on Cross-River Traffic was again and again referred to in the Debate two years ago, and the conclusions arrived at by them were urged by myself and others who spoke as the proper conclusions for the House to accept, and were finally adopted by the House. In view of the strong reliance placed by Mr. Herbert Morrison on this aspect of the case, and also in view of certain paragraphs in the White Paper which has been circulated to Members, I hope I may be forgiven if I read a few paragraphs from the evidence given by Lord Ritchie, who was then, and is still, chairman of the Port of London Authority, and who addressed a meeting of Members a few weeks ago in the Grand Committee Room in Westminster Hall. The chairman of the Royal Commission said:
  "Lord Ritichie, you are chairman of the Port of London Authority, and you are giving evidence on their behalf. … As to the nature of the traffic (on the river), it consists, apart from certain large vessels, very largely of tugs towing six barges. … There is a tail of 480 feet long. It is that system of navigation, I suppose, which constitutes one of the chief difficulties in getting through the bridges?
  Lord RITCHIE: Yes.
  The CHAIRMAN: Are you satisfied that this is the best and most economical system of using the river—barges towed by tugs?
  Lord RITCHIE: I think that the fact that this is how the traffic is managed is good evidence that it is the best way of it being conducted."
  I want the House to notice particularly the next question and answer;
  "The CHAIRMAN: They also point out that it makes exceptional difficulties in navigating the bridges, and the bridges, of course, cannot be done away with. One has to try to reconcile the two interests, of the cross-river users and the up and down river users?
  Lord RITCHIE: I do not think the Port of London Authority take up the attitude that they object to bridges. I do not want you to think, for instance, that I have come here as an advocate of the destruction of Waterloo Bridge. It is an impediment to the traffic on the river, but it is not so serious an impediment as to warrant the destruction of what I think, and I think most people think, is one of the most beautiful things we have get in this country, so I do not want you to think I have come here as an advocate of that. What I have really come here for is to impress upon you the necessity there is in our opinion for our having a voice in whatever is done in the way of building new bridges across the river.
  The CHAIRMAN: I cannot conceive that we would make any recommendations ignoring the Port of London Authority, which is responsible for the user of the river. I think we should not do anything of the kind; but before we leave that point, that you yourself made, with regard to Waterloo Bridge, I take it that you regard it (I am assuming now that it is in its original condition, I mean not in its present partially blocked condition) as increasing the difficulties of navigation, yet you have not regarded and do not regard it as so serious an obstacle to navigation that you wish to see it removed?
  Lord RITCHIE: That is so, but that brings me to say this, if I may; amongst the other proposals or suggestions that have been made was one that the bridge should be widened. … It is easy to imagine how the difficulties of navigating the bridge would be accentuated if it was increased in width.
  The CHAIRMAN: In tunnel width, you mean?
  Lord RITCHIE: Yes, in tunnel width. So that if any suggestion of that kind were made, of course we (the Port of London Authority) would have a good deal to say.
  The CHAIRMAN: But granting that at all times considerable skill has been required to navigate this particular bridge, it has been successfully accomplished, has it not?
  Lord RITCHIE: Yes.
  The CHAIRMAN: And according to a return which we have received covering the period from April, 1921, to March, 1924— that is, up to the time when the new staging was erected in connection with the bridge—there were no accidents of any sort or description, either to vessels or to cargo or to crews of the ships?
  Lord RITCHIE: None at all, according to this return.
  The CHAIRMAN: And it is only since the bridge has been largely blocked by the repair works that there have been some minor casualties, not to life, but a few casualties in connection with vessels passing through?
  Lord RITCHIE: There appear to have been three since May, 1924.
  The CHAIRMAN: But until the bridge was partially blocked there were apparently no accidents of any kind?
  Lord RITCHIE: Apparently not; we have no record of it.
  The CHAIRMAN: Showing that although extra skill is required, it is within the accomplishment of the river navigators?
  Lord RITCHIE: Apparently so.
  The CHAIRMAN: And therefore does not have to be taken into very grave account."
  I have detained the House by reading what I think are very apposite quotations from the evidence given before the Royal Commission on Cross-River Traffic by the chairman of the Port of London Authority, and I ask the House to consider if anything bas occurred in the last two years which has materially altered the position. Lord Ritchie is still the chairman. He tells us he did not come as an advocate of the destruction of the bridge, and that he did not regard it as so serious an impediment to navigation that he would wish the bridge demolished. That is exactly the case that my hon. Friends and I put to the House to-day. The chairman of the Royal Commission said it was the duty of the Commission to try to reconcile the two interests, of the cross-river users and the up and down river users, and I submit that it is the same duty that lies upon Parliament to-night. The Port of London Authority have always taken the line that they would rather have no bridges at all, that if there must be bridges, they would like suspension bridges, but the bridge that they would dislike most is a tunnel bridge, and that is exactly what Mr. Herbert Morrison and the London County Council are proposing to-day.
  I raised this matter when Lord Ritchie and his friends were in the Committee Room a few weeks ago, and I asked the River Superintendent of the Port of London whether he agreed that, if the length of the tunnel of the bridge were increased navigation would be more difficult, and he naturally said it would, though he qualified it by saying that the wider the tunnel the less the difficulty would be. [HON. MEMBERS: "Obviously!"] Yes; obviously. The wider the archway the less the obstruction would be, and he said that if you increased the tunnel length it added to the difficulties of navigation, though that would be mitigated if

  265
  the tunnel were widened. I agree that that is obvious. The only other point in Lord Ritchie's evidence to which I would draw the attention of the House is that until the bridge was partially blocked by the temporary bridge there was no accident of any sort either to vessels, cargo or to crews. That is a very important point. I trust that I have said enough to dispose of the contention that the case of the river users had not been fully discussed both by the Royal Commission and by the public before Parliament arrived at its decision by a large majority two years ago. The Royal Commission unanimously decided that Waterloo Bridge should be reconditioned for four lines of traffic. Their decision, which Parliament accepted, was as follows: It is proposed to corbel out the footways of the bridge so that it will take four lines of traffic instead of the present three, and by so doing it will practically double the capacity of the bridge. Four lines of bridge traffic is equivalent to six, and, many people will tell you, to eight lines of ordinary street traffic. The reason is that it is a continuous flow; there are no shops to stop the vehicles; no gas or water pipes going into premises to be repaired; and, except for the occasional repairing of the surface of the bridge, there is practically a continuous flow of traffic. At such occasional times as the road surface has to be repaired it can be done at night when the traffic is light.
  Another point was that four lines of traffic, and especially four lines of bridge traffic, going into the Strand was quite as much as the Strand could take, and that, if there are six lines of bridge traffic, as is now proposed, into the Strand, it will moan confusion worse confounded. It must be remembered that when a six-line bridge was first contemplated the county council had in mind that two of the lines would be trams, but that has since been abandoned. Then it was suggested that the traffic should be taken through a subway under the Strand, but that has been found impracticable. I am told that, owing to the merry-go-round that has been created recently at Wellington Street, the traffic difficulty has been solved, but there are many Members of the House, including myself, who have waited five or six minutes in an omnibus in order to cross Wellington Street to get towards
  266
  Trafalgar Square. If there has been an improvement, there is still great room for further improvement, and goodness knows what would happen if we had six lines of traffic going into the Strand from Waterloo Bridge.
  With regard to the question of river navigation, even if Lord Ritchie's evidence that practically no accident occurred prior to the repairs to the bridge had been less conclusive than it was, I submit that the system of having six barges in tow on a tug (the main cause of the difficulty in navigating the bridge), is archaic and should no longer be permitted. I have made inquiries, and I am told that on no other great European river highway is that done. I doubt if it is done in America, but I have no particular knowledge. I ask the House to consider what would have been said if in the Transport Bill which my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is piloting so skilfully through the House, provision had been made for permitting six lorries to be attached to a tractor along the Great West Road or other highway. Why should a similar system be permitted on the Thames? If you destroy all the bridges over the river, barges can take up the whole river, but as long as there are bridges the towing of so many barges is a curious form of traffic at this time of day when all other rivers of the kind are navigated with barges with an auxiliary motor.
  It must be remembered that whatever you do to Waterloo Bridge you have to go through Westminster Bridge, every arch of which, except the centre arch, is smaller than the arches of Waterloo Bridge. Moreover, the clearance of Westminster Bridge is six feet less than that of Waterloo Bridge. I submit, therefore, that the talk of providing for oceangoing steamers coming up through the new bridge at Waterloo, whether suspension or otherwise, is futile, because they would have to pass through Westminster Bridge. May I also remind the House of a matter to which attention was drawn in a letter to the "Times" the other day viz. the fact that no regulation for the use of the two arches of Waterloo Bridge has been made by the Port of London Authority whereby the left-hand arch shall be used by up-river and the right-hand arch by down-river traffic. It is plain that, un-guided, the traffic might sometimes meet

  267
  in the middle of one of the arches if our navigators were not the extraordinarily skilful men that they are.
  I will refer next to the comparative cost of the proposals. The estimate of the County Council for reconditioning the bridge is £685,000. That, however, is an outside figure, and I am advised by Sir Harley Dalrymple Hay, who is the engineer to the underground railways and designed the four tubes underneath the Thames, that it is an over-estimate. On the other hand, the London County Council estimate for the erection of a new bridge is £1,296,000. This estimate, I am advised, was for a steel bridge, and not a granite-faced bridge of the type proposed by Sir Giles Gilbert Scott, which would unquestionably cost more. Further, it is now proposed to have the arches 180 feet wide instead of the proposal that was made before of 150 feet arches in a steel bridge. I am told that the total cost of the new bridge, the pulling down of the temporary bridge, and the erection of a new temporary bridge would be at least £2,200,000. If, on the other hand, the bridge were reconditioned, there would be a saving of £1,500,000. The Royal Commission, the County Council, and I believe every one else are of opinion that the real key position for a bridge is at Charing Cross.
  The London County Council in the statement issued yesterday dismiss the scheme as not a matter of practical politics as it would cost over £15,000,000. They failed to point out, however, what was in the estimates which they them-selves submitted in 1930 to a Parliamentary Committee, that of that amount no less than between £11,000,000 and £12,000,000 was required for pulling down Charing Cross Station and re-erecting it, pulling down the railway bridge, pulling down Coutts Bank and erecting a new bank, and a large scheme of betterment on the other side of the river. There was a sum of only £1,140,000 for the bridge itself. I am advised by the highest engineering authority that that sum is ample for the bridge, and that if you add to that sum a further amount of £1,500,000, or say £3,000,000 in all, you can have a first class traffic bridge with proper approaches, making a most valuable traffic improvement, and leaving Charing Cross Railway Bridge and
  268
  station and the other improvements until such time as the money, both municipal and national, is available.
  I want the House to compare the respective dangers, difficulties, and dislocation of traffic in the two schemes. In order to carry out the county council scheme the present bridge would have to be pulled down. Waterloo Bridge is per-haps the most massive bridge in the world, for it contains 100,000 tons of granite and other material. Every pier of the bridge has 10,000 tons of granite. That will all have to be pulled down bit by bit and put into lighters, which will have to take it away. In order to get the piers down you will have to put down coffer-dams, which will be at least 65 feet in width and of considerable length. The House will readily understand the obstruction to traffic that that will cause. Gantries will have to be put up, stages provided, and hon. Members will appreciate the immense nature of the work. Then, when the bridge is removed, the temporary bridge will have to be removed, because the temporary bridge piers are in line with the piers of the present bridge. That will stop all traffic across the river at this point. If you look at a plan showing the new five-arch bridge you will find that the piers of the temporary bridge come into the open spans of the new bridge, and I am authorised by Mr. Muirhead of William Muirhead and Partners, who built Vauxhall Bridge, to say that it is an impossibility for the temporary bridge to be allowed to remain if the present stone bridge is removed. This work will take at least seven years, and very likely nine years. During a great deal of that time the traffic will be stopped altogether, and for the whole of the time it will be only two lines.
  On the other hand, if you recondition the bridge, it will take at most three and a-half years, but the time for underpinning the piers will be only two years. During the whole of this time the bridge can be used for traffic except for three months, because the London County Council say that the present bridge must be lightened of certain of its roofing, but when the bridge is closed the temporary bridge will still remain open. Therefore for three and a-half years you would have four lines of

  269
  traffic in continual operation, and only for three months would the bridge be closed.
  I am obliged to the House for listening to me so patiently. I had to give figures, which are sometimes boring, but I think they were apropos. Mr. Morrison, in addressing the London County Council on the 27th March, stated that the real trouble was that some people looked upon Waterloo Bridge as a monument. Waterloo Bridge is a monument, and, as Lord Ritchie stated before the Royal Commission, it is one of the most beautiful monuments in Great Britain. I pointed out to the House two years ago that Canova, the great Italian sculptor, said that it was the noblest building in the world, well worth coming all the way from Rome to London to see. But it is not only a monument it is also a war memorial, the same as the Cenotaph is to us. It was opened on the 18th June, 1817, by the Prince Regent, accompanied by the Duke of Wellington and delegations from all the British Regiments still in France, who came over for the ceremony. It was formally named The Waterloo Bridge by Act of Parliament passed in 1816, 56 Geo. III, which recited in its Preamble that
  "The bridge was a work of great stability and magnificence, and as such adapted to transmit to posterity the remembrance of great and glorious achievements, and that a name should be given to the bridge which should be a lasting record of the brilliant and decisive victory achieved by His Majesty's Forces in conjunction with those of his Allies on the 18th June, 1815."
  Wherefore it was enacted,
  "That from and after the passing of this Act the said bridge shall be called and denominated The Waterloo Bridge."
  For the reasons that I have given, historical, aesthetic, and practical, on grounds both of cost and of convenience, I ask the House to adhere to the decision at which they arrived, after full discussion, two years ago, and to refuse to grant public money for the pulling down of this historic national monument.
  8.4 p.m.
  Sir JOHN WITHERS: I beg to second the Motion.
  I do so with strong hesitation and reluctance, because I have the very greatest respect for the London County Council. They do their work magnificently and are a very wonderful body. Therefore, I have great difficulty in opposing their wishes. I certainly deprecate anything in the way
  270
  of allusion to any political aspect in the composition of that body at the present time. That has no effect whatever upon me. However, I am afraid that they are making a mistake. I considered the matter in very great detail in 1932 and I came to a conclusion at that time to which I adhere to-day. I do not think that anything very serious has happened since to cause one to change that opinion.
  I should like to speak from experience. I have had my office in Arundel Street, Strand, close by Waterloo Bridge, for over 40 years. I pass by the end of Wellington Street every day of my life, sometimes twice, and I have passed over the bridge very many times. My opinion is that that is entirely a wrong place for the bridge. There is no really great approach from the north. If you shift a lot of new traffic from the south into the Strand at that point, which is now congested, heaven's knows what it will be afterwards. There is certainly a roundabout by the Gaiety Theatre, on the right, but it is too much to the east. In certain portions of the day there is great congestion of traffic there. If you put there a large amount of northern bound traffic from the south there would be very great trouble. A new bridge undoubtedly should be at Charing Cross, and when prosperous times come I hope that it will be there.
  The hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) has put his point very clearly. I wish to emphasise the point he made that if we get by corbelling out on the side of the bridge four actual tracks for moving traffic, that will be sufficient. If the police do their duty to see that there is no loitering, I think that four lines of moving traffic will be adequate. I am greatly impressed by the fact that the re-conditioning of the bridge would cost about half what a new bridge will cost, and would interfere less with the river traffic. A new bridge would cost double and would block the river traffic for a much longer period. Lastly, there is the aesthetic point, in which I am particularly interested. It is a wonderful old bridge, a monument of London, and I should not like to see it go. I hope that I have not kept the House too long.
  8.9 p.m.
  Mr. JOHN WILMOT: In asking the House to oppose the Motion for the Instruction, I should like to draw attention

  271
  to a number of statements which were made very ably by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison). Those statements coincide with statements which have been very widely published in the Press, by circular to Members of Parliament, and by all manner of propaganda means, with a view to influencing the House on this matter. If I may say so with respect, the Mover of the Motion has done a disservice to his cause by introducing into what is essentially a matter of the good Government of London, and not a matter of party politics, considerations of a party political character. That it is not a party question is evidenced by the fact that the old council, like the new council, were unanimously of opinion that on its merits the building of a new bridge is the best method of dealing with this difficult and long-delayed question. It is inaccurate to say that on the London County Council there is a party division on the question of rebuilding and reconditioning. There is nothing of the kind. Both councils, old and new, are unanimous in their belief that, on the merits of the question, tactics aside, to rebuild the bridge is the best course. It is very unfortunate to convey the impression, which perhaps the hon. Member might not have intended to convey, that this is a matter of party politics on the London County Council. It is not, and I feel sure that it will not be a matter of party politics in this House.
  The hon. Member for South Kensington has, I hope unwittingly, gravely misrepresented the situation and misled the House with nearly all the figures which he quoted. He said that they were apropos, but they were certainly not accurate. In view of the fact that those figures have been used in every attempt to create opinion on this matter, I think it is vitally necessary that the real facts about these curious figures should be known. A very important part of the propaganda against a new Waterloo Bridge has taken the form of casting doubts upon the competence of the council's engineer and their engineering advisors. It is suggested in this propaganda, in letters to the newspapers, and again to-night by the hon. Member for South Kensington that the estimates which the council have given as to the
  272
  relative cost of rebuilding and reconditioning bear no relation to the real facts. Eminent authority has been quoted to inflate the figures to enormous proportions.
  Sir W. DAVISON indicated dissent.
  Mr. WILMOT: The hon. Member shakes his head, but, if I heard him aright, he inflated a figure of £750,000 into £2,250,000, no small increase, and in doing that he threw direct doubt upon the competency of the estimates of the Council's engineers and advisers. It has been stated that the cost of building the bridge in accordance with the design of Sir Giles Gilbert Scott would be £2,200,000. The Council are not committed to that design or any other, but that design has been used as the basis for estimate and on the basis of that design the estimates of the Council's engineers and advisers is not £2,200,000 but £1,295,000. Therefore, the hon. Member made a trifling inaccuracy of nearly £1,000,000.
  It is further suggested by opponents, and I think it is most important that the real facts should be known, that the time during which there would be, admittedly, interference with the navigation on the river and the cross-river road traffic, would for building the new bridge be greatly in excess of the time which would be taken in reconditioning the present bridge. The hon. Member's estimates seem to grow by what they feed on. In the first exaggerated estimate that I saw the time occupied for building a new bridge will be seven years, but the hon. Member has now thrown in another couple of years and the time has now become nine years.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Seven to nine years.
  Mr. WILMOT: On the other side he said the time for reconditioning the bridge would be two or three years. Fortunately, I am in a position this evening to give the House, with the authority of the London County Council, some important facts which bear upon those quite inaccurate statements. The House will remember that in pursuance of a decision arrived at previously the County Council invited tenders for reconditioning the bridge. Owing to the great amount of detail which has had to be examined it is only possible for me to place before

  273
  the House certain general particulars with regard to those tenders, but sufficient definite information is available— not on estimates, but on actual tenders to which the contractors will be bound —to show that the hon. Member's figures and estimates are very wide of the actual facts.
  The original estimate for reconditioning was £685,000. That figure included some £65,000 for overhead charges and engineering expenses. If that £65,000 be deducted, in order to get the actual cost of reconditioning and to obtain a comparable figure with the tenders, the figure is £620,000. The council received 29 tenders from 17 firms. They invited the tenderers to submit tenders for alternative schemes. The lowest five of the tenders which comply with the council's formulated scheme range from. £574,000 to £615,000. The lowest tender, therefore, is within 7½ per cent. of the council's own estimate. Having regard to the range of the tenders I think the hon. Member will agree that the council's estimate was startlingly accurate; it came almost exactly to the actual figure of the tender. The advertisement for these tenders was an open one. In the light of this surprisingly accurate estimating the House, in considering the estimates of the council's engineers and their advisers, is entitled to regard them as competent estimators, and can set aside these, if I may say so, unjust statements that we ought to ignore entirely the estimates made by the London County Council.
  Sir W. DAVISON: I did not quarrel with the £685,000. I said, on the contrary, that my advisers thought it was too high, and I understand now that it is too high.
  Mr. WILMOT: I am afraid the hon. Member has not quite followed my point. My point is that if the council's engineers and advisers can forecast with such remarkable accuracy the cost of reconditioning the bridge, what reason have we to throw doubt upon their estimate for rebuilding, and what right bas the hon. Member to inflate their figure for rebuilding the bridge by nearly a million pounds? This inaccuracy in such a grave matter, because this has to be considered as an urgent business proposition, is even worse when we come to the question of time. Time is very strictly of the essence of this contract. The time which it will
  274
  take to recondition the bridge has been estimated by the council as accurately as the cost. The council estimate that the time will be about five years, and the 29 tenders vary as to time from four to six and a-half years, the average being five years and four months. So that when the hon. Member speaks of reconditioning this bridge in two years——
  Sir W. DAVISON: I said three and a-half years.
  Mr. WILMOT: Two to three and a-half years, I understood.
  Sir W. DAVISON: No, three and a-half years for reconditioning the bridge, but the rebuilding of the two defective fliers and arches will take only two years, and the whole bridge will be open for traffic the whole time except for three months.
  Mr. WILMOT: The hon. Member will, no doubt, be interested to know that the tenderers require an average of five years and four months, so that he has not only been grossly inaccurate about the cost but is two years wrong as to time. Here, again, the council's engineers and advisers have been absolutely accurate. The hon. Member spoke also of the added obstruction to navigation which would be involved in rebuilding. No doubt he will be very interested to learn that none of the tenderers could undertake to fulfil the minimum requirements of the Port of London Authority. The Port of London Authority laid down certain minimum requirements of navigation. I need not trouble the House with a technical description of those requirements, but none of the tenderers was able to satisfy them.
  Sir P. HARRIS: Is this a public document?
  Mr. WILMOT: I am quoting from information which has been supplied to me on the authority of the London County Council, and I suggest that the House must be in possession of this information if it is to come to an informed decision. None of the tenderers would be able, while reconditioning the bridge, to maintain the minimum navigational facilities; but the council's engineers, whose competence and accuracy have been established, I submit, say that they can maintain all that the Port of London Authority asks for while building a new

  275
  bridge, and that they can build the new bridge within five years. Actually, therefore, the time involved will be less and the obstruction caused will be less.
  The hon. Member went on to speak of the advantages of the Charing Cross Bridge scheme. I agree that it is impossible to consider this matter without also considering alternative traffic routes over the Thames, The House will agree that the hon. Member for South Kensington was wrong when he tried to isolate the cost of building Charing Cross Bridge from the cost of building the approaches to the bridge. A very large proportion of the cost of the Charing Cross Bridge scheme was the cost of the improvements both on the north and the south sides. It would be folly to contemplate a new bridge without at the same time making it usable, and it is the preparation of the approaches to the bridge in the south and the removal of obstructions to traffic on the north which involve the very heavy cost of the scheme.
  When the commission considered this matter and recommended that the present Waterloo Bridge should be reconditioned to take four lines of traffic, they coupled with the recommendation the further recommendation that a new road bridge should be built at Charing Cross; it was, in fact, part of the same recommendation, They said, "We want 10 lines of traffic over the Thames within that sector," and they said: "We will provide for six at Charing Cross and four by repairing Waterloo Bridge." The recommendation was that the two developments should go on simultaneously, and, if there is to be no bridge for some years at Charing Cross, it becomes vitally necessary, in the interests of cross-river traffic, that six lines of traffic shall be provided at Waterloo.
  In considering the Charing Cross Bridge scheme it is extremely important to remember what it involves. As the hon. Member has said, it involves spending some £15,000,000 of public money on the bridge and its approaches. Financial considerations are less stringent than they were when Parliament turned down the Charing Cross Bridge scheme, and I think I am right in my recollection when I say that the hon. Member for South Kensington, who is now
  276
  extolling the Charing Cross Bridge scheme, was one of those whose votes helped to defeat the only concrete scheme for a bridge at Charing Cross that has ever been put forward.
  Sir W. DAVISON: I was not on the Committee.
  Mr. WILMOT: The Charing Cross Bridge scheme together with the reconditioning of Waterloo Bridge, that would provide 10 lines of traffic, involves expenditure of over £16,000,000. The suggestion of the London County Council is that six lines of traffic be provided at Waterloo Bridge, and the total cost of that will be £1,295,000. That, they suggest will provide for the traffic requirements in that sector of the river for the time being, and will meet the requirements as far as we can see ahead. While the Charing Cross Bridge scheme is not ruled out, it is felt by the council that money is wanted for urgent public needs, and that with the provision of six lines of traffic at Waterloo Bridge are more urgent, in point of time and in public consideration, than the Charing Cross scheme. The council feel, and I feel, that the House will support them in their proposal that, so long as adequate traffic facilities are provided, no money should be diverted from slum clearance and rehousing proposals. It is with the very great difficulty in mind of finding the necessary money for such purpose's which will be required, over and above the heavy expenditure of Charing Cross, that the council now make this suggestion.
  I saw the suggestion again in the "Times" of this morning that the rebuilding of Waterloo Bridge would destroy for ever the hope of clearing up that patch of squalor on the south bank. I fail to see how anybody can logically accept that statement. Why should it be that a new bridge at Charing Cross will automatically town-plan the south bank of the Thames while a new Waterloo Bridge will automatically destroy all hope of that town-planning? The present chaotic condition of the south bank is, in my view and in the view of the overwhelming majority of all parties on the London County Council a disgrace and a blot on London. The south bank between Westminster Bridge and Black-friars Bridge is the geographical heart

  277
  of London. Properly planned and developed, it could be a pride and a joy to the city.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Let us get on with it.
  Mr. WILMOT: I am glad to hear the hon. Member say that. That is exactly what the London County Council want to do. If the hon. Gentleman will read the proceedings of the council, and I am afraid he does not, judging from a quotation which he made earlier in his speech——
  Sir W. DAVISON: I quoted from the "Times."
  Mr. WILMOT: That was only half of it, and that was the unfortunate thing about it. If the hon. Gentleman had read the whole quotation he would have seen that members of the council unanimously affirmed their belief in that same resolution that a new bridge at Waterloo was the best thing. He did not quote that. If he had followed the proceedings of the London County Council, he would have seen that they had in mind to set about the job of replanning and redeveloping the south bank of the Thames. That is one of the necessary collateral developments, with this long-drawn out controversy of Waterloo Bridge, which should be settled once and for all.
  I hope that the House will pay no attention to purely irresponsible statements that, if permission be given to the council to rebuild Waterloo Bridge, that automatically destroys the hope of town-planning on the south side. The hon. Member for South Kensington spoke about the difficulties which would be created by six lines of traffic being emptied into the Strand. Nobody proposes that six lines of traffic should be emptied into the Strand, because three lines will come out of the Strand and three lines will go into the Strand. Three will go south and three will go north; so the hon. Member here again bas inflated his problem by 100 per cent. The position is one upon which I am not competent to pass judgment. I see that the hon. Member for Central Wands-worth (Sir H. Jackson), who for many years has rendered distinguished service as Chairman of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, made an authoritative pronouncement on
  278
  this question when the House was considering the matter two years ago, and, if I am not wearying the House with what I think is of vital importance, I will quote a few words of what is considered an expert opinion arising out of a very ripe experience. He said:
  "We are convinced that, if there were a bridge with six lines of traffic there"—
  that is, at Waterloo Bridge—
  "the present fluidity of traffic is such that not only would congestion not happen but that the traffic would be admirably dealt with. The police report on congestion in the neighbourhood of the Strand since this experiment"—
  of the roundabout—
  "was tried is that it has resulted in a steady improvement in the flow of traffic … We are confident that by that method we have the answer to our friends who ask how we can deal with the six lines of traffic over Waterloo Bridge."—[OFFICIAI. REPORT, 1st June, 1932; col. 1277, Vol. 266.]
  That is the opinion, if I may say so, of the Member of this House who has the greatest possible authority on questions of London traffic, and I see no reason why the House should cease to have regard for it.
  There is another very important side to this question, which was touched upon by the hon. Member. It is possibly the paramount consideration, for London stands upon the Thames because it is the Thames— because it is a navigable river; and, while other considerations have to be given their due weight, I think that probably the vital thing in dealing with the Thames is to maintain its navigation. I have shown that in the estimates received for this work, although the tenderers knew that they were required to preserve certain minimum navigational facilities, they were quite unable to do so. This question of navigation is a very technical one, and I should hope that the hon. Member for South Kensington will agree that, in quoting, as he did, the evidence of Lord Ritchie before the Royal Commission, he was doing him a great injustice——
  Sir W. DAVISON: No.
  Mr. WILMOT: Lord Ritchie is the chairman of the Port of London Authority, and Lord Ritchie claimed, the hon. Member said, to have the voice of the Port of London Authority heard when alterations of London's bridges were in contemplation. The voice of the Port of

  279
  London Authority has been heard on this very matter which we are discussing today, in a considered statement——
  Sir W. DAVISON indicated dissent.
  Mr. WILMOT: Because the hon. Member does not agree with it, I hope he is not going to try to stifle it. The Port of London Authority have issued an authoritative pronouncement on this problem which we are considering to-day, but, as this is a highly technical question, I will leave it to another Member of the House, the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Clarke), who speaks with unquestioned authority as one who has personal knowledge of the problems concerned, to deal with the navigational aspect of the matter. In the few minutes that remain, might I refer to the various appeals which have been made for the preservation of the architecture of this fine old bridge, Rennie's masterpiece? I yield to no one in my love of and devotion to the beauty of London, and especially the beauty of old London, but I think we are bound to have regard to the necessities of a modem city. We are bound to have regard to questions of comfort and convenience and to the possibility of (modern trade and modern commerce. But, if I may say so to the hon. Member with all respect, we are not faced with the alternative of destroying a beautiful piece of architecture or of preserving it. The chance of preserving it has already gone; it has itself fallen down. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It has fallen down. No one who looks at it to-day can do so without a feeling of sorrow and, indeed, of some shame. For more than 10 years that bridge has been in splints, with a bad and sorrowful crack in two of its beautiful arches, and I was thinking today, as I passed a school, that no child in that school has ever seen Waterloo Bridge in any other condition. The alternative before us is not preservation or destruction; the alternative before us is whether we will bow to the inevitable, realise that the bridge has served its purpose, and let it go, or whether we will so deal with it as to render it a mere shadow and distortion of its previous beauty.
  I would like, if I may, to quote one other eminent opinion. I suppose that the hon. Member will not question the
  280
  competence of Sir Edwin Lutyens. This problem of how to preserve the beauty of the bridge and yet render it capable of dealing with modern conditions was submitted to that eminent artist and architect. He said that he had explored every avenue of approach to this problem, with due regard to the data and the drawings of the engineers, and he had, he feared, been unable to arrive at any satisfactory design whereby the bridge could be widened by corbelling it out. He said:
  "To overhang the footways would altogether destroy the architectural character of Rennie's bridge, which relies entirely upon the spontaneous and direct motive of arch and pillared buttress. The narrowness of the bridge emphasises its robust character, and to link the buttresses with any horizontal line that would throw into shadow the crown of the arches would completely mutilate the character of the original design, and would create, in fact, not only a new bridge, but an ugly one."
  That is the opinion of, perhaps, the greatest architect of modern times; and Sir Giles Gilbert Scott, whose name was most improperly attached to propaganda of the character which I have described, has himself said that he is entirely opposed on aesthetic grounds to this treatment of Rennie's bridge. I am afraid I have detained the House too long, but in conclusion might I repeat that we have not the alternative of preserving unimpaired this admitted architectural masterpiece or of building a new bridge; the alternative before us is so to mutilate the character of Rennie's bridge as to desecrate the memory of that great artist and at the same time fail to provide either the cross-river traffic facilities or the under-bridge navigation facilities which those most competent to express an opinion demand.
  The hon. Member very eloquently called upon history to support his case, but I am afraid he does not realise the extent to which the verdict of history is sharply against him. I came across to-day, among a small collection of books which I have on London's history, this very interesting volume issued by the Corporation of London, as the bridges authority for the City, on the completion of the Tower Bridge some 40 years ago. It contains the history of all London's bridges, and, on looking through it again, especially

  281
  as to the history of London Bridge, I was amazed to find that there was an hon. Member—not for South Kensington, but for somewhere else—who took precisely the same attitude towards the demolition of Old London Bridge. In taking that attitude, he was standing on much more ancient and hallowed ground than we are to-day, for Old Peter Colechurch's bridge had stood there since 1174, nearly 700 years. The same debates went on in this House, and the same debates went on on the bridges authority of that day. Money was poured out to recondition, to widen, to corbell, to underpin, and in the end they had to build a new bridge. History has precisely repeated itself in the case of Waterloo Bridge, and, curiously enough, when the new London Bridge came to be built, the London Bridge which stands to-day it was built by Rennie and his father, the same Rennie who built Waterloo Bridge, which has nobly served us but has failed to withstand the very special stresses caused by the set of the tide at the apex of the great bend of London's river. I hope the House will face this problem as an urgent business problem of good London government and will pass the Bill without the Instruction in order that the authority which Parliament itself has appointed as the bridges authority for London may be able unencumbered to get on with its work.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. CLARKE: Before stating the case for the navigational interests so closely linked with the problem of Waterloo Bridge, I should like to tell the House how much I appreciate the work done by the London Committee and all those bodies concerned with the amenities of London. In doing this I know that I am voicing the feelings of all those organisations for which I speak. Surely no Englishman can fail to be thrilled by the romance and the historic memories which cling around our ancient monuments. Surely no Englishman would ruthlessly destroy any one of them. But I am certain that everyone here will agree that our country has greater historical and romantic interests than those connected with ancient monuments. Surely we hold more dearly the historic recollections and romantic traditions of our great industries and the lives of our countrymen who are carrying on those industries. If
  282
  it was a question of saving one or the other, we should perforce save the livelihood of our people first. Suppose a beautiful country mansion were on fire, however wonderful and romantic its history, one's first thought would be for the people inside, and then we should preserve as much of the building as possible. I contend that this describes symbolically the problem that we have before us. Waterloo Bridge has certain aesthetic values for all of us but, as it stands to-day, it menaces the industrial development and the livelihood of thousands of our people. It is my privilege, as a practical freeman of the River Thames, to emphasise the views of the Port of London Authority, the Association of Master Lightermen, the Thames River Users Association, the British Chambers of Commerce and, last but not least, the men who work the river, men who by their skill and courage for many centuries have gained for themselves a privilege possessed by the men of no other river in the world
  With all the expert experience and knowledge that they have behind them, all these bodies are united in their opinion that the opportunity should be taken to demolish the existing bridge and re-erect in its place a bridge with greater facilities for navigational progress. Although they feel a suspension bridge to be the ideal to be aimed at they recognise that other considerations may make this impracticable. They are of the very definite opinion, however, that the minimum requirements of present day river traffic demand a bridge at the bend of the river here of not more than five arches. They are also unanimously of the opinion that Waterloo Bridge is the greatest obstacle to river navigation to-day. There are many difficulties. The arches are too small—there are eight in all—the bridge is at the apex of a bend and the navigator has no clear vision through the arches. In steering a vessel up through the bridge it is necessary to lake into consideration the cross set of the tide and to steer more or less for a buttress of the bridge, allowing for the tide to carry you through. This is a very precarious bit of navigation and in certain conditions it is almost impossible. If one studies the photographs that were circulated at the recent meeting, one will see the scores in the archways where vessels have bumped through.

  283
  There are greater difficulties at the top of spring tide, when a great amount of land water is often coming down from the Tipper reaches and when there is a very rapid flow. There are other difficulties at the lowest neaps, when the water is at times very restricted under the arches and with certain squalls and other freaks of the elements larger vessels find the navigation extremely difficult. It is, perhaps, not known to all that there are only three hours on the top of each tide when it is possible for the larger vessels to navigate the bridge, and only five hours in the case of smaller vessels. The dangers of collision in consequence are very considerable and, with the constant increase of traffic and the great number of petrol barges passing up, a collision would be a very serious thing.
  It is necessary to have some conception of the magnitude of the Port of London in sizing up the situation with regard to navigation through Waterloo Bridge. There is a great danger in the future of this becoming a bottle-neck in the navigation of the river. The Port of London extends over 75 miles. There are 700 acres of enclosed dock water and 55,000,000 tons coming into the port with cargoes valuing over £700,000,000. The Thames is still the great highway of London and its extension is going on rapidly in the direction of the upper reaches. It is an actual fact that no fewer than 400 to 500 vessels pass underneath the bridge every tide, and no less than 55,000 tons of material are carried through it every day of the week. That material is absolutely essential to the communal life of London. It represents food supplies, raw materials for factories, huge quantities of coal for the Water Board's pumping stations, the big power stations and gas undertakings. There are also the general goods going to the various railheads and the huge tonnage of refuse which serves the sanitary service for London. This is an ever-increasing traffic, and it is obvious that sooner or later it will reach a point when, if the bridge is not pulled down and a fresh bridge put in its place, traffic will have to be restricted and, when restriction of traffic comes, it will not be possible to get those materials to the various factories and other places except by road, which will increase the road problem very considerably.
  284
  The river workers will also suffer unless something is done to the bridge. They have already suffered considerably during the last few years. There is a great amount of unemployment among the dockers and river workers. They have been hit very badly by the advent of the light-draught Dutch motor vessels carrying goods direct from the Continent to the upper portions of the river, and the arrival of the tariff has for the time being affected their trade very considerably inasmuch as a great amount of stuff now comes over in the form of raw material and is manufactured here and the tonnage is correspondingly low. Therefore, we must in our consideration of the matter take into account the men who have worked the river for so many years, because they played a great part in our national history. Many of the men who were recruited to man the ships that were built on this great river years ago went out to fight the Armada and took part in many of our maritime wars. The river continues to breed a no less daring race. These men are very skilful navigators, they played a very great part in the last War and their livelihood is a matter of consideration for Parliament.
  On the subject of the various points of opposition which have been very skilfully dealt with already, I would like to say something on the question of the length of the archways. It has been said that if the archways were lengthened it would increase the difficulties of navigation. The navigator would not agree. If he were given an extra width of arch he would be thoroughly compensated in vision. Therefore, there is nothing; in that argument. The point that the bridge is not an obstacle is not agreed to by practical men on the river. All are unanimous in their opinion. The experts say that the bridge should come down, and they agree with them.
  Lord BALNIEL: The hon. Member says that all experts are agreed that the bridge should come down. May I point out that Lord Ritchie states in evidence:
  "I do not want you to think that I have come as an advocate for the destruction of Waterloo Bridge. It is an impediment to the traffic of the river, but it is not so serious an impediment as to warrant the destruction of the bridge."
  Mr. CLARKE: It is true that Lord Ritchie made that statement before the Royal Commission, but it is nearly seven

  285
  years ago, and the colossal increase of tonnage since that time has caused even Lord Ritchie to change his point of view. Practical men say most definitely that this brdige is the greatest obstacle on the River Thames. If one took the advice of a specialist as to having his tonsils out and he were advised to do so, he would not go to a veterinary surgeon afterwards. This subject has been very near getting into a party controversy. I was very disappointed to hear earlier in the day that various people were going to vote against the London County Council. I do not think that that is quite the right point of view on a big question of this sort which affects the lives of so many people and the great industrial development of those ports in the upper reaches of the River Thames. We must remember what the river means to us, and in this connection I will quote the words of the Poet Laureate:
  "A thousand landmarks perish,
  A hundred streets grow strange,
  With all the dreams they cherish
  They go the ways of change.
  But, whatso towers may tumble
  And, whatso bridges fall,
  And, whatso statues crumble
  Of folks both great and small,
  The oldest thing in London,
  He changes not at all."
  9 p.m.
  Sir MURDOCH MACDONALD: I rise to support the Motion, because I think that it is unnecessary that anyone should go to the expense of building a new bridge when the present one can be adapted to fit in with the general circumstances of the area which it is intended to serve, notwithstanding what the two speakers who have just preceded me have said. The first hon. Gentleman stated that we have to deal with the merits of the case. He twitted my hon. Friend who proposed the Motion with not having dealt with the merits, but I am afraid that when he reads the OFFICAL REPORT to-morrow he will be compelled to say the same thing about the speech, however eloquent it was, which he himself delivered. After all, this is a practical engineering problem, and the question is, what are the merits of the case and what requirements are to be served by a bridge across the river at this point? Any work of this sort, whether the reconditioning of Waterloo Bridge or the construction of an entirely new bridge of different dimensions,
  286
  should form part of a co-ordinated scheme of development for its own and adjacent parts of the river. Anything that may be done on the site of the present Waterloo Bridge should fit in with a town planning scheme which would, in my view, necessitate the construction of a Charing Cross Bridge. The hon. Member who moved the Motion, and the first hon. Member who spoke in support of it, agreed that a Charing Cross Bridge was a desirable thing, but I was amazed to hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) say that the proposal was to deal with 10 lines of traffic. I doubt if the hon. Gentleman realised that these two bridges —Charing Cross and Waterloo—are not parallel bridges which, when crossing the river, would, as a consequence, serve different areas.
  Mr. WILMOT: Perhaps I ought to point out that this was not my suggestion or the suggestion of the London County Council, but the recommendation of the Royal Commission.
  Sir M. MACDONALD: Whoever made it, let us deal with it as it is. These two bridges are not parallel. If they were parallel they would deal with different areas on either side of the river. On this side they would both debouch into the Strand, and on the other side it is conceivable that they would have two main arteries which would feed them, and to some considerable extent they might be regarded as independent, but that is not the case at all, These two bridges converge rapidly. Indeed, they converge so much that lines drawn along the centre of them would meet at no great distance on the other side of the river. They would meet somewhere opposite the present entrance to Waterloo Station. Meeting there, they would have one main artery leading away. That one main artery would feed the two bridges. The hon. Member is shaking his head. Here are two bridges crossing the river, and shortly after crossing the river there would be one artery leading away. They could have a lot of branch roads coming in down the New Cut beyond Waterloo Station. A big plage could be built such as was put down on the original plan with a whole series of roads leading into it. But it was meant by such a plage that one road would serve both the Waterloo Bridge and the Charing Cross

  287
  Bridge. I know something about it because I put up the alternative scheme.
  It is proposed to erect an entirely new bridge at Waterloo with six lines of traffic, and to build a bridge at Charing Cross, the two bridges converging on the other side of the river with one main artery serving both. Is it reasonable to put six lines of traffic on either or both of these bridges? What main artery can possibly carry traffic of that nature? No argument has been put before the House to substantiate a proposal to build a new Waterloo bridge with six lines of traffic. What is the position now? Roughly, with the temporary bridge and the existing bridge you have two lines of traffic. There was not much congestion on the bridge before the disaster took place, nor has there been since, but when the traffic gets to the Strand it becomes congested. If you put up a bridge with six lines of traffic, just imagine the amount of congestion which will take place in the Strand. It would be practically impossible to deal with it at one point. Therefore I see no reason why the present bridge should not be reconditioned. There is no engineer who will not agree that it could be done easily, and I have heard that about 25 contractors have lodged tenders offering to do the work. There can be no question about the possibility of reconditioning.
  The only point left is the amount of traffic which the bridge can be made to carry. I understand that the county council have produced a satisfactory plan with exactly the same width of roadway as Lambeth Bridge, that is, 36 feet wide, for four lines of traffic. What more is required? I understand that there is also ample footway for foot passengers. There is a small amount of overhang, four feet and an inch or two, and if a couple of feet extra are added to that on either side a very excellent footpath can be provided, with four lines of traffic on the 36-foot roadway. Therefore as far as traffic is concerned there is no necessity to spend £500,000 extra in order to build a new bridge. Then there is the question of the river traffic. The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Clarke) said that the Port of London Authority would like a new bridge. Every interest in the country would like the taxpayer and the ratepayer to spend money for their benefit.
  288
  Has there ever been a suggestion by the Port of London Authority that they will subscribe towards this scheme? It would be only reasonable if they were to say "it is going to benefit us and we will subscribe to it." If motorists want a road widened a tax is put upon them by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the money is found. If railways want additional facilities they have to find the money themselves, and if the Port of London Authority want a bridge widened they should subscribe to it in the same way as other people. Why should the whole of the burden be put on the taxpayer or ratepayer?
  Therefore, on the ground that the bridge can be reconditioned, whatever figures are taken, at considerably less cost than a new bridge would cost, and on the ground that four lines of traffic are ample in the circumstances I support the Instruction. And also on the ground that river traffic is not at the present moment impeded. Since the temporary bridge has been put up with a couple of arches shut to traffic in Waterloo Bridge, the conditions in the river are not as they would be if the bridge was reconditioned and in its normal state. There has been no suggestion of accidents, and if a barge does hit a pier and takes off some of its paint is that a reason for spending £500,000 extra. On all these grounds I hope the House will agree with the proposal that Waterloo Bridge should be reconditioned.
  9.12 p.m.
  Sir WILLIAM RAY: I do not intend to take up the time of the House for any length of time but I feel that as one who took some part in the discussions in this House two years ago, and has been connected with the controversy over this bridge for the last 10 years, that it is incumbent upon me to say something in this Debate. Two years ago I had the opportunity of speaking on behalf of the London County Council. To-day I have not that opportunity, but as one who has taken an interest in London administrative problems for more than a quarter of a century perhaps I may claim the indulgence of the House in saying a few words on this new attempt to bring the matter before Parliament. When the House decided two years ago to refuse the request of the London County Council we

  289
  thought that the matter was more or less closed. At the beginning of 1933 we made representations to His Majesty's Government again and put forward our point of view, and the Government decided that no alteration could be made in the decision at which the House had arrived. The London County Council by resolution reluctantly acquiesced in the decision of the Government. We proceeded to take the necessary steps, as outlined by the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot), to secure tenders from various people for the reconstruction of Waterloo Bridge on lines that were decided by the Government of the day.
  Things have changed, of course, in the last few months, and the London County Council again comes to this House and asks the House practically to reverse its decision. I feel that I must join with the London County Council in forwarding that request. One must follow out the ideas that one has held for all these years, that in the circumstances, without any possibility at the moment of a Charing Cross Bridge being in sight, in the interests of London and London traffic, a new six-line bridge is essential. As one who loves London and London government my vote to-night must be given in favour of the request of the London County Council. We did not think that this question would be reopened. I want Members of the House to realise that the scheme originally was a scheme of the party in power, opposed by the party which is in power now. It was brought forward by the party with which I was connected, and in the welter of politics, in spite of the many stupid things that had been done by the London County Council in the last couple of months, such as the abolition of Empire Day, this is one bright spot on their record, where they have had the courage to follow me.
  I feel that the House to-night is pursuing something of a dream. It does not matter what this House decides to-night. Whatever point of view the House takes, the decision of those responsible for London administration has been made. For 10 years we have been reproached for our vacillating policy and all the rest of it, and have been urged by the leaders of the present London County Council to have the courage to put the cost on London rates and to defy the
  290
  House of Commons. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, I have quotations here. The present leader of the London County Council went so far in 1932 as to say that if he were in my position as leader of the council he would vindicate the right of self-government in London and he would pay out of the rates for five years. So I say, with all respect, that the policy of the London County Council is already determined. But of course, if this House is willing to give a percentage of the cost the county council is going to accept it gracefully, or I should say gratefully; and if this House does not do that, the decision to place it on the rates has already been taken by those responsible for London administration.
  I hope that the House will give the necessary 60 per cent. of the cost of the new bridge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will state why, if I may. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why should the rest of the country pay?"] I am asked, why should the rest of the country pay? London has not done too well out of the Road Fund for many years. It contributes very heavily to the Road Fund, and some of us think that London might get a greater share out of the fund than it has had. That is the reason why the rest of the country might do something for London, when the rest of the country is always asking London to help it.
  I appeal for support of the London County Council's decision to-night because I believe that the one essential in London to-day is the development of the South bank. I appeal for that support, not because I believe a new Waterloo Bridge will do anything to help the development of the South bank, but because I believe that we may induce the Minister of Transport, or someone from his Department, to indicate that the Charing Cross Bridge project is not dead. If some of us could get an assurance that that is still within the realm of practical politics, we are quite prepared to support a four-line traffic bridge at Waterloo— quite prepared. I for one, if I could receive such an assurance would be prepared to support the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison); but without that assurance one feels that it is essential to advocate a new six-line bridge at Waterloo. I believe the development of

  291
  the South bank is entirely or practically dependent upon a Charing Cross Bridge scheme and the establishment of a great railway terminus on the other side of the river. It speaks volumes for the Southern Railway that they were prepared to assist the County Council a few years ago in that direction. I think there is hope even to-day that we could secure a development of that kind. But failing the assurance I have asked for, one is bound to support any scheme whatever which provides that at Waterloo Bridge there should be a six-line traffic bridge.
  Of course, it is unfortunate that two years ago we were met by the claims not merely of those who professed to call themselves aesthetics, but by the current demand for economy. I cannot grumble at the use of the word economy. I do not think we hear enough of it to-day. We shall have to hear more of it in the days to come, especially from those people who ask for reduced Income Tax and want to maintain public expenditure at a high rate. But so far as the pry for economy is concerned, the final words on the Charing Cross Bridge proposals were made by those people who are responsible for the carrying on of affairs at County Hall at the present time. It was only the maladministration of public finance by the last Socialist Government that was responsible for the then Socialist Minister of Transport, who is now coming to this House and asking the House to give him 60 per cent. of the cost of a new bridge —it was only that maladministration of public finance that caused the Minister of Transport of that year to tell the County Council that it could not be done because the money was not available.
  To-day, just because we preach a doctrine of economy throughout the country and get it more or less carried out, and because His Majesty's National Government have been able to bring to this country something in the nature of a return to former prosperity—now that we have that beneficial result from the operations of the two great parties, in the municipalities and the Government, hon. Members of the Socialist administration, which nearly ruined the whole show, come along and ask for this further grant. I do not think, however, that that ought to make this House refuse their demand. I do not think that they ought to be penalised because of their misdeeds
  292
  in the past, and I for one, being a totally unresentful person, am prepared to support the London County Council in their demand this evening. The whole scheme from our point of view was put back as soon as the Royal Commission on Cross-River Traffic had reported in favour of a Charing Cross Bridge. We gave way on the question of the new bridge at Waterloo. Our Bill was defeated by a Select Committee—I would remind the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot)— and not by the House of Commons.
  Our second Bill, produced under the guidance of a Committee presided over by Sir Leslie Scott, was not proceeded with because according to the dictates of the Minister, there was not money in the Exchequer or the Road Fund. We were ultimately reduced to going back to our original project. I do not want to say, as the hon. Member said, that the decision of the London County Council in this respect was always unanimous, but we always had a comfortable majority in favour of the six-line bridge. Parties took the same attitude on this question. I have made these few remarks in order to reassure some friends of mine that some of us are still in favour of a new Waterloo Bridge in lieu of an indication from the Minister of Transport that a Charing Cross bridge of some kind is still within the realm of practical politics. Failing that assurance, we must support the London County Council in its present demands.
  9.28 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: I feel that we are being asked to look at what we have already looked at, and to come to a decision which this House has already made. After a considerable Debate, at which I was present, we came to the decision that Waterloo Bridge was necessary as a matter of economy, as a matter of necessity, and as being the best means of getting the traffic across the river. It is well known to everybody who has ever crossed Waterloo Bridge that it is placed at a very awkward point. It runs into the Strand at a narrow place, and traffic cannot get out into the Strand except by going right or left. The bridge will only carry at the present moment four lines of traffic, and it could not carry-more and empty into the Strand as it does at present. We are faced with the question of whether another bridge at

  293
  that point will relieve the traffic and enable us to get six lines of traffic across the river at that point. We have evidence that that is an impossibility. You cannot get six lines of traffic into the Strand as it is at present. The question of cost is more important, because the new bridge will be an extraordinarily expensive one and a very useless one.
  My main point, and the point that this House will consider, is the question of the cross-river traffic of London in general, and I do not think that any hon. Member will deny that the proper thing to do is to build a bridge at Charing Cross. Charing Cross gives us an entry into London to the clear, open space of Trafalgar Square and all those great roads leading out of London. This will be a very expensive bridge, and consequently we cannot afford it if in its place we build a new bridge at Waterloo. We have also to remember that if we pull down the existing bridge we shall incur terrible delay and expense over the demolition and clearing away of the material in addition to building the new bridge. If we build the new bridge, it will postpone the great bridge at Charing Cross for at least a century.
  What we have to decide to-night is whether there is any evidence before the House that the question we are deciding is not the question we decided two years ago. If we go back on the decision to which we came two years ago we shall make ourselves ridiculous, for we are asked by a Socialist county council to do what we refused to a Conservative county council. I do not want to make any party points, but I can see no reason for granting to a new county council of a different complexion what we refused to ourselves here. As no new evidence has been brought, the House will be very foolish to go back on its decision of two years ago.
  Before I sit down I should like to put one great point before the House; it has already been put many times, but I will put it again. There is no question that the Port of London Authority are now in favour of pulling down Waterloo Bridge and building a new bridge at the same point, because the new piers will be a little broader and there will be some greater ease—that is all that can be said—in passing traffic under the new bridge than there has been under
  294
  the old. We have, however, already had the evidence of the Port of London Authority that the old bridge has been adequate for passing the traffic through during the whole of the last century and that there has never been an accident at that point. There is no reason to presume for one moment that the new bridge will make the passage of traffic any easier. I want the House to note that to pass traffic through the new bridge, which is to be a bridge for six lines of road traffic and therefore far wider than the present bridge, with a narrower arch, is dot necessarily going to be any easier.
  Evidence has been given by no less an authority than Lord Ritchie that there is no reason why this present bridge should not continue to take the traffic as it has done in the past. It is admitted that a wider arch may make it a little easier for the people who will use it, but is that a reason for desiring this bridge and for spending a colossal sum of money in getting a new bridge which will not serve the public of London? I venture to think that the House will not go back upon its decision. In the interests of the public of this great city, in the interests of the traffic of this great city, we should recondition the present bridge and leave it for four lines of traffic, because that is all we can get into the Strand, with any facility. I certainly look forward at a later date to the building of that great bridge which London wants and demands at Charing Cross, which will take the whole of the traffic across into the only open space we have, feeding all these main roads in and out of London and leaving that monument which we all admire and love so much. The old bridge, reconditioned, will last 100 years, and I therefore support the Motion.
  9.34 p.m.
  The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I do not wish to go over the past history of this case. It is well within the recollection of all hon. Members of the House. I should, however, like to state quite briefly how its past history has affected, and how the present decision may affect, the particular position of the Minister of Transport. It is, of course, true that the decision which the House took on 1st June, 1932, did not, technically, deal with the Road Fund

  295
  grant. It operated only as a ban upon borrowing by the London County Council but my predecessor at the time accepted that resolution as an indication of the feelings and desires of this House and felt himself precluded by it from giving any grant for a scheme which involved the restruction of Waterloo Bridge, even if the London County Council would be able by other financial methods to raise their share. I, of course, feel myself under the same obligation to this House and I so informed Mr. Morrison when, soon after the county council election, he raised the matter anew. If to-night the House alters the decision which it took two years ago, I shall regard that ban as removed. I shall regard myself then as being in a position to offer a grant for a new Waterloo Bridge. As the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) explained, the London County Council itself has not decided and is not tied to any particular bridge. Therefore, my discretion is not in any way fettered nor am I in any way committed.
  There are, however, two considerations which have to be remembered. The first is that, from the point of view of its architectural merit, any scheme for a new bridge, before I consider it for a Road Fund grant, would have to receive the approval of the Fine Art Commission. The second is this. The discussions between my predecessor and the London County Council of the time proceeded upon the basis of a new bridge which would cost something in the neighbourhood of £1,300,000. If I were asked to accept a scheme for a new bridge at a cost which would exceed substantially the basis upon which my predecessor discussed the matter and upon which he gave a tentative approval, I should have to consider the whole position again. As upon the previous occasion, so to-night the decision upon this matter is left entirely to the free vote of the House and I informed Mr. Morrison that the Government would adopt that position. In fact, I doubt whether I, as a Member of the Government, should have to-night intervened upon a Private Bill, left to the free vote of the House, were it not for the fact that some aspects of this problem touch very closely matters connected with my Department and I think the House is entitled to expect that I should give them upon those aspects
  296
  whatever information is in possession of my Department and of whatever advice is tendered by my experts.
  There are many factors which will go to make, in the minds of hon. Members, a final decision and on many of them I am afraid I can offer the House no guidance. We have heard a great deal about the artistic factor. I must confess at once that not only do I know nothing about art, but I do not even know what I like until I am told by the right person. I, certainly, should not presume to advise the House upon that factor. Even my untutored eye can, of course, recognise the beauty, the strength, the simplicity of the existing bridge but other and greater experts must advise hon. Members as to the exact place which that bridge is to take in the hierarchy of beauty, the exact extent of the loss we should suffer by its demolition and how far the work of an artist of 100 years ago is to be regarded as completely irreplaceable to-day.
  Another factor to which our attention has been drawn has been the historical memorial factor. There too I am afraid I am in no position to advise the House. Alone, I expect, among all hon. Members in this House I must confess that until two years ago when this controversy started in the Press, I had no idea whatever that Waterloo Bridge had any intimate connection with Waterloo any more than Waterloo Place or Waterloo Junction. I agree that those are considerations to which everybody is entitled to give the greatest weight and I am not for a moment going to depreciate the efforts of those who attempt to save what is beautiful in this country from almost inevitable destruction by a mechanical progress. Perhaps in many walks of life it would be just as well if a little more often instead of asking "is it cheaper" or "is it more convenient," we asked "is it more beautiful." We might by doing so, be able to restrict the harm arising from the new mechanical life which we are called upon to live. But, important as those considerations are, I suggest that ultimately the test of a bridge must be its suitability for the purpose for which it was built.
  We have had raised to-night the question of navigation. The Port of London Authority and the river users have put forward their case with great emphasis

  297
  and have proved, I think, conclusively a fact which I also think no one would deny, that for their purposes a five-arched bridge is more convenient than an eight-arched one, just as no bridge at all would be more convenient still. I do not think that fact can be disputed on any side of the House, but it is, of course, for hon. Members to decide on the balance of advantage as between the five-arched bridge and the eight-arched bridge, and whether the advantage which undoubtedly the river users would get from the five-arched bridge would compensate for any disadvantages which there might be upon other grounds. The real factor with which I am concerned, however, is the traffic factor, and I venture to say that, as regards a bridge, the traffic which it is going to carry and the traffic which it ought to carry represent the most important consideration of all. I do not say that the traffic advantages of a six-line bridge as opposed to a four-line bridge ought necessarily to outweigh any other disadvantages which such a bridge might have, but I do say that those traffic advantages are such that they are worthy of the very serious consideration of the House.
  Two questions have been raised, with regard to the proposal for a new six-line bridge, from the purely traffic point of view. The first is, whether a six-line bridge is really needed. The second is whether, granted you have a six-line bridge, you can deal with the six lines of traffic at either end of the bridge. With regard to the first question, the need for a six-line bridge, I say frankly that on the basis of the present traffic I could not suggest to the House that a six-line bridge was a necessity. It would undoubtedly be an advantage. It would be an advantage from this point of view, that at the present moment the capacity of all those bridges—Westminster, Waterloo, Blackfriars and London Bridge —is occupied to the full. There is practically no reserve, and if you had some serious defect appearing in one of the other bridges, there would be no reserve capacity upon any of the others which could absorb the deflected traffic, and it would obviously, from the traffic point of view, be a great advantage if you did have, even on the basis of present traffic, a certain reserve capacity which you could use to take up any unexpected strain
  298
  thrown by the partial or complete closing of a particular bridge. But I am not sure that when we are talking about the building of a bridge which is going to last, not five or 10, but, to judge from the bridge we are now discussing, over 100 years, we can be quite satisfied with discussing the traffic needs of the moment. I admit that here, of course, I pass from the realms of fact, in which I ask the House to attach some weight to what I am able to say, with the authority of my Department, into the realms of conjecture, where we all stand on an equality and where we all have to make up our minds for ourselves.
  But I would ask the House, even if it is true that on the basis of to-day's traffic a four-line bridge would be ample to accommodate it, to consider whether it would be entirely wise to forget the possibilities of expansion in the future. We have had a remarkable history of expansion and development in the London area in the past few years. We have seen, in the years since the War, an amazing growth of vehicular traffic, and if we are just planning for the generations ahead, the House, I think, must seriously consider whether it is wise to limit our resources entirely to our immediate needs and leave no room whatsoever for possible expansion. There is one particular point which I think adds to the necessity for careful consideration of the possibilities.
  I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) who, when he was discussing Waterloo Bridge, said that there was practically no exit to the north. That is quite true, but hon. Members know the reason for that. It is that due north of Waterloo Bridge lies the Covent Garden area, and no driver of a motor vehicle in his senses is going, if he can possibly avoid it, to take his motor in the hours of daylight into the Covent Garden area and risk the congestion which inevitably occurs there. But I wonder whether we may assume that Covent Garden is going to continue in its present form during the whole life of this reconstructed bridge, and whether, in the days to come, if the Covent Garden area were to be reconstructed, instead of on the northern exit from Waterloo Bridge the motorists were faced with a well planned area, with a large street running through it, rather than the present congested small streets

  299
  round the market, we should not then see an immense increase in the traffic which is now passing through that area.
  The other point raised is the ability to deal with six lines of traffic, if we have a bridge built to carry it. Here, of course, I venture to speak with rather more certainty, because we are dealing not so much with assumptions as with facts for which my experts can vouch. I think it is undoubted that the roundabout system which has been introduced has immensely decreased the congestion which previously occurred in the Strand. One hon. Member spoke with some feeling about delays of eight or nine minutes which he has experienced there. I think he must have been very unlucky, because in the past two years my officers have taken a great many tests of the traffic at that particular point, and I am informed that they have not get on record any ease of a hold-up of longer than from one minute to two minutes.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Oh!
  Mr. STANLEY: My hon. Friend must remember that one's judgment of time when one is in a traffic block is rather like one's judgment of time when one is listening either to a speech with which one disagrees or to a speech from a chronic bore. But I do not think anyone who knew the Strand before the introduction of this round-about system and who knows it now will deny the immense improvement that has been made in the matter of traffic acceleration. I believe that even on the existing system we have a reserve capacity at the Strand entrance for more traffic crossing the bridge; but there are further possibilities by which I think we can increase the passage of the traffic into and over the Strand if we have to take it from the bridge. First of all, there are light signals. Undoubtedly, where they have been tried in London, they have produced a considerable acceleration of the traffic, and the possibility is that their installation at that spot would in itself provide us with a further acceleration.
  There is, secondly, the fact that the six-line bridge, and therefore the six-line approach from the bridge to the Strand, would by itself facilitate traffic. It would, of course, prevent the hold-up which you now get in the one line between the
  300
  corner of the Strand and the bridge itself, which banks back into the Strand and creates a hold-up there. If that traffic turning out of the Strand to cross the bridge were proceeding in three lines, not one line, you would, of course, avoid that possibility, but equally you would have a very definite advantage upon the other side, that is to say, for the traffic going North. The traffic going North, when it reaches the Strand, can go in one of two directions. It can either turn West down the Strand, or it can go half-right up Aldwych, and at the present moment vehicles do that in the proportion of about one down the Strand, West, to two which go up Aldwydh. Owing to the fact that you are confined to one line of traffic, all those vehicles are mixed indiscriminately from the time they leave the bridge till the time they reach the corner of the Strand and separate on their various ways. If you had, instead of the one line, three lines by which they could approach the Strand, you could reserve the one nearest the pavement for the traffic turning into the Strand, and you could reserve the other two for the traffic, which works out at about exactly twice as much, into Aldwych, and that in itself would, I think, immensely accelerate the traffic capacity.
  Finally, there is this further potentiality. If you were faced with any sudden and great increase of traffic over the bridge, the possibility of a subway still remains. My hon. Friend has no foundation whatsoever when he says that that possibility has been found impracticable. I imagine that he took it from the leader in the "Times" this morning. There is no other foundation for it whatever. When the tramway subway was constructed provision was made to allow for this possibility, and, as far as I am aware, no practical doubt has ever been cast on the possibility of making such a subway if the traffic demands be such as to make it desirable. I can therefore say with some confidence that, if there were a need for six lines of traffic across Waterloo Bridge, we could deal with them in comparative simplicity when they debouched at either end.
  I would like to say one word about Charing Cross. Here, too, we are in the realm not of fact but of conjecture. I think, perhaps, that some hon. Members

  301
  may be inclined to forget the distinction between Charing Cross Bridge and the Charing Cross Bridge scheme. The Charing Cross Bridge, as I see it, and as I have heard it described to-night, certainly conveys to me something which starts from a place where no one wants to be and goes to a place where no one wants to go; but the Charing Cross Bridge, as part of the scheme which has as its aim not merely the provision of one more traffic link but the replanning of a district of South London which ought to be one of the best features in our London life and which is in fact one of the worst, is a scheme which I think must fire the imagination of everyone. The possibility of seeing the Embankment on the South side in line with the Embankment on the North, the possibility of seeing the architecture on the south as impressive as that on the north is one which I think must appeal to all of us. Do not forget, however, what the effect of that may be upon the traffic problem. If you create in this part of the south of London a residential area of the same class as that north of the river, a business area as prosperous as that north of the river and perhaps a hotel and shopping area of the same category, then you will create a community of interests between the north and the south of the river, and in doing so you may well create a greater cross-river traffic than you have to-day. It might well be that the development of south London and the putting into force of the Charing Cross Bridge scheme would in itself lead to such an increase of cross-river traffic that you would find the six-line bridge at Waterloo not wasted even though you had the bridge at Charing Cross.
  My task this evening has not been an easy one. I do not disguise the fact that I voted on the last occasion for the new bridge and that I intend to vote for it again this evening, but I have tried as far as possible to put before the House the considerations which are peculiarly applicable to my Department in as judicial a manner as possible. I feel that it is all the more necessary because we have upon this occasion imposed a strict quota system upon the Front Bench and I am the only speaker from it to-night, and my hon. Friends will be deprived of the support of my hon. Friend the Member for St. George's (Mr. Cooper), whose
  302
  eloquent speech on the last occasion all of us, even those who disagreed with him, remember with admiration. I said I have tried, if I could, to put the facts in a judicial way. If I have failed, I apologise to the House and I ask them to forget anything in my speech which has been at all partisan in character and to remember only such facts as I have been able to give which may be useful to them in coming to a decision.
  In conclusion, may I give the House two pieces of advice, both of which, I believe, are unnecessary and unwanted. So often when the House has to come to a decision upon a Measure, however important it may be, we have the comforting sense that in a way it is experimental and that, even if the decision we take be wrong, we can put it right very quickly at the expense of nothing more perhaps than a little delay and a little Parliamentary time. About the decision which the House has to take to-night, however, there is a terrible finality. If we pull down Waterloo Bridge, and we are wrong in pulling it down, we can never put it back again. Just the same, if we are wrong and we keep Waterloo Bridge when we ought to have built the new bridge, it will be years before we are in a position once again to consider the matter, and we shall have caused inconvenience to traffic for years. Therefore, I appeal to the House from that point of view to take a decision to-night upon the most closely reasoned grounds. The second piece of advice, which I think is unnecessary—for the hon. Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray) made such a completely unbiased, unpolitical and non-partisan speech—is that no political considerations should enter into the decision of the House to-night. We are dealing one way or the other with the convenience and amenities of London, and I am sure there is no Member of the House who would like to think that a decision so important as this was dependent on party political feelings. The decision of the House, difficult as it is bound to be, must be reasoned and impartial.
  10.4 p.m.
  Sir JOHN SANDEMAN ALLEN: I am sure the House is grateful for the very judicial and balanced speech which we have just heard from the Front Bench. I am one of those, and I think there is a

  303
  fair number here, who voted against any change being made two years ago, and I propose to vote against the Instruction proposed by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison). In doing so I do not consider I am reversing my decision in any way. I think it is not right to suggest that the House is reversing its decision if it agrees to the proposal in the Bill. The majority of us voted as we did on the last occasion solely on the grounds of the financial position of the country at the moment. We thought then that economy had to be foremost, and we could not support a heavy expenditure of money. Things are different to-day. Moreover, we have had more information on this subject. Some of us have been able to study closely the pros and cons in a way we could not before. Therefore, it would be wrong to suggest that the House took its decision on the merits of the case two years ago. We have had the point argued very carefully from both sides with regard to road traffic, and it has also been dealt with by the best authority in the House, the Minister of Transport. He has made it perfectly clear that the fears entertained by a good many hon. Members about traffic blocks and traffic jams are unfounded and that the position is not feared by those who are responsible for the ordering of the traffic of this great city.
  The question of navigation has not been fully dealt with, although it was referred to by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Clarke). We have to look at this matter from a broad and general point of view. We have to recognise the growing importance of river and water-borne traffic in this country, and particularly in London. If we were to transfer carriage from barges to lorries we should have the whole of the roads going in and out of London completely congested. The cost of carriage of coal, oil and refuse would be doubled and trebled if it went by road. To suggest that we should not have a six lighters tow is perfectly ridiculous. I would ask the House to remember the increase in the number of trucks put into a goods train to-day for economy purposes. The only economical way of dealing with barges is to have six in tow, and to suggest that we should give that up is absurd.
  One reason why we should consider how important it is that a change should be made in regard to Waterloo Bridge is that the river traffic is growing, and it is very vital to the interests of the Thames and of London. We cannot measure how much that traffic has been hindered by the difficulties of the past. The House must look not upon what has happened in the past but the position at the present time and the serious position in the future if we are going to maintain a bridge which is of the greatest danger and the greatest hindrance to navigation. Apart from these matters, the question can be easily disposed of. We have been assured that there is no real danger in regard to road traffic. We can see that the proposed change will make a very great improvement and will give better opportunities for traffic by water. Therefore, in supporting the proposal for the new bridge we are doing what is best for the future and what is best for trade. We have to weigh the practical question of the great advantage to the people and the City of London and to compare that with what we shall undoubtedly lose in regard to the beauty of a particular bridge. I will not say anything about the speech made by the hon. Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray), and the psychological impression that he made on the House.
  Two years ago objection was taken that Members from the country should speak and vote on a London Measure. As a Member from another city, I feel it is my duty to speak and vote on this matter, because the Road Fund is a general fund for everybody. I do not see why London should not have its proper share, although some of us in other parts have small or large shares, as the case may be. The House must not be prejudiced. We must do what is fair and right in the interests of the city and the country as a whole. The city is the centre of the business of the country, and I feel confident that this House, having heard both sides, will decide that, much as we regret what we must lose; we must take a step forward in the general interests of the community.
  10.11 p.m.
  Commander MARSDEN: I welcome this opportunity to emphasise the case for the river users, which was very ably put by the hon. Member for Dartford

  305
  (Mr. Clarke). The testimony that he gave to the House is worth all the opinions given by other hon. Members who have no practical experience. I have some little experience of river traffic. I spent 10 very happy days in 1926 towing barges through the Very bridge about which we are talking, during the general strike. I should like hon. Members to bring their minds back to the evidence given by Lord Ritchie, on behalf of the Port of London Authority. That evidence was given seven years ago when traffic on the river was very different from what it is to-day. There has been a tremendous increase in the volume of petrol traffic in tanks going up the river. Each of the barges conveying this inflammable freight under Waterloo Bridge carries 180 tons. There may not have been any accidents yet but there have been quite sufficient unpleasant episodes in navigation to make one rather afraid of what would happen if any of these barges were to get into collision with another craft.
  We have heard a good deal about the asthetic qualities of the bridge. That question has been dealt with by the Minister of Transport. As a sailor, I might say that we appreciate the beautiful but when a man in navigating a ship on a nasty night, with a strong tide and a cross wind, and he cannot see what is on the other side of a bridge, he does not care whether it is a Conservative bridge or a Socialist bridge, but what he does want to see is an open passage where he can navigate his craft with safety. The hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) was rather upset at one barge towing six lighters. Those lighters carry 1,200 tons. During the general strike I was very much struck by the fact that when the lorries were coming down to the various wharves, surrounded by armed troops or armoured cars, it took a tug with eight volunteers to convey 1,000 to 1,200 tons of cargo. The river was used for traffic before roads were invented. A great volume of traffic was carried up and down the river before a single bridge was put across the river, and yet one hon. Member suggested that, having put these impediments in the way of navigation, the navigation should pay for their removal, an argument with which I did not find myself in accord.
  Two years ago the case for the navigation side was not put at all. [HON.
  306
  MEMBERS: "Why not!"] I did not catch Mr. Speaker's eye. The evidence given before the Royal Commission has been freely quoted by the hon. Member for South Kensington, and we have been reminded of what Lord Ritchie said at that time, but what does Lord Ritchie say now as representing the Port of London Authority, which is the body responsible not only for the safe conduct of the river but for increasing and making easier the facilities for navigation? The opinion of the Port of London Authority is that the present bridge should be pulled down and a more satisfactory one put in its place.
  I will say one word about the traffic over the bridge. The Minister put clearly what so many of us have thought about the six-line traffic when he told us that we must consider not only present needs but the possible needs of the future. I would add that it may not be necessary to have the whole six lines now. Many of the big new roads in the country have spaces at each side of them to enable widening to be undertaken if that should be necessary in the years to come. I would suggest that in the ease of this bridge the pavements on each side might give a six-line traffic for pedestrians, which in itself would facilitate traffic slightly. Referring again to the aesthetic aspect of the question, I wonder whether the aesthetic experts stick to the old winding narrow road in order to pass through some picturesque village or town and admire the beauties of the scene or choose the broad and rather possibly ugly by-pass which goes round? Where traffic is concerned it is often a question of men's livelihood, because they earn their living by the transport of goods. These are the chief considerations on which I shall have no difficulty in making up my mind to go into the Lobby and vote to give the London County Council authority to build a new bridge if they wish to do so.
  10.16 p.m.
  Mr. JOHN JONES: As a representative of a division which is not connected with the London County Council but which is a riverside constituency I am here to support the London County Council in this effort. We have heard some fine language to-night about the beauty of Waterloo Bridge, but you ought to hear the language of the tugboat men, the watermen and the lighter-men in my constituency when they

  307
  approach Waterloo Bridge. It is more forcible than descriptive. It may not be recorded in history, but it is recorded in the memory of the men who have to work on the river day after day and night after night. Some people fail to realise that the traffic on the river is becoming more and more important as the days go by. We have on the riverside a great station for supplying electricity for the underground railways, and there are big gas works to provide gas for the West End of London, although, no doubt, the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) could provide it with all the gas wanted. The men in the East End of London who come up the river from Purfleet bringing commodities for the use of the inhabitants of London are in favour of a new bridge and against the reconditioning of the old bridge, because they feel this would make it more difficult than ever for them to carry on with their jobs. I wonder what the hon. Member for South Kensington would think if he got up one morning and found that he could not have his breakfast because the electricity supply had failed or the gas had "gone west." He would talk as he did on the barrack squares in the old days when he was a general.
  I am speaking now for the men living in the East End of London who get their living on the river. In spite of all that has been said about the beauty of Waterloo Bridge, there are more beauties in the West End of London than ever there were. It is not beyond the reach of possibility for architects and artists to provide us with just as good a bridge as did the old artists. Is art dead? Is scientific knowledge finished? I have seen statues in ferro-concrete that were more beautiful than some of the Members of this House.
  All this talk about the aesthetic qualities of Waterloo Bridge leaves me cold. I want to see a bridge that will be useful to the public. You can have all the beauties you like on top of the bridge, but let us have decency underneath, so that the men who get their living on the river will not be impeded by ancient monuments or be prevented because, 100 years ago, somebody did something which he ought not to have done. Waterloo does not trouble me a
  308
  bit. Over 100 years ago we had a fight at Waterloo; we have had another since, and those who were our allies at that time were our enemies on the next occasion. Can we not forget Waterloo and remember London? Can we not remember that we are living in a country which has something to talk about? The needs of its people are the country's greatest problem; not the preservation of an old bridge, but the preservation of the life of the people.
  10.22 p.m.
  Mr. SIMMONDS: If I understood my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport aright, in his inimitable balanced speech he introduced a fallacious innuendo. I had decided to vote in favour of this Instruction, but as I listened to my hon. Friend's suggestion that if he could avoid the banking of traffic on the northerly bridge-head between Somerset House and the Strand, that would be a very great asset, I began to wonder whether I was still correct in supporting this Instruction. I was mesmerised only for a few moments, because it came to me quite clearly that my hon. Friend was not at all right in connecting a six-line roadway just south of the Strand with a six-line bridge. The bridge can very easily remain a four-line bridge, and when you get on to the bridge-head, past Somerset House and between Somerset House and the Strand, you can widen out in order, as my hon. Friend pointed out, that a longer line of traffic could go down the Strand, and the other two lines could go down Aldwych. I trust that any hon. Member who felt, as I did, that the argument of the Minister was a very cogent one, will agree that it is by no means essential, if we are to have six lines immediately south of the Strand, to pull down Waterloo Bridge. On the contrary a four-line bridge could continue to pour out enough traffic to block the Strand, never mind the question of the traffic proceeding east and west.
  10.24 p.m.
  Sir GEORGE HUME: After the most admirable speech of the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot), who put the council's case completely and eloquently, there is no need for me to detain the House. The riverside problem has already been dealt with, and the Minister of Transport has once more put the traffic case completely. I should like to deal

  309
  with the atmospherics of the case. I am taking part in this Debate upon the proposals put forward by the London County Council because it is essential to let the House realise that this is not merely a party question. I have been connected with the council for a long time, dealing with municipal affairs, and the longer I have done so the more sure I have become that when politics get mixed up with administrative matters, commonsense goes out of the window. I hope that the House on this occasion will not allow itself to be led astray by any political suggestions which may enter into the minds of Members or which may have been made.
  The London County Council in this matter has been an extremely patient and long-suffering body. It was in 1923 that the bridge first showed signs of collapse. The London County Council did not take that matter lightly. They called to their assistance practically at once, not merely their own chief engineer, Sir George Humphreys, but also two other eminent engineers, the best they could lay their hands on—Sir Basil Mott and Sir Maurice Fitzmaurice, who had been chief engineer to the council and was well acquainted with the bridges that the council owned. They went into this matter, not as a political matter at all, but purely as a matter of fact, from an engineering point of view, and the advice which they gave to the London County Council at that time was most emphatic. It was that it was not advisable to try to patch up or reconstruct the existing bridge, but that it was advisable to pull it down completely.
  The Council proceeded to follow that advice. In 1925 they decided to rebuild the bridge with six lines of traffic and five arches, and that was included in the London County Council (Money) Bill of 1926. Then the difficulties began to arise. Artistic feeling was extremely excited by the suggestion, and, as the House will know, a very infiuentially signed memorial was submitted to the Prime Minister. As a result the Royal Commission was set up to go into the whole question. The Council at once held its hand and did not go forward. The Royal Commission was appointed in July, 1926, and made its report in November of the same year. Then the Council bowed to the decision which was come to against its better judgment, and in 1927 decided to adopt the scheme on the basis of a 75 per cent.
  310
  contribution from the Ministry of Transport, on the consideration that a bridge at Charing Cross would be proceeded with on the same basis as that on which Waterloo Bridge was to be dealt with. In 1929–30 the London County Council presented a Bill to incorporate in the scheme that of the Ministry of Transport for a Charing Cross Bridge and approaches. That scheme also was killed in a Select Committee of the House of Commons. I have not the slightest doubt that every one of us deeply regrets that the opportunity was not then taken which appears to us now so unlikely to recur.
  In any case, the Council did its very best, and, when that Bill was destroyed, instead of letting the matter drop, it invited its critics and those who had made alternative proposals to join the Committee in order to see if a new scheme could be evolved. A new scheme was evolved and another Bill was prepared. Then, unfortunately, we came to that period when, in 1931, economy had to be practised and the present leader of the London County Council, who was then a most capable Minister of Transport, had to refuse to join in the enterprise for building a new bridge, and the scheme had to be dropped. Right through those years the council has been twisted and turned and upset in one direction and another until we came to the House once more two years ago and, although we had the good will of the Ministry of Transport, we were met with opposition again. I would remind the House of the nature of that opposition. We had behind us the considered opinion of some of the most eminent engineers. Throughout, from a technical point of view, the line that the council had taken was not shaken. As far as traffic was concerned, the Advisory Committee to the Ministry of Transport had reported in favour of a six-line bridge. Every responsible authority had supported it, but the House was carried away by all sorts of amateur figures which were thrown across the Floor and by the opinions of, it may be, very distinguished volunteers who said the thing could be done this way or that way for less money or in a shorter time.
  To-day we are in a different position. We have actually before us fixed offers by reputable firms of the price at which they can carry out the work and the time that it will take. We have heard stories about the immense amount of time that a

  311
  completely new bridge would take to build and have been told that the reconditioning of the present bridge would take much less time and cost much less money. We now know, from the tenders that have been received, that the reconditioning will probably take longer than building a new bridge. A new bridge will cost more but, on the other hand, when you are considering the question of cost you have to consider at the same time how long the structure is going to last. It is well worth paying twice the amount if you are going to get three times the life. We have not heard a word to-night as to the period in which it is estimated that a reconstructed bridge would be likely to last. [Interruption.] It has never been suggested that you were going to reconstruct for a very long period. It is no use putting forward amateurish suggestions. We have to go on the advice tendered to us by our responsible technical people.
  I only hope that to-night the House will not once more step in and try to prevent the London County Council carrying out the work on lines upon which for years it has been thought were the right lines to adopt, even though there is a change of management and some of us might be tempted to take a contrary view to that of the new management of the London County Council. But some of us think that these questions affecting London life and well-being are far more important than the question of political tactics, and it is of vital importance that we should satisfy our own consciences no matter what advantage might be claimed by any political party. That is our bounden duty, in view of the opinions which we hold, the advice which has been given to us, the struggles which we have made through those years to try to meet the difficulties which have been raised, and as a Charing Cross bridge seems to have departed for the time being, and the fact that, right away from the beginning, we said that it was essential to have six lines unless we were to get a Charing Cross bridge. We still stand there. The majority of the council, quite apart from parties, stand to-day where they stood before, and it is on that ground that I hope the House will not pass the Instruction which has been moved.
  10.37 p.m.
  Mr. W. MORRISON: I join with the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume)
  312
  in hoping, and, indeed, believing confidently that this important question will not be decided with reference to any consideration other than the merits of the case with which we are confronted. I, for one, would deprecate, as most hon. Members would, I am sure, any attempt to consider the matter on political party lines. I am reinforced, if it is necessary, in that view by the great diffidence I feel in regard to my capabilities in following the tortuous maze of London County Council politics. It appears to me that it is a matter devoid of political significance in the ordinary party sense, because it is only two years since we had the same proposal put up by an opposite party in the London County Council. We came to a decision upon it then, and now to-night we are asked to reverse that decision. I feel sorry that we have to interfere at all with the arrangements made by the London County Council for the good government of this city. It would be an easier task for us if we had not to interfere in any way with the decisions arrived at by that well-informed and public-spirited body, but that is no excuse for us to-night shirking what is our duty, namely, to discharge the function of saying whether or not this proposal is to go forward in its present state. If anything were needed to add to the necessity of our examination of this proposal, it is the fact that, as far as the matter stands at present, about 60 per cent. of the cost of the proposed bridge is to come out of public funds for which we are all responsible.
  It was with some surprise that I found this question cropping up again upon the Order Paper after the House had, after a full discussion a short time ago, by a very emphatic majority, come to a conclusion which it is now asked to reverse. I could have understood it if there had been before us to-night any new factor which had altered the decision we were asked to consider. What is the main consideration put before hon. Members tonight by those who oppose this instruction? It is the question of navigation. It is said that on the previous occasion when we had this matter under consideration the navigational aspects of this question were not properly considered, and that that is a reason, when we are considering them for the first time, for

  313
  reversing the decision to which we previously came. At least we can say this, that after the full and admirable Debate we have had to-night that complaint can no longer be made.
  We have had the navigable aspect of the problem put before us in terms of the utmost eloquence by hon. Members including the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Clarke) and the hon. Member for North Battersea (Commander Marsden). But is it right to say that the navigable aspect of the question was not within the contemplation of the House on the last occasion? What are we told now about the problem of navigation? We have been told to-night that if we had wider arches to the bridge it would make it easier for ships to go under. Is that a fact of such a recondite description that it was not within the contemplation of every hon. Member when the matter was last under discussion? I cannot accept the view that the navigable aspect of the problem was not considered by every hon. Member. Let us examine what has been put forward to-night on the matter. We are told by the Port of London Authority in a statement which they have issued, and in words which they have thought of sufficient importance to print in red instead of black:
  "The Port Authority submit that in considering the form of construction of any bridge that the question of river navigation consideration should outweigh all others."
  If we are to say that a certain consideration must outweigh all others our task would be a great deal easier than it is. It is natural for the Port of London Authority to take that view. They are a very important and admirable body discharging specialist functions, and it is only to be expected that in their view the maintenance of the waterway of the Thames should outweigh all others, and that the House must give its decision on that footing. We are familiar with specialist pleas in this House. I have no doubt that if there were in existence a body whose duty it was to look after the interests of pavement artists we should be asked, in allowing one consideration to outweigh all others, to consider that the new bridge should provide sufficient suitable pitches and well glazed pavements for the exercise of that profession. I am not saying that
  314
  the navigation question is not one of the most important aspects of the case, but what are the facts regarding navigation? Even if we assume that navigation is the only question to be considered, that we are to provide a commodious and safe waterway, without regard to expense or existing amenities, or its effects on cross river traffic, I submit that those who have supported the Bill have not made out the point of view put forward in the Port of London Authority's statement.
  Any bridge, if you like, is an obstacle and is bound to be so. In order to get through it requires skill on the part of the navigator. But the case against the present Waterloo Bridge must go as far as this. It is no use saying it is an obstacle, every bridge is an obstacle, the case for the present Bill must assert either that it is an obstacle of such a character that reasonable skill cannot surmount it in safety, or that it is an obstacle of such a character that it is bound to impede, definitely and permanently, the economic development of the river. Unless the assertion of the effect of the bridge upon the navigational aspect goes that distance, it goes no distance at all.
  From the point of view of safety reference has been made to the evidence given by Lord Ritchie to the Commission. I do not wish in any way to make any use of that evidence which was not in the contemplation of the Noble Lord when he gave his evidence; but it is quite clear that figures were put to him on that occasion, that between 1921 and 1924, when the bridge was first blocked by its present supports under the arches, there was no accident of any kind to life or limb or cargo or craft. It does not appear to me that those figures are in themselves conclusive, that there will be no obstacle in the bridge, if it is reconstructed, in its arches, which reasonable skill, the skill to which the hon. Member for Dartford paid such a glowing tribute, would not be able successfully to surmount.
  But the question goes a little deeper than that. The bridge that it is proposed to construct is to be wider than the present bridge, and that has the effect of lengthening the tunnel formed by the arch through which the boats must pass. From the navigational aspect that is of the highest importance. Let me refer again for a moment to the evidence given

  315
  by Lord Ritchie before the Commission. It will be seen from that, when he was pleading for consultation of the Port of London Authority on every bridge building proposal that was made, that what he had in mind was not the question of the number or the narrowness of arches, but that the bogy from the navigational aspect was the length of the tunnel through which a boat had to pass. These were his words:
  "Lord RITCHIE: That brings me to say this, if I may: Amongst the other proposals or suggestions that have been made was one that the bridge should be widened. Now, I have always understood that Waterloo Bridge in its present condition is the great test of a waterman's art. It is easy to imagine how the difficulties of navigating the bridge would be accentuated if it was increased in width.
  The CHAIRMAN: In tunnel width, you mean?
  Lord RITCHIE: Yes, in tunnel width. So that if any suggestion of that kind were made, of course the Port of London Authority would have a good deal to say." To-night it is not merely a question of contrasting a narrow arch with a wide arch, but a question of setting against the undoubted advantage of a wide arch the disadvantage of a longer tunnel. From the navigational point of view, I respectfully suggest that that is a matter which ought to be brought before us. The other point of view is that Waterloo Bridge with its present arches is a danger to navigation—not in the sense of danger to life and limb, for, as has been, said, there have been no accidents for three years—and is so formed that it is a check to the economic development of the river higher up. Let any hon. Member look at the statements that have been showered upon him in favour of the Bill. They one and all join in a paean of praise over the immense development of river traffic in recent years, how it has grown by leaps and bounds. Let the House remember that is has grown so by leaps and bounds in recent years with the bridge in its present condition, with the two main arches blocked. If indeed that great increase in river traffic be a fact —there is no cause to deny it—it has taken place not only with the bridge as it will be when reconstructed, but with the bridge with its two chief arches blocked permanently by wooden structures.
  There is nothing in these facts that Suggests for one moment that a reconstructed
  316
  bridge with its arches open again would not provide ample accommodation for all reasonable developments of river craft and would not hold out for tie future an ample hope of coping successfully with any stream of traffic that human foresight can imagine going up and down the river. I suggest, therefore, for these reasons that those who oppose this reconstruction have failed to show that the arches of the bridge in its present form would, if reconstructed, be a danger to navigation. The contrary is proved by three year's navigation without accident of any kind. The opponents of reconstruction have failed to prove that the bridge would be a hindrance to the economic development of the river, because even in its mutilated and truncated present condition it has permitted, as the opponents of reconstruction themselves say, an immense development of river traffic.
  Something has also been said about large boats. We are told that if the bridge be left in its present form with regard to arches there will be difficulty in developing the larger river craft which will be capable of sea-going voyages. For my part, I do not think that that would be any great loss. Even if it were true, Waterloo Bridge is ten feet higher than Westminster Bridge, and if a boat can go under Westminster Bridge it can go under Waterloo Bridge. Nevertheless, I believe that we are here in danger of falling into an error. The river traffic depends in the last resort not upon the big boat but upon a vast number of small boats, manned by our own watermen. By retaining Waterloo Bridge in its present condition we shall be preserving the livelihood—the monopoly if you like—of those who ply up and down the river in small craft at the present moment and have done so from time immemorial. On that aspect of the matter, I would suggest to the House that, if that be a now point on which we are to make a decision, it is entirely without foundation. The experience of three years has shown that the skill of our native watermen is quite sufficient to cope in absolute safety with the bridge in its original condition. The immense increase of traffic even when the bridge has been blocked up shows that, when it is open, it will be no hindrance to the economic development of the river.
  I come to a point which must be one of great importance from the navigational

  317
  point of view. Whatever you do in this matter of the bridge, whether you reconstruct the present bridge or pull it down and erect a new one, there is bound to be some interruption both of cross-river and of river traffic. We ordinary Members are in difficulty on those matters because we have to be guided very largely by what we are told of estimates, the time it will take, and so on. I cannot, however, conceive it possible that the reconstruction of the present bridge in the manner suggested could possibly mean such a prolonged interruption, both to river traffic and to cross-river traffic, as would be involved in pulling down the present massive structure and replacing it by an entirely new one. It we are considering the interests of river trade, let us bear in mind the damage done to that trade if we suffer a plan to be passed by this House which will have the effect of closing the river for a long period and closing the bridge to cross-river traffic for an equally long period.
  There are other considerations besides that of navigation. There is the consideration of cost. I accept the figure of the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) that the difference between the two proposals is from £600,000 to £700,000. That is a vast sum of money, and unless there is good cause for spending it, I suggest that the House should not spend it. We are inclined to imagine that the time has come when we can spend money freely, but one of the most important instruments in promoting financial recovery has been the determination on the part of the House to spend no money on non-productive and unnecessary works, and the time has not yet come to reverse that policy which has been so successful in promoting financial recovery. One has only to look at the state of the world about us and the heavy burden of local and national taxation to realise that the vigilance of this House is as necessary as ever in order to see that no money is spent which is not amply justified by the needs of the people and the urgent necessities of the time. I am told that it is a small sum, but deficits are made up of small sums which are allowed to pass one after the other, and there is no case which would warrant the House in allowing this
  318
  sum to pass, by reversing its previous decision.
  We are told also that four lines of traffic are not enough, and that we must have six. I impress upon the House that four lines of traffic across a bridge equal at least six, if not eight, on the highway. On the ordinary highway, made for six lines of traffic, one can always count on two lines being permanently blocked by cars and carts drawn up at the sides of the road. There are also the interruptions of traffic inevitable on a highway caused by the laying of pipes and mains and so forth, and four lines of traffic proceeding over this bridge means that there will debouch into the congested area at the end of the bridge a stream of traffic equivalent to six lines on the highway. I suggest that the state of affairs at Wellington Street offers no hope that we are going to improve matters by adding this amount of traffic to that already congested area. The whole case on that point was given away by ray hon. Friend the Minister of Transport when he said we had to look to the future. Wellington Street to-day is a bottle-neck and a difficult place. In the future, who knows that Covent Garden may not be swept away and great approaches made through there? Look at the money that is going to cost.
  If you are going to make great approaches to Waterloo Bridge through Covent Garden it may cost, perhaps, £20,000,000. Why not spend your £20,000,000, where everyone is agreed a road bridge ought to be, at Charing Cross. One is reminded of the man who was ruined because his wife get a present of a very fine carpet and in order to live up to it, had to get a better house and indulge in all sorts of luxuries which he could not afford. We are beginning at the wrong place. Waterloo Bridge is not the solution for the chaotic condition of affairs south of the Thames. It is agreed that it is the Charing Cross Bridge that is required, and I suggest to the House that we shall be taking a false and irrevocable step if we allow our word to go forth that this old bridge is to be taken down.
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 159.

  Division No. 259.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Grigg, Sir Edward

  Pickering, Ernest H.

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

  Grimston, R. V.

  Pike, Cecil F

  Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

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

  Purbrlck, R.

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Hanley, Dennis A.

  Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

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

  Harris, Sir Percy

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

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

  Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

  Rankin, Robert

  Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Hepworth, Joseph

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

  Hornby, Frank

  Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Horobin, Ian M.

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

  Bateman, A. L.

  Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

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

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

  Runge, Norah Cecil

  Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

  Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Bernays, Robert

  Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

  Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

  Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

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

  Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

  Bossom, A. C.

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

  Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

  Boulton, W. W.

  Jessen, Major Thomas E.

  Salt, Edward W.

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

  Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

  Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

  Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

  Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

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

  Savery, Samuel Servington

  Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Scone, Lord

  Bracken, Brendan

  Kerr, Hamilton W.

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

  Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Kimball, Lawrence

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

  Shute, Colonel J. J.

  Burghley, Lord

  Law, Sir Alfred

  Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

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

  Cadogan, Hon. Edward

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

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

  Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

  Levy, Thomas

  Southby, Commander Archibald R. J

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Llddall, Walter S.

  Spencer, Captain Richard A.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh

  Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

  Spens, William Patrick

  Christie, James Archibald

  Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

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

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Llewellin, Major John J.

  Stones, James

  Conant, R. J. E.

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

  Storey, Samuel

  Cook, Thomas A.

  Loder, Captain J. de Vere

  Strauss, Edward A.

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Courtauld, Major John Sewell

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Sutcliffe, Harold

  Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

  McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

  Tate, Mavis Constance

  Crooke, J. Smedley

  McKeag, William

  Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

  Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

  McKle, John Hamilton

  Touche, Gordon Cosmo

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

  McLean, Major Sir Alan

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  McLean, Dr. W. H, (Tradeston)

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Cross, R. H.

  Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

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

  Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

  Maitland, Adam

  Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

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

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

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

  Denville, Alfred

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

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Donner, P. W.

  Martin, Thomas B.

  Watt, Captain George Steven H.

  Drewe, Cedric

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Duckworth, George A. V.

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

  Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

  Duggan, Hubert John

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

  White, Henry Graham

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Morgan, Robert H.

  Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

  Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

  Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

  Morrison, William Shephard

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

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Nall-Oain, Hon. Ronald

  Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

  Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

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

  Fermoy, Lord

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

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Fleming, Edward Lascelles

  Nunn, William

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  O'Connor, Terence James

  Wise, Alfred R.

  George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

  Gluckstein, Louis Halle

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Womersley, Walter James

  Goff, Sir Park

  Patrick, Colin M.

  Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

  Pearson, William G.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Penny, Sir George

  Sir William Davison and Lord

  Greene, William P. C.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Balniel.

  NOES.

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

  Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Albery, Irving James

  Cape, Thomas

  Culverwell, Cyril Tom

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

  Caporn, Arthur Cecil

  Daggar, George

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

  Carver, Major William H.

  Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Cassels, James Dale

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Banfield, John William

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

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

  Clarke, Frank

  Dlckle, John P.

  Batey, Joseph

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Dobble, William

  Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Edwards, Charles

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

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Elliston, Captain George Sampson

  Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

  Cooke, Douglas

  Elmley, Viscount

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Cove, William G.

  Entwlstle, Cyril Fullard

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

  Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

  Essenhlgh, Reginald Clare

  320

  321

  Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

  Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

  Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

  Fox, Sir Gifford

  Kirkwood, David

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Knight, Holford

  Remer, John R.

  Fremantle, Sir Francis

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Renwick, Major Gustav A.

  Gillett, Sir George Matterman

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  Rlckards, George William

  Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

  Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Goldie, Noel B.

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

  Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Lawson, John James

  Salmon, Sir Isldore

  Graves, Marjorle

  Leckle, J. A.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

  Lees-Jones, John

  Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

  Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

  Leonard, William

  Selley, Harry R.

  Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

  Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

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

  Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

  Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

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

  Loftus, Pierce C.

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Smith, Tom (Normanton)

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  Somervell, Sir Donald

  Guy, J. C. Morrison

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Soper, Richard

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Mainwaring, William Henry

  Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Hales, Harold K.

  Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

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

  Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydyll)

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  Marsden, Commander Arthur

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

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

  Harbord, Arthur

  Meller, Sir Richard James

  Thorne, William James

  Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

  Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P

  Milner, Major James

  Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

  Hicks, Ernest George

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  West, F. R.

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Mitcheson, G. G.

  Whyte, Jardine Bell

  Holdsworth, Herbert

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

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

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

  Munro, Patrick

  Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

  Howard, Tom Forrest

  Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

  Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

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

  O'Donovan, Dr. William James

  Williams, Thomas (York, Dan Valley)

  Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

  Peat, Charles U.

  Wills, Wilfrid D.

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

  Petherlck, M.

  Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

  Jenkins, Sir William

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

  Worthington, Dr. John V.

  John, William

  Pybus, Sir Percy John

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

  Radford, E. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

  Ramsden, Sir Eugene

  Sir George Hume and Mr. Wilmot.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Ray, Sir William

  Resolved,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill is referred that they amend Part I of the Schedule thereto by striking out in the second column, paragraph (c), of Item 7, the words 'or the demolition thereof and the erection of a new bridge.'"

STATUTORY SALARIES (RESTORATION) [MONEY].
Resolution reported,
"That it is expedient—

(a) to empower His Majesty to revoke the National Economy (Statutory Salaries) Order, 1931;

(b) to provide that while the said Order remains in force the abatement to be made thereunder from the salary to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund or out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of any office shall, from and after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be reduced by one-half;

(c) that any Act of the present Session for giving effect to the foregoing provisions of this Resolution should contain all such other incidental and consequential provisions as may be necessary for giving effect to the purposes aforesaid."

Resolution agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir John Gilmour, and Mr. Hore-Belisha.

STATUTORY SALARIES (RESTORATION) [MONEY].
  STATUTORY SALARIES (RESTORATION) BILL,
  "to empower His Majesty to revoke the National Economy (Statutory Salaries) Order, 1931, and to provide that while the said Order remains in force the abatement to be made thereunder from any salary shall be reduced by one-half and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 125.]

FINANCE [GUARANTEED LOANS].
Resolution reported,
"That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required for fulfilling any guarantee given by the Treasury under the said Act in respect of a loan issued solely for the purpose of providing for the redemption before maturity of another loan in respect of which a guarantee has been given (whether before

323
or after the passing of this Resolution) by the Treasury, subject to the Treasury having been satisfied before giving the first-mentioned guarantee that the substitution thereof for the guarantee of the loan to be redeemed Would benefit the Exchequer; and

(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any moneys paid in or towards repayment of any sum issued out of the Consolidated Fund as aforesaid."

Resolution agreed to.

MILITARY MANOEUVRES, 1934 MILITARY MANOEUVRES ACTS, 1897 AND 1911 (ORDERS IN COUNCIL).
Resolved,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying His Majesty to make two Orders-in-Council under the Military Manoeuvres Acts, 1897 and 1911, drafts of which were presented to this House on the 13th day of February and 6th day of March last, respectively."—[Mr. Duff Cooper.]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

EX-NAVAL MEN (COLOMBIAN ENGAGEMENT).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Commander Southby.]
11.17 p.m.
Mr. MANDER: I rise to call attention to the enlistment of certain British subjects in the Colombian Navy. The facts as I understand them are that 100 ex-British officers and naval ratings, some of them still on the Reserve, have enlisted for a period of from two to three years in the Colombian Navy. They are to man two 36-knot destroyers purchased, according to ray information, from Vickers. These destroyers are fitted with five 4.7 guns and eight tubes. I understand that no ammunition has been taken with them. That is to be sent out from England and the ships are to do their best to receive the ammunition, if they are successful in dodging the Peruvian Navy, which is to do its best to prevent the ammunition reaching them. I have, no word of criticism for these gallant officers and men. It is perfectly natural for them, with a feeling of professional pride in their calling, to take service where they
324
see it offered. Nor is it in the least surprising that other Navies should desire to enlist what are, after all, the finest seamen and the finest sea fighters in the whole world. That is all perfectly natural, but what does seem to me questionable and, at any rate, worth exploring, is the wisdom and the policy of allowing these enlistments, first, on general grounds and then in the particular circumstances of this case.
I know it is said—the First Lord has given me certain information—that these negotiations were carried out directly with the armament firm concerned and not with the Government. That is true, but none the less the Government, through the First Lord, had to give permission for these men to join. The First Lord defended his action the other day by saying that if he had objected he would have prevented men from getting employment, and that men of other nationalities would have been enlisted. Is that really a very strong argument? If it were carried to its logical conclusion it might be suggested that the unemployed of this country should join the armies and navies and air forces of the world, which would be very glad to get them, because they could not possibly get better people, and in that way the unemployment problem would be solved. I do not for a moment think that is the Government's idea—I give them the credit of that—for solving the unemployment problem.
I suggest that to say the reason for consenting was to provide employment is one that cannot be sustained. Surely we are not going to add to the expert of arms—about which there is so strong a feeling—the export of armed men. As a matter of public policy that seems to be undesirable. I cannot help thinking that it is very unfortunate that this enlistment has been permitted. War began between Colombia and Peru in September, 1932, because certain civilian Peruvians seized the Peruvian town of Leticia. Fighting took place in the early months of 1933. In February, 1933, diplomatic relations were broken off between these two countries and the League of Nations intervened. In January, 1933, the League took over the disputed territory of Leticia for one year. In May, 1934, a Protocol was signed

325
putting an end to the dispute between the two countries. That was only a very few days ago, and it is clear that these negotiations must have been going on at the time when diplomatic negotiations were certainly broken off between the two countries, and when there was the possibility of hostilities taking place again at the end of the year, and was anticipated in certain quarters.
For the Government to have consented in these circumstances to the enlistment of these men in the armed forces of one party to the dispute seems to me to be quite wrong. They were in fact strengthening one side in a dispute which was under the control of the League of Nations. Suppose that Peru had also asked for British sailors, would they have get them, too? Would the Government have had British subjects fighting on both sides in a wretched South American war. There was a possibility of one. I cannot help thinking that the explanation is that the position was not appreciated. I cannot believe that the Government seriously intended to get into a position of this kind. If that be so, is it not better to admit it frankly? Are we quite sure that fighting is over? I want to make one quotation, and I have finished. I saw a few days ago in the "Times" that it was stated from Trinidad:
"A force of 1,650 Colombian officers and men sail to-night under the command of General Vargas to launch an attack on Peru, in spite of the reported agreement between Peru and Colombia about Leticia. The troops, in service kit but without arms, wandered about the streets of Port of Spain while the ships took in provisions, water, and fuel oil for the voyage up the Amazon tributary Putumayo, whence they will proceed overland towards the scene of action. …. It is understood that the Colombians seek to attack by land, but the Peruvians having a stronger native-manned navy prefer a sea action."
If war breaks out again, what is going to happen to these British subjects? Will they be recalled? I trust that the First Lord will be able to give us some information on the subject.
11.24 p.m.
The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): The latest attempt of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) is to hold this country up to international obloquy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] The
326
chief misstatement that he has made in this case is that which he wrote for the "Manchester Guardian" and which he repeated here to-night. I quote what he said in the "Manchester Guardian":
"The British Government have provided Colombia with British"——
Mr. MANDER: You said it.
Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: No, Sir. You said it, and it has nothing whatever to do with the British Government. All the officers and men who joined under contract with the Colombian Navy were retired officers and men. They freely enter into a contract with Colombia, and the British Government have no part whatsoever in it. This is still a free country.
The first point I want to make quite clear is that there is nothing on earth that this Government could have done effectively to prevent these men entering into this contract. There has been some talk about the Foreign Enlistment Act, and it is true that that Act gives us sanctions over our retired officers and men; but the Foreign Enlistment Act only comes into operation when two Powers with whom we are at peace are themselves at war. That does not apply in this case, because, as no one knows better than the hon. Gentleman, Colombia has never been at war. There have been no hostile actions of any sort taken since May, 1933, and now, happily, this unfortunate dispute is once for all, I believe, at an end.
It is true that, as the hon. Gentleman said just now, certain retired men have to ask the Admiralty for permission. Pensioners have to ask for permission before they leave the country, and retired officers have to ask for permission before they take service under a foreign Government. This permission is required because we may want those men. It may be urged that I should not have given permission, but, supposing that I had refused, it would not have stopped them joining if they were willing to give up their pension rights and their retired pay, because that is the only hold which the Admiralty has over them. I have already said in this House that, in the event of hostilities occurring in Colombia, the permission, for what it is worth, which I have given, will be reconsidered. Why should I refuse permission to these men? The

327
Colombians wanted sailors to man two ships which they had bought from Portugal. They wanted them to navigate the ships to South America, and to train the men that were going to take their place. As the hon. Gentleman said, the average contract is for two years. The commanding officer has a contract for five years, but in two years they will be able to train Colombians to take their place; and I understand that there is a clause in the contract which says that these men are not to be called upon to undertake any duties which might be contrary to their obligations as British subjects.
If Colombia had failed to get these men they would only have employed sailors from some other foreign country. What the hon. Member is really asking me to do is to deliberately withhold work from nearly 200 of our nationals and give the jobs to foreigners. Surety it is preferable to have British influence in the Colombian Navy rather than foreign influence. From the lowest standpoint we may expect to have some orders placed in this country instead of being given to foreigners. Even Wolverhampton may
328
benefit. There is a firm in Wolverhampton which is extremely well known to the hon. Member which has a big contract with the Admiralty to provide them with paint, and one may expect that, if these officers want some enamel for their ships, they will place the order in England rather than in a foreign country.
History has always shown that when the English have served in countries like South America they have been in favour of peaceful ordered development.
The hon. Member has asked me what would happen if Peru was in the same position. Peru is a very hypothetical case. I do not think there is the least likelihood of the case ever arising where two opposing navies will be manned by British sailors. If Peru was in the same position as Colombia, I should come to the hon. Member and his friends, because the dissident Liberals must have a wonderful amount of information on the subject of fighting on two sides.
It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put pursuant to the Standing Order.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (NEW BUILDINGS, CONTRACTS).
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (NEW BUILDINGS, CONTRACTS).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  UNITED STATES (BEITISH DEBT).
  UNITED STATES (BEITISH DEBT).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  AIR PASSENGER-CARRYING COMPANIES.
  AIR PASSENGER-CARRYING COMPANIES.
  VACCINATION LAW (DEFAULTER'S IMPEISONMENT, BRISTOL).
  VACCINATION LAW (DEFAULTER'S IMPEISONMENT, BRISTOL).
  EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS.
  EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS.
  PALESTINE (DRAFT CRIMINAL CODE).
  PALESTINE (DRAFT CRIMINAL CODE).
  TEXTILE IMPORTS, COLONIES (JAPANESE COMPETITION).
  TEXTILE IMPORTS, COLONIES (JAPANESE COMPETITION).
Preamble
Reassembling after the Whitsuntide Recess, the House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
COTTON MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
ASSESSOR OF PUBLIC UNDERTAKINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
BIRMINGHAM UNITED HOSPITAL BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered and agreed to.

BETTING AND LOTTERIES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Restriction of betting on tracks.
1.—(1) Betting by way of bookmaking or by means of a totalisator shall not take place on any track—

523

(a) on more than one hundred and four days in any calendar year; nor

(b) on any Good Friday, Christmas Day or Sunday.

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND moved, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out "one hundred and four days in any calendar year" and insert "one hundred and fifty-six days in any calendar year in the case of a track situate in the Metropolitan Police district and two hundred and eight days in any calendar year in the case of a track situate elsewhere than in the Metropolitan Police district provided that not more than one meeting (comprising a maximum of eight races) shall be held on any one day." The noble Duke said: The Bill which we are discussing to-day proposes in Clauses 1 and 9 that greyhound race meetings at which betting may be allowed may take place on only 104 days a year on any track. These days are to be prescribed by the county council or the county borough council a year in advance, and they are to be the same days for every track in the council's area. The question of fixity of days is dealt with in a later Amendment.
The restriction proposed in the Bill is, I think, an unreasonable restriction. Up to now the courses licensed by the National Greyhound Racing Club have operated under a strict code of rules, whereby the managements are debarred from certain practices, and the interests of the public are protected as regards the honesty of racing. On these licensed courses greyhound racing is conducted as a bona fide sport in which more than 20,000 owners of greyhounds are engaged in friendly competition with each other, in exactly the same way as are owners of race horses on the turf. To these owners racecourse managements last year paid out nearly half a million pounds in prize money—actually £416,055. All the licensed racecourses are available to these owners, and through the medium of a great number of open races owners and their greyhounds go from one track to another, meeting in a spirit of sporting and friendly rivalry. The policy of the licensed managements has always been that their proper function has been to present honest and attractive greyhound racing and that betting shall be regarded merely as an ancillary feature.
524
The restrictions proposed in the Bill, however, would put an end to this state of affairs. Managements, being forced to maintain their existence on the minimum possible conditions, would be obliged to resort to every device imaginable to secure the maximum turnover.
The control exercised by the National Greyhound Racing Club and by the Society, established at a cost of £110,000, would disappear. Stringency of financial circumstances would oblige managements to discontinue the payment of prize money, and private ownership of greyhounds would disappear and would be replaced by a system of company-owned dogs, thus robbing greyhound racing of its claim to recognition as a sport and reducing it to the level of a series of animated casinos. There would be intensive methods of inducing the public to attend; the racing would become entirely subordinated to the betting, and the managements would be obliged to encourage the maximum possible volume of betting through the totalisator in order to recoup themselves for the lost business through the turnstiles due to the reduction of days of racing. Thus the prime object of the Bill would be defeated. The best conducted tracks would deteriorate in their standard of management to the standard of lower-class tracks, and instead of the orderly, well-conducted conditions to which we have been accustomed at tracks like Wembley and the White City, there would be a universal level of shabbiness.
If greyhound racing is to be allowed to continue at all it must be given reasonable facilities for being conducted creditably, and if the sport is not to be allowed to exist in a creditable state, then it is better that it should be stopped altogether. If, on the other hand, the Legislature is going to say that greyhound racing in itself is not a thing that ought to be suppressed, but is a thing which has a reasonable claim to existence by virtue of its immense popular appeal, then the Legislature should not withhold from it the minimum conditions that will permit it to be conducted honourably and decently. In other words, it must be allowed conditions which will permit of some reasonable measure of success. It has been argued that, because horse racing is carried on at particular tracks

525
for only a few days in the year, then 104 days should be ample for greyhound courses, but in this respect the two things are not on a par. Horse racecourses, by virtue of the fact that the racing takes place under conditions that attract a large proportion of the more well-to-do classes of people, are able to charge very much higher prices of admission than greyhound courses, and the takings at a horse racing meeting are infinitely larger than the takings at a greyhound meeting. The average takings at a greyhound course for six weeks would not be nearly so great as the takings at Ascot for one week.
The idea seems to exist that greyhound racing enterprises are inexhaustible gold mines, in which immense fortunes are made by everybody, but an examination of the facts shows that this is far from being the case. Although it is true that one or two greyhound companies have paid extraordinarily high dividends, yet the general level of profit is extremely modest. Of the fifty-eight licensed courses with an issued capital of £3,962,000 the gross profit in 1931, without allowing for Income Tax and other charges, was only £458,000. In 1932, it was £603,000; and in 1933 only £218,000. These figures represent profits of 11½ per cent., 15 per cent. and 5 per cent. respectively—or an average of 10¾ per cent. for the three years. Several of the companies have in fact never paid any dividend, while most have paid dividends of less than 10 per cent. In horse racing, although admittedly some courses have not made large profits, some do extremely well. Sandown Park, for example, in its last filed report at Somerset House, showed a profit of £20,000 and paid a dividend of 7½ per cent. Chester paid a dividend of 10 per cent. free of tax. Kempton Park paid a dividend of 15s. per share, free of tax. Hurst Park showed a profit of £5,569, free of tax; and Manchester a profit of £6,469. If it is right to permit to horse racing conditions which will allow of a reasonable measure of profit, it is right also for greyhound racing, and without those provisions the sport cannot be conducted credtiably.
The restrictions now proposed will, in a word, ruin greyhound racing as a sport, though in a large number of cases it will
526
continue in existence as a commercial enterprise of a lower standard than heretofore. In many other cases it will cause the complete dissolution of companies, with very heavy loss to small shareholders. According to the last balance sheets, the capital value of the licensed courses amounts to £4,508,000, and if Parliament is going to introduce conditions which will cause the bankruptcy of a large amount of this property, all of which has been provided by the investing public for enterprises which were perfectly legal and above board, then it is committing an injustice to an enterprise which for years past has been systematically and purposely villified by interests that are opposed to it. If 156 days which I now ask for in the case of tracks in the Metropolitan Police area and 208 days in other areas are considered too many, is there any other number of days to which His Majesty's Government will agree in order to meet us to a certain extent? The greyhound racing authorities told me that the minimum number of days to enable these tracks to continue would be 156, with 5 per cent. on the totalisator.
All the arguments I have stated in dealing with this Amendment are based on the assumption that on the appointed days provided for in the Bill the management would hold only one meeting a day; but in fact there is nothing whatever in the Bill to say that this shall be so, and if the Bill were to go through in its present form a great number of managements would, without any doubt whatever, hold at least two, and perhaps three, meetings on each day of the week; there might even be continuous meetings lasting all day. That would surely be a most undesirable practice, because it would lead to working people attending meetings earlier in the day when they would otherwise be working. The provisions of my Amendment would in point of fact actually reduce the number of meetings that might be held under the Bill from 312 to a maximum of 204. Under the Government's system you would be encouraging a habit of continuous betting on certain days of the week, but under the system outlined in this Amendment you would merely be allowing a limited time of betting on occasions at the selection of the public.
There are many racecourses outside the control of the National Greyhound Racing Club which already run two meetings every day of the week, and there is one racecourse that actually has races three times a day. That seems to me to be very reprehensible. It is plain to me, and I hope to your Lordships, that the reduction of meetings that would take place under this Amendment is wholly sufficient. The effect would be a reduction of at least seventy-five meetings a week. To go a little further into this matter, here are two examples. In London at the present moment there are 135 race meetings a week. Under this Amendment this figure would be reduced by more than one-half. In Liverpool there are four racecourses holding actually thirty-nine race meetings a week. This Amendment would reduce the number to a maximum of sixteen—a cut of twenty-three meetings per week in this area alone. Surely this is a sufficient reduction. Taking the country as a whole, it is estimated that under this Amendment the number of race meetings would be reduced by approximately two-thirds.
To refer once again to the sporting side of greyhound racing, I would like to point out that all the best managements in this country do their utmost to encourage the sporting side of the racing, and they offer large prizes, just as do horse racecourse managements, for special events. The owners of these greyhounds have just as much pride in the ownership of their animals as have owners of race horses, and it is just as much an honour to one of these owners to win the Greyhound Derby as it is for the owner of a racehorse to win the Epsom Derby. Here is one example of the keenness of owners and of the genuineness of their ownership. The Wimbledon management recently promoted a Produce Stakes for greyhounds whelped in 1933, to take place next year. Although the added money does not exceed £200 the management have had an entry of 187 litters from all over the country representing 1,124 greyhounds. If that is not an example of keenness of ownership, one can think of no other.
The owners of these greyhounds represent all classes of the community. There are owners of racing greyhounds in the House of Lords, there are several also in another place, and of course, there are large numbers of men and women
528
in the middle and working classes who own greyhounds. Some of the working-class owners own the very best greyhounds. For example, there is a greyhound called Creamery Border, bred and owned by a milk roundsman. That greyhound has raced eleven times only in this country, but it has won eight races, including one of the premier classics, and its prize money totals something like £2,000. This owner has been offered £800 to £1,000 for the dog, but he is too attached to the animal to sell it. Another owner comes up all the way from Somerset every time his greyhound races at Wembley. There are similarly large numbers who breed and rear their own animals with the greatest affection and care. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("one hundred and four days in any calendar year") and insert the said new words.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Amendment is page 1, line 10, leave out "one hundred and four days in any calendar year." I will put the Question, that the words "one hundred and four" stand part of the clause, in order to save the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH): After the observations which have fallen from the lips of the noble Duke, I feel that there is very little justification for me in intruding upon your Lordships' attention. There is, however, one aspect which I think cannot be emphasised too greatly, and that is that if you are to have good tracks, adequately maintained with an adequate staff adequately paid, you must secure for them an adequate revenue. Unless you secure that and these other conditions, you cannot secure reputable management. If you do not secure reputable management you are liable to produce, and in fact are bound to produce, fraud and dishonesty, and the profits from such fraudulent operations on one of these tracks might be very large indeed. The mere accumulation of large sums of money dishonestly gained in the hands of a dishonest management is likely to result in an increase of bribery and corruption. In any case, your Lordships know that in other countries legislation in other matters has been passed from altruistic motives which

529
has had the effect, as in the United States, of placing large accumulations of money in the hands of persons who are no respectors of the law, with disastrous consequences in no way foreseen by those who introduced the legislation.
The difficulty of securing evidence against a dishonest track is often very great, but none the less rumours usually manage to get round. In those circumstances a track will become known, and not unnaturally people will frequent an honest track in preference to one that is improperly conducted. The existence of an honest track is therefore a very important check upon disreputable managements, as the latter, having no monopoly, will have difficulty in inducing patrons to frequent their tracks for the sole purpose of being swindled. The view that this Amendment is likely to increase gambling is, I think, erroneous. A man who is so disposed can gamble away all that he has just as easily at two meetings a week as he can at one or at six. The fact that a man is not at a greyhound track does not mean that he is not gambling, but if he is at a greyhound racing track, it does mean that he is in the open air, and if he is gambling there he is gambling under conditions which may be much better for his health than might be the case if he were gambling elsewhere.
When everything is considered it would seem that honesty of operation is the most important matter that this Bill can ensure. This can only be done by keeping these tracks above the level at which reputable management can subsist, and I am convinced that adequate revenue rather than fewer meetings is absolutely essential. Once you reduce these tracks below that subsistence level you destroy a sport and promote a swindle. There is no reason why cleanliness should be destroyed in the interests of fraud and dishonesty. I am bound to confess that I am not fond of gambling, but if I do dislike it, I much prefer it to some of the swindling that might take place if you destroyed the reputable character of these tracks. In these circumstances I am bound to confess that I see no alternative but to support this Amendment.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL:I think it might be for your Lordships' convenience if I were to speak now on my own Amendment to substitute "two hundred
530
and thirty-four" for "one hundred and four." Whilst I support generally the increase of days proposed by the noble Duke, I sincerely hope that your Lordships will accept my Amendment and not his. I only propose going a little further: I propose to insert 234 days, and I then propose to say:
"of which not more than three days shall be in any week between the first of October in any year and the thirty-first of March of the year following."
That would give actually an average of four and a half days per week. What it would actually mean is six days per week in the summer and three days per week in the winter. I think it is felt that in the summer, especially at holiday resorts to which large masses of people, particularly from the industrial classes, go during their holidays, recreational sport is necessary every night. Also in the summer the weather is very much finer, whereas in the winter the need is not nearly so great, and three days a week would, I think, in point of fact be ample.
I was not impressed by what the noble Duke said about the distinction between London and the rest of the country. I cannot see at all why there should be a discrimination between the number of days which he proposes for London and the number proposed for the rest of the country. He quoted Liverpool and London, but I would like to point out to your Lordships that Liverpool is vastly smaller than London, and it does not seem to me to be just that the London tracks should be debarred from having racing on the same number of days as the other parts of the country. Further, I would like to point out to your Lordships that there is no sport at all being run in this country which is restricted to less than four days a week, and I really do not see how, in justice to the population of this country, we can limit greyhound racing to less than four days a week. To do so, seems to me perfectly absurd. I hope your Lordships will accept my two Amendments in preference to the proposals of the noble Duke.
LORD ASKWITH: The speech of the noble Earl shows the moderation of the noble Duke's Amendment to this clause. This clause, and one or two other clauses of the Bill, lead one to wonder what is the intention of the Bill as a whole. Is

531
it to smash greyhound racing, to destroy it altogether, so that there may be no betting at all upon greyhounds, or so to hamper it that it will die a slow death? It would be the death of a thousand cuts, because every means would be taken by those courses which might still continue to exist to keep alive as long as they could, for the sake of saving something for their unfortunate shareholders. As honorary President of the National Greyhound Society I have had to go into these questions very carefully, and in answer to the noble Earl's remark about London, I may say that it was with some difficulty that the London courses, in order to meet the view expressed in the Royal Commission's Report that there should not be excessive facilities for gambling, were induced to agree to the reduction to three days a week. On some of the courses which have an opportunity of showing other sports from time to time, such as Wembley and the White City, it is possible to exist on that practice, but in the provinces three days a week would not enable a large number of licensed courses to exist, unless they resorted to the practice I have mentioned. The effect on such very restricted courses as these, and the restriction of the days of racing to the same days for all courses, as settled by the local authority, would be that the managements might have to resort to any other means they could to increase their revenue, and it would be an inducement to increase the gambling facilities. Another result would be the reduction of their staffs and the turning off of a large number of men, who are now reputably employed and receiving good wages, on to the unemployed list. It would bring about a state of affairs such as was hinted at in rather lurid terms by Lord Darcy (de Knayth).
What would be the effect on the public? The public would be driven out on to the streets for street betting. They would be deprived of an opportunity of going to these courses, where they cannot drink and where they can spend their evenings in the open air. They are not able to spend the whole day on a racecourse, as is the case with horse racing, but they enjoy an amusement, whether they are betting or not—and many do not bet at all—to which they have become
532
accustomed. The curtailment of such an opportunity would be resented—a resentment not based on the idea of differentiation between a rich man's sport and a poor man's sport, but a resentment felt at the selection of one sport for restrictions which no other sport has to endure. The public would consider it an unfair attempt to exercise an unreasonable control over a particular sport. It must also be remembered that greyhound racing is a very local affair. It is a thing which a man can go to after his day's work, if there is a course in his locality, without having to go long distances and without having to spend large sums upon travelling expenses, and from which he can get home in time to get a good night's sleep and be ready for his work in the morning. The idea that people go from one town to another to follow greyhound racing is entirely mistaken. It is a matter which is much kept to one locality, and with regard to betting in that locality it is much less than would probably take place upon horse racing and football if you curtailed greyhound racing. The Government have apparently legalised football pools, a source of gambling which is infinitely greater than anything which can be laid at the doors of greyhound racing.
Further, there is this to be said, that greyhounds have not got their races published a long time beforehand, with the dogs well known upon which betting can take place. In the case of horses betting can take place in some cases many months before the actual race is run. Further, bets can be laid on horses from John o'Groats to Land's End. But greyhounds have not got that chance, for no one bets in Liverpool, say, upon dog racing in London. It is a comparatively local sport; there is but small betting, and it is a popular sport, as the numbers of those who have attended the courses during the last few years perfectly well show. It is a sport which, even with the restrictions which the noble Duke suggests, will still continue to exist without other courses springing up like mushrooms, such as might be the effect if there were no control. I support the Amendment of my noble friend the Duke of Sutherland very strongly. I support it from knowledge and not from mere guess-work of numbers, and this, that and the other fact. I have gone carefully into the matter, and I think the

533
Amendment of the noble Duke is a very fair compromise which the Government might most reasonably entertain.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I wish to support the Amendment moved by the noble Duke simply because, as I understand it, the House, or rather the Government, have made up their minds that dog racing is to continue but is to be properly controlled. For that reason I am against the Amendment moved by the noble Earl opposite, because I think he was mixing the National Society with what I may call the casinos. His Amendment would mean gambling every night in unlicensed places, where there was no real control. On the other hand you must remember that the National Greyhound Society have their rules.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: May I point out that I was only dealing with licensed tracks? I believe there are fifty-eight tracks controlled by the National Society, and about 130 other tracks.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: It will certainly be my endeavour before the end of the proceedings on this Bill to see that these other tracks, which I may call outside tracks, are brought under some measure of control. For that reason I am against a very large number of meetings, as proposed by the noble Earl, because it is inconceivable that owners of dogs would run their dogs every night in that way. On these uncontrolled tracks the dogs belong to whoever owns the place, and it is a case of devil take the hindmost, and nobody much minds; but it is a very different thing where every dog is known and licensed. I have gone into the matter rather carefully, and the Association tell me that 104 days is too small a number and that the number should be 156 days in London. That is sufficient for London, which has got more than one track, and which has a very large population. If the Association are prepared to take that number, why make it more? It seems unreasonable. On the other hand, the Association say that where the population is sparse 156 days would not be sufficient, and it is for that reason that they ask for a larger number of days outside the metropolitan area. If they say that those numbers are sufficient for them, I should be inclined to
534
ask your Lordships to accept their figures, and not to agree to an unlimited number.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): The Amendment which the noble Duke has moved is probably the most important Amendment to the Bill, but I hardly think that your Lordships will expect me, after the speech which I delivered on the Second Reading, to go fully into all those points which have been raised. They will come up on more than one later Amendment. The noble Duke began by saying that betting was a minor ancillary to greyhound racing. I should like to inform him—because he does not seem to recognise this—that there is no limit to the number of days racing in a week that it is possible to have; and Sundays are not excluded either. If betting is only a small ancillary to greyhound racing it seems to me that that argument of the noble Duke is not very helpful to his case for this Amendment. The noble Duke said that unless so many days were allowed under the Bill—and I think the minimum he has stated is 156 —no racecourse could continue; I think the words he used were that they would develop into shabby undertakings. I am given to understand that there are tracks in this country which are quite satisfied with 104 days, and which do not want more, but it is a number of other tracks which feel that they will be unable to carry on because they will not be able to receive licences for betting on more than 104 days.
The noble Duke and those who have spoken on this Amendment appear to me to have misunderstood the whole proposition which the Government desire to put forward. This measure comes under the heading of social reform, and no one will contend that the introduction of measures of social reform is ever universally popular; but there is a vast number of people who think that any Government would be wanting in its duty if it did not bring forward measures of this description. On the Second Reading I said the Government were not arbiters of morals, but that they were determined to mitigate the effects which betting has on the community as a whole. If I could show your Lordships the vast correspondence which I have received in

535
the short time which has elapsed since the Second Reading, from numbers of people who are not all cranks and kill-joys or people who wish to spoil the sport of the people, but who are men and women closely associated with the social life of this country, you would see that there is not one of them who has much to say in favour of dog racing, and they can show, as the Royal Commission did, that wherever dog racing does exist, instead of the well-being of the community being enhanced, a deterioration sets in, upon which they look with varying degrees of dismay as to what the future will bring forth.
Clause 1 of the Bill, to which the noble Duke has moved an Amendment, proposes that betting by way of bookmaking or by means of the totalisator shall not take place on any track on which sporting events are held on more than 104 days in any calendar year; while Clause 9 provides that the 104 days on which betting facilities may be provided shall be appointed by the licensing authority, that is, county councils and county borough councils, and that the appointed days shall be the same for all tracks in any licensing area. The noble Duke proposes by this Amendment to allow betting facilities—and that is the important point—to be provided on any track in the Metropolitan Police district on 156 days a year (an average of three a week) and on 208 days on any track outside the Metropolitan Police district (an average of four days a week). From the point of view of social effects the important factor is not so much the amount of betting facilities afforded on each track as the amount afforded by all the tracks in each locality. The Amendment accordingly cannot be adequately considered in isolation from other Amendments which the noble Duke has put on the Order paper.
He seems to propose two alternatives. In the first place by an Amendment to leave out Clause 9, the 156 days on London tracks and the 208 days on provincial tracks could be employed for betting at the discretion of the individual tracks. If each track were allowed to choose its own betting days, those days could be so chosen that in effect there would be practically no limitation of betting days in any area in which there were two or more tracks. This result would stultify
536
the whole scheme of limitation, and incidentally would be inconsistent with the declared policy of the greyhound racing interests themselves that there should be some limitation on the number of betting days. Secondly, by an alternative Amendment to Clause 9, at page 9, line 30, the noble Duke proposes that the appointed days shall be fixed by the licensing authority, by which he means the statutory board which he proposes should be set up. It is not clear from his scheme whether this board would specify the appointed days for each individual track, or appoint the same 156 days for all tracks within the Metropolitan Police district and the same 208 days for all tracks outside that area. If he means that the maximum number of days should be fixed by the board in respect of each track separately, there again the result would be that there would not necessarily be any limitation of betting days in any area in which there were two or more tracks. If he means that the country should be divided into two areas—the Metropolitan Police district and the rest of the country—and that the appointed days should be the same within these two areas, then the proposal is open to the objection that the number of days is excessive.
There are twenty odd dog tracks in the Metropolitan Police district and about 200 outside that area. The noble Duke's proposal is, therefore, that on the great majority of tracks there should be betting on 208 days per annum or an average of four days a week. The consequences of allowing gambling on tracks every night of the year have proved so mischievous that the Government could not accept a proposal which would only result in decreasing the number of days from six or seven days to four days a week throughout the year. It is doubtful if those who are being harmed by repeated attendances at greyhound tracks ever attend each night of the week. The provision of betting facilities on four evenings a week all the year round would be easily sufficient to continue and perpetuate all the evil social effects which have made it necessary for the Government to introduce the present Bill. I would remind the House in this connection that the Royal Commission referred particularly to the general deterioration of character among young persons in poorer neighbourhoods due to the excite-

537
ment resulting from day-to-day betting on greyhound races which drove out from their minds every other interest. As a remedy for that social mischief, a reduction from six days a week to an average of four days a week is quite useless. For those who attend greyhound racing from the motives which lead people to attend other sports, it seems to me that an allowance of 104 days a year is more than ample.
Really, if I may venture to say so, there is no analogy between horse racing and greyhound racing in the number of days. You will find in various districts that horse racing takes place on a certain number of days in the year, but nothing in comparison with 104 days, and although a district may be excited and interested during a certain number of days, that period does not correspond in any degree with the 104 days proposed under the Bill, or with the 156 in London or the 208 in other portions of the country, proposed by the noble Duke. If the noble Duke would consider the objects which lie at the back of this Bill, he will see that the object we have in view is to stem and stay and remove if we can possible social deterioration throughout the country. He will see that his proposition, whatever merits it may have—and I am bound to say I see very little merit in it—has nothing to do with assisting the Government in carrying out a restriction which is accepted and desired by the great majority of the people of this country. But, as I have indicated, the paramount consideration is that in the public interest a considerable reduction in the amount of betting facilities which may be provided on tracks is absolutely necessary. In the considered view of the Government, the limitation proposed by this Amendment is in no sense an effective limitation and does little to remedy the mischiefs arising out of the organised provision of opportunities for continuous gambling.
It may be said in some quarters that it will not be practicable from a commercial point of view to operate dog tracks on 104 days a year. As I explained on Second Reading, the Government do not consider it to be their duty so to frame their proposals as to ensure that every dog track in the country can be operated to the financial profit of its owners. The Government are not animated, however, by any desire to sup
538
press dog racing; and they have reason to believe that those tracks which are reasonably conducted can operate quite well on 104 days. I am endeavouring to reply to the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, who is contending, I think, that the Government are attempting by legislation to arrive by a round-about way at the suppression of dog racing in this country. I think I have been able to make it clear to your Lordships that that is not so; and it is a fact that there are tracks—and very good tracks—in this country which are quite satisfied with 104 days.
LORD ASKWITH: I have not heard of them.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I can give the noble Lord proof. The track I am speaking of is Wembley, which I believe is the most important track in the country.
LORD ASKWITH: Wembley has a great many other sports besides dog racing.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble Lord said he did not know of any track in the country which was satisfied with 104 days, and I quote the track at Wembley as one that is satisfied. Nor are the Government impressed with the argument that the limitation of days will ruin greyhound racing as a sport. At present the tracks affiliated to the National Greyhound Racing Society are subject to a self-imposed limitation of race meetings per week and no Sunday meetings, whereas the other tracks race as often as they wish. Under the Bill it is obvious that the unregulated tracks will lose this advantage. All tracks will have the same maximum number of racing days—namely, 104 per annum, and no track will be able to race on Sundays as regards betting facilities. I should like to emphasise that dog racing can take place on all days of the week and on Sundays, but betting facilities will not be allowed except on the 104 days prescribed in the Bill. This seems to represent an advantage to the Society's tracks compared with the present position. I think your Lordships will agree with me that experience has shown that a higher standard of greyhound racing gives bigger attendances. If the Society, with the higher standards it

539
claims to represent, has prospered when greyhound racing was quite unregulated, there is no reason why it should not prosper equally under the system of regulation. Experience, I believe, has shown that it pays to offer a high standard of racing to the public because attendances are thereby increased, and that is sound commercial policy whether the number of days per annum is 365 or 104.
In regard to the proviso at the end of the Amendment, which appeared on the Order Paper for the first time to-day—["provided that not more than one meeting (comprising a maximum of eight races) shall be held on any one day"] —the first observation I have to make is that the suggestion that there should be not more than one meeting a day comprising a maximum of eight races is specifically related to greyhound racing. The Bill, however, is not confined to greyhound racing, but deals with all forms of sporting events. At athletic meetings there are often more than eight competitive events at one meeting. The second observation I have to make is that if it were desirable to restrict the amount of betting which might take place on any day, the only practicable method would be to relate the restrictions to the hours during which betting should be allowed to take place. It would be practicable, for example, to propose that on any of the 104 appointed days betting facilities should not be provided on any track on more than, say, four hours. This proposal may seem attractive at first sight, but it is open to the criticism that it is illogical that an activity which is legal, say, at eight in the evening should became illegal at nine in the evening. It is for these reasons that the Government do not see their way to accept the Amendment which has been made by the noble Duke.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I was very glad to hear the noble Marquess's speech, and I hope very much that the Government will stand firm on their proposal. The noble Marquess who has just spoken has reminded your Lordships that on the whole the Government Bill is based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission. A year or two ago there were various social problems arising out of the increase in gambling, which were causing considerable anxiety, and, as very often happens in these cases, the Government
540
of the day set up a Royal Commission to take evidence and look into the whole thing. When we deal with a question like this we cannot lightly put aside the conclusions arrived at after more than a year's investigation by eminently sensible people—not at all cranks—appointed by the Government to look into the whole of this qestion. You have only to look through the personnel of the Royal Commission to find that it was composed of gentlemen who are far from being cranks —Sir Stanley Jackson, Sir Sydney Skinner, head of a big firm, and Mr. W.L. Hichens, head of Cammell, Laird and Co., and so on, eminently sensible people interested in the welfare of the community. They sat for more than a year taking evidence, and as a result they made, at the end, certain recommendations, and, on the whole though not entirely, the Government have based their Bill on the recommendations of the Royal Commission.
The Amendment which has been moved to Clause 1 is intended to weaken the Bill and go back on the recommendations of the Royal Commission. When a jury have heard a case, have listened to evidence, and heard all the witnesses, we, who have not had the advantage of hearing the witnesses, do not assume that the jury are entirely wrong and at once proceed to say that the person who has been on trial, instead of being hung should be let out. I think we should be very reluctant to throw over the recommendations which, first of all, were put forward by the Royal Commission, and secondly, were further examined by the Government. The noble Marquess referred to the fact that in connection with greyhound racing the Commission stated quite emphatically that the social consequences were very serious. They said that after hearing representatives of chief constables, of the Y.M.C.A., probation officers and others. These witnesses almost unanimously referred to the deterioration of character particularly among the young in localities where greyhound racing was started, and, in particular, the Royal Commission picked out greyhound racing as being quite distinct. They looked into the question of horse racing and football and other sports, but they picked out greyhound racing as being by itself the creator of new problems. It was a new sport which had been recently started, and as a result of their

541
inquiry the Commission made certain clear and, I think, perfectly logical recommendations for limiting the number of days.
Your Lordships have been well aware of the agitation which has been going on outside in connection with this problem. As in connection with so many other problems, you have, on the one side—I am not referring to any noble Lord who has spoken—the financial interests, and on the other side, you have those who are interested in social welfare. I would like to read two very brief passages, one in the Interim Report and one in the Final Report of the Royal Commission. In the Interim Report the Royal Commission say:
"The gambling instinct of the population at large is being increasingly exploited by persons for their own financial gain."
And in their Final Report they say:
"Our concern is that we see before us the mass exploitation for private financial gain of the instinct or propensity to gamble. This is most marked in regard to a considerable part of the community in the poorer urban districts whose circumstances make such exploitation particularly easy and particularly on fortunate."
As I have said, you have only to read through the Reports to see that the Commission do in fact consider that the growth of gambling in connection with greyhound racing is what they are most concerned with. I hope, therefore, that the Government will stand firmly by the Bill as now drafted in this particular clause.
LORD STRABOLGI: The noble Marquess said that this was probably the most important Amendment to the Bill before your Lordships' House, and before we go to a Division I would like, with your Lordships' leave, to make a comment on the noble Marquess's speech and, indeed, to ask the Government if they will give us some further enlightenment. I listened with the greatest attention to what the noble Marquess said, and also to what the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has just let fall, and I have studied very carefully the speeches made on the Second Reading. What is the object behind this Bill? We have just heard from the noble Viscount that we should support the Royal Commission because it was a very eminent Royal Commission, was very industrious, and was composed
542
of men of affairs and so on. But we are doing nothing of the kind. My reading of the Royal Commission's Report is that they were very much opposed to the totalisator on greyhound racing tracks.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I said on this particular proposal.
LORD STRABOLGI: I do not want to do the noble Viscount an injustice, and I agree he wants to keep us to 104 days a year. The noble Marquess in charge of the Bill tells us of the evil social effects of greyhound racing, of the deterioration of character amongst the young, and the noble Viscount quoted the same words. Yet, apparently, we are to have this on 104 days a year. I would point out to your Lordships that if there is a young person who is led away by the excitement of gambling on greyhounds, who wastes his money and is led into dishonest practices and things of that kind, he can still indulge in it on 104 days in the year. With great respect for the noble Marquess I am afraid the Government's real object is this: they want to crush out as many of the greyhound racing tracks as they can. They would like to abolish the sport of greyhound racing altogether; they think it has a deteriorating effect on the characters of the young, that it has evil social effects and so on; but they have not the courage to do so. The noble Marquess, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, said that he knew of one track which could make a living apparently on 104 days in the year. Lord Askwith then challenged the noble Marquess and the noble Marquess said the track was Wembley. That was the one case the noble Marquess brought forward. The noble Lord, Lord Askwith, then pointed out that Wembley had many other sources of revenue. This is the situation. We are going, apparently, to ruin all the smaller tracks up and down the country, but we are going to allow a few very well managed, well financed, well capitalised concerns to continue.
If that is not compromising with evil, if it is an evil, I do not know what is. We are to decide as to whether this evil thing should be allowed on two days a week or on three days a week in the Metropolis, and four days in the provinces. My noble friend beside me (the Earl of Kinnoull) would still further extend it. What are we to do? The guidance we get from the Government

543
Bench is, apparently, that this is a terrible social evil, that this is a social reform Bill, and yet the evil, if such it is, is to be allowed to continue throughout the year on 104 days. I suggest to your Lordships that the whole of this Bill as it affects greyhound racing is most badly drawn. Although I shall, of course, support the Government if this Amendment goes to a Division, I most earnestly suggest to the noble Marquess that the whole of this part of the Bill ought to be withdrawn from your Lordships' consideration and redrafted.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: There is one aspect of this question which has not been mentioned. It has been said that a well-managed track could probably be run profitably on 104 days a year, and that the Bill as now drafted will be advantageous to the well-managed track and disadvantageous to the badly-managed track. I think that actually the position will be exactly the reverse, because, as I understand the organisation of greyhound racing to-day, the well-managed track spends a considerable sum of money and employs a considerable number of people in ensuring that the sport is run properly and is clean sport. If the managements of those tracks are tied down to the absolute minimum so far as profits are concerned, they will not be able to afford the money to ensure the cleanliness of the sport on their tracks. That will leave the smaller tracks which do not take that trouble to carry on while the big tracks, because they cannot provide the clean sport they desire, will go out of action. It seems to me, therefore, that the problem before your Lordships is whether you are going to allow sport on two days a week which is potentially not profitable or sport on three or four days which will be properly run.
THE LORD BISHOP OF RIPON: May I emphasise one point, that did not seem to me to need underlining although it was underlined by the noble Marquess? It is that this clause takes no part for or against greyhound racing as such. As the noble Marquess said, in most cases dog racing can go on every day of the week, including Sunday, if the promoters so desire. The point at issue is simply whether dog racing shall be associated with betting facilities publicly provided on more than two days in any week or more than 104 days in any year. It does
544
not seem to need much further argument to dispose of the suggestion that has been made more than once by noble Lords that this is an indirect way of crushing out a harmless sport.
If, on the other hand, it is not true, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Sutherland, suggested, that betting is merely an ancillary to dog racing, and the real truth is that dog racing will not flourish unless it is associated with betting, then, though some of us may have wished with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that the full recommendations of the Royal Commission should be embodied in the measure, we accept gratefully the compromise necessary in politics and feel that here is something which does reasonable justice to dog racing as such and, at the same time, makes a firm stand against an admittedly grave and growing social evil. Dare one suggest that the real issue from the point of view of many watching from outside is whether this House is going to be swayed by the moral interests of the whole community or the financial interests of a part?
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: I do not want to make a Second Reading speech, but I do want to press the point that the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, was right in saying that this Amendment is the beginning of an attempt to undermine the force of the Bill. I feel perfectly certain that if we give way on this particular point it will be the beginning of the undermining of what I believe to be a most useful Bill. You have on the one side, as I have said before, the Christian Social Council, the Church of Scotland, the Church Army, the Salvation Army, the Charity Organisation Society, the football clubs, probation officers, and Stipendary Magistrates and others, and on the other side simply those who are financially concerned with the profits of greyhound racing. I feel myself that if you have 104 days dog racing, which is more than the number of days of horse racing, it is monstrous to say that you are spoiling the sport of the poor. I hope your Lordships by your votes on this Amendment will show that you think the Government have held the balance fairly between those who would like to see greyhound racing abolished and those who want fair consideration given to the financial interests of others.
On Question, Whether the words "one hundred and four" should stand part of the clause?
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment stands in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I do not propose to move that Amendment.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Restriction of bookmaking on tracks.
(2) Bookmaking shall not be carried on on any licensed track on any day not being one of the days appointed in accordance with this Part of this Act as the days on which betting facilities may be provided
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 75; Not-contents, 34.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Halifax, V.

Hastings, L.

Mersey, V.

Kilmaine, L.

Reading, M.

Kylsant, L.

Zetland, M.

London, L. Bp.

Lloyd, L.

Ripon, L. Bp.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Airlie, E.

Merrivale, L.

Bradford, E.

Alvingham, L.

Palmer, L.

Buxton, E.

Amulree, L.

Plowarth, L.

Cavan, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

De La Warr, E.

Arnold, L.

Raglan, L.

Dudley, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Feversham, E.

Biddulph, L.

Rennell, L.

Fortescue, E.

Boston, L.

Rhayader, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Clinton, L.

Rochester, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Clwyd, L.

Salterford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Mar and Kellie, E.

Cobham, L.

Sanderson, L.

Midleton, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Snell, L.

Midlothian, E. (E. Rosebery.)

Denman, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Munster, E.

Ernle, L.

Stanmore, L.

Plymouth, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Stanhope, E.

Fairhaven, L.

Starbolgi, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

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

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Greville, L.

Astor, V.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Templemore, L.

Esher, V.

Hampton, L.

Tenterden, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Wargrave, L.

Hailsham, V.

Harlech, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sutherland, D. [Teller.]

Rosslyn, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), L.

Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)

Ellenborough, L.

Exeter, M.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Hindlip, L.

Ancaster, E

Chelmsford, V.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Bathurst, E.

Hereford, V.

Jessel, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Lawrence, L.

Askwith, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Effingham, E.

Bayford, L.

Redesdale, L.

Lindsay, E.

Carew, L.

Selsdon, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Carnock, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Peel, E.

Carrington, L.

Strachie, L.

Radnor, E. [Teller.]

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Stratheden, L.

on licensed tracks in the licensing area in which the track is situate
EARL PEEL EARL PEEL moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "appointed in accordance with this Part of this Act as the days." The noble Earl said: The Amendment which I desire to move cannot be described, as the noble Marquess described the last Amendment, 'as the most important Amendment on the Order Paper, but I think it follows to some extent logically from the decision which has just been taken by your Lordships as to the number of days upon which these facilities are to be permitted on dog racing tracks. May I describe very briefly the effect of the Amendment,

547
because I think it has consequential results which are perhaps not perfectly clear? The main consequence of the Amendment really is to leave out Clause 9, "Fixing of days on which betting facilities may be provided." It will be seen that according to Clause 9 those days Are to be fixed a year beforehand by the licensing authority, that they are to be exactly the same days for each track in an area, and that they apparently cannot be varied during the year in which they run.
The suggestion which I make by this Amendment is that having fixed the number of days upon which these facilities may be allowed, it should be left to the owners of the tracks to say on what days they should exercise that leave; that is to say, they should themselves fix two days a week, or three days a week for a shorter time—in fact, distribute the 104 days as they desire. I am bearing in mind, of course, the general proposition laid down by the noble Marquess, that the object of the Bill is to limit betting on these tracks, and I bear in mind also the observations which he has made about possible deterioration and so on. All I am suggesting is that if you have limited the number of days, really it is fair to leave the managements themselves to select those days which they think are most convenient to the public. The noble Marquess said, and said quite rightly, if I may say so, that the Government certainly cannot guarantee that there shall be a profit for any of these licensed tracks, but I think it is up to the Government, as they wish to regulate and not to destroy, to leave such arrangements to be made, subject to their restrictions, as will give a reasonable opportunity for these tracks to be successful.
The matter has been discussed by other speakers, and I think I need not dwell upon the obvious necessity of having these tracks conducted in a reasonable and sensible manner. But may I be allowed also to say this? Restrictions of this kind, brought in from the very best motives, and no doubt with the desire of preventing any deterioration in morals from excessive betting, must be to some extent irritating to the public. I suggest that they should be made as little irritating as possible, and that if you
548
have decided on the number of days upon which betting should be allowed, you should give a certain freedom within that restriction, as it were, to select on what days it should be carried on. I do feel that it is of the greatest importance, when you are introducing this kind of sumptuary legislation, that you should make it as tolerable as you can for the people for whom it is intended. It is never very popular that there should be restrictions of this kind, but nowadays, when everybody has got a vote, man and woman, the feeling, I think, is a little different from what it may have been thirty or forty years ago. They feel that they are judges, very largely, of their own behaviour and morals, and are apt to be a little resentful if they are too much confined and controlled in the liberty which is allowed to them under the Bill. It is because I want this Bill to be as acceptable as possible—it is a difficult Bill, I know—that I urge upon my noble friend this minor Amendment.
Of course there is one plain objection, with which I would like to deal. It will be said: "Oh, it is so easy to evade the provisions of the Bill if you allow this liberty, because you may have in a particular town three tracks, and the management of one may decide to open on Monday and Tuesday, the second on Wednesday and Thursday, and the third on Friday and Saturday, and so the object of the Bill will be evaded, because everybody will be able to go on betting tracks every day of the week." If I thought that would be possible I would not propose this Amendment, but I hope to show that I do not think it is either possible or practicable. First of all, and I think Lord Askwith put this point very clearly, you are dealing with a public who are not a sort of car-folk. In the main the people who attend these meetings are the poorer people, who depend mostly for locomotion upon their own feet or the cheaper forms of transport—the penny 'bus, if I may use the expression. It is obvious, therefore, that the range of locomotion of these people is very limited. They certainly cannot go from town to town and, indeed, they find great difficulty in going from one part of a large town to another part.
Let us take certain examples. There are very few towns, I understand, in which there is more than one track, and it is obvious that financial reasons would

549
prevent any undue multiplication of tracks for the purpose of evading the, Bill, if my Amendment is carried. First take the smaller towns. It is obvious that there nobody would put down two tracks, because they would not pay. Then take a large county. It is really absurd in a County like Kent that at one end, in seasonable resorts, you should have the same days fixed as are observed in the rest of the County. It is too rigid an application of a rule; but if it is suggested by the noble Marquess that there might be too much facility granted in that way, surely it is in the power of the licensing authority to refuse or not to refuse, as they like, a licence for a track which they think is situate in their own area too near to another one. That danger, I think, can easily be put a stop to, and therefore I suggest that this liberty of fixing the days should be left to the track authorities themselves. I do not think that that danger—I think it is the only danger, and the only objection that can be raised to my proposal—is really substantial. I think my proposal is much more satisfactory, is in the interest of the skilled conduct of these tracks, and will avoid undue irritation of the public. I hope that the noble Marquess will agree that this is a very minor Amendment, and one that does not infringe upon the larger considerations of policy which he described to us in replying on the last Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 29, leave out from ("days") to the first ("on")in line 31.—(Earl Peel.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The Amendment which the noble Earl has moved, although he deprecated the suggestion, is really a very important one indeed, and he has, if I may say so, put it forward with all the skill and eloquence of which we know he is a master. As a matter of fact the Amendment really cuts right across the principle which underlies the Bill, because it gives the opportunity to each track to adjudicate for itself on which days it will have racing.
EARL PEEL: May I correct the noble Marquess? It is not the days on which it may have racing, but betting.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I stand corrected by the noble Earl—the days on which betting facilities are allowed. It would mean that the tracks in the neighbourhood would come to some arrangement with each other. So there would be continuous racing, and opportunities which they would lose by certain of the public going to one track could be obviated by not racing on that day. The noble Earl also mentioned the difficulties of locomotion, but I think that if one travels about the country one sees the number of omnibuses which are crowded by vast numbers of the population, showing that if they are desirous of racing—and nobody denies that betting does hold out an attraction to enormous numbers in this country—there is no difficulty in finding means of transport. By this Amendment you would in the end find betting facilities provided on six days in the week, and for this reason the Government cannot see their way to accept the Amendment put forward by the noble Earl.
I thought that when the noble Earl put down his Amendment which in itself means nothing but only comes to full fruition when a subsequent Amendment is incorporated in the Bill, he had some reason which my advisers had not acted on. The noble Earl furnished the exact answer which I was proposing to give him, which is that the principle which underlies the Bill—namely, that of restricting the facilities for betting—would be overcome by the Amendment that is down on the Paper, and for this reason, in the interests of the Bill which the Government have put forward, and of the maintenance of the main principle which the Bill involves, it is impossible to accept the Amendment.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: In regard to this Amendment, I should like to point out this, that it relates very closely to Clause 9, for the omission of which certain noble Lords have put down an Amendment. I am one who feels that this sport of dog racing is a sport which has come to stay, and although it is not a sport which I support in any way, I think that those who do support it are entitled to enjoy a certain amount of liberty and freedom. I am glad to think that those who used to be associated with myself in another place have gradually become educated to this point of view,

551
that however pernicious we may feel betting to be, we have to recognise that human nature is what it is. It is far better to have this done legitimately and openly and under the law, than to have it done, as it has been in the past, in an underhand manner.
I think there is a good deal to be said for allowing the courses to select the days inside areas on which they shall have racing. After all, it is exactly what is being done by the Jockey Club for horse racing. There is one rule which they follow: they try to prevent racing on the same day at two places in any given area. It seems to me that you are going against all reasonable laws of sport in taking an area and saying they shall have racing on particular days only. We do not want to go back to D.O.R.A., under which our various sports and arrangements were interfered with by regulations of all kinds. I would rather the people were free to enjoy themselves as they wish, so long as they do so reasonably and properly. As I have said, I do not support this Amendment because I am associated in any manner with dog racing, which I am not, but merely from a desire not to impose an unfair restriction on the liberty of the subject.
LORD JESSEL: I think it is certainly most difficult for a local authority to judge of the question as to what should be the right days for dog racing on a particular track. It seems to me quite wrong to place that onus on the local authority. It would be very much better to leave the matter to the greyhound owners themselves.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH): When your Lordships are discussing the question of people being able to get from one race meeting to another as though the tracks were all adjoining, it seems to me that it is desirable to take concrete cases. I believe, for instance, that in Kent there are racecourses at Ramsgate and Rochester, as well as elsewhere. Now the course at Ramsgate is essentially one that depends upon a seasonal custom. It is closed for eight months in the year. At the present moment it holds three meetings a week, but in any case it is to be appreciated that that course is in different circumstances from the purely urban course of Rochester, where there is an all-the-year-round custom. If the
552
Kent County Council is required to lay down 104 days in a year on which all tracks in its area must race, what is its policy to be as between those two courses? If it lays down two days a week throughout the year, then it is being unfair to the course at Ramsgate. Yet no one could contend that people would go in any numbers several times a week from Rochester to Ramsgate, and so indulge in continuous betting.
You have now limited the number of days for betting and you are now compelled to arrange it in such a way that the days are bound to be unsuitable to certain tracks, which means that their owners cannot operate honestly. That seems to me to be a direct encouragement of those very undesirable social tendencies that have been so much deplored this evening. It is really unfortunate that that should be so because nobody desires to see disreputable tracks operated. I understood that that was the view expressed by your Lordships' House when we were voting on the other Amendment, which has just been rejected on the sole ground that we considered that these tracks should be operated decently. If you limit the number of days to 104 in a year you must make the conditions such that those 104 days may be suitable days. I hope your Lordships will not take away with your left hand what you have just given with your right.
EARL PEEL: Perhaps with the permission of the Committee I might say one word in reply to the noble Marquess, because, with great respect for what he said, he really did not meet my argument at all. He did not even reply to it. I took the different cases and showed that it was not possible, with the habits of the people and the facilities that exist, for them to go about from one place to another, and I showed that if there was any difficulty of that kind it could easily be got over by the licensing authority, who could define where these licences should be granted and where the tracks should be. But the noble Marquess drew a picture which I must comment on, because it was so utterly unlike the facts and so utterly different from the habits of people who frequent race meetings in this country that I was rather surprised to hear it from him.
I do not know whether he was speaking under the iron thrall of the Home

553
Office or expressing his own natural common sense views, but he drew a picture of the people who attend these dog race meetings going all over the country in motor omnibuses and attending one meeting after another, and he suggested that if the meetings were to be held on different days these people would apparently spend their whole lives passing from one racecourse to another. But these are people who earn their daily bread by their labour. How is it possible for these people to travel all over the country in these omnibuses when the next morning they have to be at their work at six or seven o'clock? No, the picture which the noble Marquess drew does not correspond with the facts of the case, and if there are such people as he suggests they are a negligible quantity. If that small minority are so debased as to want to bet on dog races every day of the week we must. leave them to their own devices: I do not think this House will be able to cure them. The whole case of the Government on this point does not in my judgment carry very much weight, because you can easily avoid the difficulty. The Amendment does not run athwart the general principles of the Bill. It only leaves a reasonable latitude to the people who are conducting these racecourses, and it cannot have any of those terrible results which the noble Marquess described.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: I should like to point out that in the case of London it is perfectly easy for a man to go and bet at Wembley one day, the White City the next, and Hackney Marshes the next.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: May I ask the right reverend Prelate why he should not?
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: The noble Duke asks why he should not. The whole point of the Bill is that he should not. I am not saying that because a man bets he is filled with double-dyed iniquity. Many of your Lordships bet; I know that very well. But what we want to prevent is a man spending his money in this way every day of the week. If your Lordships knew the mischief which is being done you would see what the Government are trying to prevent. If a man lives at Chiswick he can get on an omnibus and go
554
to the White City one day, to Wembley the next day, and to Hackney Marshes the next. I do not think your Lordships fully understand that he may go and see these beautiful dogs race any day in the week. It is the betting that matters. Your Lordships talk as if we are stopping this lovely sport. But it is only the betting on these days which is in question. I am quite certain that the noble Earl's Amendment would really spoil the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: May I attempt to clear up one point that is troubling me? As I understand the noble Earl's Amendment, his purpose is to remove altogether the fixing of the days from the local authority and leave it to those who are engaged in the business to fix them for themselves. That of course is a very different point. It does not strictly arise from the language of the Amendment before us, though it may be necessary to have it in order to pave the way for the Amendment with which we shall subsequently deal. The consequence is that we have been discussing Clause 9. In Clause 9 there is a provision giving the authority power to fix the days on which betting facilities may be provided, and in subsection (2) there is a provision that the days appointed shall be the same for the whole licensing area. I cannot help thinking there are some observations to be made with regard to this subsection when we get to it, but I cannot see that it has any relevance to this Amendment. The reason I am referring to it is that I was very much struck by what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Darcy (de Knayth), when he talked of the different considerations that would apply to Ramsgate and Rochester. I think there is some force in the observations which he made, and it may very well be that when we come to consider this part of Clause 9 a number of your Lordships may think it necessary to empower the licensing authority to distinguish between different parts of its area if it thinks right to do so. In that case you would get over this difficulty of suggesting that a man could go from one place to another and attend dog racing every day of the week.
My purpose at this moment is to point out to those who may think with me, without expressing any definite view

555
upon it, that there is matter that requires to be considered in relation to the discrimination to be exercised by the licensing authority with regard to the days to be appointed in any area. We may object to imposing on the authority the obligation to fix once and for all, a year before, the number of days, and the days themselves, throughout the area, if it means they must be the same, as I read the Bill at the moment. However, that ought not to affect our views on this Amendment. I cannot see, however strongly I might differ from the language of this subsection (2) in Clause 9, that
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
clause 2 agreed to.
it would affect the Amendment put by the noble Earl, which in substance really means: Do not give it to the licensing authority, but leave it to those who control the undertakings themselves. With regard to that I can only say, for myself, I think the Government have made out a perfectly good case, and I intend to support them.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 33.

CONTENTS.

Exeter, M.

Exmouth, V.

Greville, L.

Reading, M.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Zetland, M.

Goschen, V.

Hampton, L.

Hailsham, V.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Airlie, E.

Halifax, V.

Harlech, L.

Ancaster, E.

Mersey, V.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Bradford, E.

Ullswater, V.

Kilmaine, L.

Buxton, E.

Kylsant, L.

Cavan, E.

London, L. Bp.

Luke, L.

De La Warr, E.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Dudley, E.

Alvingham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Effingham, E.

Arnold, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Feversham, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Polwarth, L.

Grey, E.

Bayford, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Biddulph, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Boston, L.

Rennell, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Butler of Mount Juliet, L. (E. Carrick.)

Rhayader, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Rochester, L.

Midlothian, E. (E. Rosebery.)

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Mount Edgeumbe, E.

Sanderson, L.

Munster, E.

Clinton, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Plymouth, E.

Clwyd, L.

Snell, L.

Stanhope, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Stanmore, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Danesfort, L.

Stonehaven, L

Denman, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Astor, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Chemsford, V.

Ernle, L.

Stratheden, L.

Esher, V.

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

Templemore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sutherland, D. [Teller.]

Hereford, V.

Hutchison of Monstrose, L. [Teller.]

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queeensberry.)

Askwith, L.

Jessel, L.

Carnock, L.

Lawrence, L.

Fortescue, E.

Carrington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Lindsay, E.

Cobham, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Midleton, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), L.

Palmer, L.

Peel, E.

Digby, L.

Raglan, L.

Radnor, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Redesdale, L.

Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)

Fairhaven, L.

Selsdon, L.

Heneage, L.

Strachie, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Hindlip, L.

Wargrave, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Clause 3:
Restriction of totalisator betting and prohibition of pool betting.
3.—(1) No person shall set up, keep or operate a totalisator other than a totalisator

557
set up on an approved horse racecourse by, or by authority of, the Racecourse Betting Control Board in accordance with the Racecourse Betting Act, 1928, or set up on a licensed track being a dog racecourse in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act which relate to totalisators on dog racecourses.
(2) Subject as hereinafter provided, no person shall, except while engaged in lawfully operating a totalisator, receive or negotiate bets to be made (whether by means of a totalisator or not) in accordance with the system of betting commonly known as pool betting or pari mutuel betting:
Provided that the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not apply with respect to the receipt or negotiation by any person of a bet on a horse race with a view to the bet being made by means of a totalisator operated by, or by the authority of, the Racecourse Betting Control Board in accordance with the Racecourse Betting Act, 1928.
(3) For the purposes of the last foregoing subsection, a bet shall not be taken to be made in accordance with the system of betting commonly known as Pool betting or pari mutuel betting by reason only that it is made upon the terms that, if it is won, the amount payable to the winner shall be calculated by reference to the amounts payable to the winners of bets effected by means of a totalisator lawfully operated.
(4) Every person who contravenes the provisions of this section shall be guilty of an offence.
LORD SANDERSON LORD SANDERSON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "1928." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is in strict line with the recommendations of the Royal Commission with regard to the introduction of the totalisator on greyhound tracks. My complaint about the Bill is that it does notfollow the Royal Commission closely enough. As your Lordships will remember, the Royal Commission felt very strongly on the question of totalisators all greyhound tracks which were then thought to be legal. So strongly did the Commission feel on the matter that their Interim Report dealt almost entirely with that question. They brought forward plenty of evidence in support of their opinion that the "tote" had a great effect in increasing gambling. There is no doubt gambling increased enormously during the short time that the "tote" was operating on the track, yet, notwithstanding that, the Government, as it seems to me, goes out of its way to make the "tote" legal once more on the track.
The object of the Bill, I imagine, is to remove inducements to betting and not to
558
increase facilities for betting. That, I gathered, was the object from what the noble Marquess said in his speech in introducing the Bill. He more than once referred to the serious social consequences of betting. I cannot understand why, in those circumstances, the Government should think of making the "tote" legal on greyhound tracks once more. I listened very carefully to the noble Marquess's opening speech on the Second Reading, and I did not gather that he really argued the case, or attempted to explain to your Lordships why this step was being taken. He seemed to me, if I may say so, not very enthusiastic himself about this clause of the Bill, in fact he seemed almost apologetic about it. He did refer to safeguards, however. The noble Marquess seemed to imply that with the safeguards which were in the Bill any harm which the "tote" might do on greyhound tracks would be eliminated, but it was not at all clear to me what the safeguards were beyond the fact that the "tote" managers were to employ a skilled accountant and were to have a technical adviser, chosen by themselves. That, no doubt, as the noble Marquess said, would tend to make the totalisator less capable of being used fraudulently. It might make it more fraud-proof, but if you have it more fraud-proof it will then be a better gambling instrument and will be more popular as a gambling instrument. You will have a well-managed totalisator and that will encourage people to gamble, which is exactly, as I understand, what the Bill does not wish them to do.
There is no doubt that people prefer to gamble with the totalisator rather than with the bookmakers, and that is especially the case with regard to women, I believe. We heard on the Second Reading debate some evidence from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester of the serious increase in gambling among women in Manchester. No doubt we shall hear the old argument—if you have the totalisator on the horse racecourse why not on the dog course? The answer, as I suggested in the Second Reading debate, is that the totalisator on the dog track puts money into private pockets and gives an inducement to the track managers to encourage gambling, whereas the surplus from the totalisator on the horse racecourse is devoted to legi-

559
timate objects which are laid down in an Act of Parliament. Another reason is that whereas horse racing is an old-established sport, and there is no doubt that it is a sport, dog racing is of very recent growth—it is only eight or nine years old—and, although some of your Lordships may not agree with me, I say definitely that it is not sport in the true sense of the word.
It is useless for the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, to remind your Lordships of the 40,000 people shouting and yelling at Wembley when they watched Mick the Miller run—I think that was the name of the dog. Why were those yells coming from those 40,000 throats? Because the people all had money on Mick the Miller or on one of its rivals. They were shouting for Mick the Miller to get on with it or shouting for one of its rivals. How many shouts would there have been if betting had not been allowed on that course? How many of the 40,000 people would have been there at all? The whole object of the thing is betting and the tracks are, as they have been well described, nothing more than open-air casinos. I hope the noble Marquess will think again, and accept my Amendment and decide not to take a part in setting up this new gambling facility which must have very bad social effects over a large part of the country.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 5, leave out from ("1928") to the end of the subsection.—(Lord Sanderson.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The Amendment which the noble Lord has moved deals with the question of the totalisator and he at the same time puts forward a suggestion that the Government should adhere to the proposals of the Royal Commission. I must apologise to the noble Lord for not having made myself clear in my Second Reading speech. I think he said that I did not refer to the matter with any enthusiasm. I can assure the noble Lord that betting facilities are not received by me with enthusiasm. In fact, owing to the official position which I hold at present and my own inclinations, I am prepared to do anything in my power to restrict betting throughout the country. In connection with the totalisator, however, I think I should make it clear to the noble Lord that the Government have been much impressed by the force of the contention
560
that if betting at greyhound tracks is to be allowed the backer should not be deprived of the alternative form of betting provided by the totalisator. It is an alternative form of betting which has come into being in the last few years, and it is in the view of the Government the right of a person who bets to have the opportunity of betting by means of the totalisator as well as through the bookmakers.
I should like also to restore the noble Lord's confidence that no undue harm is being done by this adoption of a principle which was not included in the recommendations of the Royal Commission, by saying that the undesirable development with which the totalisator at greyhound tracks has in the past been associated can be checked by regulations incorporated in the Bill. I venture to suggest to the noble Lord that he should study the First Schedule, which deals with the operation of the totalisator in connection with greyhound racing. The restrictions and the regulations which have been put into that Schedule I think, or at least I hope, will convince the noble Lord that the totalisator will be operated in a manner which will not give rise to those irregularities which are in his mind and which could most certainly occur if the regulations were not stringent. I hope I have convinced the noble Lord that the reason why the totalisator has been included in this Bill is that the alternative method of betting is desired by the public, and we feel that the safeguards incorporated in the Bill are sufficient to prevent any irregularities occurring in the management and operation of the totalisator.
LORD SANDERSON: I thank the noble Marquess very much for his reply, but I am sorry to say he has left me quite unconvinced. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SANDERSON LORD SANDERSON moved, in the proviso to subsection (2), after the first "bet," to insert "made on an approved horse racecourse." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is also intended to bring the Bill into line with the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I am not moving against betting off the course but against betting off the course through the totalisator on the course. I understand that a great deal of betting

561
is done in that way now because the Betting Control Board encourages people to make bets off the course which are sent in to the "tote" on the course. The Royal Commission were very much against that and they definitely laid down that that should not go on. It means that part of the surplus from betting through the totalisator on the racecourse goes in commissions to people for arranging bets off the course which are dealt with through the totalisator. That, according to the Commission and I think quite rightly, was never intended by the Act of 1928. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 17, after ("bet") insert ("made on an approved horse racecourse").—(Lord Sanderson.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The Amendment which the noble Lord hits moved deals with off-the-course betting. I think he is aware, as all your Lordships are, that this description of betting has not been included in the present Bill. I have no doubt that many of your Lordships will criticise the Bill from that point of view, and will feel that in a measure of this description the whole area of betting should have been considered, and that it should have been included in one large measure. I informed your Lordships on the Second Reading of the Bill, that we found it impossible, owing to lack of time and other reasons, to incorporate in one large comprehensive measure the whole question of betting on the course and off-the course betting. Unfortunately—I agree that it is unfortunate—we have not been able to deal with off-the-course betting, and consequently the question which the noble Lord has mentioned in his Amendment really does not arise, because it is not necessary expressly to authorise the operation of agencies which collect bets off the course and transmit them to the totalisator.
The next Amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper is for the purpose of regularising on-the-course and off-the-course betting which would have been made illegal by the Bill, but which the Government have decided to ask your Lordships to alter by the Amendment which I shall move next. Therefore the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved does not actually arise on this measure.
LORD SANDERSON: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved to leave out Clause 3, and insert the following new clause:—
Restriction of totalisator betting and other pari mutuel betting.
3.—(1) No pari mutuel betting business shall be carried on on any track, except—

(a) on an approved horse racecourse, by, or by authority of, the Racecourse Betting Control Board under the Racecourse Betting Act, 1928, as amended by this Act, or

(b) on a licensed track being a dog racecourse, in accordance with the provisions of this Act which relate to totalisators on dog racecourses:

Provided that nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a person from receiving or negotiating bets on an approved horse racecourse with a view to those bets being made by means of a totalisator lawfully operated on that course.
(2) No person shall use any premises not situate on a track, or cause or permit any such premises to be used as a place where persons resorting thereto may effect pari mutuel transactions.
(3) Every person who contravenes any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) Nothing in this section affects the operation of any provision of the Betting Act, 1853."
The noble Marquess said: The Amendment which I have now to move, and which proposes to leave out the existing Clause 3 and to substitute the clause which is set out on the Order Paper, is in fulfilment of the undertaking which I gave when I moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I ventured upon that occasion to explain the reasons which had led the Government to propose in the Bill that pari mutuel betting off the course should be prohibited absolutely. The effect of such a prohibition would have been to bring to an end football combination betting and off-the-course betting on horse races which is conducted on the pari mutuel principle. I said upon that occasion that the Government had reconsidered the matter since the introduction of the Bill, and that for the reasons which I detailed upon that occasion, the Government proposed to move Amendments at the Committee stage for the purpose of allowing the continuance of office pari mutuel betting in the forms in which it is at present lawfully conducted

563
in connection with such sports as horse-racing and football matches.
The new clause which I venture to move may be divided into two parts. Subsection (1) of the clause deals with pari mutuel betting on the course. It prohibits all betting on the pari mutuel system save, first of all, on an approved horse racecourse, conducted by the Racecourse Betting Control Board, and secondly, on a licensed dog racecourse, under the provisions of the Bill. The proviso to subsection (1) maintains the existing position under which it is legal for agencies such at Tote Investors, Limited, to receive and negotiate bets from their clients on a horse racecourse with a view to the transmission of the bets to a totalisator operated on that racecourse by the Racecourse Betting Control Board. So far as totalisator or pari mutuel betting is concerned, the trouble in the past has been that the law was not clear. It was not until December, 1932, that the High Court, in the ease of Shuttleworth versus Leeds Greyhound Racing Association, decided that totalisator betting on greyhound tracks was unlawful. In the opinion of the Government it is desirable with a view to avoiding any possibility of misunderstanding in the future that Parliament should enact in the most explicit terms the only conditions under which totalisator or pari mutuel betting on the course can lawfully be conducted.
Subsection (2) of the clause deals with pari mutuel betting off the course, and prohibits the use of any premises off the course as a place where persons resorting thereto may effect pari mutuel transactions. The object of this provision is to make it clear that anything in the nature of a "tote" club (whether conducted on cash terms or credit terms) is definitely illegal. As was pointed out by the Royal Commission, the real mischief of "tote" clubs is that persons resort there and are induced to gamble continuously on a succession of races, ft is an offence under the first part of Section 1 of the Betting Act, 1853, to keep a place to which persons resort for the purpose of betting with the keeper; but it has been held by the Courts that persons who resort to a place for betting on the totalisator or pari mutuel principle are not betting with the keeper of the place. There is as a result a pos-
564
sible loophole in the existing law, which this Amendment is designed to stop up. The mischiefs arising from what are commonly called "tote" clubs are so serious and so well recognised that the Government believe that there will be general agreement with this provision in the Bill, which is designed expressly for the purpose of preventing a recrudescence of these clubs. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 3 and insert the said new clause.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in paragraph (b) of the proposed new clause, to leave out all words after "racecourse." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment, not with the object of pressing it, but in order to ask the noble Marquess to consider before the Report stage the drafting and meaning of this new clause which he has moved to insert. I do not say anything about the rather obscure wording of subsection (1) and the proviso, which really, from the legal point of view, I do not fully understand; nor do I understand the effect of putting at the end of the clause: "Nothing in this section affects the operation of any provision of the Betting Act, 1853." The Betting Act, 1853."is one which is contrary in principle to the pari mutuel. The pari mutuel is allowed by this clause in certain circumstances, but it is not a credit pool, which the Betting Act, 1853, allows.
But I concentrate upon the words "on a licensed track being a dog racecourse, in accordance with the provisions of this Act which relate to totalisators on dog racecourses." If the Bill passes containing this clause as it appears on the Order Paper it will be subject to the Schedule, and the first paragraph of the First Schedule provides that:
"A totalisator set up under this Act on a dog racecourse shall be a mechanically or electrically operated apparatus…."
Pari mutuel betting cannot be, or rather I believe that only in a few cases by very expensive machinery can it be, operated by such a machine. Yet this clause proposes to permit pari mutuel betting in certain circumstances, and in a disguised form. I am sure the noble Marquess would not like to stop by one clause the very thing which is given by another clause. If the Schedule stands, this clause is perfectly useless.
Amendment to the proposed new clause moved—
In line 7 of subsection (1) leave out from ("racecourse") to the end of paragraph (b)—(Lord Askwith.)
LORD RAGLAN: It is very desirable that Acts of Parliament should be drafted in the King's English, and I venture to think that this clause does not fulfil that requirement. The phrase "with a view to those bets being made" seems to me to be ungrammatical; and I am not at all sure that you can "receive" a bet. A bet is a transaction between two or more persons. I venture to hope that the noble Marquess will consider whether the wording of this clause cannot be improved.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask the noble Marquess to explain another point in connection with this matter, and I think this applies also to the Amendment moved by Lord Askwith? I would ask him to look at subsection (2). This could happen. You could have on premises licensed as a dog-racing track an office where bets could be made, and that is quite legal. It is on-the-course betting. Now the Government say that betting on dog racing is very wicked, except on two days of the week. What is to prevent evilly-disposed persons, suffering the deterioration of character which so upsets the noble Marquess and causes him to deplore these terrible things in the country, from resorting on the other four days of the week to some office on a licensed dog track and laying bets by telephone or telegram to agents in the next county in regard to dog racing in that county, or, for instance, persons resorting to the Wigan dog-racing track and laying bets at Wembley or Shoreditch, or in a Yorkshire town, and enjoying this nefarious practice on six nights every week? I suggest to the noble Marquess that he has left a loophole here which should be looked into. No one thought that "tote" clubs would spring up in the way they did, and I think that this is a matter which requires explanation or examination
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I do not like the statement to pass without challenge that this Amendment will permit betting by pari mutuel on football matches, because I am informed that
566
Clause 4 will require amendment before such betting is permitted.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: If the Amendment moved by Lord Ask with were accepted the new Clause 3 would read as follows:
"No pari mutuel betting business shall be carried on on any track except—

(a)

(b) on a licensed track being a dog-racecourse."

The effect of the Amendment would be to allow pari mutuel betting businesses to be carried on on licensed dog racecourses without being made subject to the provisions of the Act which relate to the operation of totalisators on dog racecourses. Lord Askwith does not appear to propose the deletion of Clause 10, which provides for the establishment of totalisators on dog racecourses, and it is therefore not very easy to determine exactly what he has in mind by his present Amendment. He seems to intend that on any licensed dog race track betting on the pari mutuel system, whether by means of a totalisator or by means of a bookmaker, should be allowed free of any restriction. The Government certainly could not accept this proposal. Totalisator betting offers scope for fraudulent practices, and could not be allowed except subject to a scheme of supervision and control.
Lord Askwith may, however, not intend to be so far-reaching by his Amendment. It is possible that he has in mind that totalisators on dog racecourses should not necessarily be "mechanically or electrically operated apparatus complying with such conditions as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe," as provided for in paragraph 1 of the First Schedule. If that is his intention, the Amendment must nevertheless be resisted. The scheme of control contemplated in the First Schedule makes it essential that the totalisator on the dog racecourse should be mechanically or electrically operated, and that it should be capable of indicating at a glance the total amounts staked on each competitor in each race. Unless provision were made for this, it would be impossible to provide any effective machinery for ensuring that the totalisator on dog racecourses is operated on honest lines.
With reference to the speech made by Lord Raglan, I will certainly make his

567
representations known to my advisers, but I am certain that the noble Lord knows better than I do what are racing terms, and will perhaps co-operate with me as to the phraseology to be put in to secure the objects which we have in view. In regard to the speech of Lord Strabolgi, I refrained on a previous Amendment from making any reply to him, and perhaps I should do so now. I am not quite sure whether on broad principles he is in favour of betting and considers that I am opposed to betting, and that, therefore, we are on different sides on this question. His sarcastic remarks were very interesting to listen to, but did not perturb me. If he is in favour of betting I am afraid I cannot help him. Under the Bill off-the-course betting remains as now, and as I ventured to inform your Lordships, with great regret on my part, we were unable to deal with the whole question of betting in this Bill.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am sorry that the noble Marquess thought I was trying to be sarcastic. I was trying to point out to him that there was a loophole in this clause, and a very grave one. As the new clause is drawn you can have on a dog-racing track, or a horse-racing track, premises which can be used all the week for betting every night, although you only allow betting on the racing on that particular track on two nights a week. You can use it as a clearing house for betting on other tracks. As the new clause is drawn that will be possible, and will be legalised. The point does not arise whether we are in favour of betting or against it. Personally I never bet, but I am very reluctant to interfere with other people who find it their only relaxation in a somewhat monotonous life. There is this loophole, and I should have thought that the noble Marquess would have been very grateful to me for pointing out an obvious defect.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I would refer the noble Lord to Clause 10, paragraph (b), which I think covers the point as far as the totalisator is concerned.
LORD ASKWITH: After the criticism of three noble Lords that this clause is drafted with considerable ambiguity and
568
ignorance, I trust that it will be further considered. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed new clause, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4:
Licensing authorities.
4.—(1) Subject as hereinafter provided, the councils of administrative counties and the councils of county boroughs shall, in relation to their respective areas, be the authorities empowered to grant licence under this Part of this Act authorising the provision of betting facilities on tracks:
Provided that—

(a) any such council may delegate their functions under this Part of this Act to a committee consisting of members of the council; and

(b) any two or more such councils may combine in delegating their functions under this Part of this Act to a joint committee consisting of members of the constituent councils.

(2) The number of members of a committee or joint committee appointed under this section and the term of office of the members thereof shall be fixed by the appointing council or councils, and, subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act and to any directions given by the appointing council or councils, the procedure of the committee or joint committee shall be such as they may themselves determine.
(3) Section two hundred and seventy-four of the Local Government Act, 1933, shall not apply in relation to the functions of a county council under this Part of this Act.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I understand that Lord Kinnoull does not move his Amendment on the Paper. The next Amendment, therefore, is a manuscript Amendment in the name of Lord Jessel, proposing at page 3, line 32, to leave out "councils of administrative counties and the councils of county boroughs" and insert "the Committee appointed by Quarter Sessions under Section 6 of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910." Then the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, has an Amendment in page 3, line 33, to leave out "county"; so that, with your Lordships' permission, I will put the Amendment down to "councils of administrative counties and the councils of," leaving the other words for a subsequent occasion.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "councils of administrative counties and the councils of county boroughs" and insert "the Committee appointed by Quarter Sessions under

569
Section 6 of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910." The noble Lord said: I must apologise for proposing a manuscript Amendment, but what it really amounts to is the County Licensing Committee. I might explain the reason why I put down this Amendment. At the time of the Second Reading the London County Council unanimously passed a Motion stating that the proposal to place on local authorities the duty of licensing betting on dog tracks is a new departure in local government. That resolution was quoted to the House by my noble friend Lord Snell, the Chairman of the London County Council. I was therefore moved to find out some other measure of dealing with this difficult question of licensing, and I first of all proposed to substitute"licensing justices." On further consideration, however, I realised that in London there are sixteen petty sessional divisons, and it would have been out of place for all these sixteen petty sessional divisions to adjudicate on an important matter of this kind.
There is set up at Quarter Sessions a Committee called the Licensing Committee, composed of two or three representatives from each magisterial bench in the county—and what I say of London applies to other counties. That is the confirming authority far licences, and also the compensation authority. It is, therefore, a very responsible body. I put that down as the authority because I understood from certain remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, who replied on behalf of the Government on the Second Reading, that they did not like the suggestion of the Standing Joint Committee made by Lord Amulree. In asking your Lordships to approve of this Amendment I am only going back to a precedent under which the duty of licensing racecourses within ten miles of Charing Cross was given to Quarter Sessions by the Racecourse Licensing Act of 1879. The reason why one wishes to propose some alternative method of licensing is that many of us who are engaged in local government think that this is a most invidious duty to discharge. You might have a tremendous lot of local feeling at election time, which would quite prejudice the election, whereas the matter is really ohe for calm judicial consideration.
I do not want to go on to Clause 9, but there again if you are going to put on the licensing authority the onus of settling the days, there will be a tremendous dispute as to what particular days should be settled. There would be a great deal of log-rolling, I am afraid, and it would not be in the public interest. I therefore think that the body to be appointed should be some judicial authority like the Licensing Committee of Quarter Sessions. They could, ofcourse, hear the evidence of the local authorities and the police and other people who wish to come before them.
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 3, line 32, leave out ("councils of administrative counties and the councils of county boroughs") and insert ("the Committee appointed by Quarter Sessions under Section six of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910.—(Lord Jessel.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: This Amendment is moved in connection with the views of the London County Council who have formally resolved that the licensing functions under the Bill Are properly police functions and should not be imposed on local authorities. I am bound to say I regret the view taken by those who discharge such onerous and important duties, because one would have thought that an important matter of this kind did properly come within their purview.
The effect of the Amendment would be to substitute as the licensing authority Quarter Sessions or a committee of Quarter Sessions appointed under the Licensing Acts, which has certain functions in connection with the extinction of liquor licences. In substance, the proposal is to substitute a non-elected body for the locally elected bodies proposed in the Bill. Apart from questions such as the possibility of organised vested interests being able to bring improper influences to bear on an elected body, there can be no doubt that in this case the elected body—namely, the county council or county borough council—is better qualified to exercise the licensing functions than Quarter Sessions or a committee thereof. The county council is accustomed to deal with questions of amenities or of the health and comfort of local residents. Likewise it is familiar with traffic problems. Quarter Sessions has no similar experience on which to

571
draw, still less its committee on liquor licensing matters, which is concerned with a very limited class of liquor licensing cases. Even apart from experience, the county council is more fitted than Quarter Sessions to assess the issue whether the licensing of a track would impair the amenities of neighbourhood, or seriously injure the health and comfort of persons residing in the neighbourhood.
As to the contention that Quarter Sessions (or its committee), even if less experienced and less qualified than the county council, would be less open to pressure, it must be remembered that the Government have not left a completely open issue to the licensing authority. Under the provisions of Clause 6 a licensing authority must grant a licence, unless it is satisfied on one of four grounds which are set out in the Bill; and if the licensing authority refuses to grant a licence it must state in writing on which of these grounds it has refused the grant of a licence. We feel confident that in narrowing the issue in this way it has removed the main objection to a function of this kind being exercised by an elected body, and therefore I ask the House to reject this Amendment, which we certainly believe to be based on ill-grounded fears. I would also add that the objection which is raised by the London County Council is not shared by other county councils, and I hope therefore your Lordships will not accept this Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I feel some difficulty in dealing with this Amendment becaues I am not sure I appreciate all that is implied in the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, but I confess, after listening to the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill, I would prefer the proposal of Lord Jessel to that of the Government. Notwithstanding that I want to give every support to the Government, it seems to me most undesirable that you should leave to an elected body the determination of such questions as will come before this licensing authority. If it is left to a body of magistrates, either in Quarter Sessions or a body of magistrates selected in some particular way, totally different considerations will apply, and it must be remembered also that some of the functions
572
which this licensing authority will have to discharge are really judicial.
The noble Marquess has given every consideration to the Bill, but I am not sure that he has fully borne in mind Clause 15, which deals with revocation. There are matters to be considered in relation to the revocation of a licence by this licensing authority. They have to enquire into facts; they must come to conclusions; the licensing authority must determine for the purpose certain points. What is provided under Clause 15 is this:
"A licensing authority may at any time, after giving to the holder of the licence an opportunity of being heard, revoke a licence in respect of a track in their licensing area—

(a) if they are satisfied that the track has been conducted in a disorderly manner or so as to cause a nuisance; or

(b) if on a report made to them by the accountant appointed under the First Schedule to this Act, or upon a refusal of that accountant to give such a certificate as is mentioned in the said Schedule, they are satisfied that any totalisator on the track has been maintained or operated otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of that Schedule; or

(c) if the holder of the licence is convicted of any offence (whether at Common Law or under this or any other Act) in connection with the management of the track,"

and so on. I shall not trouble your Lordships with all the details of the clause, but it is obvious the moment you look at it that these are matters which should be dealt with by magistrates and not by bodies like county councils.
I would therefore beg the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill to give this matter further consideration in order that some authority may be determined upon which will enable this question of licensing to be dealt with by a non-elected body instead of an elected body. We have heard that the London County Council has strong objections. I do not know enough about the views of other county councils; but surely that is a very important body and its opinion must be taken into account? Without pressing the matter unless we are compelled to do so by the Government, I would really ask them to consider whether it is not possible to change this licensing authority. I cannot say more than that. I have no doubt it has been very carefully considered already, but I believe your Lordships cannot contemplate with equanimity the con-

573
ferring upon an elected body an obligation to deal with various matters in relation to what is undoubtedly a popular pastime among a great many persons, which will expose that body to all the kinds of observations that can be made and are made at elections, with all the misrepresentation that is involved. The whole matter seems properly to be one that should be dealt with by persons who are there in a judicial capacity, and the last thing you want to do is to confer on those who are elected and have to be reelected an obligation to deal with matters of a judicial character. If the matter is forced to a Division, I should be bound to give effect to the views I have expressed, although I would much prefer to have the matter reconsidered, if that is possible.
LORD BAYFORD: I intervene because the noble Marquess opposite has said he did not know what the views of the other county councils were. I have an Amendment down later which was put down on behalf of the Association of County Councils. That association excludes the London County Council, but it includes all the rest of the county councils of England and Wales. I was surprised to hear the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill say that the county councils, excluding the London County Council, do not object to the proposal in the Bill. They do object, and it is because they object that they have framed this Amendment which stands in my name. I think their opinion should be given some weight. After all, they are asked to carry out a great many functions in one way or another, and I think that on the whole they have carried out those functions pretty willingly even when they would rather not have had them thrust upon them. When they say that they think that a particular duty—I shall not say ought not to be thrust upon them, but ought to be put on them in a different way, then I think their opinion is worthy of a good deal of consideration. The county councils object to this proposal that they should have the licensing power put in their hands, and that is the reason why my Amendment appears on the Paper. I leave out the London County Council; I cannot speak for them at all.
The county councils object to this proposal on the ground mentioned by the noble Marquess opposite—namely, that it is a very invidious thing to ask a man
574
who has to stand for popular election to give a vote where his conscience may conflict with his electoral interests. They want to avoid, if possible, being put in that very invidious position. My proposal is that it should be put in the hands of the Standing Joint Committee. One objection to that has been that the Standing Joint Committee has no staff whereas the county council has a staff that could be used for the purpose. That seems to me to be exactly the contrary of the fact. The county council have not a staff that is able to tell as to the suitability or popularity of a dog track in a particular area. On the other hand, a Standing Joint Committee has the Police under its orders, and if you want to know whether there is any objection to an institution of that sort in a particular district or whether it is likely to be popular or not in a district, I cannot think of any body more suitable to ask than the local body, through the staff under the Standing Joint Committee. The Standing Joint Committee would go to the local inspector, and would get better evidence from him than, I think, any elected body could possibly get.
It is said that if you put it in the hands of the Standing Joint Committee it is possible that the magistrates sitting on that body may have to adjudicate later on upon some question connected with an appeal. That happens time after time. It is the regular thing with every country bench, when a ease comes up in which any matter affecting the county council is concerned and a county councillor happens to be a member of the bench, he does not sit when that case is tried. That difficulty is really no difficulty at all. I do not care for Lord Jessel's Amendment.
LORD JESSEL: It only really applies to London.
LORD BAYFORD: As I do not know about London I cannot speak for it, but as regards the country county councils I am absolutely convinced that it would be much better that this should be in the hands of the Standing Joint Committees.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I have come down to-day on purpose to support the Government. I have done so on every Division, but I regret to say that if there is a Division now I must support my noble friend behind me (Lord Jessel) and my noble friend on

575
my left (Lord Bayford), for this very simple reason. You are going to put an unpopular action into the hands of a popularly elected body. The county councils are very important bodies and are elected to carry out very important work. They are elected by an enormous number of people, moved by all sorts of opinions. Many of these people may be annoyed because they think they might have won a little money on dog racing and that my noble friend's Bill prevented it. Consequently, when a county council election comes, they will vote not on the subjects which are before them but on some personal grievance that Mr. Jones voted for dog racing here instead of dog racing there. It cannot be denied, I think, that the Committee proposed either by my noble friend Lord Jessel or by my noble friend Lord Bayford is quite as good as any county council, and I do not see why it would not be much wiser to accept one of these proposals instead of leaving the matter to the county council.
LORD POLWARTH: I need not amplify what has already been said by the noble Marquess opposite and by the two noble Lords on my right. May I, as Chairman of a county council in Scotland, say that I think that this will be an extremely difficult task to put upon our county councils, and that it will lead to an immense amount of trouble and complication? In the county council of which I am a member there is only one side of the district where any proposals for a racing track would be likely to be made, and we should have the members from all the rest of the county called upon to vote upon this question. It seems to me, with all the restrictions laid down as to licensing, that it is much more a judicial than an administrative function. It is true that in Scotland we do not have Standing Joint Committees—they have been abolished—but we do have a licensing body composed partly of magistrates and partly of representatives elected by the county council—half and half—and a body like that, it seems to me, would be far better fitted to deal with this question than having it decided by a vote of all the members of a county council.
LORD SNELL: There is a Motion on the Order Paper in my name for the deletion of this clause, but it will perhaps be more convenient to your Lord-
576
ships if, at this stage, I explained the reason why that Motion is to be proposed. Your Lordships will remember that when the Second Reading of this Bill took place I attempted to put before you, with courtesy I hope, the position of a great public body, and I asked His Majesty's Government if it would be good enough to take this consideration into account and make some effort to meet what was a really serious feeling of apprehension. It is not in the power of the London County Council to command the courtesy of His Majesty's Government, but we might have expected that some attempt would have been made to meet a position seriously put forward. As no attempt has been made, as it has been ignored, I have had to put a Motion on the Paper for the deletion of this clause.
May I once again state very shortly our position in the matter? It is not, as the noble Marquess seemed to state, a desire to escape any public duty even though that duty is an unwelcome one. It is a feeling that an elected body such as the London County Council is not an appropriate body to license betting. In his speech the noble Marquess spoke about licensing a track. That is not the position of the county council. It is perfectly willing to take responsibility for saying whether a track shall be established or not, or whether it can be licensed or not. Its position in this matter is limited strictly to the question of licensing betting, and it says that that function has hitherto not been a function of local government and especially as, in London at any rate, we have no control as a public body over the Police force, it would be appropriate, at any rate for London, that these duties should be under the control of the Commissioner of Police or some other authority of that kind. I submit that that position is a reasonable one to take.
The noble Marquess said that our apprehensions were not shared by other county councils. The noble Lord, Lord Bayford, has made some comment upon that statement, but, even if it were accepted as correct, there is this to remember, that other councils have some control over their Police whereas the London County Council has no such control. I desire, therefore, to say that if elected bodies were the authorities to license betting there would be not only

577
the dangers which have been suggested by previous speakers, but the very serious danger of organised efforts on the part of bookmakers to sway an election, to pervert an opportunity to their needs. We are quite unwilling to put the good government of London, its health and efficiency and education and all the rest of it, at the hazard of these guileless gentlemen who conduct these betting operations. Hitherto, breaches of the Acts relating to betting have been dealt with by the Police and we suggest that the Police, or a body working in close contact with the Police, should be the authority to control betting under this Bill.
As an illustration of a body working in close contact with the Police I would mention the licensing justices. They deal with public-house licences. Prosecutions for breaches of those licences are dealt with as a rule by the Police. The Police authorities in England and Wales are roughly as follows: For the City of London, the Commissioner of the City Police; for the Metropolitan area, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; for the county areas, outside the Metropolitan Police area, the Standing Joint Committees of the County Council and the magistrates; for county boroughs and other boroughs maintaining their own Police, the Watch Committees appointed by the borough councils. That, therefore, is the position of the London County Council, speaking as it believes for bodies other than itself. It is not a desire to escape a duty which Parliament may wish to place upon it, but a desire to ask Parliament whether this is a proper function which ought to be placed upon it.
EARL PEEL: I do not know whether the noble Marquess has been so impressed by the weight of the opinions which have been voiced that he wishes to give way upon this Amendment, but however that may be I should like in a word to say how cordially as a predecessor of the noble Lord opposite I support the view he has expressed about the position in London. I do not think that when the Bill was drawn the position of London can have been really considered. London, I think, had been forgotten. I desire also to associate myself with what, has been said by the noble and learned Marquess, Lord Reading, about judicial functions being performed by local authorities.
578
The noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, in speaking on the subject, was rather more ready, I thought, to criticise the proposal of my noble friend Lord Jessel than to establish positively the virtues of county councils for the purpose of discharging these functions. He made what I thought was a rather remarkable observation. He said: "We have limited their discretion as regards the granting of licences." Therefore he does not give them full discretion. According to Clause 6 of the Bill they may refuse to grant licences in certain circumstances. Presumably if the conditions are fulfilled they must grant licences. Therefore their discretion is limited. I would like, however, to call attention to the fact that the points on which they have to exercise discretion are very wide, and taking them altogether a very large amount of discretion is left to these local authorities to do as they like.
I am bound to say that I dissent very strongly from the idea that these elected bodies are the proper bodies to discharge these functions. They already have an enormous weight of duty to perform. Speaking with long experience of the London County Council, I say most definitely that the duties of a judicial character which they have to perform are not the duties in which they show their best skill. Having that experience behind me, I strongly urge the noble Marquess to reconsider this matter. I think he will be making a great mistake if he still retains this part of the Bill laying these duties on local authorities, and I hope he will see his way to alter the authority that is to exercise this high and difficult judicial function.
LORD RAGLAN: I entirely agree with what has been said as to the undesirability of conferring judicial functions on elected bodies, and I would point out that these objections apply to Standing Joint Committees as well as to county councils. Standing Joint Committees include among their members 50 per cent. of elected members. I therefore hope your Lordships will support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, rather than the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bayford.
LORD MERRIVALE: I should not have intervened in this discussion had it not been that for some years I have been

579
Chairman of Quarter Sessions and happen also to be a member of a Standing Joint Committee. I agree entirely with what was said by my noble and learned friend the Marquess of Reading as to placing these difficult duties upon elected bodies. It means putting on them a burden which may lead to very great trouble. Anybody who realises what is involved here will see that there will be great embarrassment for them. On the other hand, I greatly doubt whether the kind of duties which are in question here are judicial duties in the sense that they can be discharged by a Court of Quarter Sessions. My strong impression is that they could not. I have great difficulty in seeing how the courts could make the necessary inquiries. If you have a judicial duty to discharge you must use every available means to see that justice is done. That must be the governing consideration. On the other hand, there are in existence Standing Joint Committees half of whom are magistrates while the other half are not elected members but nominated members, which is a very different thing. If you are endeavouring to find a body which can exercise independence and can show proper self-control in dealing with these functions which combine judicial and administrative tasks, my own impression is that what is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, is a possible practical solution.
LORD JESSEL: Before the noble Marquess replies, I should like to ask him, in the event of his being willing to take back this portion of the Bill for reconsideration, to bear in mind that London always has had different legislation. What suits other parts of the country does not suit London, and vice versa. Outside London Standing Joint Committees might suit the counties, but as regards London it would be the Licensing Committee of Quarter Sessions. I would ask the noble Marquess to bear this in mind.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I would like to ask how the financial cost is to be met. This would mean a considerable addition to the staff of the Standing Joint Committee or of the county council.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I think it would, and that it would be rather expert staff.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: I should like to say how very much impressed I was by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Snell, which was so extraordinarily earnest and straightforward. It is the task of the Church to act as mediator, and I am going to make a suggestion which may meet the case. Your Lordships may remember that on the Second Reading I brought forward what seemed to me to be a very striking case of a dog track that was going to be established. I may tell you now that the proposal was to turn the Oval into a dog track. I managed by expostulation to stop it. That was a private venture of my own. I say that the county council, or some body which represents the people, should be bound to consider where a track should be placed. If you look at Clause 6, who is to settle whether it "would injuriously affect either the health or the comfort of persons residing in the neighbourhood of the track"? Certainly not the licensing justices at all, I should think.
LORD JESSEL: The local authorities.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: Who is to decide whether it "would seriously impair the amenities of that neighbourhood"? My suggestion is—and I am sure the county councils would not mind—that they should decide whether it is right to have the track, and then that any regulation about betting and gambling should surely be put into the hands of the Police. But I do say, do not let us be afraid of our responsibilities. It is the local people who should settle whether the dog track should come or not.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble Lord who sits on the opposite Bench was, in his speech, making somewhat of an indictment of myself and of the Government, although I am sure that he did not appreciate the seriousness which might be involved in such an indictment. But I would venture respectfully to point out to him that the advantage of our Parliamentary system is that we do have a Committee stage; that a Bill is brought forward on a Motion for Second Reading which invites discussion all over the House, and can afterwards be considered with more deliberation and

581
for a longer time on the Committee stage. I can assure him that the very eloquent speech which he made on Second Reading was by no means ignored or placed on one side. It was very carefully considered, but we certainly felt that the proper occasion upon which we should discuss this matter would be on the Report stage. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the valuable speech which he made in connection with this matter. There is only one thing which I should like to say, and that is that my noble friend who sits behind me, Lord Bayford, did not deny to the county councils the right to adjudicate upon these matters, but his Amendment gives them power to delegate their authority to Quarter Sessions.
LORD BAYFORD: No, to the Standing Joint Committees.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Yes, to the Standing Joint Committees. I can assure your Lordships that I have been very much impressed by the discussion which has taken place, and I think that the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, has made a most valuable suggestion. With your Lordships' concurrence I will accept the suggestion which has been made by the noble Marquess and see that this matter is very carefully considered between this stage and the Report stage. Those matters which have been put forward by noble Lords in different parts of the House will be very carefully considered and weighed, and I shall then be able, with my advisers, to come to some decision as to the course which the Government should pursue in connection with this very important matter.
LORD JESSEL: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "county" ["county boroughs"]. The noble Earl said: In rising upon this occasion to address your Lordships for the first time, I venture to ask for that indulgence which is always so generously accorded in such circumstances. It is a small point which I put forward in this Amendment, which is different from that which was under discussion just now. I wish particularly to invite attention to the tendency of
582
recent legislation to ignore the non-county borough. The Amendment which stands in my name, to omit the word "county" in line 33 on page 3, is designed to remedy this state of affairs. As those who are engaged in the local government of this country or who have given thought to the question of the organisation of local government generally, will know very well, there are many boroughs which are not county boroughs—such important towns as Bedford, Luton, Scarborough, Stockton-on-Tees, Cambridge, Chesterfield and Cheltenham, to mention only a few, as well as county towns such as Aylesbury, Hereford, Lancaster and Winchester. There are in addition large suburban boroughs such as Ealing, Walthamstow and Ilford.
I would ask: Is it seriously contended that such boroughs are not just as competent to conduct their own affairs, and to act as the licensing authority under a Bill of this description, as others? Surely they know far better than the county council what is best in the interests of their inhabitants. They have the soundest knowledge of local conditions and are best able to judge as to what is or is not desirable to be done in the interests of their own borough. It is for this reason that I would favour the power being given to them rather than to the licensing justices or an ad hoc body. As it is at present, in such places the licensing powers under Clause 4 (1) of the Bill will lie in the hands of the county council; this clause vesting the power in the councils of administrative counties and councils of county boroughs. If therefore the clause is retained—before a further stage of the Bill the noble Marquess may reconsider it, but if it is retained on reconsideration—I trust that the noble Marquess, or whoever it may be into whose hands the Bill is entrusted, will take into consideration the question of these smaller boroughs. It is true that some of the boroughs are very small in size and are not the Police authorities, but even so I venture to include them as well. It is my earnest wish, as it is the wish of those with whom I am associated, that in this Bill your Lordships' House should give a lead which will be followed in future legislation, by agreeing to this Amendment to include the non-county boroughs as licensing authorities under the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 33, leave out ("county").— (The Earl of Courtown.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am sure your Lordships will desire me to congratulate the noble Earl on his maiden speech, and to say how much we hope he will take part in our debates in future. With reference to the Amendment which the noble Earl has moved, I would venture to say to him that it is included in the undertaking which I gave a few moments ago to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, that the whole of this question will be considered by the Government between now and the Report stage, and that those matters which he has raised in debate will have our consideration when that time comes.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL had given Notice that he would move to leave out the proviso in subsection (1). The noble Lord said: I do not propose to move this Amendment.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: This Amendment stands in my name as well, I think. In view of what the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, has said, I do not propose to say more than about two sentences, but the point of view which I would like o put is this. I do not like the idea of neighbouring councils having a finger in the pie of licences. The neighbouring council may possess a dog track itself, or it may be a rural council and have no interest at all in, nor any sympathy with, dog racing. Therefore I think that if you are going to retain councils as the licensing authority at all, they should be the individual local councils themselves. They are the people to do the job. They do know the amenities of the district and everything else connected with it. I do not propose to move the Amendment.
LORD BAYFORD LORD BAYFORD had given Notice that he would move, in proviso (a) in subsection (1), to leave out "to a committee" and insert "either to an existing committee or to a committee specially appointed for the purpose, in each case." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is just a drafting Amendment. There seems to be some doubt whether such a committee could be appointed, under the words of the clause. I would merely ask
584
the noble Marquess whether he will look into it, and if he will give me that assurance I will not move this Amendment, nor the next one which appears in my name on the Order Paper.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: May I say one word or two with regard to the Amendment, which appears in my name as well as in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bayford? The whole point is that, in the Bill as it is drafted, it is not clear whether the county council have power to delegate their duties to an existing committee. I am sure that every noble Lord who has taken an active part in local government administration will agree that the multiplication of these committees is regarded with perfect horror. Therefore I suggest that if there is any doubt about it the noble Marquess should be good enough to adopt the suggestion that pending further negotiations with the authorities, he should accept the words "an existing committee." I know the very committee to which in my own county these powers would probably be delegated.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The noble Lord, Lord Balford, has given notice of an Amendment in line 41?
LORD BAYFORD: I do not move that.
THE EARL OF EFFINGHAM THE EARL OF EFFINGHAM moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection:
"() The charge of admission to any part of the track for a bookmaker shall not be less than £1 10s. per meeting, nor more than £5 per meeting."
The noble Earl said: I gather from your Lordships' speeches, to-night, that the one thing you are particularly anxious to secure is the clean running of the various tracks, even although they are only to be allowed to have 104 days of racing in the year. This Amendment is drawn with that in view, and with a view particularly of helping some of the smaller country tracks, which are also run under strict control. At some of these the average price of admission is only 1s. and at some of the large ones it is as low as 6d., while the average charge for admission to a horse-race track is approximately 7s. or 8s. In the interests of the public it is essential that the bookmaker should be the best of his class and not of the "welsher" type. Under Clause 12 it is proposed that only five times the entrance

585
price to the course shall be charged as the entrance price for the bookmaker. It is possible that such small entrance charge thereby resulting would open the gates to the sort of bookmaker who had no permission, because of his conduct, to attend horse races. On some courses tae charge for entrance also includes a race card free.
In the interests of proper order it is necessary that the bookmaker should be of an even superior class to those who attend horse races, for, especially in fashionable race meetings, the type of patron is sometimes of the more educated class, who are also by reason of their enclosures and methods of betting more protected from "welshers" than the humbler artisan who risks his shilling, and one could visualise a possible rough treatment at the hands of a miner or farm labourer if a "welsher" did indeed try to escape. Again, even a bookmaker has a right to consideration as to his stand, and if he is given a favourable site in comparison with the silent and unvocal "tote," why should he not in all fairness make a proper payment?
It has been calculated that the bookmaker's profits are considerably more than the "tote," hence in equity he should help to carry some of the financial responsibility of an entertainment by which, with only one single unit of labour to assist him, he makes his living. The greyhound track owners are earnest in their desire to give the public a perfectly fair opportunity in their sport. I ask any one to compare the detail of form, racing capacity, and quality exhibited by the owners of one of the best, of these tracks for dog racing, with the information provided by the best horse racecourses in this country, France or America, in the cheap popular enclosures, and I challenge any one to prove that in the case of horse racing it is anything like so good or fair as that exhibited by the dog track owners. The dog track owners are keen to procure only the very best and most honourable bookmakers for their courses, and one of the surest ways of accomplishing this is to make the charge for admittance such as only the best type of bookmaker will pay. It prevents the bookmakers without any capital at all coming to the courses to trade. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 12, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Effingham.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The noble Earl who moved this Amendment has made a reference to Clause 12, and I think it is proper to say that this Amendment, as I am advised, is really intended in the place of Clause 12, subsection (1). Clause 12 says that the maximum charge which the occupier of a track may make to a bookmaker or to his assistant, shall not exceed in the case of the bookmaker five times the amount, and in the case of the assistant the amount of the highest charge made to members of the public for admission to the same part of the track. Your Lordships will have noticed that the minimum and maximum charges in the Amendment bear no relation to the charges made to the public for admission. The result would be that occupiers would have a direct incentive to charge the maximum charge to a bookmaker, and to lower the charges of admission to the general public. One of the present mischiefs is that some dog tracks are, or used to be, thrown open to the public free of charge, the management deriving their profits from the betting which takes place on the tracks. The Amendment would perpetuate this mischief, and on that ground I hope that the noble Earl will appreciate that it is not acceptable.
There is the further consideration against the Amendment that the bookmaker must be charged not less than 30s. and may be charged as much as £5 for admission to any part of the track. The ordinary minimum charge of admission to dog tracks does not exceed 1s. 6d., and as the Bill stands a bookmaker could not be charged more than 7s. 6d. for admission to the ls. 6d. enclosure. Under the Amendment the bookmaker could be charged for admission to the same enclosure as much as £5. Therefore the effect of this Amendment would be to require the operator to exploit the bookmaker for the sake of private gain, and the Amendment runs counter to one of the underlying principles of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection:
"() It shall not be permitted that credit be allowed for betting on any part of the track or course."

587
The noble Earl said: This is a very reasonable Amendment, and is designed to prevent credit betting on dog tracks, because I feel that the class of person who chiefly goes to dog tracks is the working-man. He goes with very little money in his pocket with which to bet, and if he is unlucky, and there is facility for credit bets, it leads to all sorts of difficulties for him in the future. At the end of the week his wife may not get her housekeeping money, or the man does not pay his rent, or it may be he borrows money from his employers, fully intending to pay it back. He loses again and the result is he is put into prison. There is another side of the matter. Credit betting frequently leads to disputes on the course with regard to bookkeeping, and sometimes to disorder. I hope the Government will accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 12, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I understand from the words of the noble Earl that his Amendment is directed against credit betting on dog racecourses, and not against credit betting on horse racecourses. I would point out to the noble Earl that if, as he suggests, credit betting should be prohibited on licensed greyhound tracks, then his proposal would introduce preferential treatment as between horse racing and other racing, which I do not think can be justified. There is little betting for credit on greyhound tracks, and there is no reason to believe that it will ever develop more than exists to-day. If, as we have heard, particularly during the last stage of the debate on this Bill, certain provisions are class legislation, I consider that the proposal of this Amendment can be stigmatised as the acme of class legislation, and such a proposal, making a differentiation between those who enjoy greyhound racing and those who enjoy horse racing, would deservedly merit such a censure. Therefore, the Amendment is not looked upon with any great sympathy.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF EFFINGHAM THE EARL OF EFFINGHAM moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection:
"() It shall be one of the conditions of admittance to the track that a bookmaker shall deposit such sum as may be fixed by the track owner, not being less than £10 nor
588
more than £40 per track, which sum shall be returned to him as and when he shall have discharged all his betting obligations and ceases to attend the race meetings, as well also when the proper authority of the track owner has been obtained for the return of such money."
The noble Earl said: I believe this to be an entirely proper business procedure. If a man is successful in obtaining the right to open a sub-post office in a town or country district he is required to give security. If a man is appointed to a position of trust he must either deposit a sum of money with the firm, upon which he is allowed a proper normal interest, or he must insure with some well-known guarantee. fidelity insurance company It is the deliberate policy of these licensed track owners to give their patrons, the working-class public, as honest and reasonably priced entertainment as care, practical experience, and safeguards can possibly secure. The track owner does not wish to have anywhere on his premises the welsher. If it be suggested that the track owner might somehow not be fair to the bookmaker in respect to the safety of the proposed deposit, let a set of words be now prepared which will put the track owner in the position of a holding trustee of these bookmaker employment deposits, and let some person nominated by the borough treasurer (or bank) in the town where the track is situated be appointed as associated trustee, to be paid for by the bookmaker or out of the interest to be paid upon the money deposited as guarantee of faith of such bookmaker.
The public must be protected. It must now be realised that the artisan public in the open air are patronising dog racing. No wonder the rather significant criticisms of the horse racing authorities are becoming more and more vocal. No wonder Master Boniface tells the story of less takings in his public house. In my view the most respectable bookmakers would be only too glad to show their bona fides in this way. If a bet was disputed, then the task of the management would be much more simple. The money could be deposited in the bank in the joint names of the managing director and the trustee appointed by the borough treasurer, or the deputy appointed by the bookmakers. It should be permissible to deduct from the sums deposited any sum in default by any particular bookmaker and the remainder returned to him when

589
he ceases to operate on that particular track. Should he not at any time default, and he wishes to discontinue betting, after consultation between the aforesaid trustees the money in full (less a small fee) plus interest accruing on its deposit, should be returned to the bookmaker. The Racecourse Betting Control Board Report, 1933, page 41, states that this very method that I ask for obtains in South Australia.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 12, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Effingham.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: There are two important reasons why this Amendment cannot be accepted. In Vim first place the Bill is not dealing generally with the activities of bookmakers, and it would be quite illogical to require on-the-course bookmakers to make a deposit while off-the-course bookmakers would remain exempt from any such requirement. If the activities of bookmakers as a class were to be made subject to control the better method would be to adopt that recommended by the Royal Commission—namely, that all bookmakers should be registered and that their registration should be liable to forfeiture if they are guilty of fraudulent practices. In other words, any machinery which may be required for controlling the activities of bookmakers should be a system of control by some public authority such as the Police or the Courts.
In the second place, a statutory requirement that bookmakers should make a deposit with the occupier would tend to be regarded as assuring the public of the reliability and honesty of the bookmakers with whom they deal. Betting debts are unenforceable at law and this position, in spite of the proposals of the present Bill, is being maintained, and in the view of the Government Parliament would be ill-advised if it were to adopt any proposal which could be regarded as in any sense guaranteeing the honesty or solvency of bookmakers.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF EFFINGHAM THE EARL OF EFFINGHAM moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection:
"() No objection shall be taken by the Secretary of State, or any other person appointed by him or by the local authority in regard to licensing as to the conducting of competitions of skill based upon the events
590
of sport conducted on the track, condiditionally that such competitions shall be upon the sporting events of the day in question and are conducted in an orderly manner."
The noble Earl said: Competitions of skill—and skill is still needed to a large extent accurately to forecast the final placings of any five dogs in a race—are quite a usual feature of greyhound racing, having been a great source of interest to a large number of people, who, while enjoying outdoor amusement, especially during the summer months, do not frequent a dog track primarily to bet. I am pleading for a retention of these competitions, as to take away from the working man something which he already enjoys—and really there is no social menace in a skill competition—savours of extreme pettiness. Since only a few thousand persons attend dog racing at any one time it seems to me that these competitions are much less invidious than the small lotteries, with no element of skill, which are allowed elsewhere in the Bill, at fêtes, church bazaars, etc. I would be prepared to amend this Amendment of mine to confine it solely to persons attending the particular track, as it might be argued that these competitions may extend enormously and become national competitions.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 12, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Effingham.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I understand from the noble Earl that in framing his Amendment he has in mind the type of competition conducted on some tracks in which prizes are awarded to those who successfully forecast the results of a race or series of races that are being run on that track. This type of competition is a form of betting, and the Amendment would allow an occupier of a track to carry on this type of betting immune from any possibility of proceedings. The principle underlying the Bill is that the occupier is not to be allowed to carry on any form of bookmaking and that he can only carry on the work of a totalisator subject to supervision and strict limitation of profit. The Amendment runs counter to that principle, and on that ground cannot be accepted, but I rather doubt whether the drafting of the noble Earl's Amendment would at present, and in fact,

591
meet the purpose the noble Earl has in mind. In any event it would place the owner of a track in the position of being immune from any possibility of proceedings, which is contrary to the fundamental principle of control of betting on the course.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): I think possibly it might be convenient if we took the adjournment at this point, as I understand that the next Amendment in the name of the Duke of Sutherland is closely linked up with the proposal which follows it to insert a new clause which extends over the next two or three pages of the Order Paper. If your Lordships could see your way to come back at ten minutes past nine that would give us sufficient time for refreshment. We have had a very interesting discussion during the early part of the evening, and I hope your Lordships will see your way to come back later.
[The sitting was suspended at a quarter before eight o'clock and resumed at ten minutes past nine.]
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND had on the Paper a Motion to omit Clause 4 and Amendments proposing several new clauses after Clause 4. The noble Duke said: I have been considering this matter and I think the Government are hardly prepared to accept these Amendments. I have come to the conclusion that perhaps on the whole I had better not move them at the present stage. Possibly the Government may consider the questions on the Report stage in conjunction with other matters in relation to Clause 4 which they have promised to consider. I will ask whether the Government will consider this before the Report stage. At present I think it is hardly worth while moving the Amendments in view of the fact that I do not think His Majesty's Government are prepared to accept them and I do not propose to divide on them.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Notices of, and procedure with respect to, applications for licences.
5.—(1) Every licensing authority shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act and subsequently from time to time, fix the dates on which they will entertain applications from the occupiers of tracks
592
within their licensing area for the grant of licences, and shall cause information as to the dates so fixed to be given to any person who asks for it.
The dates first so fixed shall be such as will enable licences to be granted so as to take effect at the commencement of this Act.
(2) No application for a licence shall be entertained unless, at least two months before the date on which the application is made, the applicant has given to the licensing authority and to the chief officer of police notice in writing stating that it is intended to make the application on that date, and describing the situation of the track, and has also published such a notice in at least two newspapers circulating in the locality in which the track is situate.
(3) Subject as hereinafter provided, upon the consideration by the licensing authority of an application for the grant of a licence, the following persons, in addition to the applicant, shall be entitled to be heard in person or by a representative, that is to say, the chief officer of police, any responsible authority under a planning scheme in force in an area which includes the track or any part thereof, the local authority of the district in which the track or any part thereof is situate, the local authority of any adjoining district, any person owning or occupying premises in the neighbourhood of the track and the governing body of any institution in the neighbourhood of the track:
Provided that—

(a) no objector shall be heard unless he has given to the applicant and to the licensing authority at least seven days notice in writing of the grounds on which he proposes to contend that the application ought to be refused; and

(b) no local authority shall be entitled to be heard as objectors if the licensing authority consists of, or includes, representatives of that local authority.

In this subsection the expression "local authority" means any of the following councils, that is to say, the council of a county borough, metropolitan borough or county district and the common Council of the City of London; and the expression "district" meanss, in relation to a local authority, the area for which that authority acts.
(4) An application for the grant of a licence in respect of a track which it is proposed to construct may be made by a person who proposes to become the occupier of the track if a licence is granted and, in relation to such an application, any reference in this or the next following section to a track shall be construed as including a reference to the site of the proposed track.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "describing the situation of the track" and insert "containing such particulars as are here

593
inafter mentioned." The noble Earl said: This Amendment and the one following it on the Paper go together. The Bill at present provides that an applicant for a licence shall give two months notice in writing both to the licensing authority and to the chief officer of Police. The only statutory requirements as to the contents of the notice of application are that it must state the date on which it is intended to make application and must describe the situation of the track. Chief officers of the Police will have a statutory right under the Bill to make representations to the licensing authority, objecting to the grant of a licence. Licensing authorities will expect to receive from chief officers of Police expressions of their opinion on the question whether the grant of a licence to a particular track would result in undue congestion of traffic or seriously prejudice the preservation of law and order, this being one of the grounds on which a licence may be refused by the licensing authority.
Since the Bill was published, it has been represented to the Secretary of State that chief constables would not be in a position to make any useful observations on these questions unless the notice of application contained more information than a bald statement of the situation of the track. Traffic congestion and the preservation of law and order will depend to a large extent on the accommodation to be provided at the track and the number of entrances and exits. To enable the Police to form an opinion on questions of traffic and law and order, as they would be affected by the grant of a licence, it does not seem unreasonable to require an applicant to give notice to the Police not only of the situation of the track but also of the number and position of exits and the number of spectators for whom accommodation is to be provided. That is briefly the purpose of the two Amendments under Clause 5. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 32, leave out ("describing the situation of the track") and insert ("containing such particulars as are hereinafter mentioned.")—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 35, at end insert. ("The notice required by this subsection shall describe the situation of the track and the
594
number and position of the exits provided or intended to be provided, and state the number of spectators for whom accommodation is provided or is intended to be provided.")—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL moved, in subsection (3), after "force," to insert "or resolved to be prepared or adopted." The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friends Lord Bayford and Lord Malmesbury I should like to move these words. They are as on the Paper "resolved to be prepared or adopted." The House will observe that the clause says "under a planning scheme in force." These words are "or resolved to be prepared or adopted." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 42m after ("force") insert ("or resolved to be prepared or adopted").—(Lord Jessel.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: Subsection (3) of Clause 5 provides that upon the consideration by the licensing authority of an application for the grant of a licence for a track the authority, amongst others, entitled to be heard is any responsible authority under a planning scheme in force in an area which includes the track or any part of the track. The Amendment proposes to include also any responsible authority under a planning scheme resolved to be prepared or adopted. Subsection (1) of Clause 11 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, lays it down that every planning scheme shall specify the authority or authorities who are to be responsible for enforcing and carrying into effect the provisions of the scheme. Subsection (2) of the same clause provides that the responsible authority for all purposes of the scheme may be the local authority within whose district any land to which the scheme applies or any neighbouring land is situate, or a county council, or a joint body specially constituted by the scheme, and that any two or more such authorities may be responsible authorities for different purposes of the scheme, or as respects different parts of the area to which the scheme applies.
It will be seen therefore that until a planning scheme has been formulated in detail there is no indication as to what authority or authorities will be responsible for its enforcement if and when it comes into operation. A resolution to

595
prepare a scheme or to adopt a scheme proposed by owners of land does not take effect until the resolution has been approved by the Minister of Health. Moreover, a resolution to prepare a scheme does not specify the authority or authorities who will be responsible for enforcing the scheme when it becomes operative. The Amendment therefore is misconceived. I believe that it is very unusual for landowners to submit a scheme for adoption by the planning authority, and therefore the part of the Amendment which relates to a resolution to adopt a planning scheme may be regarded as negligible.
Ordinarily, the authority responsible for enforcing such of the provisions of an operative scheme as control the development of land is the local authority. Subsection (3) of the clause will confer upon the local authority of the district in which is situated a track in respect of which an application for a licence has been made the right to be heard before the licensing authority. This part of the clause should suffice to secure that the views of the local authorities concerned are brought before the licensing authority. Apart from this consideration the object of the Amendment appears to be fully met by subsection (1) of Clause 6 which provides that:
"where the track, or any part thereof, is situate in an area—
(b) with respect to which a resolution to prepare or adopt a planning scheme has taken effect, hut no such scheme is in force,
the licensing authority shall either refuse to grant a licence unless they are satisfied that the planning authority have consented to the establishment or continuance of the track, or shall grant a licence but suspend its operation until the planning authority have notified their consent in writing to the licensing authority:"
I hope that that explanation will suffice to show that the Amendment is not considered in its present form to be acceptable to His Majesty's Government.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "any person owning or occupying premises in the neighbourhood of the track and the governing body of any institution in the neighbourhood of the track." The noble Lord said: I move the deletion of these words in the interests of a little
596
simplification of this Bill. The number of persons who may complain is very large, and I am sorry both for the licensing authority and for the greyhound racing company when I think of the number of complaints that may be engineered. Surely it is sufficient that the Police and the local authority should be able to lodge complaints instead of allowing both any person owning or occupying premises in the neighbourhood of the track and the governing body of any institution in the neighbourhood of the track to do so. That makes a very wide constituency, very difficult to define; the word "neighbourhood" is a very ill-defined term. I think the local authority should be able to sift out complaints and they could take action with much more influence than an individual. If there are any complaints of disorder or nuisance the Police are the people who should sift out those complaints. Therefore I think it would be to the advantage of all concerned if the Bill were simplified by leaving out these words.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 2, leave out from ("district") to the end of line 5.—(Lord Askwith.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The effect of the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord would be to deprive persons owning or occupying premises in the neighbourhood of a projected track, and the governing body of any institution in the neighbourhood, of the right which they are given under the Bill to make representations to the licensing authority when a licence is applied for in respect of betting on a track. If the Amendment is carried the only persons who would have the right to make representations would be the chief officer of Police, the town planning authority, the local authority of the district in which the track is situate, or the local authority of an adjoining district. Just as a private individual has the right to make an application for a licence in respect of a track, so any private individual owning or occupying premises in the neighbourhood of a track who may be seriously adversely affected by the grant of a licence should have the same right to be heard by the licensing authority.
I think the case of a governing body of any institution in the neighbourhood

597
of a track is especially strong. There have been several instances in the past where the proximity of a projected track to a school, to a hospital, or to some other institution has been the subject of well-founded and also vigorous protest on the part of those responsible for the institution. It is but right that the governors of a school or a hospital should be able to go direct to the licensing authority with the nature of their complaint. In the case of county boroughs, the argument in favour of allowing the owners of premises or the governing bodies of institutions in the neighbourhood of the track to make representations is especially formidable. In a county borough there is no special town-planning authority, and there is no local authority for the district in which the track is situate.
If the noble Lord's Amendment were to be accepted its effect would be that in a county borough the chief officer of Police would be the only person with the right to make representations on the hearing of an application for a licence. The chief constable would not be in a position to make authoritative representations on the question of local amenities or the health of the inhabitants of the neighbourhood or their comfort, and it is but right that the licensing authority should hear any complaint in this matter from the individuals who are being adversely affected by the erection of the track. It should be remembered that as county boroughs are large centres of population, a very considerable number of tracks are situated within county boroughs, and therefore we must take special notice of the effect which this Amendment would have on the consideration of county borough cases. I feel that on all these grounds it is quite impossible for us to accept the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord.
LORD ASKWITH: I do not press the Amendment. I can only say that I am sorry for the licensing authority.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL had an Amendment on the Paper, in subsection (3), after "institution," to insert "or an association of ratepayers or similar body." The noble Lord said: I am afraid that I find myself rather in agreement with the noble Lord
598
who moved the previous Amendment, because I rather want to extend the number of persons than to restrict it. My Amendment has the object of widening the bodies who can make complaints, instead of leaving it altogether to an individual. I believe in collective action, of which I know that noble Lords on the Labour Benches are very much in favour. I think that is preferable to giving the power to a single individual, who may be a, cantakerous person who really may not have any views except that betting is wrong or that these tracks are obnoxious. A more responsible body would carry more weight in their arguments. For that reason I propose this Amendment widening the scope of those who may object. I beg to move.
LORD ASKWITH: May I ask my noble friend what "similar body" means?
LORD JESSEL: A similar body is a like body—some other association. The noble Lord is quite right; after that criticism, which is quite a correct one, if I may be allowed I will alter the Amendment and leave out the words "or similar body."
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Then the noble Lord moves in that form: after "institution" insert "or an association of ratepayers"?
LORD JESSEL: Yes.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 4, after ("institution") insert ("or an association of ratepayers").—(Lord Jessel.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: It is clearly undesirable, I think, that the Bill should give a large number of authorities a right to make representations to the licensing authority, since the greyhound-racing interests would be in a position to represent that the Government were using undue influence against them by increasing the difficulties in the way of obtaining a licence. Those individuals and authorities which are to have a statutory right to make representations should accordingly be confined to those who may be seriously affected by the grant of a licence. I find some difficulty in seeing what adequate ground can be put forward in support of the proposal that an association of ratepayers should have a right to be heard by the licensing authority. I feel that it is enough that any

599
individual owning or occupying premises in the neighbourhood of a track should have the right to make representations, and therefore I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD ASKWITH: I venture entirely to agree with the noble Marquess in this matter, and was glad he could argue on both sides of the question.
LORD JESSEL: As the noble Lord has dealt equal-handed justice to both sides, I will not press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL moved to omit proviso (b) in subsection (3). The noble Lord said: This Amendment is really one which affects London, because you might have a member of a borough council sitting on the county council, and therefore under the proviso the local authority could not be heard. It might happen, and it has very often happened, that a member of a borough council has also been a member of the London County Council, and that would exclude the local authority, the borough council, from being heard at all, and their views are of course extremely important. That is the reason I have put down the Amendment. On the other hand, as the whole question is now in the balance the Government might desire to have this Amendment postponed.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 11, leave out from ("refused") to end of paragraph (b).—(Lord Jessel.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The Government are proposing to recast this provision in a manner which will leave no ambiguity as to its limited scape, and in the view of the Government the Amendment now proposed might properly be withdrawn at present, because the Government Amendment will provide for the matter as to which the noble Lord is apprehensive—namely, that a local authority should be heard by the licensing authority irrespective of whether an individual is serving on both councils—except in cases where the licensing authority, being the local authority, has delegated its powers to a joint committee. That is the only instance where such an authority would not have representation to the licensing authority. In view of the Government's
600
Amendment, and this explanation, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD JESSEL: I thank the Government for their consideration, and in the circumstances I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: In view of the decision reached this afternoon as to reviewing the question of what authority is to be the licensing authority, the Government do not at present move the next Amendment—in proviso (b) in subsection (3), to leave out all words after "licensing" authority" and insert "is a committee of that local authority, or a joint committee which includes persons appointed by that local authority."
LORD RAGLAN: As the clause is now to be withdrawn perhaps the Government will make up their minds whether "authority" is a singular or a plural noun.
LORD SNELL LORD SNELL moved, in subsection (3), in the definition of "local authority," before "county borough," to insert "an administrative county or of." The noble Lord said: The Amendment is related to the matter which has just been explained by the noble Earl. The point is that under Clause 5 certain local authorities are entitled to be heard when an application for a licence is being considered, but a county council is not included in such local authorities; and, secondly, even if a county council is to be the licensing authority under the Bill, it is most desirable that a county council should be entitled to be heard where the track to which the application relates is situated on or just outside the boundary of the county. The point is met in Clause 5 as regards a county borough, and there appears to be no reason for differentiating a county council from a county borough council in this respect. Moreover, the Amendment would seem to be in accord with the views of the Royal Commission.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 18, after ("of") insert ("an administrative county or of").—(Lord Snell.)
LORD BAYFORD: This Amendment is practically the same as the one in my name which follows. I am very proud to find myself for once in agreement with the noble Lord. I support every word he said in urging his Amendment upon the Government.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: As the Bill stands a county borough would have a statutory right to make representations to a county council which was considering an application for the grant of a licence in respect of a track in its area; but a county council could not make representations to a county borough council in similar circumstances. The reason for this is that the councils of county districts (that is to say, urban and rural district councils) are given a right of representation to the county borough council. It did not seem right to the Government that, where a county borough council is considering an application, both the county council and the county districts should, in respect of the interests of the same area, have separate and independent rights to make representations to the county borough councils. His Majesty's Government, however, appreciate the reasons why the noble Lord has moved the Amendment, especially in view of the traffic congestion that may occur, and would therefore entail some cause for representation to be made to the council, and on these grounds the Government accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Discretion of licensing authority as to grant of licences.
6.—(1) Subject as hereinafter provided, the licensing authority may refuse to grant a licence in respect of any track—

(a) if they are satisfied that, in the event of the licence being granted, the existence or user of the track—

(i) would injuriously affect either the health or the comfort of persons residing in the neighbourhood of the track, or be detrimental to the interests of persons receiving instruction, or residing, in any school or institution in that neighbourhood; or

(ii) would seriously impair the amenities of that neighbourhood; or

(iii) would result in undue congestion of traffic, or seriously prejudice the preservation of law and order; or

602

(b) if the applicant has been convicted of any offence (whether at Common Law or under this or any other Act) in connection with the management of any track,

and, where the track, or any part thereof, is situate in an area—

(a) in which there is in force a planning scheme under which the consent of the planning authority to the establishment or continuance of the track is necessary; or

(b) with respect to which a resolution to prepare or adopt a planning scheme has taken effect, but no such scheme is in force,

the licensing authority shall either refuse to grant a licence unless they are satisfied that the planning authority have consented to the establishment or continuance of the track, or shall grant a licence but suspend its operation until the planning authority have notified their consent in writing to the licensing authority:
Provided that the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not apply in relation to any application for the first licence in respect of an existing track, as defined in the next fallowing section of this Act, if the applicant has elected to make his application under that section and the conditions imposed by that section in connection with applications made thereunder have been complied with.
(2) Save as is mentioned in the last preceding subsection or, as the case may be, in the next following section of this Act, the licensing authority shall not refuse any application for the grant of a licence.
(3) Where the licensing authority refuse an application for the grant of a licence, they shall send to the applicant by post a written statement of the grounds of their refusal,
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out sub-paragraph(i) of paragraph (a). The noble Lord said: I have some Amendments down to Clause 6 with regard to the opportunities of refusing to grant a licence. I have no particular objections to these matters being considered and, if thought right and proper, of their being reasons for refusing a licence from the very first; but according to this Bill there may be for five years an opportunity for the restrictions of this Bill to continue. Many of these courses have already been founded for several years, and yet at the end of that period they are to be suddenly, apparently, as far as I can read this Bill, obliged to apply for a new licence and to be subject to all the restrictions of Clause 6. People may come and bring complaints when they come to live there after a course has been in existence for

603
several years and even during the moratorium of five years. Persons residing in any school or institution in that neighbourhood can also come forward and destroy an institution that may be giving employment to scores of people, that may have large funds invested in it, and that is supported by the neighbourhood as a whole. On that complaint they have to risk the question of whether they can get a licence or not. I do not deal, for the moment, with paragraph (b), which is really quite contrary to anything that appears in any Act of Parliament I have ever seen in this country, but I move the suggestion with regard to renewed licences, so that the same conditions should not apply as in the case of the original licences.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, leave out lines 36 to41.—(Lord Askwith.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Under the Bill the licensing authority may refuse to grant a licence in respect of any track if they are satisfied that the grant of a licence would, first of all, injuriously affect the health or comfort of persons residing in the neighbourhood or would be detrimental to the interests of persons receiving instruction in any school or institution in that neighbourhood; or, secondly, would seriously impair the amenities of the neighbourhood or would result in undue congestion of traffic or would seriously prejudice the preservation of law and order.
LORD ASKWITH: I beg the pardon of the noble Marquess. I am not at the moment moving my next Amendment to omit lines 1 to 3 on page 6.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The effect of the noble Lord's statement would be to do away with the first few of the considerations I have mentioned. But the Government cannot agree to the proposal that the licensing provision should be no more than a measure of defence for residential neighbourhoods. From the social point of view one of the worst places where a track for betting could be set up is in the heart of a slum, and a slum normally has no amenities which can be impaired. If life for a large number of persons living in the immediate neighbourhood of a track is to be made intolerable by the noise and uproar associated with the provision of betting facilities, then it is but right that this
604
consideration should be given as much weight as the consideration whether the erection of a track in the outskirts of a town is likely to impair the amenities of the district. Similarly, local authorities should have the power to take into consideration questions of traffic congestion and also of law and order.
LORD ASKWITH: I think the noble Marquess has misunderstood me. I moved first of all that lines 36 to 41 should be omitted. I left in that portion relating to the renewal of a licence which "would seriously impair the amenities of that neighbourhood." I did not touch upon sub-paragraph (iii) which deals with "undue congestion of traffic, or seriously prejudice the preservation of law and order" because really that is a matter for the Police; it is not a matter for the refusal to renew a licence. If the Police have not been able to avoid congestion, they have not been doing their duty. With regard to dirt track racing, football matches, and all kinds of things, congestion arises at the gates of those entertainments. Why should greyhound racing be specially selected, limited as it is to two days a week, for saying that congestion arises and, therefore, licences after five, or perhaps twelve years, are to be refused?
Surely, before the twelve years are up a neighbourhood could find out whether its amenities are impaired, and could make its proper plea in law by applying to restrain a nuisance. Surely, too, the Police could be called on by the local authority to do their duty in preventing the congestion. The later Amendment I am coming to deals with this situation. Because an offence has been committed by, possibly, a secretary not having fulfilled the Board of Trade rules, or by a driver of a motor car not having his licence, or by some dog not having been properly registered, the owners of the track are to be subjected in connection with the track to conviction and the licence is to be refused. I must say I think it is one of the most extraordinary extensions of the law for people who have been conducting a legitimate business for a, considerable time to have this innovation brought in in this extraordinary way. It is proposed to stop their business and will have the effects which I have indicated. It is to apply to greyhound racing only and not to other sports in this country.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I do not understand what the noble Lord requires. In Clause 6 he is asking for the deletion of certain lines which I desire to inform him we feel necessary for the conduct of the Bill we are introducing into this House. I think he wishes to omit lines 36 to 41. Am I right in that? The licensing authority are to be satisfied that:
"it would injuriously affect either the health or the comfort of persons residing in the neighbourhood of the track, or be detrimental to the interests of persons receiving instruction, or residing in any school or institution in that neighbourhood."
If the noble Lord does not want those words inserted, I do not quite understand what he means. Those are most important considerations which the State has to take into consideration, and the licensing authority who are the representatives of the State are called upon to take into consideration those matters. The other Amendment, I understand, the noble Lord is not moving, am I right?
LORD ASKWITH: I moved to omit lines 36 to 41. That is number one. I move on the next page to leave out lines 1 to 3.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: If I may interrupt I understand the question before the House is to leave out lines 36 to 41 on page 5.
LORD ASKWITH: I am not suggesting it should not apply to new licences, but I am suggesting that it is most unfair that it should apply to the renewal of old licences after the moratorium at the end of five years. A person at the end of five years in coming forward for a new licence should not have these things applied to him. If it does not apply to an application for a renewal of a licence it ought to be more clearly expressed in the Bill. As I read the Bill, the present course at White City or any other course you like in the country that has already been going for six or seven years, has another five years possible life, and at the end of that time has to apply to the local authority and may be thrown out upon these new considerations.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: It seems to me the argument of my noble friend tells the other way. Many of us think that five years is too long. If the
606
thing has been a nuisance for all these years, what is the remedy for people who find it a nuisance?
LORD ASKWITH: They have their remedy at law.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: What is the remedy?
LORD ASKWITH: It is a nuisance.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: "A nuisance" is a technical phrase; but it is not a nuisance which comes under that particular clause. Supposing a track is a nuisance to the persons residing near it, up to now they have had it and they have had to make the best or the worst of it; but when the time comes they have a perfect right to apply for justice under this rule, and I hope the Government will stick to that.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I do not quite see why greyhound racing should be treated as an exceptional case. If I build a factory in a residential area, nothing on earth can turn me out unless I commit a nuisance. Why should a greyhound track which is in existence now be treated in a different way?
LORD STRABOLGI: Does not this apply to all kinds of tracks? Is the noble Lord right in saying that it applies only to greyhound tracks? Surely it applies to dirt tracks and other tracks of that kind. If not, I suggest it ought to be made to apply. I think there is a great deal in what the noble Lord says. Why confine it to greyhound racing? You can have just as much nuisance from a dirt track. If it creates a nuisance or attracts a crowd why not apply this clause to it? Does it apply?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: But the provision does apply to all kinds of tracks, if betting facilities are provided.
LORD STRABOLGI: I think there is a great deal in what the noble Lords opposite said. Why pick out greyhound racing? Why not preserve the health of school children and the amenities and the other objects of this clause in reference to other tracks? I do think the noble Marquess might consider it for the Report stage.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I think the Amendment which the noble Lord

607
has directed at this Clause 6 (perhaps the noble Lord does not appreciate it) applies both to existing tracks (and therefore to the tracks which have the moratorium of five years) and to the new tracks.
LORD ASKWITH: I said I did not object to it applying to new tracks.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: If that Amendment is carried it will apply to new tracks and therefore it should be in some other place. In regard to the question which the noble Lord opposite asked, the conditions under which a licensing authority can refuse a licence under the subsections of Clause 6 apply to all tracks, including motor car tracks.
LORD STRABOLGI: Thank you.
LORD ASKWITH: All I can say is that the Act becomes more obscure than ever
Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph (a). The noble Lord said: The words which I propose to leave out allude to the Police, and the question is whether a provision should be contained in the Bill that on the renewal of a licence the Police, at the end of all this period, should be able to bring forward a complaint that the track would
608
to me. If this is to mean that it is to apply to existing tracks as well as to non-existing tracks, I say it is unjust. If it applies to non-existing tracks I have no objection to these matters being taken into consideration upon an application for a new track. I do not suppose there will be many applications for new tracks. But I do say that there ought to be more fair terms for the existing tracks. If the noble Earl who has last spoken, Lord Feversham, is prepared to make a differentiation, or to consider a differentiation of this sort, I shall be very glad to withdraw the Amendment.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 19.

CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Hailsham, V.

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

Zetland, M.

Halifax, V.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Hampton, L.

Feversham, E.

London, L. Bp.

Harlech, L.

Fortescue, E.

Heneage, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Addington, L.

Luke, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Alvingham, L.

Polwarth, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Amulree, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Midlothian, E. (E. Rosebery.)

Arnold, L.

Rochester, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Bayford, L.

Sanderson, L.

Stanhope, E.

Clwyd, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Cornwallis, L.

Stanmore, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Astor, V.

Denman, L.

Templemore, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Digby, L.

Trent, L.

Goschen, V.

Fairhaven, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sutherland, D.

Hereford, V. [Teller.]

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Airlie, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Hindlip, L.

Effingham, E.

Askwith, L. [Teller.]

Jessel, L.

Radnor, E.

Carrington, L.

Lawrence, L.

Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)

Darcy (de Knayth), L.

Raglan, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Redesdale, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

cause undue congestion of traffic "or seriously prejudice the preservation of law and order." I consider that a very unreasonable suggestion. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, leave out lines 1 to 3.—(Lord Askwith.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am afraid I have no more to add on this Amendment to what I said on the one that preceded it. We consider that these provisions should be included in the Bill,

609
and I feel that the noble Lord will agree that this is a consideration which should be taken notice of by the local licensing authority. Whether it will operate in the adverse manner in which the noble Lord seems to think it will, I have every reason to doubt, but I certainly think that it should be within the power of a licensing authority to exercise their discretion in this direction.
LORD ASKWITH: Probably a Division would only result in the same way as the last, so I do not propose to press this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in the first paragraph (b) of subsection (1), after "applicant," to insert "or where the applicant is a corporate body, any director or the manager thereof." The noble Earl said: Under Clause 6 one of the grounds on which a licensing authority may refuse to grant a licence for betting is that an applicant "has been convicted of any offence … in connection with the management of any track." That does not provide for the case in which the applicant is a limited company, and the object of the Amendment is to deal with this casus omissus. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 4, after ("applicant") insert ("or where the applicant is a corporate body, any director or the manager thereof").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in the first paragraph (b) of subsection (1), to leave out" (whether at Common Law or under this or any other Act)" and insert "under this Part of this Act." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is on the same point, and this point also occurs, and can only occur, upon the renewal of a licence. The effect of the clause would be that:
"if the applicant has been convicted of any offence (whether at Common Law or under this or any other Act) in connection with the management of any track"
the licensing authority may refuse to grant a licence. I propose that the words "whether at Common Law or under this or any other Act" should be left out and that the words "under this Part of this Act" should be inserted. Surely the Act produces enough new offences without making a track liable to
610
have its licence taken away because of some of the offences I have already enumerated of a most venial character, such as the secretary making a mistake or a car driver not having got his licence. The words are enormously wide, and would include many of the smaller things which would be an offence at Common Law or possibly under some other Act of Parliament. If the criminal offences were confined to offences under this Bill, persons would know where they were.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 5, leave out ("(whether at Common Law or under this or any other Act)") and insert ("under this Part of this Act").—(Lord Askwith.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The object of the Government's proposals is to ensure that a licensing authority has power to refuse a licence to a person of proved bad character. Many of the graver offences, such as embezzlement, which might be committed in connection with the management of a track, would involve a breach of Statutes other than the present Bill, and to restrict this provision to offences under the Bill would be to restrict it in an undesirable, fashion. The noble Lord who has moved the Amendment has argued that the provision in the Bill gives the licensing authority power to refuse a licence to an applicant because of some quite trivial offence, but the power to refuse a licence is discretionary, and the Government are satisfied that the licensing authority will exercise its powers in a reasonable and proper manner.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I do not know that I can quite agree with the noble Earl who has spoken for the Government. I am not quite clear on the point myself, but surely the case he has mentioned of embezzlement is a case between, not the local authority and the track concerned, but the owners of the track and the official concerned, and probably the man would have been dealt with accordingly, if he has embezzled, and not be in a position to be an applicant for a licence. I quite agree with Lord Askwith that as it is drawn the provision is extremely wide, and that although it might draw within its net the embezzler, it will also draw within its net the petty and unimportant offences as well.
LORD ASKWITH: If I may speak again, I think the instance which the

611
noble Earl has given, of embezzlement, is about as bad a one as he could give. The unfortunate shareholders are not only to suffer the loss of their money through embezzlement, but are also to be deprived of their licence because their secretary has embezzled. I will not press the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD BAYFORD LORD BAYFORD moved, in the first paragraph (b) of subsection (1), after "track," to insert "or of any offence involving fraud or dishonesty." The noble Lord said: The effect of my Amendment is to correct what I really think must be an oversight in the Bill. As the clause stands the local authority is not allowed but compelled to grant a licence to a man who has been caught out in dishonesty in every other walk of life in which he has engaged. The local authority is told not that he may but that he must be given a licence to conduct a dog track. That does not seem either very good law or very good sense.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 7, after ("track") insert ("or of any offence involving fraud or dishonesty").—(Lord Bayford.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: His Majesty's Government are pleased to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved, in subsection (1), after the second paragraph (b), to insert:
"or
(c) if the sanitary arrangements for the use of the public or the entrances and exits of the track are unsatisfactory or inadequate."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is put down at the instance of the Scottish County Councils Association, requests for such a provision having been received from a considerale number of councils. Its object is to add another reason for which a licence may be refused. Objection may be taken that such conditions are not required in licences, but I think it will be generally admitted—and there are many precedents for it—that where a licence is granted by a local authority or by any public body it is quite common that conditions should be laid down affecting public health and public safety. No one can get a licence for a public
612
house or hotel without showing to the satisfaction of the licensing body that proper provision has been made for the necessities of the public, and no hall can get a licence for a cinema unless there is proper provision made for the safety of the public going in and coming out. It seems to me that this is a very reasonable suggestion, otherwise a local authority will have to wait until a nuisance is committed and then take steps to have it abated. There are instances now. I have in mind a case of a very large camp where great crowds congregate, and the local authority responsible for the public health of the district has the greatest difficulty in getting the owner of that place to do what is necessary. It is really only by bluffing him and threatening him that it can be done
A NOBLE LORD: Is it the War Office?
LORD POLWARTH: No, not the War Office. I do not think that if such a paragraph were inserted in the clause there would be any hardship, and I hope that the Government will insert it or give effect to it in some form or other in order to ensure that the local authority, or the licensing body whoever they may be, may be able to do their duty properly.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 7, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Polwarth.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I am sure that your Lordships must sympathise with the desire of the noble Lord to secure that the sanitary arrangements and the exits and entrances of tracks should be satisfactory. As regards sanitary arrangements, if the licensing authorities were to be satisfied before granting a licence that they were satisfactory, this would involve elaborate machinery for submitting complete plans of the proposed track to the licensing authority. This proposal would throw an enormous additional responsibility on licensing authorities. This responsibility is quite divorced from the particular issue of the provision of betting facilities, and is really part of the wide general question of the provisions which should be taken to secure the comfort and safety of persons attending the tracks or grounds at which large numbers of persons collect for the purpose of witnessing sporting events. If this matter were to be the subject of legislation, it should be of a

613
general character And it would not be appropriate to deal with the matter in connection with the present Bill, especially in view of the large additional responsibilities which it would impose on licensing authorities.
As regards exits and entrances, the Amendment which the Government propose at page 4, line 35, will require an applicant to inform the licensing authority of the number and position of the exits provided or intended to be provided, while another Amendment proposed by the Government at Clause 15, page 13, line 9, will empower the licensing authority to revoke a licence if without their approval the exits from the track described in the notice given to the licensing authority had been materially altered, and if the licensing authority are satisfied that undue congestion of traffic, or socious prejudice to the preservation of law and order has resulted therefrom. In the view of the Government, these two proposals go as far as is reasonably necessary to ensure that sufficient exits are provided for the purpose of preserving law and order, and avoiding undue traffic congestion.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert:
"Provided further that where an application is made for the renewal of a licence granted in pursuance of this or the next following section of this Act such application shall be granted by the licensing authority unless they are satisfied that the track has been conducted in a disorderly manner or so as to cause a nuisance."
The noble Duke said: This Amendment is somewhat similar to the one moved by Lord Askwith, but not entirely similar. Clause 7 provides that existing racecourses shall receive licences as a matter of course on complying with certain procedure for five years, but at the end of five years managements will be required to satisfy conditions laid down under Clause 6. Tracks opening after the passing of the Bill will have to satisfy the conditions of Clause 6 at the commencement; and in both cases, at the expiration of the seven-year licence provided for in Clause 6, the council will again have to apply the same tests before granting a renewal of licence. It is submitted that, once a licence has been granted to a particular track and the conditions enumerated in Clause 6 have all been
614
taken into account, then a renewal of licence ought not to be refused, and the same grounds of refusal ought not to be required to be examined again. A licence constitutes a recognition of the right to exist, and once it has been granted its renewal ought not to be denied unless there has been bad conduct.
The intent of the Amendment now suggested is that, where a licence has been once granted, a renewal at the expiration of five or seven years can only be refused in cases where the track has been conducted in a disorderly manner or so as to cause a nuisance. The provisions of Clause 15 already provide sufficient safeguards for the good behaviour of the track from the local government point of view. The case for this Amendment is particularly strong so far as relates to existing tracks. At the end of the five-year moratorium allowed for in Clause 7, many of these tracks will have been in existence for over ten years. It is not reasonable that after such a length of time a council should be empowered to close down a racecourse merely by reason of its proximity to a school or merely because some body of residents contends that it interferes with their personal comfort.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 30, at end insert the said new proviso.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: This Amendment is put forward as an alternative Amendment to the one which the noble Duke has down to omit Clause 6, which clause specifies the grounds on which the county councils and the county borough councils can refuse to grant a licence in respect of any track. If we assume that Clause 6 in some form shall stand part of the Bill the effect of the present Amendment is that a licence once granted, whether in respect of an existing track or a new track, would ever thereafter be automatically renewed by the licensing authority unless they are satisfied that the track has been conducted in a disorderly manner or so as to cause a nuisance.
The Bill proposes first of all in the case of new tracks, and by that I mean tracks on which bookmaking was not carried on during 1933 in connection with sporting events, that the occupier shall be required to obtain a licence from the licensing authority, but that that licence

615
can only be refused on certain grounds which are specified in Clause 6. The licence will last for a period of seven years, at the end of which period a fresh licence must be obtained which can be refused on the same, but on no other grounds. Secondly, in the case of existing tracks, that in view of the expenditure involved in the erection of a track, such tracks should receive a special licence almost automatically. This special licence would last for five years, at the end of which time it would be incumbent on the occupier to obtain an ordinary seven-year licence. It will be observed that in the case of existing tracks the effect of the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Duke would be to prolong indefinitely the moratorium (which the Government propose should last only five years) from the requirement to obtain an ordinary licence. I think noble Lords will see that it would be quite impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment. In the case of both existing and new tracks, licences would for all practical purposes be perpetual licences. Their renewal would be purely formal and could only be refused if the track had been conducted in a disorderly manner or so as to cause a nuisance. These are grounds on which a licence ought properly to be revocable during its currency and the Bill so provides in Clause 15. But if these were the only grounds on which the renewal of a licence could be refused, then the power of the local authority to refuse to allow betting facilities on any track would be most unduly curtailed.
The object of allowing licences to last for as long a period as seven years is, as I think your Lordships are aware, to prevent the occupiers from suffering hardship and to give them some certainty as to their tenure. The object of requiring a fresh application for a licence at the end of seven years is to give the local authority an opportunity of considering the circumstances afresh in the light of local conditions which may then exist and of deciding whether the conditions have so changed that the continued provision of betting facilities would seriously impair local amenities or would injuriously affect schools or institutions or new centres of population which had sprung up since the original grant of the licence. I think your Lordships will agree that that certainly is the spirit which
616
is embodied in the Bill. We desire that the local authority should have the power of reviewing the grant of these licences and of granting them in accordance with the best interests of the public concerned. I feel therefore that it is impossible to accept the Amendment of the noble Duke.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: It seems that the Bill as at present drawn means that the legislation becomes in the nature of restrictive legislation and potential confiscation. A certain number of people, whether rightly or wrongly, have invested money in existing greyhound racing tracks. Under the Bill as it is at present they have a potential life of five years. At the end of that time, on the very many grounds in this Bill, they may lose all their money. It seems to me, that as far as existing tracks are concerned, it is only fair to give them security of tenure. It is an existing situation of which people have complete knowledge and there seems to be no reason why they should not be allowed to continue as they are going, provided that they do not, in the words of the noble Duke's Amendment, conduct their business in a disorderly manner or so as to become a nuisance.
So far as projected tracks are concerned, surely the provisions for inquiry in the Bill are sufficiently adequate to ensure, before the track ever starts, that it should not be harmful to the amenities of the district and the various other considerations mentioned in the Bill. Again, why should the individual who chooses to put his money into a greyhound racing track have a security of tenure of seven years only? I must confess that it seems extremely hard that greyhound racing should be picked out for this particular form of restriction. Why, when there is a track in existence, should it not be allowed to continue in existence, when a projected track is agreed to under the very many restrictions contained in this Bill? Why should it not, once agreed to, be allowed to continue in existence?
LORD RAGLAN: I venture to think that the noble Earl is mistaken in thinking that this provision refers only to greyhound tracks. By the definition on page 16 it includes a racecourse. It is very difficult to understand this Bill, but if I read this clause aright, the Bill, as drafted, would put it in the power of the

617
Berkshire County Council to close the Ascot racecourse on the complaint of a local schoolmaster that the attention of his pupils had been distracted.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: I do not wish to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) The licensing authority shall refuse to grant a licence under this or the next following section of this Act unless they are satisfied that racing at the track will be conducted under the rules for the time being in force of the National Greyhound Racing Club."
The noble Duke said: This is rather an important Amendment which I think the Government could quite easily accept. To-day undoubtedly a great number of your Lordships have more or less conveyed that you do not like dog racing, but at the same time you may entrench it for ever in this country. That being the case, surely it should be run under the best possible conditions. As it is, nothing has been done in any way to make regulations to see that it is properly conducted.
There is a body which exists now which does its work very effectively, in the shape of the Greyhound Racing Club. It was formed in 1927 to regulate and control the racing side of the sport. It is composed of private individuals of standing, with no financial interest in greyhound racing or management, and they act in an entirely honorary capacity. The membership of the Club is limited to fifty and the Club is governed by a committee of honorary stewards elected from amongst their members. I do not think that, before your Lordships, I need go on any further at this time of night, but it is obvious that something of this sort is required to control racing, otherwise you will have different rules or no rules all over the place. It is certainly not the business of any county council or analogous body to make rules for betting and rules for identifying dogs and so forth. That must be done by a body which works centrally and which is universally respected. There are a number of clubs at the present moment which have no rules of any sort and there is no other organisation existing which has the
618
requisite knowledge. I am not speaking simply on behalf of the National Greyhound Racing Club, but I think that it is essential to have some organisation to ensure that there is clean racing because if there is not clean racing you cannot have clean betting. Without some such provision as this you would be simply entrenching the very worst elements of dog racing in this country. It is possible that the Government may have a better idea, but if not I think this Amendment should be accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 30, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Doke of Atholl.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I sincerely hope that your Lordships will not accept this Amendment. I can assure the noble Duke that there are several dog racing societies issuing licences for tracks which are run under rules which are accepted.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Will the noble Earl provide us with those rules?
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I have not got them with me, but I will send them to the noble Duke with pleasure. After all, the National Greyhound Racing Club only controls fifty-eight tracks and there are 225 other tracks which are run under the rules of an association called the British Greyhound Tracks Control Society. They are run perfectly well, and really it seems to me that to give a Club, which after all is a money making concern, complete monopoly of control over dog racing would not be at all fair.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: I agree with the noble Duke who moved this Amendment that there should be some strong centralised control. I dealt with that when I addressed your Lordships in the Second Reading debate and I do not propose to repeat what I said on that occasion. But it is clear from what was said by the noble Earl who has just spoken that this proposal does not meet with unqualified approval from all those engaged in the sport of dog racing. I feel that in those circumstances it might be rather high-handed if your Lordships forced such a thing on the sport. I hope, however, that before this Bill leaves our hands we may be assured that some form of control, which I believe to be very necessary, has been established.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: This Amendment proposes that the licensing authority for betting on these tracks shall be the National Greyhound Racing Club. I think your Lordships should know in the first place that the proposer of the Amendment seems to have overlooked the existence of sports other than greyhound racing. The management of a motor racing track might wish to secure a licence for the provision of betting facilities in connection with motor racing. They could hardly be expected to conduct their meeting "under the rules for the time being in force of the National Greyhound Racing Club." Even in respect of greyhound racing the Government cannot undertake to grant a monopoly to tracks affiliated to the National Greyhound Racing Club, for reasons which I will state.
In the first place the Government is allowing bookmaking and legalising the totalisator on tracks as betting facilities to be available to the public which attends greyhound racing. It cannot agree that the alternative facility of the totalisator should be confined to certain tracks which follow a certain code of rules. There is an interesting parallel in this respect which may be drawn from horse racing. In the proposals which were first put forward in 1927 by the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee for the legalisation of the totalisator on horse racecourses, it was proposed that the totalisator should only be allowed on racecourses where racing took place under the rules of the Jockey Club or of the National Hunt Committee. Parliament, however, on the advice of the Government, decided that betting facilities provided by the totalisator could not be confined to people who frequented racecourses where racing took place under the rules of the Jockey Club and National Hunt Committee, but must be available to people using any approved courses where racing with horses took place. The Racecourse Betting Act, 1928, was accordingly drafted so as to observe this general principle. It contains no requirement about the rules of racing to be observed where the totalisator is operated, and the totalisator is in fact operated on courses which are under the rules of the Pony Turf Club and not of the Jockey Club or National Hunt Committee. The National Greyhound Racing Club has nothing like the position held
620
in horse racing by the Jockey Club and National Hunt Committee, and consequently there is no ease for granting to the Greyhound Racing Club what was for good reasons denied to the Jockey Club and National Hunt Committee in 1928.
The National Greyhound Racing Club is closely associated with the body representing track managements known as the National Greyhound Racing Society. It was established in evidence before the Royal Commission that by agreement between the two bodies, no applicant for a licence to race under the rules of the Club is considered by the Club unless the applicant (and the applicant is usually a company) has been accepted as a member of the Society. The Society, as representing a number of track managements, is in the nature of a trade combine. If, therefore (to take an example) there are two tracks in a town affiliated to the National Greyhound Racing Society, and the promoters of a third track wish to become licensed by the Club, they must first (under the rules of the Club) be accepted as members of the National Greyhound Racing Society which represents the trade interests of the two existing tracks. Rightly or wrongly there is the suspicion that to become licensed by the Club, one must not merely be prepared to observe certain standards of racing but must not be infringing the monopoly in any area of existing members of the Club and Society. The Government could not in any circumstances be party to a proposal which appeared to confer privileges on a group of financial interests to the detriment of other interests, whose sole disqualification was that they were not within the ring.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: May I interrupt for one moment? In fact, the National Greyhound Racing Club has no financial interest at all in greyhound racing.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I do not know that that alters the argument which I ventured to put before your Lordships. The effect of the Amendment would be to require the licensing authority to refuse a licence to all existing tracks which were not affiliated to the National Greyhound Racing Society. The result would be that the only existing tracks which would get a licence automatically would be the fifty-eight tracks

621
which are so affiliated. The scheme of the Bill is to afford a moratorium of five years for all existing tracks, which number approximately 228 at present. Can it be seriously contemplated that the 170 odd tracks should on the passing of the Bill be automatically shut down unless and until they became affiliated to the Society? At present the tracks which Are affiliated to the National Greyhound Racing Society are subject to a self imposed limitation of six race meetings per week and no Sunday meetings, whereas the other tracks race as often as they wish. Under the Bill the unregulated tracks will lose this advantage. All tracks will have the same maximum number of racing days—namely, 104 per annum, and no track will be able to race on Sundays. In connection with this number of 104 days per annum I had occasion on another Amendment, when challenged by a noble Lord behind me, to say that the Wembley track was in favour of only utilising 104 days per annum. I regret to inform your Lordships, and I humbly apologise, that my knowledge of these places is so limited that I used the wrong name. I was not referring to Wembley but to other tracks—I think the White City is one—which are quite satisfied with the provision in this Bill.
LORD ASKWITH: The noble Marquess mentioned Wembley to me. I had not the information then, but I am glad he says that it does not apply to Wembley. I have never heard from any representatives of any of the big London tracks that two days a week would be sufficient for them.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: General Critchley of the White City informed me that they could not possibly run on 104 days a year.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am credibly informed that the White City require 104 days, and no more. The noble Duke quoted General Critchley. In his evidence before the Betting Commission General Critchley says this:
"There are two tracks lying side by side in London, one averaging 12,000 attendance and the other 1,000. There is no reason why the public should not go equally to the one as to the other. It is simply that the public will not go to the unlicensed tracks for the reasons explained by Mr. Garland-Wells."
622
That is, the lower standards. If the Society with the higher standards it claims to represent has prospered when greyhound racing was quite unregulated, there is no reason why it should not prosper equally under a system of regulation. Experience has shown that it pays to offer a high standard of racing to the public because attendances are thereby increased, and that is sound commercial policy whether the number of days per annum be 365 or 104.
LORD ASKWITH: I do not think that that statement of General Critchley is evidence that the White City are content with two days a week, and I am certain that Mr. Garland-Wells never said, in the course of his evidence, that they would be content with that.
LORD STRABOLGI: I also referred to Wembley, and I quite understand how the mistake occurred. May I ask the noble Marquess to confirm this? Is it the object of the Bill to raise the standard of greyhound management, to attract a better class of people, and to put the whole thing on a more solid and prosperous and dignified basis? I have been searching for the objects of this Bill, and the search becomes more interesting.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The intervention of the noble Lord is very interesting indeed, but I do not quite know what point he is trying to arrive at. I have tried to show that the Government have no interest whatever in dog racing, but that they feel it is their duty to restrict the facilities given for betting. They believe that betting being what it is and vested interests being what they are all interests are properly served by allowing 104 days betting in connection with dog racing. As to the other points which the noble Lord raised, the Government have nothing to do with them.
LORD STRABOLGI: They are very interesting points, and touch on the very core of the Bill. The noble Marquess says that the Government have no interest in greyhound racing, but want to discourage betting. Yet I understood him to add that they wanted dog racing to be well conducted and for this sport to be put on a sound commercial basis. Surely that would encourage people to bet who do not like going to disreputable establishments.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: May I point out that I did not say that the Greyhound Racing Club was necessarily to be the body, but I said one like it—a central body that could control the whole lot. As it is because there are only a few well-conducted tracks the noble Marquess says he is not interested in them, but he is interested, as far as I can make out, in the very many other ones that are run badly. My point is that something should be done to see that the whole lot are run well, or that they shall not exist.
LORD BAYFORD: I was not quite clear, but I understood the noble Marquess to say that some responsible authority on dog racing has said that on one of the big tracks it would pay them if they got 104 days in the year. I have been trying to get information on this subject and all the information I get is entirely to the contrary. Is this statement which was made to the noble Marquess really a statement on which he can place absolute reliance, or is it not?
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: We settled this question about the number of days five hours ago. I do not understand why we are going back on it.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: It is quite true that we had a discussion on this matter some time ago, but the noble Marquess just now proceeded to correct a statement he had made, to the effect that Wembley was satisfied with 104 days. He corrected it by saying that he meant the White City. Subsequently to that the noble Duke produced very definite evidence that those concerned at the White City had no such views at all. Therefore I think that the discussion of the number of days has a certain amount of point, in view of the fact that the noble Marquess himself raised the question. We have yet to have from the noble Marquess direct evidence that the statement he made had any foundation at all; he has not yet given us the foundation. He says he has reason to believe, but we have reason to believe exactly the contrary.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: Does the noble Lord mean that we voted because of that one single sentence in the noble Marquess's speech? It did not affect my vote in the slightest degree. I judged the question on broad general grounds. The number of 104
624
days is quite enough. We know the mischief that these tracks have been doing and we get rather impatient with this niggling way of dealing with a great moral evil.
LORD ASKWITH: I do not suppose that anything whatever would ever move the right reverend Prelate's idea that 104 days is quite sufficient for greyhound racing. I dare say he would have preferred 52 to 104 days. Fifty-two being added to 104 turns his blood cold. This afternoon Wembley was cited as the salient instance. The noble Marquess said that Wembley, the largest and most important greyhound racecourse in the country, or words to that effect, was satisfied with 104 days, and therefore presumably all the others were to be brought down to the same category. It appeared that the noble Marquess had some information which I had not got at the time, and I was very amazed to hear that Wembley was satisfied with 104 days. The noble Marquess now says he made a mistake, and that Wembley is not satisfied, but he cites the White City. I have never heard of the White City being satisfied with 104 days, nor has the Duke of Sutherland. Then he cites Mr. Garland-Wells, and I am perfectly certain—
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: No.
LORD ASKWITH: If I made a mistake in what I heard, I apologise. I cannot conceive, from the information I have had through continual sittings with those gentlemen who have been trying to meet the Government over this matter, that any London course would be satisfied with 104 days in the year.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I shall not ask your Lordships to divide on this Amendment. We have wandered rather far from the point, but apparently the Government prefer to maintain bad racing, unclean racing, as against clean racing.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, after subsection (3), to insert the following new subsection:
"(4) Any applicant for a licence which has been refused under this section may appeal, in accordance with the provisions of the Quarter Sessions Act, 1849, to the next practical Court of Quarter Sessions having jurisdiction in the county borough or place

625
in which the track situate and held not less than twenty-one clear days after notice of the refusal is given to him by the licensing authority.
In any case arising under this subsection the notice of appeal shall be given to the licensing authority and to the clerk of the peace."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment provides that on the refusal of a licence there should be a right of appeal to Quarter Sessions. In the Bill the right of appeal is granted under Clause 15 in certain cases of revocation of licences, and the suggestion put down in my name and in that of Earl Howe is that in connection with an application for a licence, and in a later clause in connection with an application for the renewal of a licence, a similar right of appeal to Quarter Sessions should be granted.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 38, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Askwith.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The Amendment proposes that the applicant for a licence to authorise the provision of betting facilities should have an appeal to Quarter Sessions against the refusal of the licensing authority to grant a licence. Under the Bill as it stands at present no machinery is provided for an appeal against the decision of the licensing authority (the county council or county borough council, as the case may be). It will be observed that under the noble Lord's proposal only the applicant for a licence is to have a right of appeal. The Bill provides that various interested parties—such as the Police, persons residing in the neighbourhood and the local authority of any adjoining district—may make representations to the licensing authority; but under Lord Askwith's proposal these interested parties would have no right of appeal against a decision by the licensing authority to grant a licence although they might consider themselves very injuriously affected thereby. The Government could not in any event agree to a system of unilateral appeal in this matter.
The Government are opposed to the proposal that there should be an appeal to Quarter Sessions from the decision of the licensing authorities, on several grounds. First of all, while there may be precedent for an appeal from a county council to Quarter Sessions, there are
626
obvious objections to an appeal from one county authority to another of equal standing. Further, in a county borough with its own Quarter Sessions it is clearly undesirable that the Recorder should have power to override the decision of the county borough council, except on matters of law. The licensing authority will be mainly concerned with questions of fact, such as local amenities. In counties, many of the most experienced justices are also members of the county council, and the proposal that there should be an appeal from the county council to county Quarter Sessions means therefore an appeal to a tribunal which would be deprived, in hearing the appeal, of the services of Some of its most experienced members, who would be disqualified from sitting by reason of the fact that qua members of the county council they were interested parties. I think it should be observed that if any licensing authority exercises its functions in an improper manner any aggrieved party would have the right under Common Law to appeal to the High Court for a mandamus and the decision of the licensing authority would then go for review of the High Court. For the reasons I have put forward I feel that there is no need for the Amendment, but this is a matter which will require to be looked into between this stage and the next, and perhaps the noble Lord will leave it at that.
LORD ASKWITH: I will put the Amendment down again on Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved to insert the following new subsection:
"(4) The decision of the licensing authority shall be final."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment comes also from the County Councils Association and was put down in order to clear up the situation. Under Clause 15 there is provision for an appeal from the decision of the licensing court. In this clause it is uncertain whether there is an appeal or not. If the Government had accepted the last Amendment providing for an appeal there would have been no necessity for this Amendment. I do not know whether the Government will tell us whether they mean that there should be an appeal or not. Having refused the last Amendment providing

627
for an appeal, perhaps the noble Marquess will accept the Amendment that the decision of the licensing authority should be final. But we wish to know where we are. It does not seem to me that the Government can refuse both.
We must have it one way or the other, as we are anxious to know what the position is. Perhaps the Government will tell us that it is their intention that the decision of the licensing authority should be final. The County Councils Association are very anxious that they should not be left in doubt and should not be subject to endless litigation. I do not really mind which position is adopted. We are willing to have an appeal court, and if such a court is to be constituted perhaps proposals may be brought forward for that purpose at a later stage. But if there is not to be an appeal, let it be clearly stated. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 38, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Polwarth.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I am advised that the Amendment the noble Lord has moved is unnecessary for it is a general principle that no appeal lies from a decision of any authority unless specific statutory provision is made for such an appeal. The Bill makes no provision for an appeal from the decision of the licensing authority and as the Bill stands the decision of the licensing authorities would be final. I think that it is very undesirable that provisions such as the present Amendment which are otiose should be inserted in Statute.
LORD POLWARTH: It is the opinion of many authorities that it requires to be cleared up and stated whether it is final or not.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to
Clause 7:
Special provisions as to first licences for certain, existing tracks.
(5) A licence granted by virtue of this section in respect of an existing track—
(a) shall, unless revoked under the following provisions of this Part of this Act, he in force from the date on which it is expressed to take effect until the expiration of five years from the first day of January nineteen hundred and thirty-five; and
LORD SANDERSON LORD SANDERSON moved, in subsection (5) (a), to leave out "five" and insert "three." The noble Lord said: The part of the clause to which my Amendment refers is intended to protect existing tracks from the effects of the possibility of their licences not being renewed. There are possibly tracks which do not conform to the conditions of licensing under the Bill. They may be in crowded areas or may be a nuisance to people in the neighbourhood and it is possible that their licences would not be renewed under the conditions of the Bill. The clause is so designed to protect the vested interests and to give them time perhaps to wind up or to move into areas where they would be more likely to get their licences renewed. I think that if they need this sort of protection they do not need so much as the Bill gives them. I do not think they need five years in order to take the necessary steps to make themselves secure; and if they are in places where their licences are not likely to be renewed, it is rather hard on the people who live in those neighbourhoods to have to put up with them for five years more, without any possibility of getting rid of these tracks. I therefore think that, if they must be protected in this way, three years should be quite adequate. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 14, leave out ("five") and insert ("three").—(Lord Sanderson).
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I shall be coming within the censure of the noble Lord who sits behind Lord Sanderson if I venture to accept the Amendment which he puts forward. The object of the noble Lord's Amendment is to reduce from five years to three years the moratorium enjoyed by existing tracks from the requirement to obtain a licence under Clause 6 for the provision of betting facilities. The Government have decided that in view of the outlay involved in the erection of a track, it would be unreasonable to expose existing tracks to the risk of being closed down through the immediate application to them of the licensing provision contained in Clause 6. It has seemed to the Government that in the case of recently erected tracks, a moratorium of three years would not afford the owners a reasonable time within which to secure some return on their capital. I would venture to point out to your Lordships

629
that a Bill of this description was before another place in 1933. That Bill was introduced by Sir Walter Smiles and that Bill proposed a measure of local control over the erection of greyhound tracks. That Bill was before a Standing Committee of another place last Session, and the Committee agreed that existing tracks should be exempted for five years from the requirement to secure a licence. I think, therefore, that when we take all these matters into consideration your Lordships will consider that it is only just and proper that a space of five years should be allowed rather than three, which is proposed by the noble Lord.
LORD SANDERSON: I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ASKWITH: I presume the noble Marquess considers that the same suggestion as was made with regard to the Amendment on page 6, line 38, applies to the Amendment in my name, and so I do not now move the proposed new subsections.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Duration and transfer of licences and fees in respect of licences and transfers.
8.—(1) Subject to the provisions of the last preceding section as to the first licences granted in respect of certain tracks, a licence shall, unless revoked under the following provisions of this Part of this Act, be in force for seven years from the date on which it is expressed to take effect.
(2) The licensing authority, if they think fit, may at any time, on an application made to them after notice in writing to the chief officer of police, direct that a licence granted to any person in respect of a track, or the site of a proposed track, within their licensing area shall be transferred to another person, and thereupon the transferee shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be deemed to be the holder of the licence:
Provided that, if the transferee is not the occupier of the track or the site, the transfer shall not take effect until he becomes the occupier thereof.
(3) In the event of the death of the holder of a licence, his legal personal representative shall, during the period of one month from the date of the death, be deemed to be the holder of the licence, notwithstanding that it has not been transferred to him.
(4) In respect of every licence, such annual fee not exceeding fifty pounds as the licensing authority, after taking into consideration the expenses likely to be incurred by them in administering this Part of this Act, may fix for their area shall be payable to them during the currency of the licence by the person who is for the time being the
630
holder thereof, and the first of such payments shall be made to them on the day on which the licence takes effect, and subsequent payments shall be made to them at intervals of twelve months thereafter.
(5) In respect of any transfer of a licence, such fee, not exceeding ten pounds, as the licensing authority may fix for their area shall be paid to them by the person to whom the licence is transferred.
LORD BAYFORD LORD BAYFORD moved, in subsection (3), to substitute "three months" for "one month." The noble Lord said: This is a very small Amendment. The legal proceedings generally take some time and it is suggested that a month is insufficient to enable the legal personal representative of the deceased holder of a licence to make any arrangments with regard to it. It is therefore suggested that three months should be substituted. Is that accepted?
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 11, leave out ("one") and insert ("three").—(Lord Bayford.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: That is accepted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved to leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert the following new subsection:
"(4) No fine, rent or other sum of money (except a reasonable sum in respect of legal or other essential expenses) shall be payable for or in respect of a licence."
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is somewhat similar to that of the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Askwith. The facts of the matter are that dog racing tracks are really some of the largest ratepayers. They contribute one-sixth of their takings to the Entertainments Tax. They also pay Income Tax. I am open to correction here, but I understand that in the cases of cinemas and similar places of entertainment they do not pay anything for a licence at all. It does not seem fair that dog racing tracks should have to do so. After all they provide work in the neighbourhood and trade for the shop-keepers. These tracks pay contributions equal to 2d. in the£in rates to their localities and Income Tax specialists say that 200 dog racing tracks contribute 2d. in the £ to the Income Tax.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 14, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: Clause 8 (4) of the Bill empowers a licensing authority to charge an annual fee not exceeding £50 in respect of the grant of a licence, and a fee not exceeding £10 in respect of any transfer of such a licence. The Amendment moved by the noble Earl would be quite unworkable. I do not quite understand what is "a reasonable sum in respect of legal or other essential expenses," and who is to determine what that sum should be. The noble Earl has drawn an analogy from the licensing of premises for films, but I think it is open to doubt whether the same conditions apply in respect of greyhound racing tracks. The purpose of such a charge is merely to cover the increased expenditure incurred by the local authority and in no way to levy a tax upon the promoters of tracks. I feel that the noble Earl's Amendment would be unworkable in practice.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (4), to substitute "five pounds" for "fifty pounds." The noble Lord said: I must say that the sum of £50 really seems a penal sum for the small amount of trouble and expense entailed in granting a licence. The only expense that would be incurred, I am informed, would be the initial cost of applications, their renewal and possible revocation under Clause 15. None of that expenditure is of an annual nature. An annual fee of £50 in respect of every licence is unreasonable and I suggest it should be reduced to £5.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 15, leave out ("fifty") and insert ("five").—(Lord Askwith.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I think exactly the same arguments apply to the noble Lord's Amendment as to the one moved by the noble Earl opposite. In fact the annual fee of £50 errs if at all in being too low, having regard to the expense to which the licensing authority will be put in exercising their functions. I do not think that it can be seriously contended that a sum of £50 represents a very heavy charge on the holders of a licence for a dog-racing track.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Will the noble Earl say why there should be an annual
632
fee when there is only a periodic expense?
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD BAYFORD LORD BAYFORD moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "after taking into consideration the expenses likely to be incurred by them in administering this Part of this Act." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which I am moving on behalf of the County Councils Association, and as the money goes into or comes out of their pockets, and as they have got to administer the Act, I think their opinion is worthy of some consideration. They do not consider that an estimate of the expenses likely to be incurred in administering Part I of the Act would produce a satisfactory basis for the annual licences. I understand that the Government will accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 15, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 17.—(Lord Bayford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BAYFORD: The next Amendment which stands in my name is consequential on the last. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 18, leave out ("for their area") and insert ("annually").—(Lord Bayford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH had given Notice that he would move, in subsection (5), to leave out "ten" and insert "five." The noble Lord said: I suppose the same argument will apply to this Amendment as applied to the other which I have moved. I am sorry to see this Bill being turned into a taxing authority as well as a disability authority. I do not move the Amendment.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9:
Fixing of days on which betting facilities may he provided.
9.—(1) A reasonable time before the beginning of each calendar year, every licensing authority shall fix one hundred and four days in that year as the days on which betting facilities may be provided on licensed tracks within their licensing area, and the days fixed in pursuance of this section are in this Part of this Act referred to as "appointed days":
Provided that a licensing authority shall not be bound to fix in advance appointed days in any calendar year if it appears to them that at the commencement of that year no licence in respect of a track in

633
their licensing area will be in force, but, if they avail themselvse of this provision, then, so soon as they grant a licence to take effect on any date during that year, they shall proceed to fix appointed days in the period between the day preceding that date and the first day of the next year, and the number of the days to be so fixed shall be twice the number of the complete weeks in that period.
(2) The appointed days fixed by a licensing authority shall be the same for the whole of their licensing area, and shall not include any Good Friday, Christmas Day or Sunday.
(3) In this section the expression "week" means a period of seven consecutive days beginning on a Sunday.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (1), to omit the words "every licensing authority shall fix one hundred and four days in that year as the days on which betting facilities may be provided on licensed tracks within their licensing area" and insert:
"the occupier of every licensed track shall submit to the licensing authority within whose area such track is situate a statement specifying the days (not being more than the number of days permitted under this Act) on which the said occupier proposes to hold meetings at which betting facilities may be provided and subject as hereinafter provided the licensing authority shall approve and fix such days. Provided that where there are more tracks than one in the area of any licensing authority, in the event of the occupier of every licensed track in the area failing to submit proposals to the said licensing authority under which the days proposed shall be the same in respect of every such licensed track, the licensing authority shall in their discretion fix the days."
The noble Lord said: This is rather a variation of the Amendment which was moved by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, earlier, which at least gives the occupier of a track some opportunity of having a say in what days would suit him. It provides that he shall send in a list:
"specifying the days (not being more than the number permitted under this Act) on which the said occupier proposes to hold meetings …and… the licensing authority shall approve and fix such days"
as the drays on which betting facilities may be provided; provided that if there are more tracks than one in an area and they do not agree, the licensing authority may decide the matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 29, leave out from ("year") to ("and") in line 32, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Askwith.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Clause 9 of the Bill proposes that the licensing authority shall fix the 104 days on which alone betting facilities may be provided on all tracks in its area. The Amendment which the noble Lord has moved proposes that the days should be selected by the occupiers of licensed tracks. If there is only one track, then the days selected by that track shall be fixed by the licensing authority. If there is more than one track and all the occupiers agree upon the same days, then the licensing authority is required to fix the days so selected as the appointed betting days for that area. If the occupiers of the several tracks in any area cannot agree upon the betting days for that area, then it will be for the licensing authority in their discretion to fix the days.
The principle underlying the Amendment of the noble Lord is that the consideration which ought to be decisive in the choice by the licensing authority of the appointed betting days is the interests and convenience of the occupiers of tracks. It is admitted that this is one of the considerations which the licensing authority ought to take into account, and for this reason the Government propose an Amendment to Clause 9 the effect of which would be to require the licensing authority to take into consideration any representations made to them by the occupiers of tracks or by the promoters of sporting events on those tracks. But there are other considerations to which weight ought also to be given by the licensing authority. Days selected by occupiers of tracks may coincide with days on which it would not be in the interests of law and order, or would lead to undue traffic congestion, to allow betting facilities to be provided on tracks. Again, two adjoining licensing authorities (say, a county council and a county borough council) may not desire to appoint a joint committee to exercise the licensing functions, but may nevertheless deem it advisable to have some consultation about the choice of days, for example, in regard to two tracks which draw their attendance from the county borough, one being within the borough and the other just outside in the county area.
Under the noble Lord's proposal these two tracks could in certain circumstances suit their own commercial advantage by

635
so arranging the days on which they chose to have betting facilities as to provide facilities for almost continuous betting for residents in the borough. I think your Lordships will realise that the Government could not accept a proposal which allowed one of the principles on which the Bill is based to be frustrated in this manner. In a matter of this sort the Government think it would be wrong to deprive the licensing authority of any discretion in the fixing of these days: and they feel sure that licensing authorities can be trusted to hold the balance fairly between the conflicting interests of different sports and will give full weight to all relevant considerations. If the noble Lord will consider all these matters I think he will see that his Amendment, besides infringing one of those principles which are the bed-rock on which the Bill stands, includes provisions which will not benefit the case which he has at heart.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved to leave out the proviso in subsection (1) and insert the following new subsection:
"(2) In any case where a licence in respect of a track comes into force subsequent to the commencement of any calendar year the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply in respect of such track as if in lieu of two hundred and eight days there were substituted such number of days as is equivalent to four times the number of complete weeks between the date when the licence comes into force and the first day of the next year."
The noble Lord said: This is that where a licence in respect of a track comes into force subsequently to the commencement of this Act, the provisions of the Act shall apply as if a proportionate number of days was substituted. One hundred and four days having been accepted as the number of days it may be that this Amendment is not quite right now.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 35, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 2 on page 10, and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Askwith.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think this is an Amendment which is consequential upon another Amendment which appeared on page 1, at line 10. That Amendment proposed that the number of betting days should be 208. The House has not accepted that proposal
636
and I think this Amendment is consequential on that earlier Amendment, to which the noble Lord's name was not attached.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Will the noble Marquess consider the possibility of substituting 104 days for 208, and twice for four times, because the Amendment is not entirely consequential? The object of the Amendment is to enable a track which opens in the middle of the year to get its due proportion of betting days.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"(3) Before fixing appointed days for any year, a licensing authority shall consider any representations which may have been made to them by the chief officer of police, or by persons concerned in the management of tracks within the licensing area or concerned in the promotion of sporting events on such tracks."
The noble Earl said: The Bill provides that the 104 betting days shall be fixed by the licensing authority for all tracks in their area. During the Second Reading debate this proposal was criticised on the ground that the betting days should not be fixed by the licensing authority, and it was suggested that they might appoint as betting days days which were quite unsuitable. The Government are satisfied that in fixing the betting days the licensing authorities will take into consideration the views of all the tracks whiclh would be affected by their decision; but to allay any fears this Amendment specifically provides that before fixing the appointed betting days the licensing authority shall consider representations made to them by chief officers of Police or by persons concerned in the management of tracks in their area or concerned in the promotion of sporting events on such tracks.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 6, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BAYFORD: I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether he has realised that on some of these dog racing days they have two, and even three, meetings in a day. Does he realise that what he really ought to restrict is not the number of days but the number of meetings, and before the further stages

637
of the Bill will he take that, which is a very real point, into consideration?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: It is quite true that there have been more meetings than one on one day. But, while it is possible that there may in practice be any number of meetings, one will find that local conditions and local exigencies will so operate that the number of meetings is not as excessive as it might be. However, I will consider that point before the Report stage, but I think I can give the noble Lord a number of reasons why the number of meetings is not likely to be so excessive as he thinks possiblie.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10:
Establishment of totalisators on dog race courses.
10.—(1) Notwithstanding any enactment or rule of law to the contrary, it shall be lawful on any licensed track being a dog racecourse for the occupier of the track or any person authorised by him in writing—

(a) to set up, and keep a totalisator, whether in a building or not; and

(b) on any appointed day, while the public are admitted to the track for the purpose of attending dog races and no other sporting events are taking place on the track, to operate a totalisator so set up, but only for effecting with persons resorting to the track betting transactions on dog races run cn that track on that day;

and for any person to effect betting transactions by means of a totalisator lawfully operated.
(2) The occupier of a licensed track—

(a) shall not, so long as a totalisator is being lawfully operated on the track, exclude any person from the track by reason only that he proposes to carry on book-making on the track; and

(b) shall take such steps as are necessary to secure that, so long as a totalisator is being lawfully operated on the track, there is available for bookmakers space on the track where they can conveniently carry on bookmaking in connection with dog races run on tle track on that day;

and every person who contravenes, or fails to comply with, any of the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) The provisions of the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to every totalisator operated in pursuance of this section on a licensed track being a dog racecourse, and if any person operating a totalisator on such a track contravenes, or fails to comply with, any of the provisions of that Schedule the operation of that totalisator shall be deemed to be a contravention of Section three of this Act.
THE EARL OF EFFINGHAM THE EARL OF EFFINGHAM moved to leave out all words after "authorised by him in writing" in subsection (1), and to insert
"at the option of the said occupier of the track his servant or agent to set up, and keep any totalisator or any other form of mechanical betting whether in a building or not, and/or to provide facilities for bookmakers either in conjunction with the aforesaid totalisator or mechanical form of betting or separately as and when the said occupier of the track, his servant or agent shall determine."
The noble Earl said: The reasons for this Amendment are very many and most important as far as the public, the local authorities, who license, and the future of sport of all kinds are concerned. Whilst of course those who legitimately have adventured their capital in providing us with proper open-air simple entertainment in the form of dog racing are to be considered to some extent, the principles at the root of this Amendment are broader and more vital than any sectional or class interest. The proper conduct and future of systems of betting require the most careful and exact method of experiment, and if I may respectfully say so, His Majesty's Government have been profoundly wise in not sheltering themselves behind the Royal Commission on Lotteries and Bettings Report, 1932–3, and accepting blindfold every recommendation and decision without question or consideration. His Majesty's Government have shown a wise discrimination in endeavouring to continue experimentation in this most important section of the workers lives—namely, the method in which they spend their leisure. The Government have on other occasions considered cinemas (Sunday and other day performances), at one time and another ice and roller skating rinks; they are now considering lotteries and bridge parties.
I approach the Racecourse Betting Control Board Fifth Annual Report and Accounts, 1933. On page 41, in Appendix 7, I find some very interesting facts set out as to the use of totalisators abroad as well as in His Majesty's Dominions. I have had inquiries made also and, as one would expect, find this Government document, ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 7th May. 1934, is strictly accurate although very specially condensed. I found it necessary therefore to supplement it, keeping

639
of course to the principles as set out in the Report. In the Irish Free State the Fourth Annual Report shows a gradually increasing popularity of mechanical betting, but one finds also that there are other types (three) in use as well. In South Australia they have all sorts and conditions of rules as to licences and bookmakers, but I shall not go into them, nor into the position in France.
I therefore have placed on the Order Paper of your Lordships' House this Amendment which leaves at the discretion of the expert track owner (compulsorily so, for his capital, reputation and good name are at stake) whether his patrons, the local authority, and the fashion and custom of the locality and the orderly conduct of his track call for (a) totalisator alone, (b) mixed totalisator and bookmaker, or (c) bookmaker only. The examples I have quoted show the views of the most modern methods, and it will be noted far outstrip any disciplinary factor yet obtaining in this country either for totalisators or bookmakers of the ready money or credit varieties, but at the same time proving that as in this country betting has obtained for hundreds of years, so even the oldest form of betting maybe made applicable to the wants of the public. The question may be legitimately raised: Does the introduction of the use of the totalisator in British greyhound racing tracks make the "bookie" now a superfluous trader, who could be eliminated entirely from racecourses? Some hold that it seems of the two methods the totalisator is preferable, as, subject to expenses, the backer gets the full advantage of his speculation, whereas if the bet is with a bookmaker, a proportion of the stake is absorbed by him for his profit, this constituting a serious drain of money from the backers as a class.
Again, the Secretary of State may prescribe conditions as to the nature of the totalisator. Once more the totalisator may indeed by its installation in some cases act as a disciplinary factor upon the bookmaker. It is not difficult to visualise a position where, if the bookmakers combined in a general dislike about either a local authority, the official of a local authority, some agent or agency of the track, or even the management of a track, they could boycott the track entirely; and whilst many patrons go
640
to races for purposes other than betting, and whilst others would use the totalisator, there are many who still desire to have their betting contracts done humanly and not by a machine. That "bookie" and "tote" and both are the guarantee and safeguard of the public is the general view of the man in the street. In the Bill, although authority is given to the track management to set up totalisators on licensed dog tracks, this provision is not compulsory; the management may or may not have to instal a "tote" at their own discretion. On the other hand the Bill makes it compulsory that bookmakers be allowed to carry on a betting business on approved dog tracks. I do not think it should be compulsory to have a totalisator, neither do I think it should be compulsory to have bookmakers; it should be left to the option of the management to decide which form of betting in their opinion would be most satisfactory to patrons of their track. It does not follow that tracks would choose bookmakers as their betting medium, nor does it follow that all tracks would use the totalisator method alone. I think if track owners were permitted the option they would use both forms of betting. What might be satisfactory to patrons in one locality would be unsuitable to patrons in another locality, and it should therefore be at the choice of the management what facilities for betting should be available.
I do not know of any other business in which an expensive organisation can be used for trading by persons who do not contribute anything towards the capital outlay of such organisation, but merely use the same even though it is provided by another person to carry on a business which enables this outsider alone to carry on his trade. The public in the long run will decide which form of betting they prefer, and if then the management refuse to accept their judgment the owner suffers. It is, therefore, in the interests of track owners meticulously to investigate which method or methods is or are preferred and supply the same. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 13, leave out from the beginning to the end of the clause and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Effingham.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The Amendment proposes that the occupier of

641
a licensed track may set up and keep a totalisator or any other form of mechanical betting, and provide facilities for bookmakers either in conjunction with the totalisator or mechanical form of betting, or separately, as and when the occupier shall determine. I think your Lord ships' attention should be directed to the fact that the Amendment does not empower the occupier to operate a totalisator although he may set up and keep one. On the analogy of the Racecourse Betting Act of 1928, which expressly empowers the Racecourse Betting Control Board to operate a totalisator, it is possible that the Courts would hold that the power to set up and keep a totalisator does not include the power to operate it, and, in the second place, the Amendment would place the bookmaker entirely at the mercy of the occupiers of the track. The bookmakers could be excluded from tracks at the absolute discretion of the occupier in order to secure a monopoly and swell the profits which an occupier would derive from the operation of a totalisator. The essence of the scheme in the Bill is that the totalisator should be legalised as an alternative form of betting, and that the backer should have the chance of deciding which alternative he prefers. The noble Earl who has moved this Amendment I think has intended, by omitting paragraph(b) of subsection (1) of Clause 10, which limits the operation of a totalisator to certain appointed days, to empower the occupier to operate the totalisator on any day that he thinks fit, provided that the totalisator is not operated on more than the 104 days in any calendar year. I am afraid that for a second time I have to inform the noble Earl that the Amendment he has moved is against the fundamental principles of the Bill and that whether by means of bookmaking or by a totalisator no betting shall take place except on the 104 days appointed by the licensing authority. I therefore regret that I am unable to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD STRABOLGI: Before we part from Clause 10 may I raise one point with the noble Marquess in charge of
642
the Bill? As I read this clause the totalisator may be set up on a greyhound racing track and operated on certain days of the year and then, if I may quote your Lordships the actual words of subsection (b):
"on any appointed day, while the public are admitted to the track for the purpose of attending dog races and no other sporting events are taking place on the track, to operate a totalisator …"
Earlier in our proceedings the noble Marquess spoke of other tracks where betting might take place. He instanced motor car tracks or dirt tracks. I understand that one of the fundamental principles of the Bill, according to the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, is to provide an alternative means of betting. Why is it that only the people who attend dog race meetings are to have this alternative means of betting Why are they to have this privilege, and why not the people who attend motor car races or running events? I understand that on certain tracks other events take place besides dog racing. If it is within the 104 allotted days, why should not people have this privilege of having an alternative means of betting on other sporting events? Why single out only the greyhound racing for this privilege?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think the noble Lord is aware that the totalisator is extended to dog races, against the recommendation of the Royal Commission, for the purpose of giving a system of betting which the backer desires; but the specific question which the noble Lord is asking me is whether the totalisator shall be extended to other forms of sport on those 104 selected days.
LORD STRABOLGI: When other events take place on the same track.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am not quite certain about the answer, but I will look into the matter and give the noble Lord an answer on that point.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am obliged. But the noble Marquess will admit that the words are rather vague and should be made clear.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:
Prohibition of betting with young persons.
14.—(1) If on any track—

(a) any bookmaker or commission agent has any betting transaction with a person apparently under, or known to him to be under, the ago of seventeen years; or

(b) any person engaged in operating a totalisator has by means thereof any betting transaction with a person apparently under, or known to him to be under, the age of seventeen years.

then, in the first case, that bookmaker or commission agent and, in the second case, the occupier of the track on which the totalisator is set up, shall be guilty of an offence.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved, at the beginning of subsection (1), to leave out "on any track." The noble Lord said: I regret that it is only at a very late hour that this important clause dealing with the protection of the young comes before us. I am speaking, not on my own behalf, but on behalf of the Scottish National Council for Juvenile Organisations, which embraces representatives of all the societies and bodies that deal with the welfare of young people of both sexes. In moving this and one or two following Amendments it is not necessary at all, I am convinced, to argue as to the evil effects of betting and gambling on young people.
LORD ASKWITH: May I ask the noble Lord to which Amendment he is speaking?
LORD POLWARTH: I am speaking on the Amendment on page 12, line 23, to omit the words "on any track." The effect of this Amendment is, or would be, to prohibit betting off the track as well as on the track. We welcome very heartily the clause as it stands, forbidding betting with young persons under seventeen years of age. I do not think that even the most ardent supporters of dog racing desire to see young people involved. It is particularly dangerous when so many of them are unemployed, and left without other interests to occupy them. I may be told that this Amendment is out of order and that this Bill deals only with betting on a track, but in submitting this Motion I am asking your Lordships to give effect to the recommendation on page 112 of the Royal Commission's Report, paragraph 378:
644
"We recommend that it should be an offence for a bookmaker or anyone acting on his behalf knowingly to have a betting transaction with a person under seventeen years of age."
It is intended to prevent a bookmaker or his assistant carrying on betting with young people possibly at some spot just outside the track.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 23, leave out ("on any track.")—(Lord Polwarth.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I would point out that this Bill deals only with on-the-course betting and on that account it is undesirable that in this respect the provisions of the Bill should be extended to off-the-course as well as on-the-course. Further, it is doubtful whether the provision is really required. Under the Betting and Loans (Infants) Act, 1892, it is illegal to send betting circulars to persons under twenty-one and the Street Betting Act provides special penalties against bookmakers who have betting transactions with persons under the age of sixteen in streets and public places. In the case of a bookmaker, the only form of betting open to him off the course is credit betting where persons do not resort to his premises, and there is no reason to believe that persons under sixteen run credit accounts with office bookmakers. As already pointed out, the existing law makes it impossible for office bookmakers to tout for customers among persons under twenty-one. I submit therefore that the Amendment does not seem to represent any present public need and for that reason and because it is outside the proposed scope of the Bill, the Government are unable to accept the Amendment.
LORD POLWARTH: In view of the stable Earl's statement that the Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: As there are several Amendments to this clause perhaps your Lordships will think this a convenient moment to adjourn the further consideration of this Bill. I am quite ready to go on as long as your Lordships think desirable, but we have not made bad progress and I think it might be convenient now to break off and for the House to resume.

ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill which I can assure your Lordships is agreed to by all those concerned in architectural education.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MILITARY MANŒUVRES.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL)THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL) moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying His Majesty to make two Orders in Council trader the Military Manœuvres Acts, 1897 and 1911, drafts of which were presented to this House on the 13th February and 6th March last. The noble Lord said: My Lards, I beg to move the Resolution standing in my name. It is in the usual form except that it covers two Orders instead of one. It is proposed to apply the Military Manœuvres Acts to three separate areas—in the Southern Command to North Wiltshire and part of Gloucestershire, in the Eastern Command to an area comprising part of Hertfordshire and small parts of Cambridgeshire and Essex, and in the Northern Command to part of the area of the East Riding of Yorkshire, including the coast between Flamborough Head and Spurn Head. I think I ought to inform your Lordships that this programme may have to be modified owing to water difficulties. As far as can be seen at the moment, it is unlikely that there will be any great alto, alterations of the proposed programme for the Southern Command area, North Wiltshire, but in the case of the Eastern
646
Command area, the Hertfordshire area, the situation does not appear to be so hopeful, and it is probable that the idea of moving troops in that area will have to be abandoned. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying His Majesty to make two Orders in Council under the Military Manoeuvres Acts, 1897 and 1911, drafts of which were presented to this House on the 13th February and 6th March last.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think we agree to this Motion, but I thought for one moment, when the noble Lord said that the programme might have to be modified because of water difficulties, that he was going to say "because of the result of the Disarmament Conference at Geneva," and I am very sorry that that is not the case. I think it would have been more decent (if I may claim the attention of the Secretary of State for War for a moment) to have waited just a few days until the Disarmament Conference at Geneva was over one way or the other, before bringing forward this Motion. At this late hour, we do not propose to divide against it.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that this Motion has nothing whatever to do with the Disarmament Conference. Even if there were an agreement for complete disarmament to-morrow, which does not seem very likely, still our Army, which exists and which would still be required as an Imperial police force, would have to be exercised.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
House adjourned at a quarter before twelve o'clock.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Weston-super-Mare Urban District Council.
Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Leek) [H.L.].
Also the Certificates that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:
Marriages Provisional Orders,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wycombe and District Joint Hospital District) [H.L.].
And also the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the Petitions for the following Bills have not been complied with:
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation.
London Passenger Transport Board (Interim Financial Arrangements).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

DURHAM COUNTY WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill
648
was withdrawn: The Order made on the 7th of March last discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.

STOCKPORT EXTENSION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

CENTRAL (COAL MINES) SCHEME (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1934.
Draft of an Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Coal Mines Act, 1930, on the application of the Central Council appointed under the provisions of the Central (Coal Mines) Scheme, 1930:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

HOYLAKE ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1934.
Special Order in respect of part of the urban district of Hoylake in the County of Chester:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1934.
Special Order in respect of part of the Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme in the County of Stafford:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.