Sitting of 17 July 1935

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Fylde Water Board Bill,
Maidstone Corporation Bill,
Reading Corporation Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Exeter Corporation Bill[Lords],
Severn Navigation Bill[Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Fylde Preston and Garstang Joint Small-pox Hospital District) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Norwich) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Ottershaw Joint Hospital District) Bill[Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Oxford) Bill[Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Pwllheli) Bill[Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Watford) Bill[Lords]
Read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  BRITISH SOMALILAND.
  Captain HEILGERSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information in his possession as to the proposal, made at the Peace Conference in 1919, to hand over the Zeila corridor to Abyssinia, and the reason why the proposal was not proceeded with?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Samuel Hoare): No proposal was made at the
  1022
  Peace Conference to hand over the Zeila corridor to Abyssinia. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.
  Captain HEILGERS: Had there been any proposal to hand over Zeila to Abyssinia at any time prior to the recent offer?
  Sir S. HOARE: My hon. and gallant Friend's question deals with what happened in connection with the Peace Treaty. If he will put down another question, I will give him an answer.

  DISARMAMENT.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider the advisability, as a way out of the present disarmament deadlock, of proposing the establishment, in connection with the League of Nations, of an impartial tribunal to decide non-justiciable disputes and an international police force to see that its decisions are observed?
  Sir S. HOARE: I am not satisfied that the proposals advocated by the hon. Member would achieve the desired object.
  Mr. MANDER: Have proposals of this kind been considered by His Majesty's Government at any time?
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Were not these the proposals that were made by the late President Wilson, and which his nation turned down, and is that not the reason why the League of Nations is not so strong as it might be?
  Mr. MANDER: Do I understand from the silence of my right hon. Friend that the Government have given no consideration whatever to these proposals at any time?
  Sir S. HOARE: We have naturally considered all the practical proposals connected with the disarmament question, and no doubt a question of this kind would come up in the course of our discussion.
  Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: May I ask whether the proposal is to arm the international police force with truncheons or any other kind of weapon?

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (UNITED KINGDOM DELEGATION).
  Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now state the composition of the United Kingdom delegation to the 16th Assembly of the League of Nations?
  Sir S. HOARE: The United Kingdom delegation to the 16th Assembly of the League of Nations will, according to present arrangements, be as follows:
  Delegates:

  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

  The Minister for League of Nations Affairs.

  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade.

  Substitute Delegates:

  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture.

  The Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Cranborne).

  The hon. Member for South Hackney (Miss Graves).

  Sir William Malkin, legal adviser to the Foreign Office.

  Mr. MANDER: Is there any hope of the Prime Minister himself making an appearance at any stage of the Assembly proceedings at Geneva this year?
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the Minister also see if he can get President Roosevelt to attend?

  ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information regarding the meeting of the Conciliation Commission on the Italo-Abyssinian dispute at Scheveningen; and whether the Commission has any power to call witnesses?
  Sir S. HOARE: As regards the first part of the question, the Italo-Ethiopian Conciliation Commission which, after a preliminary meeting in Milan, reassembled in Holland on 25th June, adjourned sine die on 9th July, having failed to reach agreement. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is
  1024
  now able to state the present position with regard to the request made by the Abyssinian Government for the appointment by the Council of the League of Nations of neutral observers to be sent to the frontiers between Italy and Abyssinia; and whether the British Government intends to support the request?
  Sir S. HOARE: The request of the Abyssinian Government to which the hon. Member refers has been communicated by the Secretary-General of the League to His Majesty's Government and to the other members of the Council, who will no doubt be called upon to consider it at the Council's next meeting. It would not be proper for me to disclose beforehand the attitude which the British representative will take up, or to attempt to prejudge the decision which, after taking into consideration all the information before it, the Council may see fit to take.
  Mr. MANDER: Do I understand that it will definitely come up at the meeting of the Council which is shortly to be held?
  Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir; I understand that that is almost certainly the case.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any action has been taken, or is contemplated, with regard to the withholding of licences for the export of arms to Italy or Abyssinia at the present time?
  Sir S. HOARE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 15th July to a question put by the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), to which I have nothing to add.
  Mr. MANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no action, at any rate, will be taken to place Abyssinia at a disadvantage?
  Sir S. HOARE: As I told my hon. Friend on the 15th July, the whole subject is under consideration, and I hope to be able to make a statement on it shortly.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the views that were expressed, at the time of the Chinese-Japanese trouble, with regard to the exports of armaments from this country?
  Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman yin the meantime not to make a decision such as handing over territory, and start us in another war?

  NAVAL ARMAMENTS (ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT).
  The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. WILMOT:
  "7. To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Anglo-German naval agreement is now in force as a binding agreement; and, if so, whether he will state upon what date it became binding, and upon what date it was registered with the secretariat of the League of Nations in accordance with the covenant?"
  Mr. WILMOT: May I ask your direction, Mr. Speaker, as to whether it is in order for Members of this House to address questions to the Minister for League of Nations Affairs, having regard to the statement made during the Debate the other day as to the status of the Ministers?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have not considered that particular question, but undoubtedly, if a question is put down to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and it happens particularly to concern the Minister for League of Nations Affairs, the latter will reply.
  Mr. MANDER: On that point of Order. Would it be in order to put down questions specifically to the Minister for League of Nations Affairs?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see that any useful purpose would be served by doing so. If the question be put down for the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and if it concerns particularly the Minister for League of Nations Affairs, that Minister will reply. It comes to the same thing.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Are we to understand that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is head man in that show?
  Mr. WILMOT: May I say that the point arises, because questions addressed to the Minister for League of Nations Affairs are altered at the Table to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is carrying out my Ruling.
  Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: As there are two Ministers dealing with the various departments of foreign affairs, are not Members of the House of Commons entitled to address questions to one or the other of them, and are not out of order if the questions come specifically within either Minister's province?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not say that they are out of order, but rather that it is the practice in dealing with questions that, when they are put down to one Minister but refer to something which is in the particular province of another Minister, they are answered by the Minister concerned.
  Sir H. SAMUEL: I understand that questions which are addressed to the Minister for League of Nations Affairs are refused at the Table—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—or are transferred to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
  Mr. SPEAKER: They have been put down to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
  Mr. MANDER: Is it not a fact that questions to the Minister for League of Nations Affairs have been definitely refused at the Table as out of order, although dealing with League of Nations Affairs?
  Sir S. HOARE: May I suggest, on the point of Order, that all questions should be constitutionally addressed to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and that it rests between my right hon. Friend and myself as to who answers them?
  Sir PERCY HARRIS: Is there not a precedent in the case of the Secretary for Mines and the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, who are both subordinate Ministers to the Board of Trade? Questions are addressed directly to them.
  Mr. SPEAKER: They are heads of different Departments.
  Mr. WILMOT: May I now ask question number seven?
  Sir S. HOARE: The exchange of notes between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the German Government, regarding the limitation of naval armaments was signed in London on 18th June, 1935, and by agreement between the parties, expressed in the notes themselves, took effect between the

  1027
  two Governments as from that date. The exchange of notes was registered with the Secretariat of the League of Nations on 12th July.
  Mr. WILMOT: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask whether it is not contrary to the Article of the Covenant regarding the registration of international undertakings for an undertaking to come into force before it has been registered with the Secretariat of the League?
  Sir S. HOARE. I do not think that that is the case. I have here the interpretation put upon the position by a Committee of the Assembly. The interpretation is as follows:
  "Registration does not take the place of ratification. It is simply a condition upon the fulfilment of which the binding force of a treaty or international engagement is dependent. Once the treaty or international engagement has been concluded, neither of the Contracting Parties can escape unilaterally from its obligations, but, until registration has taken place, the treaty or agreement will lack positive binding force, both between the Contracting Parties and in regard to third parties."
  Mr. COCKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Secretariat has any right to refuse registration on the ground that the agreement is ultra vires?
  Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir, not without notice.

  MERCANTILE MARINE (BRITISH OFFICER'S IMPRISONMENT, PALMA).
  Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements will be made to ensure that Captain Kane will be adequately represented when his appeal is heard in Madrid; and what steps have been taken by the British Embassy in that place to secure proper treatment for this officer?
  Sir S. HOARE: With regard to the first part of the question, Captain Kane has secured a legal representative who is working in close touch with His Majesty's Embassy in preparing the case for the appeal which is now expected to be heard by 26th July. As regards the second part, Captain Kane has been
  1028
  granted the privilege of residing in a hotel under guard instead of remaining in prison, and he was transferred from prison to the Hotel Catalonia at Palma on 13th July.
  Viscountess ASTORCan the right hon. Gentleman say who is paying for the hotel? That is very important.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: In view of this and similar cases, will the Government issue some warning against tourists visiting Spain at the present time?

  RUMANIAN MINISTER'S VISIT.
  Mr. COCKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement on the visit of M. Titulesco to London; and whether he can say what was the nature of the discussions which took place with him?
  Sir S. HOARE: During his stay in London M. Titulesco had with myself and certain of my colleagues conversations which were purely informal and unofficial. I cannot, therefore, say more with regard to these than that M. Titulesco took this opportunity to explain his views on certain aspects of the European situation.
  Mr. COCKS: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether M. Titulesco informed the British Government that the Balkan Powers are greatly disturbed by the increased prestige given to the Nazi Government in Germany by the recent conclusion of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement?
  Sir S. HOARE: I am not prepared to make any further disclosure as to what took place in a confidential conversation.

  FRANCE AND RUSSIA (NEGOTIATIONS).
  Mr. COCKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government was kept informed of the various stages in the negotiations for the Franco-Russian pact of mutual assistance; whether, in order to meet the views of His Majesty's Government, any alterations were made in the original draft of the treaty; and whether, before it was signed, the Government raised any objection to the pact in its final form?
  Sir S. HOARE: As regards the first part of the question, His Majesty's Government were generally informed of the progress of the negotiations for the Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance. As regards the second and third parts of the question, the answer is in the negative.
  Mr. COCKS: Is it a fact that the French Government were careful not to include in the treaty anything to which the British Government might object; and, if that be the case, what was the ground for the statement of the Minister for League of Nations Affairs that this agreement is on the same footing as the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, to which the French Government did object?
  Sir S. HOARE: His Majesty's Government kept the French Government informed about the terms of the Naval Agreement, and did so to at least as full an extent as they themselves were kept informed about the Franco-Russian negotiations.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    RE-ENGAGEMENTS.
    Mr. RALPH BEAUMONTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give the percentage of re-engagements of naval personnel at Portsmouth, Devonport, and Chatham, respectively?
    Sir GEORGE PENNY (Treasurer of the Household): I have been asked to take this question. The percentages of re-engagements of naval personnel at Portsmouth, Devonport and Chatham for the year ending 31st March, 1935, were as follow:

    Per cent.

    Portsmouth

    …

    …

    …

    75.8

    Devonport

    …

    …

    …

    65.5

    Chatham

    …

    …

    …

    51.4

    MEDITERRANEAN FLEET (LEAVE).
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any arrangements have been made for special leave for officers and men of the Mediterranean Fleet while in home waters for the naval review?
    Sir G. PENNY: I have been asked to take this question. Seven days' special leave has been granted to the officers and men of ships of the Mediterranean Fleet which have returned home specifically to take part in the review.

    RUBBER INDUSTRY, MALAYA (TAXATION).
    Sir GEORGE HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider recommending to the authorities concerned that they should, in considering the question of the reduction of the present heavy taxation on the rubber plantation companies in Malaya., make it a condition that any such reduction should be used towards raising estate staff salaries to the level existing before 1929?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I hardly think that the contribution required from the rubber industry towards public revenues in. Malaya could properly be made dependent on such a condition as my hon. Friend suggests.

    PALESTINE (RAILWAYS).
    Captain STRICKLANDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now state when it will be possible to issue the report of Sir Felix Pole on the steps which should be taken to place the railways of Palestine on an economic and efficient basis so as better to serve the interests of the citrus industry and the chief centres of the population?
    Major PROCTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the report of Sir Felix Pole on Palestine railway development was first available to the Colonial Office and the High Commissioner, respectively; and why its publication should be any longer withheld?
    Mr. M. MacDONALD: Sir Felix Pole gave a draft copy of his report to the High Commissioner before he left Palestine early in February, and copies of the report in its final form were sent to Palestine on the 30th May. Copies were received in the Colonial Office on the 3rd April. I should explain that, arising out of a report of a local committee on road and rail transport, three expert swere invited to examine and report on three different aspects of railway communication in Palestine. Sir Felix Pole was asked to advise on certain specific proposals for improving the layout of the railway line (including station accommodation) in order to facilitate communication between Jaffa, Tel-Aviv

    1031
    and Haifa, comprising a scheme for the deviation of the main line. Mr. Jenkin-Jones, of the London and North Eastern Railway, was asked to advise upon development of traffic facilities, traffic organisation and rates; and Sir Laurence Halsey, of Messrs. Price, Waterhouse and Company, on the accounting system and the establishment of an adequate renewals fund. The recommendations of each of these experts contemplate expenditure of large sums. It will only be possible to reach final conclusions after a close study of all three reports, which, particularly in their financial effect, are closely inter-related. They are now under consideration by the High Commissioner, who informs me that he hopes shortly to submit his considered views and recommendations. When these have been received and duly considered in the Colonial Office, the question of publication of all or any of these reports will be decided.
    Captain STRICKLAND: Seeing that it is now two months since the report was sent back to Palestine for the High Commissioner's recommendation, and in view of the urgency of the matter, will the right hon. Gentleman use every endeavour to get the matter brought up to date and the report issued as soon as possible?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May the report be circulated which has been produced by three local experts who have been considering transport in Palestine since Sir Felix Pole was there?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: May I ask why road transport experts were not sent, and whether that would not have been much better than sending railway experts? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Southern States of America, for example, the cotton growers use the roads very largely?
    Mr. MacDONALD: Railway experts were sent out because the questions which we were specifically asked to inquire into were railway questions. With regard to the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), I have said in my reply that the question of the publication of all three reports will be considered when we have heard from the High Commissioner on the matter. With
    1032
    regard to the first supplementary question, I can assure the House that no time is being lost unnecessarily. Although it is true that Sir Felix Pole's report was received a fairly long time ago, the other two reports, to which his is related, were only received in Palestine by the High Commissioner towards the end of May.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will this be one of the subjects discussed with the High Commissioner when he comes to England; and when is his visit expected?
    Mr. MacDONALD: I anticipate that he will be here some time in August, and no doubt this will be one of the matters that will be considered, but I rather hope to have his recommendations on the matter before he actually arrives in this country.
    Sir WILFRID SUGDENasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the amount of profit or loss on the operation of the Palestine railways for the past financial year; and whether he is satisfied that they have been adequately adapted and improved to meet the developments which have taken place in that mandated territory during the past decade?
    Mr. JANNERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the discontent with the present services provided by the Palestine railways; and whether he can now give an assurance that, as a consequence of the recent official inquiry into this matter, remedial action will be set on foot during the current year?
    Mr. MacDONALD: In the financial year 1934–35 the lines comprising the Palestine railway system showed a net deficit of £87,940. Until a few years ago the financial position of Palestine restricted expenditure on the maintenance and improvement of the railways, but additional revenue is now available and considerable sums have already been spent and are about to be spent for this purpose. Any further action which may be found to be necessary arising out of recent expert enquiries will be taken as soon as possible.
    Mr. JANNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind the fact that it is important to spend a large amount of money at present in order to keep the markets, particularly such as fruit, and

    1033
    any expenditure put into railways and roads will merely mean that we are minimising the effect of any trouble with regard to markets later on?
    Mr. MacDONALD: Considerable sums are being spent.

  TRANSPORT.

    ROAD HAULAGE (LICENCES).
    Mr. GLOSSOPasked the Minister of Transport how many licences for haulage contractors have been granted, and how many applications have been refused, under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Preliminary figures indicate that up to 31st March last there had been issued over 47,000 "A" and "B" licences for the full currency periods authorising the use of over 110,000 vehicles. In addition, more than 50,000 short-term licences were issued covering vehicles the number of which has not been reported to me. I have no information regarding the number of vehicles in respect of which licences have been refused.
    Mr. GLOSSOP: In view of the effect on employment of transport and lorry drivers, will not the right hon. Gentleman obtain the figure of the number of applications for licences which have been refused?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would willingly obtain any figures that can be obtained without a disproportionate amount of labour, but I fail to see that the figure without the necessary qualifications and explanations would convey any useful impression.
    Mr. GLOSSOP rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The question is becoming a debate.

    RAILWAY COMPANIES (ROAD SERVICE LICENCES).
    Mr. GLOSSOPasked the Minister of Transport how many licences for railway companies have been granted, and how many applications have been refused, under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: These figures, I regret, are not available.

    ROAD ACCIDENTS.
    Sir JOHN POWERasked the Minister of Transport when he hopes to publish the next report on the causes of fatal road accidents?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: A summary of the principal features revealed by an analysis of fatal accidents which occurred during the early part of this year is now being prepared, and I would propose to issue it as soon as I receive it.
    Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Will this report be on the same lines as that of last year, or will there be any difference?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It will be more complete than the previous one.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give figures showing to what extent accidents were due to alcoholic consumption?

    PEDESTRIAN CROSSING-PLACES.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Minister of Transport whether he is prepared, when considering making grants under Section 18 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, for the installation of pedestrian crossings in the provinces, to modify the standards adopted in the Metropolitan police district where local conditions do not justify such a large number of crossings?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: On 6th June last county boroughs in England and Wales and large burghs in Scotland were informed of the results of the experiment of laying down pedestrian crossings in London including the fact that on four main roads furnished with a complete system of pedestrian crossings and extending from central London to the boundary of the administrative county 339 pedestrians were killed or injured during March and April, 1934 (before any crossings had been laid down on these roads), whereas during the corresponding months of the present year only 189 pedestrians were killed or injured—a reduction of 150 in two months or over 44 per cent. The authorities were also informed that 60 per cent. grants would be available if adequate schemes were submitted before 31st July, and the crossings laid down by 30th September. The test of adequacy must of course have relevance to local conditions and will not

    1035
    in all circumstances be precisely equivalent to the London standard, which is 12 crossings per ten thousand of the population.
    Mr. WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some local authorities appear to think that the scale that is appropriate for the Metropolitan area is a rigid one which must apply to them? I assume from his answer that that is not the case.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That may be so, but at Birkenhead the Chief Constable wished still further to increase the number of crossings. I was glad to observe that enthusiasm for the public safety.
    Mr. GUY: Is the right hon. Gentleman insisting on any ratio between controlled and uncontrolled crossings?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, it depends on local conditions.
    Sir W. BRASS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of not having pedestrian crossings where there are traffic lights, because it causes confusion?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir.

    TRAMWAY STOP, TEMPLE AVENUE.
    Mr. GOLDIEasked the Minister of Transport whether it is intended to take any and, if so, what steps to remove the existing danger to passengers at the tramway stop in the vicinity of Temple Avenue; and whether, in view of the urgency of the matter, he will take action at the earliest possible date?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Certain suggestions for the improvement of the conditions at the site referred to have been forwarded to the Commissioner of the City Police, and I will inform my hon. and learned Friend of the result.

    TRAFFIC CONDITIONS, THORNTON HEATH.
    Mr. DORANasked the Minister of Transport whether he has caused investigation to be made into the recent accidents at the corner of Galpin's Road and London Road, Thornton Heath; and whether, in view of the absence of any protection to pedestrian and vehicular traffic, he will consult with the local authority with a view to the erection of traffic lights, or with the Home Office with a view to the appointment of a
    1036
    police officer to control the traffic at this point?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: According to my information, three accidents, of which two involved injuries to persons, occurred at the junction referred to by my hon. Friend during the last 12 months. I will examine at once the case for the provision of light signals.

    BUILT-UP AREAS (SPEED LIMIT).
    Sir W. BRASSasked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to give the House information as to the progress he is making with the local authorities with regard to the de-restricting from the 30-miles-per-hour speed limit of roads which are either arterial roads or roads to which the limit was not really intended to apply?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The total number of lengths of road put forward for consideration is 335. At the end of last week investigation had been completed and decisions reached in about one-fourth of this number. The remainder are under investigation and are being dealt with as expeditiously as possible. I will circulate detailed figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir W. BRASS: As progress is very slow, would the right hon. Gentleman consider communicating with local authorities in order to try to accelerate it?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would not describe the progress as slow, but rather as careful. The Parliamentary Secretary is devoting personal attention to the matter and is visiting a large number of roads which he wishes to get in a satisfactory condition as quickly as possible.
    Following are the figures:
    The total number of lengths of road suggested for derestriction is 335.
    The following table indicates the position with respect to these roads.

    Agreed to be derestricted

    49

    Investigated and refused

    33

    Under investigation by the Ministry

    125

    Under discussion with Local Authorities

    90

    Local inquiries arranged or held in respect of

    38

    335

    TOLL ROADS AND BRIDGES.
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Minister of Transport the number of toll roads and bridges, formerly the property of local authorities or railway companies that have been freed since 1930; and whether he is satisfied that existing legislation is adequate to ensure their being eliminated at an early date?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: There are two toll roads owned by local authorities and 10 toll bridges. Two of the toll bridges have been freed since 1930. When local authorities free a toll bridge and this bridge becomes part of a classified highway the cost of maintenance is eligible for grant. The roads are not eligible for grant until they are freed. Grants are available for the freeing by highway authorities of toll roads and bridges owned by railway companies. There are five toll roads and nine toll bridges of this nature. None has been freed since 1930.
    Captain MACDONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some local authorities who are toll owners are the worst offenders and will he take some steps to insist upon these roads and bridges being freed instead of the tolls being used for local rates?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is because I share the hon. and gallant Member's view that local authorities who own toll roads and bridges should free them that I answered as fully as I did. He will see that local authorities have an inducement to free toll roads and bridges, because they may then become eligible for grants, as they are not at present.
    Mr. PALING: In the case of a dispute between an authority and the owner of a toll road, is there any question of compulsory arbitration?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I prefer to have notice of that question.

    MOTOR INSURANCE (THIRD-PARTY RISKS).
    Sir GEORGE JONESasked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider the question of introducing legislation to provide that if an insurance company or other insurer issues a policy against third-party risks such insurance company or other insurer shall be absolutely precluded from denying liability under the policy, as regards the injured
    1038
    person, to pay compensation for injuries caused by the negligence of the assured?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: May I refer my hon. Friend to an answer which I gave on this subject on 4th June to the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Goldie), of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. GUY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that third-party claims are already safeguarded in this connection in the Irish Free State?

    RAILWAY COMPANIES (SUMMER RETURN TICKETS).
    Mr. MAGNAYasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that it is not the practice of the railway companies to print the fares on summer return tickets; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have already been in communication with the railway companies on this point and I am glad to say that they have agreed that as and when monthly return tickets are reprinted, the fares will be indicated on them.

    ROYAL PARKS.
    Mr. MABANEasked the First Commissioner of Works whether Post Office vans are permitted to exceed the speed limit of 20 miles per hour in the Royal parks?
    Sir G. PENNY: The regulations allow of no exception to the speed limit of 20 miles an hour.
    Mr. MABANE: Is my hon. Friend aware that Post Office vans invariably exceed the speed limit, and will he ask his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works to draw the attention of the Postmaster-General to this regulation.
    Sir G. PENNY: The Post Office instruct their drivers to keep within the speed limits. If they have been exceeded, it is possible that the drivers belong to contractors.

    ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.
    Mr. DORANasked the Minister of Transport whether he will obtain from the Croydon Corporation a complete statement of moneys held by their electricity undertaking from the 5s. deposits from consumers; the amount of this

    1039
    money, or interest thereon, which has been returned to depositors and the amount by which the rates have benefited from this source of income; whether he will also inquire why consumers are only given 48 hours in which to pay their bills, failing which they are immediately cut off; and whether he will state the number of consumers who, having been cut off, have had to pay a further 5s. deposit, plus 2s. 6d. for working labour
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will with pleasure endeavour to ascertain how far the Corporation can supply my hon. Friend with the information he desires.
    Mr. BERNAYSasked the Minister of Transport whether, following on the recent failure of the system of electric supply in London, he will consider legislation making it compulsory for hospitals, theatres, and other public buildings to instal an emergency automatic system?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I understand that the licensing authority ordinarily make it a condition of the licence that in places of public entertainment there shall be a system of dual lighting. I would not feel justified at this moment in interfering with the discretion of hospitals, who being aware of their own needs, would naturally provide for them to the full extent of their economic resources.

  AGRICULTURE.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture when he expects to publish the annual returns of agricultural employment and of acreage devoted to various crops; and whether he can arrange with the Secretary of State for Scotland for the returns for England and Wales and Scotland, respectively, to be published in a combined document?
    Sir GEORGE BOWYER (Comptroller of the Household): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend hopes to publish the provisional statement of returns of agricultural employment, of crop acreages and of the numbers of livestock in England and Wales during the first week in August. As regards the second part of the question, he will consult with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and will communicate with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this statement will be available to hon. Members?
    Sir G. BOWYER: I will find out, as I am not certain.

    MILK MARKETING BOARDS (NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENTS).
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Minister of Agriculture the total amount spent on newspaper advertisements of milk by the Milk Marketing Boards; if such advertisements are in addition to the drink more milk campaign of his Department; and what is the total cost?
    Sir G. BOWYER: Under Section 11 of the Milk Act, 1934, half of the expenditure incurred by Milk Marketing Boards for a period of two years in carrying out approved arrangements for increasing the demand for milk, including the Milk-in-Schools Scheme, is met by grants from the Exchequer. Parliament provided £1 million for this purpose. My right hon. Friend has consulted with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland as to milk publicity activities undertaken by the Scottish Boards, and the general position is as follows. General publicity schemes which include press advertising have been inaugurated by the Scottish Milk Marketing Board, the Aberdeen and District Milk Marketing Board and the Milk Marketing Board for England and Wales, and particulars of these schemes were laid before Parliament on the 4th March, 1935, the 17th June, 1935, and the 20th June, 1935, respectively. Copies of these documents are being sent to my hon. Friend, from which he will see that the schemes as a whole are estimated to cost £17,000, £1,600 and £60,000 respectively, of which expenditure half will be met by Exchequer grants. It is estimated that of these sums £10,500, £800 and £42,000, respectively, will be spent on press advertising.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Are all these advertisements in the press for the purpose of endeavouring to get a friendly press, and is it not perfectly futile to advertise milk, which we drink all the year round and is not like stout, an acquired taste? The poor farmers have to pay the cost of all this nonsense.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Sir Cooper Rawson.

    AGRICULTURAL LAND (UTILISATION) ACT.
    Sir COOPER RAWSONasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider an amendment to Section 14 of the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act, 1931, and particularly Sub-section (2), in order that employed persons can enjoy the privileges of the Act in addition to unemployed and partly employed persons?
    Sir G. BOWYER: The amendment suggested would involve legislation which my right hon. Friend does not regard as practicable at the present time. I would remind my hon. Friend that while the Government decided, for reasons of economy, not to put the Act in question into operation, financial assistance to extend the cultivation of allotments is being provided through grants from the Commissioner for Special Areas as well as grants from the Development Fund to the Society of Friends.

    HIGH COURT JUDGES.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Attorney-General the present population of England and Wales per High Court judge and, for comparison, the figures for 1914 and for 1885?
    Sir G. PENNY: I have been asked to reply. As figures are involved, with my hon. Friend's permission I will circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As there was no general census taken in the years referred to in the question my right hon. and learned Friend has based the calculations on the nearest census figures.
    Following is the answer:

    —

    Number of Judges.

    Census Figures.

    Average.

    1881

    …

    25,974,439

    1,180,656

    1885

    …

    22

    1911

    …

    36,070,492

    1,502,937

    1914

    …

    24

    1931

    …

    39,947,931

    1,377,514

    1935

    …

    29

    DON DRAINAGE SCHEME.
    Mr. PALINGasked the Minister of Agriculture what progress is being made with the proposed Don drainage scheme; and what measures are being taken to
    1042
    protect the Bentley area from floods this coming winter?
    Sir G. BOWYER: Work is proceeding in connection with the improvement of the Lower Don. My right hon. Friend understands that three excavators are now at work and that a fourth will be added during August. Difficult questions have, however, arisen as to the best method of dealing with the outfall of the Don into the Ouse having regard to navigation interests, and the Catchment Board are obtaining further advice on this part of their proposals. The Catchment Board are also actively engaged upon the preparation of a scheme for the Upper Don and its tributaries. As regards the second part of the question, the bank which the Catchment Board erected last year is designed to protect Bentley from all ordinary floods, but the scheme for the Lower Don now proceeding is designed to cope with extraordinary floods.
    Mr. PALING: Is the hon. Member aware that in the opinion of the inhabitants of Bentley and the local experts who have examined the scheme, the arrangements made up to the present are totally inadequate?
    Sir G. BOWYER: I will convey what the hon. Member says to my right hon. Friend.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Sir C. RAWSONasked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. F. Smith, of 14, Dew Road, Brighton; and whether, as the medical examination by the Ministry alleges that the condition requiring treatment is so slight as not to necessitate any special treatment, although the man's own panel doctor describes him as being unable to follow his occupation, he will exercise his discretion in this case?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Delay occurred in dealing with this case in the first instance owing to confusion caused by an incomplete address on the mart's original application. The allowances which would otherwise have been paid during treatment have now I am glad to say been authorised.

    POST OFFICE (DELIVERIES, MANCHESTER).
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the Postmaster-General whether the postal deliveries in the Manchester area could be brought nearer to the times that were customary before the War, that is to say, earlier deliveries in the morning and later ones in the evening?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): The first deliveries in the Manchester area are made at approximately the same time as before the War. The final deliveries are completed within the normal hours of business. The establishment of a later evening delivery, which could not be confined to Manchester, would involve heavy cost and administrative inconvenience, and would not in, my opinion be warranted at the present time.
    Mr. CHORLTON: May I ask my hon. Friend whether an earlier delivery can be made than that which is at present made in the morning?

    SCOTLAND (HOUSING, KILSYTH).
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the position of the Kilsyth housing scheme; whether the houses already erected have been measured and the cost thereof ascertained; and whether they are all tenanted?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): As the reply is long and includes a number of figures, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    Fifty houses have been completed by the local authority of Kilsyth under the Housing Town Planning, etc. (Scotland) Act, 1919; 404 under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924; 130 under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, a total of 584, and all are occupied. Tenders were approved by the Department on 25th October, 1934, for a further 152 houses under the Act of 1930. None of these are yet completed and no measurements of them can yet be prepared. The measurements of the 50 houses under the Act of 1919 and of 106 under the Act of 1924 have been completed. Measurement of 136
    1044
    houses erected under the Act of 1924 is nearing completion; measurement of the remaining 162 houses under the Act of 1924 is in progress, and some measurements have been completed. The measurement of the 130 houses completed under the Act of 1930 is in progress. The local authority hope to receive the outstanding measurements at a very early date. The final cost is of course ascertained on the measurement.

    BRITISH ARMY RIFLE RANGE, WARRINGTON.
    Mr. GOLDIEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether arrangements have now been completed for the removal of the rifle range at the Peninsula Barracks, Warrington, to another site; and, if so, when it is anticipated that the necessary work will be commenced?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): Negotiations for an alternative site are nearing completion, and work will be begun so soon as the new site has been acquired.

    WESTERN AUSTRALIA (PETITION).
    Mr. DICKIEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the departure of the Western Australian delegation next week, arrangements could be made for the discussion of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Moreing) and other Members before the delegation leaves this country—
    "That the Petition of the people of Western Australia (as presented to this House on the 17th day of December, 1934, and on that date ordered to lie upon the Table) and the Report of the Joint Select Committee thereon (House of Commons Paper No. 88) be considered by this House, with a view to taking a decision of the House as to whether it will receive or not receive the said Petition, or make such other order thereon as the House may deem fit."
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I regret that owing to the pressure of public business I cannot undertake to make special arrangements, as suggested by my hon. Friend, for the discussion of the Motion standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Moreing) and other Members. The subject matter was discussed on the Motion for the Adjournment on the 20th June.
    Mr. DICKIE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, having regard to the length of time that this delegation has been in this country, it is very unfortunate that the members should be compelled to return to Australia without having had their grievances discussed on the Floor of this House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The matter can be raised on the Appropriation Bill.
    Mr. DICKIEasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will issue as a White Paper all the correspondence between the Dominions Office and the Western Australian and Commonwealth of Australia authorities and other relevant papers in connection with the Western Australian Secession Petition?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I have examined again the correspondence which has passed between the Dominions Office and the Western Australian authorities on the subject of the Western Australian secession petition, and I do not consider that the correspondence, which for the most part relates to questions of procedure, is of sufficient general interest to justify me in arranging for its presentation to the House as a Command Paper. I shall, however, be happy to arrange for a copy of the principal correspondence to be placed in the Library of the House if the hon. Member so desires. I should perhaps add that there has been no correspondence on this subject between the Dominions Office and the Commonwealth of Australia authorities, except that the information given to the Western Australian authorities on various questions connected with Parliamentary procedure was also supplied to the Commonwealth authorities.
    Mr. DICKIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the members of this delegation has expressed the view that the opinion expressed by the Select Committee is in, direct contradiction to the opinion expressed by the Imperial authorities prior to the delegation leaving Western Australia, and, in view of that very important fact, will he reconsider his decision?
    Mr. THOMAS: Surely the very fact that I am agreeing to place a copy of the principal correspondence in the Library of the House gives every Member an
    1046
    opportunity of seeing it, and there will be no occasion to incur the expenditure of publishing it as a Command Paper. I am aware of the statement of this member of the delegation, and it reflects not on the Government, but on the House of Commons, because in that statement it assumes that the Committee that examined the petition were nominees of the Government. They were not.
    Mr. WISE: Seeing that this is still the Imperial Parliament, why has there been no correspondence between the Dominions Office and the Commonwealth Government on this subject?
    Mr. THOMAS: My hon. Friend surely misunderstands the situation. The first people concerned would be the Western Australian Government. The position of the Dominions Office in the matter has been often stated. It is not for us to intervene as between a State and the Commonwealth. They presented their petition, and we gave them every opportunity for that petition to be considered in the proper way. The Dominions Office was not and will not be drawn into a purely Australian controversy on this matter.

    BEDDINGTON SEWAGE SCHEME.
    Mr. DORANasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that similar insanitary conditions as experienced in 1934, emanating from the Beddington sewage works, are now recurring in the Mitcham, Beddington and West Croydon areas, and during the recent hot weather it was impossible for the residents to frequent the commons in these respective districts owing to the prevalence of very offensive odours; and whether in view of the failure of the interim measures taken by the Croydon Corporation, he will use every means in his power to put an end to this nuisance?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend has arranged for an inspector to visit these works to-day in order to examine the conditions.
    Mr. DORAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Croydon Corporation is very much like a wheelbarrow; it is only useful when it is pushed?

    TRADE AND COMMERCE (EXPORTS AND IMPORTS).
    Sir P. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the value per head of population of the exports of United Kingdom produce for the year 1934?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): The value of the exports of the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom per head of the population during the year 1934 was £8 9s. 8d.
    Sir W. BRASS: Can the hon. Member say on what basis of population that is worked out. Is it based on this year's population or on the last census?
    Dr. BURGIN: The information I have is based on the value per head of the population. I suppose it is on the official calculation of population.
    Sir P. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what was the value of our exports in 1934 to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and India, respectively, and the values of our imports from each of these countries;
    (2) what was the value of our exports in 1934 to Germany, France, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, respectively, and the values of our imports from each of these countries?
    Dr. BURGIN: The desired information is given on pages 182 to 192 of the Trade and Navigation Accounts for January last.

    COAL INDUSTRY (WAYLEAVES, CONSETT).
    Mr. DICKIEasked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the Court of Appeal decision in the Consett wayleave case; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce amending legislation to make the intention of Parliament clear on this point?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): Yes, Sir, and I cannot at the moment add anything to the answer given by my predecessor in office to a question by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) on the 8th April, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. DICKIE: In view of the very serious burden imposed on the industry by these grossly excessive wayleave charges, and their effect on unemployment, do not the Government consider that this is a matter for immediate action?

    ANIMAL EXHIBITIONS.
    Mr. JOHN LOCKWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the cruelty caused to animals which are exhibited in menageries and alleged fun fairs for private profit; and whether, in view of the distress caused to animal lovers, he will take such steps as are necessary, by legislation or otherwise, to stop such exhibitions?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Euan Wallace): No cases of the kind suggested in my hon. Friend's question have been brought to the notice of my Department. The Protection of Animals Act, 1911, already provides substantial penalties for cruelty of this nature; and the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act, 1925, gives power to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, on proof of cruelty, to prohibit the training or exhibition of performing animals, or to impose conditions in relation to it. My right hon. Friend accordingly sees no ground for proposing additional legislation.
    Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Is the hon. Member aware that there is something approaching cruelty in keeping large animals in very small travelling cages?
    Captain WALLACE: My hon. Friend will realise that if cruelty is proved there are substantial penalties for dealing with it. For that reason, there is no ground for passing additional legislation.
    Mr. NICHOLSON: Surely that is begging the question.

    MOTOR SPIRIT (ALCOHOL).
    Mr. MALLALIEUasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the £30,000 loss of revenue due to the exemption from tax of alcohol used as motor spirit is attributable to alcohol manufactured from imported material?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): The hon. Member has already been informed that the official statistics do not distinguish between spirits distilled from imported molasses 'and spirits distilled from home-produced molasses.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    TINPLATE MILLS, WEST WALES (OUTPUT QUOTA TRANSFER).
    Mr. R. T. EVANSasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the firm of Messrs. Richard Thomas has decided to erect tinplate mills at Redbourne, Lincolnshire, and that it is proposed to transfer to these new works the output quotas now allotted to the firm's existing mills in West Wales; and what steps he is taking to prevent a transference that would contribute to creating in that district a new special area?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): The only reliable information on this subject is that contained in the statement made by the chairman of this company at its annual meeting on 15th July. I can assure the hon. Member that the Government appreciate the significance of such a development, but in view of the many considerations involved, the hon. Member will not expect me at the moment to make any statement on the subject.
    Mr. EVANS: While thanking the hon. and gallant Member for his reply, will he give a definite assurance that the Government are not going to remain dumb witnesses of this tragedy?
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: Is the Minister aware that the Government have the trump card, that they can recommend to the advisory committee that the tariff be withdrawn, and that will put an end to this ramp of the monopolists?
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Can the Minister say whether the putting into effect of the proposition in the question would result in an increased demand for metallic tin?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The answer to the three supplementary questions is covered by my original answer. We do recognise the difficulties, but I cannot make a statement at the moment.

    INSURANCE INDUSTRY UNEMPLOYMENT BOARD.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the insurance industry unemployment board has entered into an arrangement with employers in insurance offices, whereby the history of an applicant for employment through the board is secured and supplied privately to prospective employers; and under what authority this is done?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The special scheme of unemployment insurance for the insurance industry, which has been made and approved under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, provides that the affairs of the scheme shall be administered by a Board composed of equal numbers of representatives of employers and workers in the industry and that, inter alia, the Board shall have an organisation for finding employment for members of the industry who are unemployed. The hon. Member will appreciate that employers in the insurance industry before engaging staff require information from the Board regarding the applicant's previous periods of employment in the industry and the giving of this information is an essential part of the efficient working of the scheme.
    Mr. DAVIES: Is the Minister aware that the Unemployment Board referred to in the question is using information that would not be used in the ordinary employment exchange, and how comes it that this Board is entitled to find cut the history of an applicant for work when the same rule does not apply to the ordinary unemployed person outside the insurance industry?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The position of the insurance industry is a question for the special Board set up to deal with insurance employés, and we have no reason to believe that the Board is not acting strictly within its power and simply utilising information which must be utilised in order to fulfil part of its duty, namely, that of finding work for insurance employés.
    Mr. DAVIES: Will the Minister be good enough to answer the last part of my question. What is the specific authority that this Board possesses to do

    1051
    what cannot be done in regard to an ordinary unemployed person outside the insurance industry?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The Board has authority, among other things, to undertake work in connection with finding jobs for unemployed members of the industry and acting within that authority it is supplying information to employers who wish to engage employés, and to employés who wish to be engaged.

    MEMEL.
    Mr. COCKS (for Mr. COVE)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps have been taken to regularise the situation in Memel?
    Sir S. HOARE: His Majesty's Government have been in communication with the French and Italian Governments on this subject and matters have now advanced to a stage at which I am hopeful of an improvement in the situation in Memel.

    COST OF LIVING INDEX.
    Captain STRICKLAND (for Mr. H. WILLIAMS)asked the Minister of Labour whether he will institute an inquiry into the cost of living of the working classes, with a view to the establishment of a new basis of the index number of the cost of living?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: An inquiry for this purpose would necessarily involve a new collection of working-class family budgets. In view of the recent appointment of an Advisory Committee to inquire into the facts in relation to the diet of the people and to report as to any changes therein which appear desirable, my right hon. Friend proposes to defer a decision on this matter until the Committee have had an opportunity to present a report with regard to the first part of their terms of reference.

BILLS REPORTED.
  HALIFAX EXTENSION BILL [Lords].
  Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (CROYDON) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed].
  Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (EASTBOURNE) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed].
  Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HARROGATE) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed].
  Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HUNTINGDON) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed].
  Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (METROPOLIS WATER) BILL [Lords]
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed].
  Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MORLEY) BILL [Lords]
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed].
  Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

  ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S HOSPITAL BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

  WEYMOUTH WATERWORKS BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

  CAMBORNE WATER BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill to be read the Third time.

  POOLE ROAD TRANSPORT BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Housing Bill,
Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill,
Easington Rural District Council Bill,
Derwent Valley Water Board Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
University of Durham Bill [Lords,] without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Assurance Companies (Winding up) Act, 1933." [Assurance Companies (Winding up) Bill [Lords.]
And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the law with respect to the enforcement by justices of the peace of the payment of money due by virtue of convictions of courts of summary jurisdiction or of orders in matters of bastardy or enforceable as affiliation orders, or due in respect of rates; and to make provision with respect to the mode of proof in certain proceedings before justices of the payment of wages." [Money Payments (Justices Procedure) Bill [Lords.]

HOUSING BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 114.]
ASSURANCE COMPANIES (WINDING UP) BILL [Lords.]
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 115.]
MONEY PAYMENTS (JUSTICES PROCEDURE) BILL [Lords]
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 116.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [15TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £14,416,840 (including a Supplementary sum of £314,800), 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, 1936, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Health; including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, certain Grants to Local Authorities, etc., Grants in Aid in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts; certain Expenses in connection with the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts, and other Services." [NOTE.—£6,000,000 has been voted on account.]
  3.40 p.m.
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): In presenting these Estimates the Committee, I hope, will permit me to make one personal observation. I know that hon. Members will make due allowance for the fact that I have only been in my present office for a few weeks—
  Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: You are an old hand.
  Sir K. WOOD: It is perfectly true that I have had some acquaintance with the office previously, and it certainly has been a varied and interesting one. I can claim that in my old associations with the Ministry I have not shown any partiality. I had first the honour of accepting the invitation of the right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison), who was the first Minister of Health, to be his Parliamentary Private Secretary, and when I write my book I shall be able to insert an intriguing chapter on that period, particularly if I add to it my experience when I acted in a similar capacity to his successor, the late Lord Melchett, who had a somewhat more frugal policy. Later I became Parliamentary Secretary in the spacious days when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was Minister of Health, and
  1060
  later still I had the privilege of regularly sitting opposite, if not of sitting under, the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) when he was Minister of Health to my great pleasure and profit. I have one great advantage to-day, that in beginning my work I am able to build upon the sure and substantial foundations laid by my immediate predecessor, Sir Hilton Young.
  Before entering on a review of the work of the Ministry of Health which is appropriate to such an occasion as this, may I say a few words about the Estimates themselves. Hon. Members will see that we are seeking approval for a total net, estimate of £20,102,000, an increase of £313,000 on last year. A great part of the increase, about £133,000, is due to the steady increase in housing grants which is accounted for chiefly by the increased activities of local authorities on slum clearance work. The only other increase, apart from a small increase in miscellaneous grants, is an increase of £58,000 in the cost of administration. That is due to the cost of the extra staff required in connection with slum clearance, town planning and rural water supplies, the normal increments in salaries, offset by savings on retirements, etc., and provision for a full year instead of nine months for the partial restoration of the cuts made in the remuneration of Ministers and civil servants in 1931. If hon. Members have any questions to raise on any points arising out of the Estimates, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be happy to reply to them.
  The Ministry of Health Estimates are generally the occasion for a review of the health affairs of the nation, with particular reference to many of our immediate problems and the policy and methods of administration with which we are endeavouring to surmount them. It may not be inappropriate in this Jubilee year to review briefly some of the main developments of the last 25 years, especially as we can draw many lessons and considerable guidance from the experience and efforts during that period. During these years there have, of course, been setbacks, disappointments and failures, but probably never in a single generation have there been such advances and improvements relating to the preservation of life and the health of our people. It is perfectly true that

  1061
  there is no occasion for complacency, but what has been done during the last 25 years certainly encourages us in further active endeavour. During that quarter of a century medical science and surgery, for instance, have undoubtedly greatly advanced, there have been wise investments of large sums of money, and a considerable contribution has been made by all political parties in the State in placing on the Statute Book great measures of amelioration and reform. In fact, during the 25 years no less than 100 Acts of Parliament have been placed on the Statute Book.
  But above all in my judgment the great thing to note has been the awakening of the national conscience on health and housing affairs. There has undoubtedly been a widening of human compassion and the co-operative spirit. The nation itself has learned, and is learning to-day, in many ways the supreme art of right living. We are showing greater common sense in health matters, in clothing, dietary, and in the increasing use of daylight, open air, leisure and recreation, with the result that to many people in this country life is becoming longer and better—the greatest gift that civilisation can give. In 1910, for instance, the death-rate for all ages in England and Wales was 13.5 per thousand persons and 95,000 infants died under one year of age. Last year the total death-rate had fallen to 11.8, and the loss of infant lives under one year of age was reduced to 35,000, the lowest infant mortality rate on record. It is estimated that when Queen Victoria came to the throne the English boy child at birth had an expectation of 40 years of life. In the eighties it had risen to 44, and in 1910 to 51. In 1932, a generation later, it was 59. The growth of knowledge in medicine and surgery through all that period has been continuous. Typhoid fever, for instance, has been brought under control; it was at one time the scourge of nations and armies. Another great triumph was the discovery of insulin in 1922 which revolutionised the treatment of diabetes.
  Orthopaedic surgery is preventing the onset of cripping and treating cripples with new knowledge and by new methods. Indeed the cripple, to a large extent, has been eliminated from the modern world. Fresh and great discoveries have been recorded in connection with
  1062
  neurology and heart disease and in many other branches of medicine and I do not think it can be any exaggeration to say that never has medicine made such strides as in the last 25 years. It is true, of course, that science has yet many fields to conquer in the treatment of disease. That dread enemy of mankind, cancer, is still with us and accounted for some 60,000 deaths last year. Research, I am glad to say, is increasing and we have fresh hopes to-day that with the increasing employment of radium and X-ray therapy, something further may be done. A less malignant enemy, though regarded by many as Public Health Enemy No. 1, is the common cold. I hope that during the next decade, at any rate, medical men like the right hon. Gentleman who is sitting opposite to me, instead of warning the sufferer from the common cold to go to bed and stay there for some indefinite time, will find some sort of instant cure. The discoverer of such a cure will be well entitled to any honour that can be conferred upon him.
  The creation of the scheme of National Health Insurance has been one of the most remarkable developments in public health during the last 25 years and the figures to-day show its extraordinary magnitude. The value of the benefits disbursed since 1911 is £480,000,000. In the last 10 years over £150,000,000 has been disbursed on the statutory sickness and maternity benefits and over £90,000,000 in medical benefits. The scheme has successfully survived the great strains of the European War and the prolonged depression and unemployment of recent years. It is true that it has been found necessary to underpin the scheme and to take steps to preserve its actuarial solvency. But it has stood the test of three valuations and in the result it has been found practicable to extend a total of £53,000,000 in additional benefits. Of this large sum no less than £27,000,000 has been devoted to supplementing cash benefits and over £26,000,000 to benefits of a medical character, while £20,000,000 has been devoted to dental benefit alone. It is, I think, something upon which we can pride ourselves in this country—particularly the author of the scheme and all who have amended the scheme from time to time—that our national insurance system has now been adopted by 12 other countries from Norway in the North, to Japan in the East. Many representatives

  1063
  from those countries have come here to learn from our experience.
  Another scheme of the first order of importance to the well-being of our people has been created during the last quarter of a century. I refer to the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Pensions scheme. The provisions of this scheme have been steadily expanding and they now include 600,000 old age pensioners between the ages of 65 and 70 and another 600,000 widows' pensions, supplemented by 270,000 additional allowances in respect of children and 15,000 orphans' pensions. In fact, the total amount expended on pensions under the Contributory Pensions Act to the end of the last complete year in our accounts has been over £232,000,000. In addition, over £103,000,000 has been paid since 1926 by way of old age pensions to persons over 70, free from restrictions as to means.
  I could refer to many other Measures like the great Local Government Act, which finally divorced health provision from the Poor Law. It cannot be doubted that no other country in the world has made such provision as we have made to protect many millions of our people against some of the most serious disabilities of life such as sickness, unemployment, widowhood, orphanhood and old age. Having said that, I am bound to add that I am one of those who believe that although much has been accomplished much remains to be attained. There is, for instance, a matter to which I would like to refer because I know it is of considerable interest to everybody in this Committee and that is the unsolved problem of the unreduced maternal mortality rate. I do not believe that we need be defeatist about it, but it is a great blot on our national health record. The fact that these rates show no decline has been a matter of deep concern to my predecessors in office as it is to me. I think it is a matter of real and national concern that, while we have been successful in solving or in helping to solve so many other health problems, while we are in so many respects a healthier race, yet too often the price paid by those who give us life is death, or pain and ill-health, or lifelong disability. It is a complex problem. Its solution will require patience, constant research and active endeavour. The Departmental
  1064
  Committee which reported in 1932 inquired into the circumstances of nearly 6,000 maternal deaths and their report suggests that at least one-half of the deaths resulting from childbirth might be prevented.
  There is another factor which I would like to bring before the Committee and that is the incidence of the maternal mortality rate as between one area in the country and another. In West Ham, a poor borough with a population of over 280,000, the maternal mortality rate over the ten-year period 1924 to 1933 was 2.48 per 1,000 births. In Nottingham, a borough which is much better off in many respects and with practically the same population, it was 3.74. In Westminster, it was 5.63; in Marylebone 3.78; in Kensington 3.51; in Hampstead 3.48 and in Poplar 2.63. Many efforts have been made by those responsible for maternity and child welfare services to deal with this problem. There has been no relaxation of their work on financial or other grounds and it is interesting to note—not in order to be complacent but in order to observe the position fairly—what has been accomplished in the last three years. The number of visits paid by health visitors to expectant mothers shows an increase of 60,000, 240 more ante-natal clinics were provided and the number of women who attended those clinics rose by 49,000. The total number of attendances rose by 242,000, and the total number of women admitted to maternity beds in institutions provided or subsidised by local authorities rose by 29,000.
  My comment on all that is that we must go on vigorously with this work. It is essential that there should be continuous and concentrated effort, and particularly to improve, wherever necessary, the maternity services of local authorities. Another thing upon which I would like to comment, I hope with general acceptance, is that we should constantly encourage women to take advantage of these services, and, above all—and this is a matter to which I myself attach particular importance—that we should persevere in the investigation of the causation of maternal mortality by intensive inquiries, not only in the areas where the rate is the highest, but in other areas, with a view to obtaining data for comparative purposes. I am glad to tell the Committee this afternoon that special inquiries are now proceeding

  1065
  by medical officers of my Department, with the assistance of a distinguished specialist. They are being held in a number of counties and county boroughs in England and Wales, and I have great hopes that when the results of these investigations have been completed and collated, we shall have material which will enable us to understand and deal much more effectively with this difficult problem. There is also an important report of the Joint Council of Midwifery, the financial and administrative details of which are now being considered by my Department, and also by the various associations of local authorities. I attach great importance to the midwifery service, and to the work of the midwives, who attend approximately 60 per cent. of the confinements in this country. Fresh legislation would be required for any new scheme, and therefore it is not possible further to discuss this aspect of the matter to-day. I think, at any rate, this can be said, that the remuneration of midwives in this country is very low, and that the poor pay and prospects of the profession inevitably react on the quality of its entrants, and also on the efficiency of the midwives' work and the status of the profession generally.
  I have only one other subject to deal with this afternoon, and that is a subject about which, I know, the Committee will desire me to say a few words. It is the position of housing, one of the most important factors in building up an A.1 nation. This country has had to pay bitterly in the past for neglect and absence of foresight in many of our building operations. Houses have been erected which hardly deserve the name of homes. Many have ruined the amenities of the neighbourhood for want of control and matters of that kind. This generation, I believe, is learning from the lessons of the past. It has certainly set its heart and mind not only on more and better houses, but on the clearance of the slums in the next few years—one of the greatest contributions which this generation could make to produce a healthier nation. The cost is, of course, the most important factor in the housing situation, but I think it is a real duty upon everybody concerned to see that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past, and particularly that we should plan our developments, especially in our rapidly growing districts.
  1066
  Having said that, I may say that since the Armistice no country has made such a contribution to better housing conditions as we have done. We are overtaking the housing shortage at a rate never before approached, and, so far as the building industry itself is concerned, there is a steadily increasing volume of employment on a scale which has never yet been exceeded. I would like to give the Committee the latest figures. Since the Armistice, up to the end of March last, 2,670,000 new houses have been provided, and I would make this observation in passing that, at any rate, compared with a quarter of a century ago the housing standards have greatly improved, and the bulk of the new housing, which has been on new estates in the neighbourhood of towns, has been planned and developed on sound lines. A good many people questioned this in days gone by. They said, "If you put these people into these houses, they will soon turn them into slums again." I would say, from my own personal observations, that these new houses have been greatly appreciated by their occupants, who have shown a real pride in them. I was at Middlesbrough a few days ago, and was shown new houses where people had come from very bad conditions indeed, and one of the most gratifying things was to see the care and pride which the people had in those houses. Obviously, there are people in every section of the community who abuse what they receive, but I think, speaking of the great majority of new houses, the occupants have shown a great appreciation of their new conditions, and, from the point of view of the children, it is impossible to over-estimate the value of the work which has been done.
  Of that great total of 2,670,000 new houses, 1,425,000 have been provided by non-subsidised private industry, and during the four years ended 31st March, 1935, in England and Wales approximately 1,000,000 new houses have been built. That is worthy of a poster. It is a record which is all the more remarkable when compared with the 127,000 houses which marked the peak year output before the War, when the population was increasing more rapidly than at the present time. The number of new houses built in the year ended March last was 327,000—another record in the history of this country. Local authorities have

  1067
  also been enabled to concentrate on special housing needs which cannot be met in the ordinary way without subsidy, and, in the result, apart from the unexampled progress in new house building, there has been a record progress in the clearance of the slums. Again, I am able to give the Committee new figures for the first six months of 1935. New houses for slum replacement have been sanctioned at the rate of over 6,000 a month in England and Wales, and at the end of June nearly 100,000 houses had been approved for this purpose, of which some 50,000, sufficient for about 240,000 persons, have already been completed. This is a great beginning of better things, especially when it is remembered that during the years 1875 to 1933 only 200,000 persons living in slum houses had been rehoused in all that long period. I need hardly say, because everyone in the Committee knows it, that there is further work still for the local authorities in the construction of new dwellings for families living in overcrowded conditions, in accordance with the proposals now before Parliament which, I hope, will shortly be on the Statute Book.
  I have only one further observation to make so far as housing is concerned, on a point on which, I anticipate the right hon. Gentleman will say something this afternoon, and I always follow what he says with the greatest possible interest. It is sometimes contended that all these efforts have made only a minor contribution towards the provision of dwellings for the lower-paid workers, but, in fact, of the total of some 1,000,000 new houses provided in England and Wales by the industry from March, 1931, to March, 1935, nearly 90 per cent. were under £26 per annum rateable value in the provinces and £35 in London. Unsibsidised house-building since it has been resumed has spread downwards from the relatively more expensive house to the relatively less expensive house, and it has certainly enabled a most substantial contribution to be made to the provision of houses within the means of large classes of wage-earners, especially the black-coated workers, whose needs have too often been neglected by all parties in this country. The building industry, in fact, during the last three years, has been producing houses, of
  1068
  which a very great proportion are houses of a relatively small size, at an average rate of, approximately, 260,000 a year, and in the result the total housing accommodation available has been largely increased. It has made a powerful contribution to the general relief of overcrowding, and it is also plain that the removal of people to the new houses has resulted in the provision of better accommodation within the means of other large sections of the community.
  It is appropriate that this year I should refer to another event of some importance. This year we have to record 100 years of local government, inasmuch as it was in 1835 that the great local government reforms were initiated. Local government touches the life of our people at every point. It is a living and moving organism, and, as the "Times" point out in their article to-day,
  "the foundations of our modern system of local government were well and truly laid a century ago."
  It has some defects, like all human institutions, and it sometimes acts slowly; and the process of adapting it to the needs of our people must always be a continuous one. But it is a great and valuable part of our democratic system. Many parts of the world to-day have their national dictators who, in their turn, appoint as their instruments local petty dictators with whole districts without a voice, or a right, or a vote concerning their local affairs, and, in my judgment, in many respects those men are the worst tyrants of all. Instead, in this country during the last 25 years, we have seen the duties and responsibilities of our authorities greatly extended. This House often places upon them difficult and sometimes unpleasant tasks, and the men and women who administer them—and the highly qualified officers who man them—do not get much of the limelight. Honours for them are few; their work is voluntary and in many cases very heavy. The Committee will, I know, in all quarters desire on this occasion to testify to and record its appreciation of their many services to their localities and, through those localities, to the State.
  In returning to the Ministry of Health and in endeavouring to refer to some of its work to-day, one cannot be unmindful of its extent or responsibilities. It has been impossible to refer to more than a small number of the many duties which

  1069
  are entrusted to it, affecting so intimately the lives and happiness of our people, but I am encouraged in my new task not only by the considerable contributions to national health progress that have been made by my predecessors in office, but by the belief that in this great Department there is a powerful instrument which is capable of still greater things. I believe also that, while we may differ in many ways, we are united in the desire to use the vast resources of modern civilisation in the cause of humanity and in the common weal.
  4.17 p.m.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
  May I at the outset welcome the right hon. Gentleman to the post which he now occupies? In the very mysterious transmogrification for which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was responsible a few weeks ago, I think no change was more welcome than that which brought the right hon. Gentleman back to the Ministry of Health. He and I have engaged in wordy warfare on many occasions, and I have no doubt we shall do so again in the immediate future. I feel that it is like a return to the good old times, for which hon. Members opposite have such an affection, but I think that in all quarters of the House we feel that the Government have not weakened themselves but, on the other hand, have perhaps strengthened themselves by the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman as Minister of Health. He has such a long association with the Ministry of Health, from its very early days, that we associate him with it rather more than with the Post Office, and I think it is good that he should now have emerged from the cloistered security of the Post Office to the fierce limelight of the Ministry of Health, because he revels in limelight of that kind and can indeed produce limelight for the National Government. I say, in all sincerity, that we are very glad to have the right hon. Gentleman's genial presence among us in a fighting Department and rescued from the relative obscurity of the Post Office, which, however, he has done a good deal to advertise.
  The right hon. Gentleman has been very careful to avoid any kind of statement as to what the National Government have done in the last four years.
  1070
  I do not blame him. He is not going to pretend to this Committee, or anyhow to me, that he is a new Minister and has not had time to marshal the facts, because he knows all about them. The truth is that there really is not very much to say about the Ministry of Health during the past four years, and, therefore, he has been driven to a 25 years' review of the health of the people, and I suppose that will appear on a poster as having been due to the National Goverment. It is true, and I think the nation as a whole should be proud of the fact, that in the last 25 years, in the last 10 years, there has been a very substantial improvement in the standard of the health of the people. The expectation of life has increased, the death-rate has diminished, and infant mortality has been reduced in the nation as a whole very considerably, but it is worth while pointing out in this connection that that progress has been due in the main to the public services and to people who do not work primarily for private profit. I think we ought to put that on record, and had this been a profit-making industry, I am not so sure that the improvement would have been as considerable as it has been in the last 25 years. It is, however, a matter for satisfaction among us all that the health of the people has improved, though, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, we are still faced with very difficult problems and with certain diseases which, as yet, we have not been able to master.The right hon. Gentleman dealt with various aspects of the work of his Department, and I was very interested to hear what he said about the National Health Insurance Acts. I was not in Parliament when the first of those Acts was passed, but it falls within the 25 years, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman referred to it. I am bound to remind the Committee that, though I personally was an opponent of the National Health Insurance Act when it was first introduced, because I felt that it would give us two rival health services, which, in fact, it has done, it was the Conservative party which put up the bitterest opposition to any scheme of national health insurance.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Not all of them.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The Noble Lady really must not interfere about things which happened when she was not even a resident of this country.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Look here.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I refuse to look there.
  Viscountess ASTOR: I only want—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way, the Noble Lady must remain seated.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I am simply recording a historical fact, and I am very glad to know that the right hon. Gentleman, who has had, perhaps, more continuous experience of the National Health Insurance Acts than anybody in this House, is now able to testify as to the value of that particular legislation. Before I refer to other points, I would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that he had nothing whatever to say about the Poor Law. In my somewhat short experience of this House something has generally been said about the Poor Law. As I say, the right, hon. Gentleman cannot complain if I say that he is not new to this business and that he must know something about the Poor Law situation. It is, I think, a little unfortunate that he did not try to explain why the National Government, of which he has been a Member now for nearly four years, has left him and the local authorities with the responsibility for so many more people on the Poor Law—more than half-a-million. I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have explained why it was that in this time of increasing prosperity and improving health there are more destitute people for whom he has to answer in this House than there were four years ago.
  I am also surprised that he made no reference whatever to a problem which is exercising the minds, not merely of the medical profession, but of the public, the question of malnutrition. I am not going to speak on this question, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) can speak on it with a good deal greater authority than I can, but I merely wish at this stage to remark that, while this problem is a living problem at the present time, the Minister of Health did not see fit to
  1072
  make a single remark about it. It is undoubtedly true that there are people who feel that this problem is one which indicates the existence, or the possible existence, of physical deterioration among our people. For four years the National Government have presented the case in such a way as to attempt to convince the people that for the poor poverty is really better than prosperity, that the poorer they are the less malnutrition there is. Indeed, that is really the logic of their case, but malnutrition is one of those subtle and creeping diseases, the effects of which are not immediately seen, but from which a subsequent generation may very seriously suffer. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with that problem to-day, though no doubt after my right hon. Friend has spoken, the Parliamentary Secretary will be prepared to take up the cudgels.
  On the question of maternal mortality we have had many speeches in this House. I do not remember an occasion like this when the Minister of Health for the time being has not referred to this very difficult and stubborn problem. It is not an easy problem, as the right hon. Gentleman has explained, and it is to be hoped that he will, as he said, go on vigorously with proposals which will do something to cope with it. I am bound to say that a certain conclusion emerges from what the right hon. Gentleman said. He referred to the City of Westminster, of which I happen to be a ratepayer, and said that its maternal death-rate was much higher than that of West Ham and Poplar. It may not be an accident that the lower maternal mortality in West Ham and Poplar is due to the activities of the public health service; it may be due to the fact that they have been prepared to spend money in the interests of human life which other and far richer local authorities have refused to spend. We have heard of many fruits of Poplarism, and we understand that the Lord President of the Council is going on a campaign in the country to denounce Poplarism. Well, I hope he will denounce the reduced maternal mortality in the borough of Poplar.
  Mrs. TATE: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of large sums of money spent on dealing with maternal mortality

  1073
  reducing the death-rate. Will he explain how it is that in the borough of Willesden, where the entire maternity service has been recommended by the General Medical Council, the rate is still so very high, although more money has been spent there than perhaps anywhere else on that service?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I think the answer is that the scheme of the Willesden Urban District Council is a relatively new scheme, but what we are dealing with in the case of West Ham and Poplar is deep-seated Poplarism that has been there for a generation, and this problem is one which will take time to solve. Those authorities which have been condemned for their extravagance have at least something to their credit, and that is the saving of human life.
  The right hon. Gentleman dealt with the question of housing, and it is to that question that I wish particularly to address myself. I want the right hon. Gentleman as the Government's chief billposter to compare what he has said on his posters with what he can defend as Minister of Health. I want the right hon. Gentleman, as the unofficial Minister for propaganda, who has done so much to promote the well-being of the printing industry, to square his statements with what are the actual facts about the housing situation. Most of the Government posters are extremely dishonest, not merely for what they say, but for what they do not say. They have covered up an earlier poster by the issue of a new one. The earlier poster used the word "record" about five times, and one statement said "record number of houses built." The implication of that statement is that this was directly due to the efforts of the National Government. It does not mean anything if that is not the implication.
  The right hon. Gentleman has quoted figures about the number of houses built since the War. Those figures, of course, cannot be questioned. It is undoubtedly true that since the War we have built in this country something over 2,500,000 houses. Roughly about a half have been built with State assistance, either by local authorities or private builders, and half have been built without State assistance. It is also, I think, equally undeniable that the half that have been built with-
  1074
  out State assistance have not been built for the people who need houses most. They have not been built for working-class people and have not been houses to let. I am not going to deny that private builders have made a contribution to the solution of this problem, but they have been less concerned to deal with the problem which has faced this House since the War than they have been to build houses which they could sell. They have done that on a very large scale. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the slums. The jerry builders of to-day are building houses which will be a disgrace to this country ten years from now. This private enterprise, which is now defiling the outskirts of our great cities, has been carried on in the areas of small local authorities with no strength of character to face it but who have permitted in their own interest, from the point of view of rateable value, jerry builders to build houses which no Member of the House would dare to defend in ten years from now.
  I am especially concerned this afternoon about the problem which has been stated from that Box ever since the War by every Minister of Health, except the frugal one to whom the right hon. Gentleman, referred, namely, the late Lord Melchett, who was not there to produce houses, but to liquidate the scheme left by my right hon. Friend. Every Minister has said in identical terms what the problem was, namely, that of building working-class houses to let at rents within the capacity of working-class incomes. That is the problem with which the Government were faced when they came into office. What was their contribution to that question? Their first contribution was to utilise the financial instability which has been talked about by all the newspapers to bully the local authorities into suspending their house-building programmes. They succeeded to a considerable extent. Where local authorities were insistent, the Minister of Health very reluctantly allowed them to go on with a modified programme provided that decent standards were sacrificed to cheapness. Houses that have been built during the time of the National Government will not bear comparison as regards standards with the houses that were built before. That is one of the debits which will have to be put in the ledger when we are trying to make up a balance-sheet of the

  1075
  efforts of this National Government. That was not all. They butchered a special Act of Parliament to deal with rural housing. The hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) may be able to speak later and put his own particular gloss upon it.
  Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: There is no need to do it. I have dealt with the matter already, and I have never had an answer from hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I have put the facts before, and I will put them again. Parliament agreed in 1931 to the building of an additional 40,000 rural cottages with a State subsidy of £2,000,000. The present Government never took any steps whatever to implement that Act. If they did, let the Parliamentary Secretary say so when he replies. I say that the Government took no steps. They let that Act die, and they did it on the instructions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it would mean £2,000,000 with which to help to balance the Budget. Out of the 40,000 houses planned, the Government have built about 2,000. These are the facts, and they are undeniable, and, if the hon. Member for St. Albans has an explanation which is unknown to me, I should be glad to have it.
  The present Government went back on what every Government since the War felt it was essential to do. It abolished the subsidy under the Act of 1924. We have had various Acts; and ever since the War it was felt by every Government that if local authorities were to be used—and it was felt that they had to be used—to deal with the problem of working-class houses, some State subsidy was necessary. The Government scrapped the Wheatley Act and did their best to put out of existence a public service which local authorities had developed in the 15 years since the War to deal with this problem in the interests of the public and not in the interests of private speculators or the jerry builders. They instituted instead a fatuous scheme of guarantees to the building societies. When that measure was before the House, I remember pointing out, and many of my hon. Friends pointed out, that the result would be purely negligible. The right hon. Gentleman's 25 years' review precluded him from dealing with what the Government
  1076
  have done, and he did not refer to these facts. Up to the 31st March this year the total number of houses in respect of which guarantees have been given by local authorities under that scheme was 5,537. And they destroyed the building of 60,000 houses a year by local authorities by the withdrawal of the subsidy.
  This year, having withdrawn the Wheatley subsidy, and having seen the utter futility and failure of their housing legislation, the Government invent a new kind of housing problem and call it overcrowding. I do not wish to go back to that. I explained at the time that the housing problem of this country arises from a shortage of houses and the fact that certain houses are very bad. The housing problem is the problem of overcrowding. People are overcrowded, not because they like it, but because the houses are not there for them to occupy at rents which they can afford to pay. After this complete fiasco of their legislation, the Government come back this year with a new overcrowding Bill, creeping back on the old tracks which every Government has followed since the War, and providing some assistance to local authorities to build houses for people who otherwise would be unable to get decent houses. The right hon. Gentleman did not say very much about that. He did, however, say something for which I feel deeply indebted to him, that is, that the slum dweller will respond to a new environment. I have heard so often from representatives of the party opposite the statement that the slum dweller has a slum mind and that he would turn a palace into a pigsty.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Who says that? Who in this House has ever said that?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Thousands of good Conservatives, like the Noble Lady.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever heard it in this House?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I have even heard it in this House.
  Viscountess ASTOR: From whom? I challenge it.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I have often heard Conservatives talk of the deplorable state of things in which people are taken out of bad houses and put into good houses

  1077
  which later become worse. [Interruption.] I shall really have to ask the protection of the Chair against the offensiveness of the Noble Lady.
  Viscountess ASTOR: That is a very offensive remark to make.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, because it is borne out by facts. It is part of the tragedy of the system that people are made worse than they would be if they had lived under decent conditions. If they are taken out of bad conditions, people will in the vast majority of cases become good citizens, which we are entitled to expect them to become once the community does the proper thing by them. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the progress which has been made in the building of houses during the last few years. With the skill of an old Parliamentarian the right hon. Gentleman very carefully chooses the figures which he gives to the House. I want to quote some of his own figures with which he did not think it worth while troubling the Committee. The position is that since the Government came into office there has been a very considerable reduction in the building of houses by local authorities. That is undeniable, because it is shown by the right hon. Gentleman's own figures. From 31st March, 1932, the number of houses built by local authorities with State assistance has fallen from 35,000 to 14,000—over 20,000 fewer municipal houses built in the half year ending 31st March this year than were built during the time of expanding municipal activity in the six months prior to 31st March, 1932. Those houses were built by local authorities for working-class tenants.
  The right hon. Gentleman swells this total production of houses by including the number of houses built by private enterprise. In the three years which I have quoted, when municipal production went down, private enterprise production went up and was more than doubled—to fill a very rapidly narrowing gap in the need for houses but not to deal with the problem, which is still a grave problem, of the housing of the lower-paid workers. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of about 90 per cent. of the 1,000,000 houses built by private enterprise being working-class houses. In one of his earliest speeches
  1078
  after his appointment as Minister of Health, speaking at a Conservative fête, I thing at Eltham, he made a similar statement. He was boosting the National Government, of course. That is what he was there for; he is Minister of Propaganda. In this speech, he said:
  "So far as the housing record was concerned, it was all the more gratifying because of the new houses built some 90 per cent. were houses whose rateable value was under £26 per year."
  We really ought to look into these figures to see what the truth is. The important point is not the number of houses which have been built. From the point of view of Members on this side, it is the type of people living in the houses that matters. People with money can always go to a building society and get houses built for themselves. But the problem of people who cannot, or who because of economic insecurity prefer not to, have their own houses is not solved yet. These people ought to be provided with houses to let. During the half-year ended 31st March this year the total number of houses built by private enterprise with a rateable value not exceeding £13 per year and £20 in Greater London, was 53,613. That is a very respectable number of houses to be built in half a year by private enterprise. But the number occupied by persons other than their owners—that is to say, houses built to let—was only17,545. In other words, of these houses of the smallest type less than one-third of them have been built to let. If you take the houses of a rather larger type, but still working-class houses—those with a rateable value exceeding £13 but not exceeding £26 in the provinces, and exceeding £20 but not exceeding £35 in Greater London—during the half-year ended 31st March the number built by private enterprise was 75,817. It is interesting to note that more houses of the rather higher grade were built by private enterprise.
  Mr. MAITLAND: The right hon. Gentleman admits that a large number of houses have been built at a low rateable value. I take it therefore that he admits that these houses must of necessity have what is the equivalent of a low rent. During the same period to which he is referring the activities of building societies have enormously increased and

  1079
  building societies have been a great boon to the wage-earning classes. Does the right hon. Gentleman object to the system under which working-class people are enabled to purchase their houses through the instrumentality of building societies?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I object to the system under which, after the building societies offered to be really public-spirited and to come to the assistance of local authorities, up to 31st March of this year only 5,500 houses had been built to let under guarantees by building societies. I am not objecting to the activities of the building societies. They are established under Act of Parliament, and they can continue to do their work. I am objecting to this suggestion that the houses which have been built by private enterprise are houses which this country needs more than any other kind of houses. That is my case. I am not denying that there are people who are pressed willy-nilly, whether they like it or not, to buy houses—people who would prefer not to buy houses—and that they do so of sheer necessity.
  I was saying that the number of working-class houses of a rather larger type built by private enterprise during the half year ended 31st March was 75,817. But the number of these occupied by persons other than their owners was only 12,796. In other words, only one out of six of these houses was built to let, and five out of six were built for sale to people who could afford or who were pressed to buy houses. I say that as a reminder to the right hon. Gentleman because he has himself said that the problem he has to face is not that of the building of houses for sale but of building houses to let. When the White Paper on Housing was issued by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, "The Economist" referred to it in these terms:
  "The continuance, or rather intensification, of the private enterprise building boom is demonstrated by a White Paper issued by the Ministry of Health this week."
  Then it quotes some of the figures which the right hon. Gentleman used this afternoon and which I have used. I will read the whole of the passage so that hon. Members will not think that I am trying to escape statements which otherwise
  1080
  they might think I did not wish to make. It continues:
  "In the six months ending 31st March last, in fact, building by private enterprise without State assistance reached the record figure of 149,085 houses, which was 12,120 houses in excess of the previous six months' record of 136,965 houses. The remarkable expansion of house building for middle-class occupiers, induced by low interest rates and building society facilities, was thus carried even further in the past six months. Many will doubt whether the pace can be kept up much longer, but however this may be, the enormous extent of the middle class demand made effective in the last two years suggests very strongly that there is a still more enormous potential working-class demand waiting to be tapped. And this demand, as the Ministry's own White Paper shows, has hardly been touched in the last few years. Building by local authorities with State assistance actually touched a low record in the last six months with 14,115 houses."
  The word "low" is italicised.
  The article goes on to say:
  "In rehousing under the slum clearance campaign, 14,317 houses were completed in the six months ending 31st March, making a total of 41,231 up to date. If the Government's five-year clearance plan is to be fulfilled, 280,000 houses have to be cleared between September, 1933, and September, 1938. Yet in the first year and a-half of the scheme only 41,231 new houses had been built. If this figure is compared with those given above of municipal and private building, it will be seen that the building of working-class houses has been on a very meagre scale since the Government abolished the existing subsidy in 1932."
  I think that is a very fair criticism of the Government's housing policy. The Government have let loose private enterprise, and it is true that private enterprise has made very substantial profit by building very large numbers of houses. It is equally true that at the end of it we are still faced, after four years of National Government and four years of further housing deterioration, with a more serious housing problem than we had in 1931. The right hon. Gentleman side-stepped his obligations this afternoon by ignoring the difficulties of the situation.
  My last word will be with regard to the closing statement in the right hon. Gentleman's speech when quite properly in this year of the centenary of local government he paid his tribute to our local government institutions. I am glad he paid such a generous tribute to their unstinted and devoted services to the people they repesent. The Minister has a good

  1081
  deal to thank Labour controlled local authorities for. His housing programme would not look so big as it did to-day but for the Labour local authorities, many of whom gained their majorities after the general election of 1931. I hope that in paying this tribute the Minister will not forget our local Labour administrators who are trying to help him in this work. We are naturally proud of our system of local government, which has weathered many difficulties in the last 100 years, which has had increasing responsibilities put upon it by successive Parliaments, and which has not always felt that it got a square deal from the State. If there is one thing which anchors the people of this country, more even than this House, to democratic methods of Government it is our system of local government, and I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman paid his tribute to it. We welcome him here. Most of my speech has been critical of him, most of my speeches in future will be even more critical of him, but I want him to be assured that on this side of the House we are very glad to have a live Minister as Minister of Health.
  5.2 p.m.
  Mr. JANNER: I should like to say, in the first place, that we too would express to the Minister our felicitations in the post he is now occupying, and hope that he will bring his genial and active personality to bear sufficiently strongly upon the situation to create those improvements which have been referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and some to which I propose to refer. He gave us a comprehensive historical account of some of the improvements which have taken place in health conditions, and I really hoped that he would have said that a tribute was due to the great Liberal party who introduced some of the most important Measures to which he referred and were met with the opposition of his party and, in many cases, of members of the Labour party. Anyhow, I am sure that he will not deny us this reference to that work, and perhaps in the course of his researches he will delve deeply into the points put forward by us at that time, so that he may be given strength and real understanding to proceed with the work that lies before him.
  1082
  I should like first to deal with the problem that was raised by the Minister in connection with maternal mortality. It was considered in the House some time ago, and I think the Minister and everybody else present will agree that it is a subject which calls for constant and anxious attention and consideration. It is, of course, essential to point out that although public attention must needs be drawn to this serious matter it is extremely important that the impression should not be created that child-bearing in itself is dangerous. The Committee will recollect the 15th annual report of the Ministry of Health, which gave some startling figures of the rate of maternal mortality. It was 4.32 per thousand for 1933–34, and an eminent authority has placed the numbers who die in consequence of difficulties which arise after child-birth owing to the manifold troubles created by the process of child-birth at 5,000 per annum. The total of the deaths involved is greater than the total of the deaths on the roads. Day by day we are devising new schemes to increase the safety of the roads. Every device that human ingenuity is capable of producing is being tested and, if found suitable, is being adopted in order to curb the catastrophic death-rate on the roads. Much money is being spent, large organisations are being created and the collective experience of every conceivable interest is being brought to bear on finding a solution to the problem. Maternal mortality is not so vividly portrayed to the public mind for very obvious reasons, and, indeed, it is doubtful whether it would be wise that it should be so clear. The Medical Officer of Health for Stepney which includes the constituency which I represent, Dr. Fergusson stated in a recent report:
  "Quite rightly this subject is attracting a great deal of attention at the present time. But I do want to emphasise a word of warning against pushing the propaganda too far. By all means let us consider the matter very seriously, both from an administrative and from a technical point of view, and let us do all in our power to improve our maternity services, but I do deprecate the impression that is being broadcast that child-bearing is dangerous. If the danger of child-birth continues to be exaggerated women will either take good care that they have no children or will resort to means of ridding themselves of the so-called danger at the earliest possible moment, only to place themselves for the first time in real definite danger."

  1083
  This does not minimise the difficulty, but makes it even more necessary that the Minister of Health should do all in his power to press on with the work. This is an important matter and I believe it is well worth the consideration of everybody in the Committee, and certainly of the Minister of Health. It is even more necessary, because of the difficulties of propagating information, that everything should be done by the Ministry to urge local authorities to take the fullest advantage of such methods as are open to them in this regard. The important feature of the position is that the Departmental Committee on Maternal Mortality to which the Minister referred stated categorically that they considered that half the deaths could have been prevented had a reasonable degree of skill been brought to bear upon the management of the cases and adequate facilities for treatment been provided and utilised.
  We were told by the Parliamentary Secretary, in a recent Debate, that the medical officers of health in certain districts had been asked to make an urgent—I would emphasise the word "urgent"—report on the measures which had been taken in their districts for the provision of a midwifery service for all confinements, the provision of adequate beds for the isolation of cases of puerperal sepsis, and the arrangements for consultant services in difficult cases. I understood that those reports would be examined and appropriate action taken. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us something more than we have heard from the Minister about this investigation. Can he tell us how many reports he has received and what remedial steps are being or have already been taken? It is not sufficient to wait until the end of the year as suggested in his speech, before taking steps to deal with these points. He also referred to the circular issued in October of last year asking all maternity and child welfare authorities to make an urgent survey of their services, and said that so far the result had been satisfactory. I would refer him to this statement, which is rather an important one:
  "Of the 421 authorities 155 have replied that they are taking steps to improve or to extend their services, 174 have reported that they do not propose improvements,"—
  1084
  In spite of the conditions that prevail and in spite of the high death rate, 174 authorities have reported that they do not propose improvements—
  "in only 23 of these cases are the services regarded as not reasonably complete, and 84 authorities promised attention."
  Is the Minister satisfied that the authorities in question are dealing actively and thoroughly with the position, and that the 174 who reported that they did not propose improvements were justified in their attitude, seeing that the mortality rates are so high? I have again carefully read reports which have been issued recently on these matters and have discussed them with experienced professional and lay authorities, and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to let us know how far effect has been given to the recommendations of the General Council on Midwifery. There is a strong feeling that post-graduate courses should be generally provided for practising midwives, that the salaries of midwives should be very much higher, and that midwives in rural areas should be subsidised and their numbers increased, so that they are more readily available and do not have to travel great distances. There is also a strong feeling that a doctor should be employed in every case, even though there may not be complications in the first instance, so that the doctor may be available in the event of any complication arising; and there is a very strong feeling that the service of obstetrical specialists should be available for all pregnant women. Dr. Veitch Clark, a well-known personality in the medical world, emphasises the fact that midwives should be to all intents and purposes part of the external practice of the maternity units of hospitals. The official organ of the National Council for Maternity and Child Welfare refers to the opinion of Dr. Veitch Clark that midwives should be afforded the opportunity of living in a hostel or a home, should have an income guaranteed to reach a certain level by the local authority, and be linked up with the other services, such as the ante-natal and postnatal clinics, and the hospital. The part-time practising midwife should be firmly excluded from any fully developed maternity scheme he feels, the essential of such a scheme being that all work should be centred in the hospitals and organised so that only really expert midwives should be in practice and so that

  1085
  complications should be recognised as early as possible and arrangements made for their treatment. Dr. Veitch Clark is Medical Officer of Health for Manchester, and it is said of him that he affirms that ante-natal supervision is educating the motherhood of the country to realise that the wise supervision of pregnancy improves the wellbeing of the mother, increases the vigour and healthiness of the child at birth and, in general, teaches the mother those habits of diet, personal care and recreation which make for a truly physiological confinement and a normal, healthy, puerperium and nursing period.
  The Minister has referred to the increase in ante-natal clinics and in ante-natal treatment and has stated that in spite of this increase a high death-rate prevails. I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to statements which have been made by eminent authorities. I do not say they always agree with each other, I suppose it would not be conceivable that eminent authorities would agree with each other on all occasions. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) will know that that is particularly the case in the medical profession. Notwithstanding that fact, all the opinions which eminent authorities bring forward ought to be most carefully examined so that the highest common understanding may be attained in order to cope with these matters. Dr. Veitch Clarke, speaking of the ante-natal work in his district said that there had been a fourfold increase in ante-natal work in Manchester during the last four years. Over 50 per cent. of the pregnant women are now being seen ante-natally by the public medical service. He adds that this increase in ante-natal supervision has coincided with a fall in the death-rate from puerperal sepsis from 1.7 to 1 per 1,000. He thinks that those two factors are associated, and that ante-natal supervision has definitely contributed to that fall, and particularly to a reduction in the recognised toxaemias of pregnancy. On the other hand, it is only right to say that an eminent authority in London, Professor F. J. Brown, head of the obstetrical department of London University, is far from satisfied that the present ante-natal system is either adequate or effective. He urges that, as ante-natal work calls for experience and skill,
  1086
  "patients must be individualised in regard to diagnosis and treatment, and that in ante-natal work there should be no such thing as mass production. The success of a clinic should be judged, not by the numbers it passes through its books, nor even by the number of attendances registered by each patient, but by its effect in reducing maternal mortality."
  I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the suggestions that are made by this man, who has had tremendous experience on the subject. In his view, well-trained obstetricians should be provided in the clinics so that ante-natal work may be carried out in a manner which will have the best results. They should not only have regard to the numbers who are treated, because dealing with large numbers of patients may in time produce an effect of unconcern at the clinic, so that those who see cases day after day do not always recognise abnormalities when they arise. It might be of considerable interest to the Ministry to examine the position, and to urge local authorities to provide obstetricians who, day by day, would deal with cases definitely from the standpoint of a specialist. Full-time clinic officers should be appointed in as many instances as possible, so that they may be able to follow the cases, and there should be adequate hospital accommodation to enable them to follow each case when the actual time of confinement comes. We cannot spend too much time discussing this very serious matter. I hope that the indication which the Minister has given will be carried into full effect, and that he will not be content to allow this matter to lag behind because its gravity and importance are universally recognised.
  On the subject of housing, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield pointed out that things are not quite as bright as the Minister would have us believe. Housing accommodation and the provision of houses play a tremendous part in the general health of large industrial areas, such as the constituency which I represent. Every phase of the question ought to be examined not only from the point of view of accommodation available, but also because of the consequences which may ensue from lack of accommodation or from the deficiencies in such accommodation as is available. Many of us appreiate the value of some of the measures which have been taken.

  1087
  I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not deny that attempts have been made from time to time to deal with the position, but very much more remains to be done. I hope that the Government will proceed with the work as rapidly as possible.
  I would touch upon a side of the question which many of us who represent industrial areas frequently have to face, although the subject is not a pleasant one. It is in regard to the prevalence of vermin in many homes. That matter might very well claim the attention of the Ministry at the present time, and their earnest consideration should be given to the steps which have been taken by various local authorities, with a view to ascertaining the best method of removing the evil and to putting such method into effect as quickly as possible. Disease is spread by the insects, and the homes, such as they are, are frequently made unbearable because of their presence. In the report to which I have already referred, Dr. Ferguson says:
  "During the year it also became increasingly obvious that some form of special measures for the eradication of the bed bug was imperative. This was especially obvious in connection with council property, and on 24th October [a lady] was appointed a sanitary inspector, her chief duties being to keep all the council flats under constant supervision."
  I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary realises that this is a matter which requires very serious consideration. Dr. Ferguson says further that this was only a preliminary to a comprehensive scheme for bug eradication generally, and that the council are already considering further schemes for this purpose.
  This is an important matter, because the people concerned have very small homes and very small accommodation. There is plenty of overcrowding and, Heaven knows, though their lot is very hard, it is made infinitely harder by the fact that they sometimes cannot even remain in their rooms because of the verminous condition of the property. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us in his reply whether steps are contemplated, or are being taken, to provide the authorities with information and assistance to enable them to deal fully with the position. Let me also ask him whether he is aware—it is well known in London—that there is great
  1088
  danger in the new districts of whole areas being infected with this plague because of the use of bricks which have been taken from old properties which were already infested, and by the removal to new homes of furniture from infested districts. The Minister is an expert in publicity; if anything requires publicity it is the measures which can be taken in order to cope with this particular difficulty.
  With regard to the housing question in general, very much remains to be done. I have repeatedly referred in this House to an area in my constituency which was originally purchased by the postal authorities for garages, and which to-day remains empty. Last December I raised this matter, and while I hope that the original risk of this place being used for such dangerous purposes in that district is avoided, I feel that it is nearly time to decide that this place must not be left vacant in a highly congested area, but that an arrangement should be made to erect houses or flats upon it with a view to accommodating a large number of people from among those who are waiting most anxiously for that kind of accommodation. I should like to know whether the Minister proposes, when he is considering the question of overcrowding and similar cases, to do anything to remedy the position.
  I have had the unhappy experience in my constituency of being informed that notices have been served upon tenants who were occupying rooms which had been decontrolled. I believe that the landlord was not very happy about taking proceedings, but I understand he said that it was reasonable that tenants should be proceeded against when there was overcrowding. It happens that the Rent Restrictions Act, 1933, which was introduced for the purpose, as I understood at the time, of alleviating the situation, has done something to make it much worse than it was before. Consider this particular situation: Tenants are occupying rooms which are decontrolled. Flats are available in the same building, some of them are controlled, some are decontrollable and others are decontrolled. That is in the same set of flats. In some cases tenants can be turned out without any difficulty and in other cases the landlord will have to wait until the tenants leave so that the rooms may become decontrolled. In probably the majority of cases the flats remain controlled. Some

  1089
  of the tenants have been in occupation of flats in the building for nearly 20 years. As their little families have increased, they have moved from one room to two or more rooms in the same building. By an unfortunate mischance, some of them, instead of moving in the early part of 1923, moved in the late part of 1923, with the result that their rooms became decontrolled. When the Measure was being considered we begged from these benches that provision should be made whereby control might be put back in respect of small houses, but nothing was done. We were told that the Measure would result in houses being available at a proper rental and that the whole of the working class would, in a very short time, find that the Act was benefiting tenants in a way which they could not then appreciate.
  The contrary has taken place. In some districts, houses have been cut up into flats and flatlets and let at rentals higher than the rent which the houses originally commanded. Many others have become potential slums. In the main the black-coated worker has suffered heavily owing to the large rentals which have been brought upon him, and all too frequently his home is in danger of being seized and sold by bailiffs. Again, control has been maintained for all houses in London of a rateable value not exceeding £20, and in the country £13, which had not passed into the actual possession of the landlord before the passing of this Act. That was said to be a concession to the poor tenant, and that argument was utilised to the full, not merely to gain support for the Bill, but also to allay opposition to the decontrol Clauses. A proviso was added to enable the landlord to register when, for some good cause, he had not done so in time, and, in order to emphasise the intention of the Government in an unmistakeable manner, the Minister of Health issued, on the 24th July, 1933, a special circular, in which the following or similar words appear:
  "The proviso gives the landlord who failed to apply for registration in time the right to go to the county court for permission to make a late application for registration. If he satisfies the Court that there was a reasonable excuse for his failure to apply in time, he may be given permission to register if the house is occupied at the time. The late registration will not remove protection from the sitting tenant; the landlord will have to wait until
  1090
  he again comes into possession of the premises before he can treat the house as decontrolled."
  That statement was clear, and to most people it seemed reasonable enough, but the Court of Appeal thought differently about it. It gave a decision which wiped out the date of 18th October, 1933, entirely, and declared that the house became decontrolled from the date of the late registration. To make matters worse, late registrations are apparently being granted by county courts merely for the asking; any excuse made by a landlord or his agent appears to be a good excuse, even after two year's delay. In many instances the tenant has neither the funds nor the knowledge to proceed with an appeal, and consequently he cannot get justice with regard to his position; he has to let matters go on and allow the house to appear to be decontrolled, even though in some cases it may not be decontrolled. One day the sitting tenant is protected against excessive rent, ejectment and distraint, while the next day he finds himself at the uncontrolled mercy of his landlord and of the bailiff.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have been listening to the hon. Member very carefully, and it seems to me that the matter he is now raising is one that would require legislation. In that case he must not pursue it.
  Mr. JANNER: Of course, I bow to your Ruling, but I am merely introducing this argument in order to show that the opinion placed before us at the time was not such as to justify us in believing that the difficulty which exists in regard to lack of housing accommodation is really being oversome. I am not asking at this stage that there should be fresh legislation, but I ask that, in those cases where uncertainty exists, the Ministry should make every effort to give the position publicity, so that the tenant may realise where he stands. That has been a very great difficulty. In all parts of the country there are many people who are unaware of their real position under the Act. Section 10 of the 1933 Act says that local authorities may provide information for people in their localities, but what actually happens? I see in his place the Noble Lord the Member for East Norfolk (Viscount Elmley), who has had bitter experience with regard to this matter, and I understand he is going to say a

  1091
  few words to the Committee about what he himself has seen, and the efforts he has had to make in order that people connected with local authorities may take the right action in letting the general public in their districts know what the position is in regard to this matter.
  The Noble Lord will be able to give cases which I have no doubt the Committee will be interested to hear, and which will cause considerable surprise to many who have not appreciated what is actually happening in this regard. I would ask the Minister to urge the local authorities to make full use of this Section, so that the tenants may know their position, and at least may have the protection which the Acts give them, and thus may not fall victims to higher rentals and ejectments. It sometimes happens that, long before the stage of taking the matter to court is reached, landlords are able to induce those who do not know that they are protected by the Acts to leave the accommodation they occupy. I hope we may be assured to-day that, on the two important questions of which we have been speaking, a constant and careful watch will be kept, and that, instead of tenants having to rely upon information which in many cases even lawyers themselves cannot possibly have at their finger-tips, there will be publicity of the right kind, so that throughout the whole country people who are now prevented through lack of knowledge from maintaining the rights that they have may know what their remedy is, and so that at least the difficulties which at present exist for the poor person may be minimised. I hope that the Minister will accept what I have said as constructive criticism. I believe him to be a man who, if he puts his mind to remedying these matters, will succeed, and I think that the cause is one that is well worth his full consideration.
  5.40 p.m.
  Sir F. FREMANTLE: I am sure that all those Members of the Committee who are particularly interested in matters of social welfare and housing will join in the tribute and cordial welcome offered to the Minister of Health by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). We have been so long associated with the Minister in connection with both health and housing
  1092
  matters that we heartily welcome him back again to this sphere. That does not imply any disparagement of the late Minister of Health, who had the sympathy and friendship of all of us, and who got through a great deal of work which will abide to his lasting credit.
  While we are reviewing the record of the year, I hope it will not be out of order to refer to the passing out of the Government service of the late Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry, Sir George Newman, whose work has been a cardinal factor in the improvement of the health of the nation. Everyone must recognise the extraordinary advance that has been made, largely through his special reports every year on the health of the people, as well as his reports on the health of the school child. Undoubtedly, he is a master of publicity in regard to public health, and it is essential for the advancement of the health of the nation that public opinion shall be brought into being, and that it shall be activated, strengthened and stirred. The report of the Chief Medical Officer each year has been the fountain of information which has flowed through every conceivable kind of channel—through the Press, through every local authority, and through every official concerned with public health. They have all taken it as their Bradshaw, so to speak, for the following 12 months, and I hope that that will be continued. A very great tribute must be paid to that work which Sir George Newman inaugurated, and which undoubtedly has won him the sympathy and friendship of all the medical officers in the public health service.
  We welcome the new Chief Medical Officer, and here I want to ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary on a point which has been strongly raised by my colleagues in the public health service. I have just come from Brighton, where a great Health Congress is being held, and where this matter has been discussed very seriously. I want to know what is the status of the present Chief Medical Officer, and whether it remains unimpaired. The Chief Medical Officer who has recently left the Government service ranked, I understand, definitely as a Secretary in the Ministry of Health, with direct access to the Minister, but I have heard it suggested that the new Chief Medical Officer has been deprived

  1093
  of that status, and is no longer a Secretary of the Ministry. That is a bit of technical jargon which may be familiar in the Service, but it is not familiar to those of us who are outside, and we do not know what its implications are. I have heard it suggested by some of my colleagues at the Health Conference that it signifies a definite differentiation—that the medical service is to be considered the adviser of the Ministry, but that the actual machinery of the Ministry is to be the pure laity of the service. If that be the case, it goes back on the original idea, which I think we owe largely to Lord Rhondda and Sir Robert Morant, that the Chief Medical Officer should rank as a Secretary, with direct access to the Minister. I hope that there will be no such reversion, and that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us an assurance to that effect.
  With regard to the changes in preventive medicine during the past 25 years, of which we have heard an interesting survey this afternoon, and of which I have also been hearing an interesting survey at the Health Congress, there is a practical point in administration of which I think it is well that the House of Commons should be aware. There has been a great change in regard to the understanding of infectious diseases. It may be said that 25 years ago the idea was generally prevalent that infectious disease was due to a microbe, and that all that you had to do was to find out the microbe and shoot at it, by ingestion, inoculation, disinfection, or in some way or other. In order to exterminate the microbe they isolated the patient. In 24 years there has been a very extraordinary advance. It was shown first of all that the same disease germ may exist in carriers who may be perfectly healthy. The particular microbe which is supposed to be the cause of scarlet fever, for instance, is found to exist in varying degrees in carriers who are all perfectly healthy children. It is clearly an impossible job to exterminate it. It is not merely the hunting down of the microbe that we have to aim at. Moreover, we find that there are no fewer than 28 strains of this particular streptococcus, and that introduces complications. Research has been engaged in studying the actual conditions under which the microbe sometimes does not seem to do any harm and at others is suddenly brought into activity by a cold, a chill or an injury
  1094
  or something of that sort. It is the soil and the variations in the soil that matter.
  The actual application of this is very important. Thirty years ago we were all concerned with isolation hospitals, getting them built on a bigger scale, with marble floors and walls and all the rest of it. Different ideas now hold good and only the more extreme cases, or the cases that flare up in epidemic form, are now isolated. What you have to do is to aim constantly at improving the physique and the health of the individuals that make up the population. Therefore, we come back to what, after all, also is common sense, to the absolute importance of the pursuit of positive health, and it is that positive health that we want to see aimed at a great deal more in the Ministry of Health, in local authorities generally and in public opinion. We are getting at it, but as a separate line of thought rather than that it fits in entirely and helps to supplant the old ideas of fighting disease. Of course, there we are dealing more with the business of the Education Department, but the Ministry of Health, through the local authorities, have various means in which the promotion of physical health can be assisted, and I hope the process will be continued now through the whole of the machinery of public health throughout the country, under local authorities, under voluntary associations as well as under the guidance of the Ministry of Health, even more keenly and as an essential matter to promote the positive health of the whole population.
  In that, of course, we come to the question of nutrition and of the actual means of the people. We get to a very large subject there, and I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield has not again raised the question of nutrition in the depressed areas. It is undoubtedly a very serious fact that we have to recognise that shortage of nutrition, more particularly among mothers, is bound to have some effect on the next generation But, fortunately, we have seen, with the systematic survey made under the Ministry of Health, that a great deal of our cares and anxieties in that respect have been found to be false, and that there is very little evidence of any actual increase of ill-health, either mortality or infectious sickness of one kind or another, as is shown by medical

  1095
  inspection in the schools in the depressed areas. What we find is that there is malnutrition in particular families and districts where there is less attention paid to the preparation of food, and where it is not a matter of the means to buy food. That is a point which, I hope, the Ministry will be pursuing in concert with the Board of Education. There is no question that the choice of proper food is a very important question. A Departmental Committee not long ago reported upon the composition and description of food, and I should like to know if anything is being done on the lines of that report. But more important than the selection of proper food is the power to cook it properly. I am afraid a generation has grown up now which is completely and entirely ignorant of the art of cooking. Those who visit villages on the Continent are struck with the wonderful way in which they can make the most nutritious and appetising meals out of practically nothing. The soup that the peasants of France make out of the common stock pot is an extraordinary result from a very small means. I have no doubt that the peasantry in France and Italy can live nutritiously on something like a tithe of what is found necessary by our people, who do not know how to cook.
  Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: Could my hon. Friend, as a medical expert, give us some guidance upon the use of milk?
  Sir F. FREMANTLE: I do not know enough about it, and I feel that, though milk is very useful to those who have nothing else to eat and drink, for those who can afford other things it is much better brought in as an adjunct, though a very useful adjunct.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Surely my hon. Friend is not going back on milk as a healthy, nutritious form of food? I am sure he does not mean that.
  Sir F. FREMANTLE: It is an extraordinarily good food. I should next like to deal with maternal mortality. Certainly legislation will be required, and a great deal will have to be done to advance the profession of the midwife. At present there is absolutely no incentive to girls leaving school to go in for the profession of midwifery. We have to make the profession really attractive as a profession to the kind of girl that we want to
  1096
  have for this important service. Lots of other things have been referred to, for instance, ante-natal clinics. It is natural to want to pour out money like water, to build and to have great offices, but there is a great deal to be said for making the best of what you have got. There are two extremely interesting experiments in that way to which I wish to draw attention. I do not know how many have heard of the Rochdale experiment. Three distinguished medical men said, "We shall see what can be done in present conditions. Let us choose an area which is sufficiently limited for our purpose with one of the highest maternal mortality death rates in the Kingdom. They went to Rochdale, and with the cordial assistance, first of the medical officer of health, secondly of the local authority, thirdly of the Press and so of the whole of the people, they got a general move on to wipe out obvious things which everyone knows are conducive to maternal mortality.
  For the three years 1929 to 1931 the rate of mortality had been 10 per thousand births registered, over double what it was for England and Wales generally. They set to work and, during their intensive campaign, in the years 1932 to 1934 they reduced the rate to 3.9. To show that it was not a fluke, there are the details of everyone of the eight different causes of maternal mortality, and they got a reduction in each cause. An enormous amount can be done by simply drawing attention—public attention and professional attention—to existing powers and machinery. The same thing was repeated in the Rhondda Valley and a great deal has been done. A special campaign began 18 months ago. In the first nine months there were 29 deaths—three a month—in the next three months there were only six—two a month—and in the next six months there have been only six more—that is one per month. Mortality has been reduced to a third by this intensive campaign and paying attention to what everyone ought to pay attention to in the matter of confinements. That is a lesson which, I hope, we shall all take to heart. We have to take it to heart in other matters as well as maternal mortality. Rather than pouring out money like water we can often get better results by using existing machinery, but you have to bring machinery and an elastic mind together.

  1097
  There is one thing that I want to say about housing. I am not accepting the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield with regard to the rural housing scheme of Sir Tudor Walters. That was brought up before, and the Ministerial answer, which the right hon. Gentleman apparently has not read, exploded the idea that it was due to the Government that that scheme came to an end. It came to an end owing to the conditions in which it was laid down by Sir Tudor Walters with the sanction of the House. I ask the Committee to realise that large-scale housing is being splendidly carried out under the National Government. Although I wish that houses were cheaper, the main thing is being done, namely, we are getting such a supply of houses that we are rapidly removing the scarcity. That is the reply to the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner) and many other hon. Members. If we build sufficient houses bad houses will not command high rents.
  Mr. JANNER: I hope the hon. Gentleman will go a little more into detail on this matter as I am not satisfied.
  Sir F. FREMANTLE: We have seen an enormous expansion of building along arterial roads or out in the country, and we have seen the development of industries in other directions, but there is no harnessing of these things together. There is growing up square mile upon square mile of housing which is not nice to look upon. Although the houses are provided with gardens and so on, as used to be the case, in 50 years' time they will no doubt be mostly bad streets, like some of our old residential streets. We should collate the migration of industry and the provision of houses.
  There is one line of advance which has not yet been tried. I have brought it before successive Governments privately, but they have never seen their way to advocate it. The right method is to find out where industry can find its best situation outside towns, and to help it to find a situation where it will be centralised with certain units, including residential housing and all the amenities of the population, comprising shops, schools, theatres, playing fields and all the rest of it. The reply has always been that one must not put any obstacles in the way of industry, but now that industry is
  1098
  prospering under the National Government, I suggest that the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Health should tackle the question together to see if something along these lines is possible. Some kind of financial assistance by means of loan might be given to enable certain industries to migrate from the cities to properly organised centres. The principle of the garden city holds good, but industry must be the basis of the location of housing in the future. It is in the hope that that may give a new idea and a new line for the Minister of Health to follow in his distinguished career, that I beg to offer him my best congratulations and good wishes for the next year of office.
  6.4 p.m.
  Mr. WEST: If I may offer congratulations to the Minister of Health, I would say that he smiled more in the first three minutes of his speech to-day than his very able predecessor did in the three years he held office. As long as he goes on smiling we will forgive him many things, even his poster campaign in Great Britain. But in so far as he was smiling about the achievements of the Government in building houses, I think he smiled more than the facts of the case warranted, and the statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) took much of the gilt off the gingerbread when he said that not more than one-sixth of the houses built by the National Government had been built to let at rents which working people could afford to pay. If the opposite had been true, I would have said that it should be put on the posters, and that it would have been a jolly good thing to put on the posters.
  The Government have not much cause for congratulation. The Minister, himself a London Member, must know that as far as London is concerned, the housing problem has not been lightened very much. The hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) made an important point when he spoke about rents. If there is one index more than any other which indicates whether the housing situation had been bettered or not, it is the rents. Rents measure scarcity or surplus of houses better than any other single factor, and it is well known that rents in London have changed very

  1099
  little in the last 10 or 15 years. In West London the average rents paid by the working-classes must be something like 15s., or a quarter of the working man's income. Thousands of poor people are paying a third of their income in rent, and examples have been placed on record by a very illustrious person of families paying half their total income in rent. In my division of North Hammersmith the average rent for a two- or three-roomed tenement is from 12s. to 16s. per week, and there are thousands of people paying £1 per week in rent.
  After all this building and these records of so many hundred thousands of houses being built in Great Britain, there are in Hammersmith nearly 3,000 people living more than three to a room, 13,000 living two to a room, and scores of families living six, seven and eight to a room. As long as these conditions obtain in such a borough, it is no good being complacent about the housing situation in this country, or indeed in London. In the division of the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner)—if he had been present in the Committee now I would still have said this—I should have great difficulty, if I were a housing dictator, in saying which street should not be pulled down. In fact, in the East End of London 90 per cent. of the streets and houses ought to be demolished from a 20th century housing standard. I think that it is true to say that from 4,000,000 to 5,000,000 houses are needed if we are to bring housing up to any reasonable 1935 housing standard. If that be true—and I have authority for saying that it is true—and if the Government built 200,000 houses a year for working-class people—I should think that they could claim to be doing more than that—it would take 25 years to bring our housing conditions up to a reasonable standard. By that time there would be millions more below standard. At the present rate of building in London, it will be near the year A.D. 2,000 before we have solved the housing situation, and by that time most people in this House will have lost all interest in housing questions on this planet. They might be interested in houses elsewhere, but not down here.
  I rose really to address myself to a particular question, and not to the general question of housing. I am concerned very much with one of the blackest spots of
  1100
  Great Britain from the housing and health point of view. This House often discusses the distressed areas from an unemployment point of view, but there are also special or depressed areas from a health standpoint in London. I have often tried to raise this question but with very little success. I am going to have one more try, because we have a new Minister, in the hope that a new broom may sweep cleaner than some of the old brooms in the days gone by. The distressed area to which I call attention is the Royal Borough of Kensington with which I have had some connection. The infantile mortality in that borough last year was 93 per thousand, which is 50 per cent. worse than the average for London. South Kensington is composed very largely of middle class residential areas, and even North Kensington has very large blocks of well-to-do property, but the death rate in North Kensington is 102 per 1,000 compared with the rate of not more than 60 per 1,000, in Poplar of 62 per 1,000 and in Hackney of 54 per 1,000. In the last year the infantile death rate for North Kensington was 50 per cent. worse than in the average poor borough in the East End of London, and twice as high as the death rate in some of the better boroughs and working-class divisions in London. I am not choosing a particularly bad year. For the last ten years North Kensington and Kensington have been enormously above the average rate for London and the average rate for Great Britain. There are one or two wards in Kensington which had a death rate last year of 120 per 1,000. I believe that it is true to say that certain Spanish cities and one or two towns in Portugal are worse than North Kensington, but surely we are not going to compare a rich borough like Kensington with poor, poverty-stricken, Portuguese and Spanish towns. No one with common sense could do that.
  If I had time I could show that not only the infantile death rate but the diseases rate in respect of tuberculosis, fever, diphtheria and pneumonia averages from three to five times that for London. Who or whatever is to blame it is shocking that a borough like Kensington, so near to this House, in which a penny rate produces £14,000 as against £3,000 in the East End of London,

  1101
  should have such a death and disease rate compared with the rest of the boroughs of London. I am going to make use of statements of people whose opinions no one will venture to contradict. Lord Buckmaster, a famous Lord Chancellor, and a Member of the Liberal party, who recently died, said,
  "The Royal Borough of Kensington is one of the richest in the County of London, yet within its boundaries there are dens where human beings live, breed and die that are a disgrace to our Christianity and to our wealth."
  That is what Lord Buckmaster said a few years ago. Lord Balfour of Burleigh, a Conservative Peer, than whom no man has done more to try to bring these conditions to the knowledge of the powers-that-be, has said:
  "In Kensington I have encountered appalling conditions, but have been amazed by the high standard of morality existing despite incredible discomfort and lack of privacy."
  These are the views of men not supporting our party. The last statement which I have quoted from Lord Balfour was made five years ago. Let me quote what Lord Balfour said on the 24th May of this year:
  "The elements of the problem in Kensington were, first, overcrowding; secondly, unhealthy basement flats; thirdly, rents; and lastly vermin."
  One hon. Member has spoken of bugs in Whitechapel. He ought to take a walk in the Royal Borough of Kensington. There are more bugs in Kensington than in the rest of London put together, and bigger bugs. The hon. Member talked about bugs in the East End of London, but let him walk into a few of the houses in the Royal Borough of Kensington, and he will stop talking about bugs in the East End. The Kensington Housing Association, which is composed largely of Conservatives and Liberals, all of them good people, I have no doubt, make this statement:
  "How many people realise that 2,400 families of two persons and over are living in one-roomed houses in Kensington?"
  The 1931 Census Report speaks of the notorious Golborne Ward of North Kensington, which revealed an average population of over 360 persons per residential acre, compared with Holland Ward in South Kensington, 60 per acre. One-third of the people of North Kensington live in one- or two-roomed tenements; 2,500
  1102
  people live in one street of 140 houses; 2,000 live in mews dwellings. The Kensington Housing Association report:
  "Rows of tenement houses remain—vermin infested, and if not overcrowded are definitely not desirable dwelling-places … beds in living room, inadequacy of washing facilities, water closets shared between families, difficulties of food storage—all accentuated in a hot summer such as that of 1934."
  That is the last report issued by the Kensington Housing Association.
  Why this tragedy? I think I have said enough to show that things are wrong. I had a letter from the Minister of Health on 1st July in regard to the money spent by the borough council of Kensington on milk for poor expectant and nursing mothers. In 1934 they spent just over £1,000. A rich borough like Kensington spent just over £1,000 last year in milk and dinners for poor expectant and nursing mothers while the borough of Poplar, where a penny rate brings in only £3,000, spent more than five times that amount. The lowest money rate in London is always round about Kensington. The least money spent on health services in London is spent in the Royal Borough of Kensington. The richest borough of London has always spent less money on milk and dinners for poor people. They have never spent as much as boroughs like Poplar. Some people speak in a slighting way of Poplarism. Is there any hon. Member who will speak slightingly of Poplar because it spent £5,000 on milk for expectant and nursing mothers last year? Most people will agree that that is proper expenditure. How is it that we find the richest borough, which is always boasting of its lowest money rates, having the highest recorded death and disease rates? I dare not use the language that I feel inclined to use. It is a downright scandal that this thing should be.
  Some people may say that things are improving. Are they? On housing in Kensington last year, apart from the penny rate that they were compelled to spend, the total expenditure on housing was less than one-third of a penny rate. Their five-year plan, of which the Minister boasts, with all their overcrowding and squalor, amounts to 80 houses. When I compare the Kensington housing plans to-day and in days gone by with those of other boroughs, they are startling. They are going to build in the next five years

  1103
  80 houses or flats. A place like Hammersmith, a very much poorer borough, is going to build five times as many houses. Bermondsey, a much poorer borough, is going to build 15 times as many houses. Woolwich, the right hon. Gentleman's own borough, will be building 2,000 houses, or nearly 30 times more houses than Kensington. If the right hon. Gentleman will compare his own borough council's achievements in services with regard to the supply of food and milk for poor people and in regard to housing plans with those of Kensington, he will have a tremendous shock. Woolwich is not nearly so wealthy as Kensington. When one finds Woolwich spending ten times more than Kensington on these services there is something strangely wrong. I could give other figures, but so many hon. Members wish to speak. Lord Balfour of Burleigh said:
  "Kensington is a wealthy borough. Our rates, owing to high assessable value and good management, are among the lowest in London; at the same time conditions in certain parts of the borough are, to put it in a way to avoid injuring the tenderest susceptibilities, not such as we can be proud of. The burden on our rates due to housing work, over and above the compulsory one penny rate under the Housing and Town Planning Act, is a small fraction of one penny in the pound."
  When things have occurred in certain areas such as West Ham, Poplar, or Durham and there has been expenditure which the Minister of Health has considered to be extravagant, he has sent commissioners to investigate and curtail the expenditure, and perhaps rightly. If it is a good and proper thing for the Minister to investigate conditions when he suspects that money is being spent too lavishly, it is common sense to urge that when you have a district where the death and disease rates are abnormally high year after year there is as much ground for inquiry there as in the other districts. The right hon. Gentleman need not accept my statements and my figures. He can obtain more up-to-date figures himself. I wish he would make some inquiry into the position of Kensington, and I hope that he will not accept the old stupid reasons that have been given for these things. It has been said that domestic servants are the cause. Domestic servants are not peculiar to Kensington. It has been
  1104
  said that these high mortality and disease rates are due to the transfer of people who go to Kensington for a week or two and die there. If we are to believe the apologists for Kensington it would appear that when people are going to die they say: "Let us go to Kensington and die there." The Minister is too old a bird to be caught by rubbishy arguments of that kind. Just as we are keen in this House on doing what we can for the distressed areas, where there is shocking poverty and unemployment, let us be equally keen on dealing with the black spots in London where the terrible conditions to which I have alluded exist. Let the Government put some ginger into the councils who will not do their duty, so that the people of Kensington, Paddington and other areas may have a chance of living a decent and healthy life.
  6.27 p.m.
  Mr. LEVY: I want to make a few observations on the question of water supply. I hope that I shall not be casting any aspersions upon the late Minister of Health when I say that I am glad that he has been superseded by my right hon. Friend who now occupies that position. If I had been asked to select a Minister who is nonpareil in his ability to deal with problems of this kind, the man that I would have selected would have been my right hon. Friend. We know the great work that he has done for the Post Office. Since he has been Minister he has certainly done immense good in that direction. With regard to the water supply of the country, we know that a survey committee has been set up, that a water committee has been appointed and that two Acts of Parliament have been passed, one dealing with grants up to £1,000,000. I was not sarcastic but was telling the truth when I said that that particular Act was equivalent to trying to irrigate the Yorkshire moors with a watering can. I told the story of a man who went to buy a country cottage, and while the agent was showing him over the cottage he said: "Can you tell me what facilities there are for putting out a fire if one should occur?" The agent scratched his head, and said: "Well, sir, it sometimes rains."
  In many of the rural areas they have no organised water supply. It is absurd to think that when you have a few showers of rain the water supply problem

  1105
  is solved. My right hon. Friend knows that in time of drought water is carted for miles and is sold and bought at so much per pail. He also knows that when there are floods, the floods pollute the shallow wells. Rain or floods are not going to be any solution of our water problem. The problem has to be tackled. My right hon. Friend when he was at the Post Office used to say: "I hope to see a telephone in every cottage in the country. Where there cannot be a telephone in every cottage I propose to put up a kiosk, where there shall he a communal telephone that can be used."
  There is another Department of State which is going to supply cheap electricity to every cottage in the country. I want to know when we are to have an adequate supply of pure water for every cottage in the country. If we cannot give a tap supply to all hamlets and country villages because of the expense, there is no reason why we should not put down a bore with a purifying plant to enable these people to go to the communal pump and get pure water. It is scandalous that in this century people in the rural areas have to buy water at 2d. a pail, and it is about time that the Government took up the question. As I have said, a survey committee and a water committee have been set up. I have read the reports of Royal Commissions and Committees, reports of inquiries galore. There has been a continuance of committees, inquiries and surveys for the last 80 years, and every committee that has reported has supported the findings of the Richmond Committee which was set up 80 years ago. It is scandalous that in this country as far as water supply is concerned there are some rural areas in a worse condition than a West African village.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, hear.
  Mr. LEVY: The Noble Lady who takes such an interest in the welfare of the women and children of this country will be the first to say that it is no use sending children to school and teaching them hygiene if when they get home there is no proper water for them to wash in. They have to use the same water for washing clothes as that in which they wash themselves. Anybody who has travelled the country, as I have, with the express purpose of finding out the difficulties of rural water supplies would
  1106
  be appalled. We who live in urban areas, where our water supply is automatic by turning a tap, have no conception of the hardships which exist in some rural villages. There is an institution called the Federation of Women's Institutes which has branches throughout the country. They have done me the honour of sending me extracts of the reports from various parts of the country which have been made by women on the spot, and they disclose a condition of affairs which is a disgrace in the 20th century. I am not criticising the National Government; it is not their fault. The present Government have done more for the country than any Government which has been in office for many a long day, but for years and years past practically nothing has been done in the matter of water supply. The right hon. Gentleman opposite will agree with me that he did nothing, or practically very little, to deal with this problem when the Labour Government were in office. I have been trying to urge this question of water supply during the whole time I have been a Member of the House, but up to now very little has been done.
  I hope it will not be thought impertinent if I put forward what I consider to be a constructive proposal, a comprehensive scheme, which could be carried out to deal with our water supplies. A statutory authority should be appointed—not elected—to deal with the question in co-operation with the Ministry of Health. That statutory authority, in its turn, should appoint sectional authorities to deal with sectional areas, and they should be subject to the central authority. England should be divided into sections, always having regard to the physical geography and watershed areas, and the sectional body should be responsible for the water supplies in that particular area. They should prepare schemes and submit them to the central authority. Without speaking disparagingly of well-administered authorities such as Birmingham, it is absurd that a town like Birmingham should have a monopoly of 100,000,000 gallons of water per day when they use only 30,000,000 gallons of water, and that their pipe line should run through arid areas, waterless areas, which cannot take any of the water without paying an exorbitant charge which rural areas are unable to afford.

  1107
  It has been said that rural authorities have had opportunities to promote schemes, and that the ratepayers themselves have turned them down. The rateable value of a rural authority is not very great, and if it desires to provide a water supply for its area it is reasonable to suppose that it will start with the thickly populated area first and leave the outlying districts to a later period. But when they are making the rate they have to make the rate over the whole of the area, and those people who are asked to pay extra rates for things which their neighbours are to receive, and in which they will not participate, object. They very properly say that if they are to have their rates increased for the purposes of a water supply, they are entitled to have a water supply, but that the authority is rating the whole of the area and giving a water supply to only a part of it. It has been held that all the 1,770 local authorities are theoretically responsible for their own water supplies. In some cases they have not even the water in their area; nor have they the money, the facilities, or the knowledge. It really means that the Government will have to take this matter in hand. It may be said that I am advocating the nationalisation of water. Well, some scheme will have to be brought into being to deal with the matter.
  Within the last few years £50,000,000 has been spent on electricity, and not £6,000,000 on water. If there is one thing which is essential as a social service to the general health, well-being and standard of the individual, it is an ample supply of pure water, not water scooped out of the ditch or a bucket. I know that I shall not appeal to my right hon. Friend in vain. I shall look with great interest to the progress that is made on this question. I hope that nothing I have said will be considered as an aspersion on the National Government. I have said on more than one occasion that I support the National Government, although there have been things which I have had to criticise. But criticism is healthy if it is helpful, and, while I have criticised the Government on occasions, when it comes down to fundamentals they have delivered the goods. One of the fundamentals of good health is pure water in ample amount.
  6.42 p.m.
  Dr. ADDISON: Like many other hon. Members I was cheered by seeing the right hon. Gentleman rise as Minister of Health to move the Vote of his Department. He reminded the Committee that several years ago I had the honour of introducing him to the Ministry of Health. All I can say is that if he serves his party now as assiduously in the Department as he did then, he will add another achievement to his credit, and it may be admitted in the future that he was as successful as Minister of Health as he was as Postmaster-General. It was my duty in 1919 to inaugurate the Ministry of Health, and I should like to pay a tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for the immense help he gave me in those days, especially with regard to matters associated with national health insurance, of which he was a master. Among the purposes for which the Ministry of Health, as stated at that time, was set up, the first was:
  "for the purpose of promoting the health of the people throughout England and Wales."
  I have often thought since that that great governing purpose has been somewhat obscured sometimes, and I am afraid that it has been obscured during the last three years under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor.
  I am drawing attention to certain matters this afternoon—and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take it in that spirit—in order to point out what I believe to be great opportunities which are open to him and which have been lamentably neglected of late. With his usual adroitness the right hon. Gentleman confined his review to the last 25 years. Perhaps wisely, he did not say much about the last four years. I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) said about housing standards, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will himself go into that matter because, with regard to housing standards, during the last three and a half years the Ministry of Health has been the spear-head of reaction. If the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the great purpose of the Ministry of Health I think he will find that the reasons for that charge are worthy of his personal exploration,

  1109
  and I hope that he will undertake such an exploration.
  There is one other matter which has not yet been mentioned and which I would also ask him to examine, because I believe that it is becoming of increasing importance yearly. That is the operation of the 1925 Derating Act. Under that Act certain areas are derated with respect to certain properties, and a formula was invented for distributing Government grants. That formula is operating with great unfairness. I am not blaming anybody in particular for it, but there are certain elements in that formula which relate to density of population and certain others which relate to the percentage of unemployment and the ability to pay rates, and, as it is operating, it is working out harshly to the rural areas and to the poor or distressed areas. I believe that in the very near future either the right hon. Gentleman or somebody else as Minister of Health will have to recast the whole of this system, scrap that formula and find a method of distributing the grants which will be fairer and more helpful to the rural areas and to those areas which are least able to help themselves. At all events, I sincerely hope that he will give the matter his careful scrutiny.
  May I now refer briefly to the subject of maternal mortality? It is amazing that Westminster should have a maternal mortality rate of over 5 per 1,000 births, while Poplar has only a mortality rate of about 2.5. I am not quoting the case of Poplar merely for the sake of using the name, but I remember, and the right hon. Gentleman will remember, that in 1919 and 1920 we undertook a vigorous campaign for the institution of maternity clinics, lying-in homes and the rest of it. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor was, I suppose, a Treasury man. At all events, he had the Treasury mind and his idea was to save money. I was greatly comforted to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he was going to act vigorously and take active steps to combat maternal mortality. It is one of those subjects on which there is a mass of information available in the right hon. Gentleman's own office. At no time, even when we were most active in promoting maternity and child welfare centres, and when I was being denounced as a super-squanderer, did any local authority spend more than a penny rate on their
  1110
  maternity and child welfare services. We had Supplementary Estimates presented yesterday for £11,000,000 for aircraft and other purposes. I hope that just as the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor was determined not to spend money, he will now be aggressive in his determination to see that this matter is prosecuted. I hope he will say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "If you can afford Supplementary Estimates to the amount of £11,000,000, you can give me some money for maternity and child welfare homes and centres." I hope he will not be content with the standard of Kensington or any other area, but that he will obtain the necessary financial support for this great work, because it is a work that can be done. We all know that the training of midwives and so forth will take time, but by a few years of active work, I believe that he or his successor will be able to bring down the maternity death rate and get rid of that 50 per cent. excess.
  However, it is to a different subject that I desire principally to invite the right hon. Gentleman's attention. It is a question which is only now emerging. It is only coming to the front in, shall we say, a stealthy fashion, but it is a question of first rate national importance. The report of Sir George Newman on the school services in 1933 has often been quoted as excusing to some extent what has been happening, but I notice that a concluding sentence in that report—the report of the right hon. Gentleman's own chief medical officer—is as follows:
  "The physiological deterioration of the unemployed may appear at any time although it has not yet in any general degree appeared."
  That was the warning which the chief medical officer gave in 1933 and I believe that since that time there has accumulated dramatic evidence that the physical deterioration which Sir George Newman foresaw in 1933 is now emerging. This deterioration of physique is, I agree, difficult to define. We all know the difficulty of an exact definition of malnutrition. At the same time, it begins to appear gradually among children at two years, three years, four years and five years of age so that by the time the child is old enough to go to school one begins to find something distinctive in their condition. We have had four years of national economy at the expense of the unemployed and

  1111
  we are beginning to have some pretty dreadful evidence of the consequences to which I invite the right hon. Gentleman's attention.
  I quote four examples. I find that the medical officer for Breconshire examined 2,000 children in 15 schools in July, 1934. He found that the "under weights" that is children of five classified as being under weight from depressed areas numbered half as many again as those from the areas which are not regarded as depressed. Then, in Burnley I find from the medical officer's report that the percentage of malnutrition among children has risen from 1.4 per thousand in 1929 to 8.3 in 1933, not-withstanding the provision of free meals. I am taking examples from big places where there are first-rate efficient staffs. The report of the Preston medical officer contains this statement:
  "Put scientifically, the industrial situation"—
  I ask hon. Members to mark the words "the industrial situation"—
  "has deprived people of first-class proteins, fats and vitamins. In plain words, bread, jam, margarine and tea have taken the place of milk, meat, eggs and fresh fruit."
  That is what you might expect—
  "In the districts where unemployment is most marked the results of poverty are very definitely reflected in every class of the school. Taken as a group the children are undersized, pale, listless, flabby and mentally dull."
  I give one other case and that is Pontypridd. The medical officer's report states:
  "Long-continued unemployment in the basic trades has led to a large number of families becoming dependent upon transitional payments or public assistance. There is imminent danger of this continued low level of subsistence leading to malnutrition and physical deterioration among the children of the unemployed."
  I could quote dozens of such reports, but I have given a fair sample of the reports which have emerged in the last 12 months or so, when there has been time for the malnutrition associated with unemployment to begin to make itself manifest. Some of my colleagues may remember that in February of this year I put a question to the then Prime Minister. I asked whether it was proposed to publish the report of the President of the Royal Society and other scientists that was made to the Government last year on the
  1112
  nutrition of children and kindred subjects. In his reply the right hon. Gentleman said that he assumed that I was referring to a memorandum submitted last year by the Economic Advisory Council. He also said that the document was intended to be confidential. There was the usual cross-questioning afterwards and the right hon. Gentleman said at the end of it that the matter was under consideration. So I waited for a time, and then put another question to the Minister of Health. Finally on 6th June this year, he announced that he had, after considerable difficulty, etc., got together a committee which would take the place of the advisory committee which there had been before. That will not do. What some of the eminent gentlemen who advised the Economic Council have said elsewhere is common knowledge, and I am going to rely on what those gentlemen have said. Who are one or two of these eminent gentlemen, some of whom I have met and with some of whom I am good friends? One of the advisers to the Government is the president of the Royal Society, a great authority on nutrition problems. I believe that another was the secretary of the Medical Research Council. Another was the secretary of the Royal Society. There were others, all of whom at different times have made some very remarkable statements on this question of nutrition.
  This report to which the Prime Minister refers is, it is true, the report about which I was asking. The Prime Minister told the House there had been this report. The report ought to be published, and I want it published. It is a year since it was put in. As the Prime Minister told the House of Commons on 14th February, it was a report submitted confidentially to the Economic Advisory Council, but he knows perfectly well that nothing is easier than to take off the trimmings, and the House of Commons on a great matter of this sort ought not to be kept in the dark for 12 months about the state of nutrition of the nation's children. Judging from their other reports, I think that I should be right if I suggested some of the things that were said. I am quite sure that they would have said that there are widespread defects of nutritional origin among the children of the people. There have been some remarkable inquiries of which the results have been published. I can refer to only one or two. One, I

  1113
  notice, was the subject of discussion in Sir George Newman's report.
  One of the most precise inquiries was conducted at Newcastle among the children of those who had been out of work and of those who were more well-to-do. Among the well-to-do 25 per cent. of the children were above the normal height, whereas in the industrial or poorer classes only 2 per cent. were above and 47 per cent. were below it. A remarkable thing also has emerged during the last two or three years from these nutritional inquiries in the poorer areas, and that is the wide extent of anaemia among children. It arises only gradually and imperceptibly, gradually developing as a result of improper or insufficient dietary. In the Newcastle case a certain standard was taken. Twenty-three per cent. of the industrial classes and those who had been unemployed were below a very low standard. None of the other classes were below, and 75 per cent. of them were above it. In one inquiry Dr. Spencer first came across these children by accident, because he was looking out for cases of rickets to treat with the modification of a new scientific remedy. If the right hon. Gentleman will cast his mind back to 1921 and 1923 it was very difficult in our hospital out-patients' rooms to find rickets. With the better wages and food the people had at that time it was not at all easy to find cases of rickets, but in Newcastle they found 44 cases of rickets quite easily. In the first 40 cases as they came in, when their family circumstances were traced back in every case the parents were out of work.
  That meant that as a result of unemployment, more or less long continued, there was this state in the children. All these cases show that among the children of these industrially poor people, particularly if they were out of work and had been subject to the family means test for a long time, anaemia, rickets, and other developments of an obviously mal-nutritional kind were becoming dreadfully prominent. It would be quite useless for the Parliamentary Secretary to quote Sir George Newman's report of 1923 about the general average of the whole country. I know that. I am talking about what is beginning to be manifest now that the children have become old enough for the effects of their nutrition to show. I want to persuade the right hon. Gentleman if I can to let us have the benefit of the
  1114
  advice and report which these distinguished gentlemen gave to the Government more than a year ago, and which have not yet been published.
  Judging from their other speeches and writings I am confident that these gentlemen will have reported to the Government the very widespread extent of dental caries and pyorrhoea associated with poor diet. Cases throughout the country which have been investigated—and all sorts of investigations have been going on—all indicate the same kind of thing, that about 60 per cent. of the expenditure on food of the poorer people is spent on cereals, bread and so on. These particular foods do not contain certain elements which are necessary for full healthy development, and the absence of which goes to explain rickets, dental caries and so on to a large extent. They cannot afford eggs, milk, fresh fruit and vegetables. It is apparent that as a result they fill themselves up with something that is cheap; they fill themselves up too much with bread and starchy things, more than they ought to have, but because they cannot afford to buy the other things which they ought to have. I was surprised at the quaint interjection of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) in reply to somebody as to the value of milk. He has not been keeping abreast of the doings of his scientific brethren, because large-scale experiments as to the feeding of school children on milk have been carried out. I see that in one large group experiment children who were given a pint of milk a day grew 2.6 inches a year while children who had not been given milk grew only 1.8 inches. The children who had the milk put on 9.3 lbs. in weight whereas those who had not the milk put on only 3.8 lbs.
  I am sure, judging from the mass of material available to anybody, that these scientists will certainly have told the Government that these children ought to have more than one pint of milk a day. They cannot afford it. There is no doubt that nursing and expectant mothers ought to have milk if they are to do their best by their children; and the absence of it has been shown to prejudice seriously their chances in pregnancy. Here I have the report of the Estimates, and I notice that the amount for milk, England and Wales, is £338,000. That is to enable the Milk Board to give these

  1115
  cheap milk supplies to children, and the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor was very anxious to secure that children did not have free milk unless they had a medical certificate. I want these scientists' report put side by side with the ruling of the last Minister of Health. These children need to have milk if you are to prevent them from needing a medical certificate. I remember catching it hot years ago because I insisted on extensive feeding of school children. I got into sad trouble about it. I was called all sorts of unkind names.
  If the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health had been urged by his Minister to say a word about it, the present policy would very soon have been altered. I do not believe it will last long now. The right hon. Gentleman—I give him credit for this—will, I think, put up a fight with the Treasury on the subject if necessary. If he will publish the report for which I am asking, that was presented to the Government in June, 1934, or thereabouts, I am sure that this penurious policy which results in this very scanty provision of milk to school children in distressed areas will be brought to an end, because it is certain that the deprivation of these families, wholesale, in South Wales, the North-Eastern district, Lancashire, and elsewhere, of the ability to buy a sufficiency of milk, eggs, and food of that kind, compelling them to fill themselves up with starchy things, too much bread and so forth, is now beginning to show its immensely damaging effects.
  It is the first duty of the Minister of Health, as I said at the beginning, to promote the health of the people throughout England and Wales. I may be referred by the Parliamentary Secretary—I should not blame him, because he has to make out a case—to the controversy that arose between the British Medical Association and the Government's own Advisory Committee about diet scales. Whatever may be the precise splitting of figures between the disputants, there seems to be no doubt that whichever scale you take, the amount of money available for buying the right kind of food under these scales is seriously deficient. For a father, mother, and three children I see it is put at 23 per cent., and for a father, mother, and two children 15 per cent., and so on. I am
  1116
  not going to get embroiled in a discussion as to whether it should be 4s. 11d. or 5s. 2d. That is not the point. The point is that it is clear now, and it is beginning to be dramatically clear, that the long-continued inability of the people in these areas to buy the right kind of food is having a seriously damaging effect upon their children.
  I venture to make four or five quite confident statements based on what is now, I think, proved. We should encourage a standard whereby these children could be fed properly. I agree that you must have a considerable educative campaign as to what is the right kind of food, but the right hon. Gentleman is an absolute expert on methods of publicity—and I am sure he could get it across as well as any man in Parliament—as to the value of milk, eggs, and so on. I would not ask for a better man to take up the job. I want him to take it up, because during the past four years of this Government these services have been starved, and if the feeding of the unemployed and the allowances to be made, when they are produced by the new Board, were accompanied by a proper diet policy, I will undertake to say that in a few years' time the average stature of British children would be up by, say, a couple of inches—I make that as a confident statement—that you could wipe out rickets that you could wipe out 50 per cent. of the dental caries and pyorrhoea; and that you could practically get rid of child anaemia, which is very widespread now in all these places. If the Government knew no better, a lot of my exordium would be uncalled for, but I know they do know better. I know the people, or some of the people anyhow, who have advised them. The Prime Minister told me himself that they had made a report on these matters, and I want that report. I know that that report, when it is produced, will justify every word I say, but it will do something else: it will knock the bottom out of the family means test.
  7.23 p.m.
  Sir MURDOCH MACDONALD: The right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) has made a very moving appeal for a proper milk supply for the children of this country, and I deeply sympathise with everything he has said in that particular. I would like to say to him, however, that a proper milk supply is

  1117
  really unattainable unless there is an adequate water supply to every place in the country. Can it be imagined that in the little country districts the milk supply can be anything like what it should be if there is no water? The hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) dealt with this subject, but I think he missed one essential point, and that is the sole reason for my rising this evening to address the Committee. He made a very moving appeal for an adequate water supply to the villages of this country. He pointed out the grievous results that happen because there is no adequate water supply, and he asked the Government to step in and see that an adequate supply is provided. Usually the country districts have to provide the greater part of the money necessary for such a supply themselves, and it is not unjust that they should be asked to pay an adequate sum for the provision of a water supply, but I would like to draw the Minister's attention to a letter which appeared recently in the "Times," in which it was stated that a very small district in the West of England had a water supply taken from a spring in a property some distance away. They paid £30 a year for it, and they had a lease on it. In due time the lease expired, and the proprietor said: "Oh, yes, I will renew the lease if you pay me £350"—an impossible sum for the little local authority concerned.
  Here, evidently, the Minister and the Government ought to step in. Some time ago we were asked in this House to pass a Bill to make the petroleum supplies which possibly underlie the country Government property, that is, the universal property of all of us, and we did pass that Bill. But nobody has taken care to ensure that the absolutely necessary supply of water should be at the service of those who require it. Water is on an entirely different footing. If a spring is in somebody's field, you not only have to pay for a wayleave to go there, but apparently you must pay any exorbitant price that the proprietor likes to ask. I am told that any small authority may go and purchase the land in which there is a spring. In the smaller cases that is not practicable. In the larger towns, like London, Birmingham, Manchester, and so on, it is easy, with the finances at their disposal, to purchase great blocks of territory and to buy the water running through that territory and
  1118
  so have for themselves and their inhabitants a full and adequate water supply. But that is not at all the case with the smaller authorities. I therefore suggest very strongly that the Ministry should carefully consider the desirability of bringing in a Bill to make the water supplies of this country, whether underground or flowing on the surface, free to all those who care to use them, subject, of course, to payment for wayleaves.
  The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Commander Cochrane): The hon. Member is now making a proposal which would entail legislation, and that is not in order on this Vote.
  Sir M. MACDONALD: At any rate, I have made a suggestion to the Government, and that was the purpose for which I rose. It is well within the competence of the Minister of Health to see that an adequate supply of water is provided for every district in this country, and the proper way for him to deal with that is, in some way or other, to obtain possession of the actual water supply itself.
  7.29 p.m.
  Mrs. TATE: The right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) welcomed, as we all welcome, the right hon. Gentleman to his new post as Minister of Health, but I was particularly sorry to hear him say that he hoped to see an aggressive policy on the part of my right hon. Friend, and then to have him suggest that the maternal mortality figures in this country could be cured simply by the pouring out of money.
  Dr. ADDISON: No.
  Mrs. TATE: That was the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, as can be seen from to-morrow's OFFICIAL REPORT, and it comes particularly ill from the right hon. Gentleman, inasmuch as he himself has been a qualified medical man and knows very well that the spending of money alone will never save one mother's life in this country. The problem, unfortunately, is not as simple as that. I am afraid that there is no possible question, if we study the medical reports and medical pamphlets to which we have access, that medical knowledge in this country in the past 25 years has advanced out of proportion to the availability of that knowledge to the public as a whole. That availability to the public will come

  1119
  when we have a proper co-ordination of services, proper continuity of services, and, above all, proper training. We have had some interesting figures of the rates of maternal deaths in West Ham and Poplar and in Kensington and Westminster. I do not say that I can suggest the whole cause, but it will be interesting to look into it and to see if what I would suggest is not largely the cause. Is there not perhaps in Poplar and West Ham one main service to supply most of the needs of the people, whereas in Kensington and Westminster there is perhaps a large number of private doctors' practices and there are also State and voluntary hospitals? I suggest that perhaps there is less co-ordination and a lack of continuity in the services in those two areas.
  In the area served by Guy's Hospital the maternity figures have been brought down to one per 1,000. That is because in that area there is a trained staff attending to the people. What is the position in the country to-day, however? We have not a greater likelihood of a trained staff; we have rather the danger of a less trained staff. In Guy's Hospital the students and midwives are getting only about half the quantity of material upon which to learn that was laid down as a minimim by the General Medical Council. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the 20 cases laid down as a minimum for training was in all conscience very small, and it is an appalling situation if in our hospitals today our midwives and doctors are not able to get even half the quantity of material upon which to train. It means that we are sending out midwives and doctors who cannot know their job properly. It is an admirable thing to have ante-natal and post-natal clinics, but it is useless having them unless they are staffed by people who are experts. There are many things which could be done to correct this. I suggest that one of the main faults to-day lies with the appointment boards of the hospitals. They insist before they give good jobs to nurses that they shall have taken a Central Midwives' Board certificate, whether or not they intend to practice midwifery. If the small supply of material is used by nurses who are never going to practice midwifery, it means that material is taken on which nurses who are going to
  1120
  practise it ought to train, and the consequence is that we cannot get properly trained staffs. I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman has read the article which appeared in the "Lancet" on the 27th April by a leading London obstetrician, who said:
  "Imagine the British Admiralty sending a battleship into action with an improvised crew, but that is what is being done in the battle that has been joined with maternal mortality rates. The necessary personnel has not been trained, and until this has been done there is not the slightest chance of victory."
  Later, he said:
  "The knowledge at our disposal is ample. All we have to do is to make proper use of it, that is, to get it across to the people."
  I am sure that all of us who are interested in this subject do not really want to make a party issue of it. We want to get the thing cured, and although I agree that money has to be spent, it will not be cured by the mere spending of money.
  Dr. ADDISON: I never suggested anything of the kind. I said that I was well aware that the services will take years to develop. The hon. Member must give me credit for not thinking that the cure is in the mere spending of money.
  Mrs. TATE: The right hon. Gentleman certainly said the services would take years to develop, and I do not think that they need take so very many years to develop. He referred, however, to the fact that £11,000,000 had been voted for another service yesterday, and that we ought therefore to be able to spare money for the maternity services. If that does not suggest that the spending of money is the root cure of the evil, I do not know what it does suggest. I am not attempting to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman. I am only trying to make him face the facts instead of making maternal mortality a party issue, which is what he is trying to do. I know quite well that the Socialist party has stood for the spending of money whether it was justified or not, and whether or not it meant sending up the rates of the people who had to give it. I do not believe in that policy. I believe in spending money when it is going to benefit the people. I do not believe that the mere spending of money in itself will do anyone any good.

  1121
  The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), when speaking yesterday of the insurance rates, said that there had been a larger number of accidents in this country lately but that the insurance money paid has been less, and that that caused him great disquiet. That is only an example of exactly the same thing. We live to-day in a mechanical age, and there is an appallingly large number of accidents in industry and on the roads. Those accidents account for a great waste of time and of money, and I believe that, owing to the system in practice, that wastage is in excess of what it should be.
  I would draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to an interesting report which came out in February of this year. It is the report of the Committee on Fractures which was issued by the British Medical Association. It showed that in 1932 there was paid out under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Employers Liability Act of 1880 a sum of £4,479,305 in respect of 346,243 accidents. That figure included, of course, only the accidents for which such money is payable in mines, quarries, railways, factories, docks, constructional work and shipping. It did not include building, road transport, or agricultural accidents. There is also an enormous number of accidents on the road. The report clearly shows that in this country there is a complete lack of organisation with regard to fractures in almost all our general hospitals. It shows also the serious result of this in the loss of money, not only to the workmen themselves, but to the insurance companies. It gives some interesting figures. There are two well-organised hospitals for fractures in this country; one is Ancoats Hospital in Manchester and the other is the Liverpool Infirmary. Statistics are given showing the difference in the time spent in hospital as a result of the same injury in organised hospitals and in unorganised hospitals. To quote only one example out of many, in 482 cases of Collis's fracture in organised hospitals, the disability period averaged seven weeks and the number of cases permanently incapacitated was two. In unorganised hospitals, in 38 cases of the same fracture the average period of disability was 29 weeks and the number of cases permanently incapacitated was nine.
  1122
  These figures give serious cause for thought. The report also states that the most efficient hospital in Europe for fractures is Baler's Clinic in Austria. It is an interesting clinic in as much as it is financed entirely by insurance companies, It has only 119 beds. In its first year 790 fracture cases in Vienna were brought to the notice of the insurance companies, but only 119 were treated in Böhler's Clinic, the others being treated outside. The insurance companies estimate that the shortness of the period of invalidity and the completeness of recovery in those 119 cases gave them a saving in the first year of £7,000.
  We have been told that the finances of the approved societies are in such a bad state that it was necessary to lower the benefit paid to women in sickness, and I would therefore beg the Minister to inquire not only as to what sum of money is spent but what sum of money would be spent if we had a really co-ordinated, continuous and efficient service for accidents all over the country. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bring pressure to bear through the Ministry and the insurance companies to see that such a service is inaugurated, and to see that pressure is brought on the hospitals to insure that such a service shall be forthcoming.
  To return to the maternal mortality rate, there are questions which none of us care altogether to face, but it is time that they were faced. One of the causes of the ill-health of mothers in the urban and industrial areas is the tremendous amount of abortion. Members may or may not approve of birth control clinics, but let them face what is going on. A well-run and well-organised birth control clinic may be of infinite value to married women. You may not believe in them, but do not imagine that the other thing does not exist. The tremendous amount of advertising of materials to produce abortion that exists all over the country must cause anyone who has the welfare of the health of our mothers at heart very serious consideration. It is time that this fact was realised and that some steps were taken to deal with it.
  On the question of milk, the Government have ensured that a vastly increased number of children shall be given milk in the elementary schools. We all believe that it is for the health of the children concerned, but if we give

  1123
  the children milk we have to face the fact that one of the chief causes of death among young people between 15 and 20 is tuberculosis, and we must take every step to see that our milk is not tubercle and is clean. I would impress on my right hon. Friend that he should take every step to see that this is ensured. The present method of keeping milk free from tubercle bacillus is expensive for the farmer and it is not always completely effective, and I would urge upon my right hon. Friend that he should carefully watch the experiments which have been carried out in other countries, and, if they are proved to be successful, I hope he will lose no time in seeing that they are carried out in this country also.
  7.45 p.m.
  Viscount ELMLEY: There are three aspects of local government to which I wish to call attention, and I will be as brief as I can. The most difficult and complicated one, which I will take first, concerns the Rent Restriction Act, 1933, and what I have to say on it links with what was said earlier by the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner). He represents a division as different from mine as possible. His is, perhaps, the most urban and industrial division, and mine is, perhaps, the most rural, but the same trouble seems to be common to both—and I believe many other places—namely, that the Rent Restriction Act of 1933 is not working out properly. That is mainly because it is a most complicated Act, as no one will deny. I do not think the ordinary man in the street can understand it without the aid of a lawyer. That is all right for the lawyers, but it is not good for those who cannot afford to pay them, and I am sure the Minister will agree that it is not right that a Measure should go out from his Department to become as this has, a stamping ground for lawyers throughout the country.
  In support of my statement that I do not believe it is working properly I will give my own experience. Section 10 provides that if complaints about rents, control or decontrol of houses, the use of improper rent books and other matters are brought to the notice of the local authorities they may investigate them. I do not need to remind the Committee that there is all the difference in the world between the words "may" and
  1124
  "must." A great many cases were brought to my notice, and I was informed that the local authority concerned, the North Walsham Urban District Council, would not take any action in the matter, and was asked to see whether I could do any better. I did not, as it turned out, succeed in doing very much better. I selected half-a-dozen of the worst cases and put them before the council, who made a very cursory investigation, so cursory that I could not possibly accept the explanation which they gave me. I wrote again and asked if they would be good enough to investigate more closely, because I was not satisfied with their explanation. Then they had rather an interesting meeting. One candid councillor, almost too candid, said that he was very much surprised that I had sent only six cases, because he thought there must be many hundreds. One would think that that would have encouraged the council to look into the cases I had submitted and clear them up. Not a bit of it. I do not know whether they were frightened of finding out too much, but they moved and carried a resolution that the correspondence which they had been carrying on with me should be closed. So I am afraid I was not able to do very much.
  I do not think that position is satisfactory—not because they would not continue the correspondence with me, but because these were eases which really ought to be investigated to set the public mind at rest. The explanation which people put upon it is that all these councillors are the landlords concerned and, therefore, are not going to prosecute themselves, I do not think that is a satisfactory position, and I feel that one thing the Ministry could do—I am not pleading for legislation, because it would be out of order to do so now—would be to make clear throughout the country exactly what the Act provides and also show how the Act has been interpreted in cases in the law courts. The present position ought not to be allowed to continue, because it is not satisfactory for a local authority to have people saying that they will not do their duty for the reason that they are all concerned as landlords and will not prosecute themselves. It is satisfactory neither for them nor for local government as a whole that that idea should creep in. There are many people who say that the Ministry of

  1125
  Health ought to do something, but that opens up a very wide question, because there is a widespread opinion that Government interference has gone a great deal too far already, and to say that the Ministry of Health must always intervene might accentuate that feeling. I hope I have not done wrong in bringing the rather extraordinary conduct of this local authority to the notice of the Committee. It sometimes happens that it is a very salutary thing to bring the searchlight of publicity upon authorities which are not playing the game.
  I pass from that subject to the question of relief work, which it is necessary to provide in Norfolk because, unfortunately, neither agricultural workers nor fishermen are insured against unemployment. I will not weary the Committee with the details, because I have made myself somewhat of a nuisance to the Ministry of Health on this subject in the past. After I had made representations to the predecessor of the Minister, and certain changes had been made, I was asked by those relief workers to thank the Minister for what he had done, and I take this opportunity of doing so, and assuring him that they are most grateful for the action of the Department. I must put in a plea for uniformity in the treatment of the men who are put on relief work. In the first place there is no shadow of doubt that they would rather have this relief work than nothing at all, but what does cause dissatisfaction is that men who come from a village about two miles out of Yarmouth have to walk some seven miles to their work, which is at a sandpit, and at the same time see relief workers from Yarmouth, who have only some three or four miles to go, being taken there and back in a lorry. Further, the men find when they get to this relief work, seven miles away, that no tent or other shelter is provided where they can eat their lunch, whereas the Yarmouth men have had a special shed erected for them and a man is provided to keep their food hot. They ask, and with reason, why they should be treated differently from the others. It is all very well to explain to them that the matter is under the control of the local authority, which lays down the conditions, but I hope that when this business is taken over by the Unemployment Assistance Board it will take careful note of these points and try to get uniformity as far as possible. I
  1126
  was glad to see a recommendation that the scale of relief should be—
  The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I do not think the question of scales of relief arises on this Debate.
  Viscount ELMLEY: I bow to your Ruling. My only object in mentioning it was to make a plea for uniformity. I will come now to my last point, which concerns rural housing. I was very glad to hear from the Minister this afternoon about the houses which are being built, and of the progress that has been made, but if he will examine the returns he will find that rural housing is a Cinderella. There is not the progress in rural housing which there ought to be. There are two main reasons for that state of affairs. The first is that in an agricultural community like Norfolk it is quite impossible for people to pay more than 5s. a week in rent. The usual wages there are 31s. 6d. a week, and some people get less than that if they are fishermen and work on another basis, and I do not think it is fair to expect them to pay more than 5s. in rent; but without a subsidy local authorities do not find it possible to build houses which will let at between 3s. and 5s. a week. Though I do not want to go into the remedy for this, because it would be out of order now, I hope the Minister will read between the lines of what I am saying. There are in my division five local authorities, and I am certain that all could do a great deal more if it were not for the present conditions. They get no grant for housing at all, except for rehousing families under the Act of 1930. I think the Minister is quite right, in the case of towns, and the districts around the towns, to look to private enterprise to build houses, but he cannot expect private enterprise to do it in the country, and I hope his Department will pay attention to that consideration. In conclusion, I would congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his promotion to the Ministry of Health, and say that if he brings to the problems now before him the spirit of energy and enterprise which he displayed at the Post Office, the people of this country will be very grateful to him.
  7.56 p.m.
  Mr. MAITLAND: The variety of subjects covered by this Debate is some indication of the ramifications of the Ministry of Health, and I must confess

  1127
  to feeling some sympathy with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary who has to reply to all the questions which have been raised, though I have no doubt as to his ability to discharge that duty. May I join with those Members who have offered a welcome to the new Minister, and may I also strike another note which so far has not been struck, in saying that there is no disparagement whatever of the right hon. Gentleman Sir Hilton Young, who is not now a Member of this House. It is my personal opinion that his departure is a distinct loss to the House, and I should be very sorry if any observations which have been made by hon. Members during this Debate were taken too seriously. It would be a departure from a sound principle of this House to refer in disparaging terms to people who are not here to reply for themselves. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) did not pursue a little further his statements on the block grant arising from the derating formula. He made a statement, though he did not substantiate it, that that formula was not working satisfactorily, and that the rural areas particularly, I think, were being adversely affected by the application of the block grant. I should be much obliged if the Parliamentary Secretary would tell the Committee whether the formula is, in general, working out in the way in which it was intended to work out, which was precisely the opposite of the way in which the right hon. Gentleman indicated that it was operating.
  Those who were in the House when that Measure was under consideration will remember that it was rather a complicated one, but it laid down the principle of helping those districts which were most in need of help. Rural districts got help because one of the factors in the formula was the mileage of roads in a district. Industrial centres were helped by three factors—population, the number of children under five years of age, and the number of unemployed. In view of the increase of unemployment in certain districts since then I feel that that factor in the formula could not affect adversely the depressed areas but rather must have helped them. I shall be very much obliged if the Minister will give us some indication as to whether or not the formula has had that effect.
  1128
  May I refer to one of the subjects raised by almost every speaker—and it is perhaps right on the Vote of the Minister of Health administration that it should be raised—the subject of housing. Everybody is agreed that housing is one of the most important things which make for the comfort and contentment of our people. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) was speaking, I ventured to interrupt. I thank him for his courtesy in permitting my interruption, and I can understand his reluctance to pursue the question I then raised. We all know that it is not always convenient to pursue a question in the middle of a speech. I should like to pursue the argument he was advancing at the time of my interruption. The impression he conveyed to me was this. He was speaking about the decreased number of houses built by local authorities since the general subsidy was moved. He said that a large number of houses had been built by private enterprise, but he deplored the fact that the general subsidy had been removed and in its place a subsidy had been introduced which was conditional upon new houses being subject to the demolition schemes in regard to slums. I shall always have the highest admiration for Sir Hilton Young, because he was the first Minister to introduce any Measure which had as a fundamental principle the abolition of slums. That will always be to his credit, and I would like in this connection to ask the present Minister if he can give the Committee any idea as to the extent of the slum campaign.
  The Committee will remember that the House as a whole has given enthusiastic support to two Measures which go to the very roots of the housing problem. I am very sceptical about people who come along and say that there are so many millions of houses needed. I realise that unless you have sufficient and reliable data on which to form an estimate that estimate is useless. Therefore, I am very sceptical of estimates that 5,000,000 or 10,000,000 more houses are needed, because I do not believe there is anybody in the country who has sufficient evidence as to the real need. There have been passed in this House recently two Measures which will help us to get the tacts, whatever else they may do. There are two facts which are vital in the consideration of the housing question. The extent of the housing shortage is decided,

  1129
  first of all, by the question of slums, and secondly, by overcrowding, which is not confined to slums. If we can find out, as we can by these measures, the extent of the need for the abolition of slums and the number of people to be rehoused in accordance with that abolition, we shall have established that factor, and, secondly, under the overcrowding provisions of the Housing Bill the number of houses necessary in consequence of overcrowding will be established, and we shall have reliable data on which to form an estimate as to how many new houses will be required in the future.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield was criticising the present Administration in this sense. He said they had abandoned the general subsidy in respect of housing and in its place had given a subsidy in respect to houses that were to be the subject of abolition schemes. I think it is a good thing that these two matters should be tied up together. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that in the past a large number of houses have been built which unfortunately have not become occupied by the class of persons we in this House most desire to help. That is due to a variety of reasons, but nobody in this House can say that no progress has been made by the present Administration with regard to housing. I would remind members of the Opposition who like to criticise the removal of the general subsidy of this fact, which they will not dispute. The average price of houses today of the type which are suitable for and which are desired by members of the working classes, is lower than when the general subsidy was in operation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield said it was true that large numbers of houses had been built but that they cannot be let. From many points of view that may be a misfortune, but for myself I should be very glad to see every householder in the country the owner of his house. I should be very glad to see every person living in his own house.
  I think the right hon. Gentleman overlooked the great services which have been rendered in respect to housing by the building societies. I am very surprised to hear some hon. Gentlemen below me criticising building societies. Their funds are built up largely by the savings of the working classes. They borrow money
  1130
  at most advantageous terms, because it is the savings of the workers, and they lend it on most advantageous terms in accordance with the market of the day. I cannot understand hon. Gentlemen criticising institutions like the building societies, which have played such an important part in helping the poorest section of our community with financial accommodation and putting them in a position sooner or later to buy their own houses. We may have doubts as to the various schemes we have put into operation being entirely successful in their main purpose, but we cannot say we have done nothing in regard to housing. The total capital expenditure on subsidised housing since 1919 has been £655,000,000. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman below me that of that sum £432,000,000 is in respect of buildings by local authorities during the last five years. The right hon. Gentleman argued that the Minister of Health had not referred to the events of the last five years. I think he said that he had taken a survey over a quarter of a century rather than confined his observations to the last four or five years. In a general survey of the Ministry of Health and its activities, it is just as well that the House should have a more comprehensive survey than we can have in only one year's activity. But taking the five years up to March, 1935, there have been no fewer than 1,079,254 houses built by local authorities and by private enterprise.
  The right hon. Gentleman made some reference to the fact that houses were not built in the early days of the present Administration. That will not bear investigation. In 1931 the total number of houses built was 183,000, in 1932, 200,000, in 1033 200,000, in 1934 266,000, and in 1935 327,000. Let me deal specifically with the right hon. Gentleman's complaint that these houses have not been built for the working-classes. An analysis of the 327,000 houses built last year shows that the bulk of them have in fact been built for, and are capable of occupation by, the wage earners. I would give the ground on which I make that assertion. There have been 105,000 houses built by private enterprise without State assistance at a rateable value not exceeding £13, and 147,000 with a rateable value between £13 and £26, in addition to houses built by local authorities to be

  1131
  within the means of the wage earners. The Minister of Health is right when he said that of the 327,000 houses built 90 per cent. were for the wage-earning classes. I wanted to pursue the argument with the right hon. Gentleman, because when I asked him if he acknowledged that the rateable value was the great factor in determining the rent, he evaded an answer. But the fact is that Schedule A assessment is determined by the rental value. Taking the rental value, and bearing in mind the one-sixth allowance for the purposes of Schedule A, and, as a rough and ready calculation multiplying it by 20, you get the fair price of the house, which gives a rent very comparable with that which some hon. Members below me say should be paid. I am glad that we can recall with some satisfaction that progress has been made in our housing policy. It may be wrong to assume that all the work has been done, but at any rate we have some room for satisfaction in the knowledge that a great deal of work has been done and that the record of the present Administration will compare very favourably indeed with the record of the right hon. Gentleman who sits below me. I offer my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health good wishes in his new sphere and, if he will bring energy to bear in these matters of housing, maternal mortality and the other questions which have been discussed, he will have the cordial support of all Members in this House.
  8.13 p.m.
  Viscountess ASTOR: As the last speaker said, this Vote has opened great possibilities in the way of a speech—town planning, water supplies, rural housing, and what not—but I think most of us try to stick to the question about which we know most. I think these attacks on the late Minister of Health by some Members of the Opposition are very unfair. He has done more than any other former Minister of Health in the way of building houses, and he had very constructive views. I would admit he could not "put it over" as well as the present Minister can, but, if you look into his record, it is really very extraordinary. It is a splendid record, and all of us who are interested in this question are grateful to him for the work he has done. It is poor policy for the former Labour Minister of Health to attempt to
  1132
  criticise our Minister of Health. If he had half as good a record as the late Minister of Health the whole country would have been placarded with what he did. But unfortunately for the Labour party they can only have placards of what they are going to do, not what they have done. That is why they feel so bitterly towards our present Minister of Health and our late Minister, too. I am not going into the Labour position and what hon. Members have said about the health and welfare of the people. Everybody knows that the country was never better than it is to-day. It is said that there is malnutrition in some areas, but that comes from not knowing the right kind of food to give the children. [Interruption.] I am talking of what I know.
  Mr. JOHN: We are talking about what we know too.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Hon. Gentlemen are talking about what they think they know. Go into any area and see what you find at the open-air nursery schools. It is not that the children of the poor have not enough to eat, but that they very often have the wrong kind of food. Every expert knows that. There are, of course, problems. What I have said does not mean that I am contented with the situation as it is because I am far from contented. [Interruption.] If hon. Members will try not to interrupt me, I will try to go on.
  I hope that the Minister of Health will pay great attention to the speech made by the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy), who brought up the question of the water supply in rural areas. The late Minister of Health regarded that subject as of the utmost importance and so it is to the general health, especially of the women and children in those areas. I do not believe that any man who has not tried to live in a house which has no running water can realise the discomforts and the miseries which women in such houses have to go through. I regret to state that there are many such houses in the country, and I regard the position as a national disgrace. I hope that our present Minister, who is so good and knows so much about the subject, and who has had such experience, will, for the sake of the country, make that one of his first concerns.

  1133
  I am not proposing to defend the Minister of Health from the attack made upon him by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who made some very rude remarks about the Tory party. He said that when the Insurance Bill came in, it was opposed by the whole of the Tory party. It was not opposed by the whole of them, because the late Lord Henry Bentinck and the then Member for Plymouth were very keen about health insurance. I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree that they had the courage of their convictions, although they fought their party. There was a group in the House who believed in health insurance. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) asked why the Minister had not referred to the Poor Law, but that was going too far. The present Minister of Health helped the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring in the greatest reform the country has had for many a day, and that was Poor Law reform. I do not think that the Government have had half the credit for what they have done. Ask the people who are now enjoying the conditions in the municipal hospitals, and they will tell you. In my own constituency, when Labour people say how wonderful is our City hospital, I remind them that it was made possible by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and then they do not like it so much. Of all the people in the world who have something to say about the Poor Law it should not be the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield, but the present Minister of Health.
  Now just a few things about children, and then I will come to the question of maternal mortality. I do not know whether the House realises that there has been a fall in the birth-rate. That means that we have to take particular care of the children that are born. About 80,000 children are born each year, and of that number 2,500 are stillborn, 2,700 die under the age of one year, 6,700 die between the ages of one and two, and 6,600 die between one and five. Those figures are too high. Out of every 10 children born, more than one dies before reaching the age of five, and about half of those that die are under two years of age. It is in this connection that the infant welfare centres are so important. Although we are ahead of nearly every country in the world in that
  1134
  respect, we have not enough infant welfare centres. It surprises people to know that only about half the children under two ever go near an infant welfare centre. There are 1,750,000 children between the ages of two and five, and of that number 200,000 live in overcrowded conditions of three or more persons per room. Out of every 100 school children examined, 15.9 need medical attention, 15.4 need observation, nearly half show traces of rickets and more than two-thirds have defective feet.
  The former Chief Medical Officer of Health wrote a splendid report on that matter, and said that a great many of the cases were pathetic and that he could not afford to let it go on. I know no way of really getting at the situation except through the infant welfare centres which deal with children up to two. We must increase the number of infant welfare centres, and of open air nursery schools which cater for children from two to five years of age. I cannot go into that matter on the Ministry of Health Vote. We do not want those institutions to be under the Ministry of Health; we want them under the Board of Education. I am sure the Government will do what they can in that respect. Let those who talk about malnutrition bear in mind that if we are to get the children properly fed we must teach the mothers the right food to give them.
  Mr. BATEY: Give them the money to buy the food.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Surely the hon. Member will accept what was said by Margaret Macmillan who was one of the greatest reformers the country has ever seen. She found also that we must teach the mothers how to feed the children, and we also find that in our infant welfare centres. Let hon. Members go into the East End, and they will see children who are eating all day long. It is the easiest thing in the world for children to pop something into their mouths, and every mother knows that. Hon. Members have referred to Kensington; I think the housing conditions there are abominable, but if I thought there was under-nutrition among the children I should be the first to say so. I am not a party hack; hon. Members must know that by now. If I were, I might be on the Front Bench. You never can tell how far you can go if you say the pleasant things, but I am
  1135
  not thinking about that; I am thinking of the children. It is no use hon. Members riding off on malnutrition. It is not always under-feeding; over feeding causes the trouble in a good many cases. The thing to do is to get children between the ages of one and five into infant welfare centres and out of the appalling conditions under which they live.
  I am going to say something upon a subject which is not so easy or so pleasant. We have talked about maternal mortality for a long time, but there are certain facts that we do not like to face. We have to face them, although we think we cannot face them because they are controversial. A high percentage of maternal mortality is due to attempted abortion. Whether you like it or not, I am going to talk about the need for birth control centres throughout the country. I would remind hon. Members of all sections of the community or of religion that, whether they like it or not, birth control and illegal abortions are going on, and that the women of the country are suffering terribly. We, as a House of Commons and as a nation, must face up to that fact to-day. The Minister of Health wrote a very interesting article the other day and it was published, I think, in the "Daily Mirror," of all papers. He gave interesting facts showing the increase in antenatal clinics. He said that from 1930 to 1934 their number had increased by 425, and that many more women were going to them. He also said that there was a great deal more that the local authorities could do and that he would trust them. You cannot always trust local authorities to do what they ought to do. There are certain local authorities who would not move at all unless the central authority got hold of them. We have had instances of that in housing.
  I know that the Minister of Health understands this problem better than anyone else in the House, but I do not want him to be too optimistic about local authorities, and I hope that the Government will give a lead to those who are not doing their job. There is only one ante-natal clinic for every 5,500 women of child-bearing age, and some of these clinics are not properly distributed—they are not in the right places. How many local authorities are prepared to make any provision for scientific measures of birth control? To be safe, such clinics
  1136
  should be under the local authorities; they could be run in conjunction with the maternity and child welfare clinics. We want them to be either under the local authorities or under the Government, because we do not want them to be abused. All experts recognise the importance of abortion as a factor in maternal mortality. Two or three months ago I asked a question on this subject, and received a very interesting answer. It was the first question ever asked in the House on the subject. The report of the Commission on Maternal Mortality stated that, out of 3,085 maternal deaths investigated by the Commission, 407, or nearly one in six, were due to abortion. In the same series, 514 deaths were associated with diseases of the lungs, heart or kidneys, in all of which pregnancy is practically a death sentence. Thus, 984 lives out of 3,085, or nearly one-third, could have been saved by birth control.
  I am going to read presently a letter which Dr. Marie Stopes wrote to the "Times" some years ago, and which will give some idea of what is going on. Ignorance is the chief cause of the practice of abortion. Women are unable to get advice. Local authorities have been allowed to give such advice since 1934, but, of the 1,200 local authorities, only 60 have clinics, though it is true that about 150 more refer patients to voluntary agencies, and there are 54 voluntary clinics in England and Wales. I know some of the horrors that these women go through. Imagine a woman, married to a working man with a very low wage, and having two, three or four children. If there is the prospect of a fifth, naturally she is going to do her best to get rid of it, and she does. The misery that these women suffer is appalling. It is no use saying that birth control is not practised; it is practised. Hon. Members who are doctors could tell you—
  Mr. LOGAN: Does the Noble Lady, as a responsible Member of Parliament, mean to assert that a mother of three or four children has the right to get rid of the next one? Is that the Noble Lady's propaganda?
  Viscountess ASTOR: I am trying to prevent that mother from having to get rid of a child. That is what I am trying to do, and the hon. Member knows it as well as I do, I am trying to give her a chance of not having to suffer a criminal

  1137
  abortion, and in some cases the only way in which that can be done is by a proper method of birth control. This is the letter—a most illuminating letter—which Dr. Marie Stopes wrote to the "Times" in 1929:
  "A point of supreme national importance, all too generally overlooked, is the recent incredibly high proportion of deliberate and criminal interference with pregnancy among the ignorant classes. Experience at our clinic has brought staggering facts to light. Two illustrations will suffice:

  (1) That in three months I have had as many as twenty thousand requests for criminal abortion from women who did not apparently even know that it was criminal.

  (2) That in a given number of days, one of our travelling clinics received only thirteen applications for scientific instruction in the control of conception, but eighty demands for criminal abortion.

  Thus the fall in the birth-rate at present is clearly hot to be attributed solely to the use of birth control,' but to a much larger extent is due to criminal abortion. As this often has very serious after-effects on the mother's health, it would never be undertaken by a woman possessing knowledge of her own physiology. The only way to counteract this serious racial evil is to give sound physiological knowledge to all."
  That I believe to be perfectly true, Many years ago I did not believe in these birth control clinics—I do not know whether it was due to religious views, or why it was; but, when I saw the appalling things that were going on, my attitude changed. I believe that it is the duty of the Minister of Health to give the facts. Very often they are difficult to get. We all know that the doctors are the closest trade union in the world, and they would never give one another away. Also, they will not give their patients away, and in that they are quite right; I do not blame them. But, if they could be got to speak, they would be able to tell of the appalling things that they have come up against. In my opinion a great deal of this suffering is not necessary, and could be prevented, and it is our duty to try to prevent it. The lives of some of these women are truly pathetic. They are ignorant; they do not know where to go; and, when they do go to a clinic, it takes them some time to learn. This question of maternal mortality is very largely a question of proper instruction in birth control. It has nothing to do with poverty. Birth control goes on; many women know how to practise it; but the tragedy is that it is the poorest
  1138
  women who, through lack of knowledge, have to bring children into the world year after year.
  I hope that the Minister of Health will take a courageous line on this matter. We know that many sections of the community, and many religious bodies, do not believe in it, but England is a Protestant country. We must have the courage of our convictions, and if we as a country really believe—and the Government do, because they have given the local authorities, since 1934, the right to give this knowledge—that it is the cause of a great deal of suffering and misery, we must have the courage to go through with it no matter what the Opposition have to say about it. I have great faith in the Minister of Health. He has shown, in the House of Commons and in the country, that he is a man of great knowledge and great courage. I cannot do full justice to the subject, but for years I was against birth control. Then, having looked into it, I made up my mind that the blame would be upon the House of Commons if they failed to do what I believe quite honestly to be our national duty.
  8.34 p.m.
  Mr. LOGAN: I have listened to the Noble Lady expounding in the House of Commons the propaganda of Dr. Marie Stopes in regard to the question of birth control, and giving advice to the Minister of Health. I have a thorough knowledge of the poor, which the Noble Lady has not, and of the question of childbirth and the rearing of families. Every street in my neighbourhood is indicative of two things, the love of the mother for her children and the right of the child to proper sustenance. I aim reminded that this is a Protestant country. May I remind the Noble Lady that it is also a Christian country, and once the ethics in regard to propagation of the species are down it is the death knell of the country. There is a right of human life and a right of the propagation of the species, and if this knowledge is to be scientifically dispensed it will be one of the curses of the age. It may be all right in the scientific body to which the Noble Lady is attached that visits its friends once a fortnight or once a month. They may find the encumbrance of a child is a trouble, but in our neighbourhood we do not find it any trouble at all where a

  1139
  little child, if given healthy conditions and surroundings, will have an opportunity of becoming a useful citizen.
  If the Ministry wishes to encourage the welfare of the nation, it will not be by the scientific dispensation of the knowledge of Marie Stopes. The welfare of the nation will depend upon a, healthy manhood and womanhood, not so much the knowledge of the prostitute as the knowledge that goes to make for human happiness and the welfare of the people. This nation was never made on the scientific dissemination of material. It is only fit for the gutter. It is not fit for decent homes to have any knowledge of. Is there any mother or father who would be prepared to have coming into the home this material which is coming through the post to-day? An hon. Member brought into the Library the other day a letter that had been sent through the post from one of his constituents crying out against the publicity given to this type of scurrilous literature.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Just what I want to stop.
  Mr. LOGAN: The Noble Lady a few moments ago said she wanted to talk on a subject of which she had knowledge. I also want to talk on a subject of which I have knowledge. The Noble Lady would advocate that the family life of the nation must not be judged by poverty or wealth. I have yet to learn that in the wealthy homes of the country they are anxious to have children in any great quantity. [Interruption.] I have 10 and they had to go out to the War and fight. When this nation wants its manhood it will never be able to get it by the doctrines of Marie Stopes. It will never have a happy manhood or womanhood fed on the kind of tripe that the Noble Lady is bringing into the House. I knew this England long before the Noble Lady had to tell me of its Protestant character when these doctrines were unknown. I believe, although I am of a certain faith, that there is enough religion in this land of ours not to allow pernicious doctrines like this to be brought into family life. I believe it is pernicious. I believe it is the worst kind of propaganda that was ever introduced, and I am thoroughly convinced that there is no decent father or mother who would like the children to
  1140
  have knowledge of this kind of subject introduced into the home. [Interruption.] You have had enough to say. I am not sitting down. I have listened to you talking until I am fed up with listening.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to address the Chair.
  Mr. LOGAN: The Noble Lady comes in when it suits her to speak, and then she clears off for two or three months. [HON. MEMBERS "NO !"] I am in the House every day when the House is sitting, and I know. We are asked that advice should be given on a subject which the medical services of the country are not competent to deal with. Where is there anyone who cannot go to a family physician or a hospital for advice? Where is there anyone who has the right to advise that methods must be used by which there shall be no child-bearing by women? The object of the speech that has been made to-night is that, without denying the pleasure of sexual delectation, there must be no children. I am against this doctrine. If a mother is in bad health, feed her, pay the husband proper wages, give them an opportunity to have decent homes. Do not come along with this kind of thing to try to make us believe that you are taking an interest in the poor. What is the use of going to poor homes where there are five or six children and saying: "You should not have had those dirty brats. You should have had a little more common sense." When the cry was raised in 1914 for men to defend England, was the propaganda of Marie Stopes required? No. They wanted the boys and girls to go out and fight for the land. If you have no land to fight for, you will have no boys or girls. If you go on with this thing there will be desolate hearths. I ask hon. Members not to have this pernicious kind of doctrine instilled into their minds. I ask the Minister of Health to consider the problems of the people—better housing, better food, better clothing, better educated children, not a nation that will fade away, but a virile England which will take its proper place in the van of the nations of the world.
  8.44 p.m.
  Mr. McKEAG: I do not want to enter into the merits or demerits of the doctrine

  1141
  which has just been the subject of a little private debate between the Noble Lady and the hon. Member who spoke last, except to say that, at any rate, one can pay a tribute to the Noble Lady for having delivered a very courageous speech. It must have required some little effort to make a speech of that kind, and it is one of the justifications for membership of this House by members of her sex. The Debate has ranged over a very wide variety of subjects. I only want to touch on one which has not been dealt with by any previous speaker. The point with which I wish to deal very briefly is that of the administration of the lunacy laws. Two years ago I was ill-advised enough to write an article on lunacy law reform. There was very swift retribution. I suffered the penalty for writing the article which I no doubt deserved, because I was inundated with letters of complaint from all parts of the country from hundreds of people who had a private little thrust at the Lunacy Board.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not quite clear that this matter arises on this Vote. There is a separate vote for the Board of Control, and the hon. Member cannot discuss anything which is appropriate to that on this Vote. A certain amount of lunacy administration comes under the Lord Chancellor's Department and arises on Class III, but I do not think that the Ministry of Health has any responsibility.
  Mr. McKEAG: I must bow to your Ruling and forbear to make any reference to the special point which was to be the keynote of the few remarks I proposed to address to the Committee, but I would like merely to say that, in matters connected with the administration of the lunacy law, a correspondence has passed between myself and the Ministry of Health, and, rightly or wrongly, I was under the impression that the administration of lunacy law came within the province of the Ministry of Health. However, I am open to your correction, and, if your Ruling forbids me to make any further reference to the subject of the administration of lunacy law, I must of necessity refrain from making any further comments upon it. Perhaps I may be permitted briefly to say that the great volume of correspondence which I received in connection with that matter caused me a very great
  1142
  amount of disquiet. I did not choose to accept the face value of many of the complaints which were made to me, but there was no doubt that out of the volume of evidence which was produced to me there was at least sufficient to give me very great concern, and am satisfied that a number of people are being detained—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have now had the opportunity of looking at the Estimates. If this is a question of the administration of the law relating to lunacy, then it is a matter for the Lord Chancellor's Department and comes up in Class 3. If it is a question of the actual maintenance and running of homes for lunatics, it is a matter which comes under the Vote of the Board of Control, which is not now before the Committee, and should be raised on that Vote. The Minister of Health is not responsible.
  Mr. McKEAG: I am much obliged to you, Captain Bourne, for having so specifically put the Ruling which clearly forbids my making any further reference to the matter. Perhaps, however, I may now be permitted to deal with another matter which I have very much at heart—the administration of what is called slum clearance under the Housing Act, 1930. There is a belief that at the moment a great crusade is being carried on against the bloated landlords of the festering slums in our great cities. I have no doubt that that is the chief objective of the energetic campaign which is now being carried on by the Ministry of Health, and I do not suppose that anyone will waste very much sympathy upon the type of landlord I have indicated, but that is not the whole story. Large numbers of decent working-class people are being ruined by the administration of the Housing Act, 1930. I have had as much experience as, or perhaps more than, any other Member of this House of what is happening in connection with these clearance schemes. I have attended in a professional capacity a considerable number of the inquiries held by the inspectors appointed by the Ministry of Health and I have, therefore, been able to obtain a personal knowledge of many of the hardships which are being inflicted under this Act.
  I have no complaint whatever to make against the inspectors appointed by the Ministry of Health. They conduct their

  1143
  inquiries in a very courteous fashion. They are very fair and give everybody an opportunity of properly stating their case, but, as we know, their function is merely to make an inquiry and then report, the decision being left to the Minister after the report has been made. I fervently hoped that the recent Bill which was before the House would have righted some of these wrongs, but the rate of compensation which is now provided merely makes a mockery of the whole thing. I appreciate that in these matters the Ministry is confronted by a tight-fisted Treasury, but it would be idle to pretend that the compensation which is now provided in these cases is other than niggardly and inequitable. A week or two ago I was asked to see one or two small property owners in the division represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. It. MacDonald), who until a few weeks ago held the high office of Prime Minister. The meeting with these people took place at the point where his constituency intersects mine. When I arrived I was amazed to find that a Church Hall had been taken for the purpose of meeting these, as I understood, one or two small property owners who were aggrieved by—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Gentleman quite certain that any alteration of that kind can be done without legislation?
  Mr. McKEAG: In the circumstances which obtain here, the question of whether or not these people should be treated properly, is, in my submission, one of administration.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: To the best of my recollection—and I have listened to many of the Debates on the Committee stage of various Housing Bills—the compensation to be paid is fixed by Statute. If that be the case, the hon. Member is quite entitled to argue that the Statute has not been fulfilled, but he cannot suggest on this occasion an amendment of the Statute law.
  Mr. McKEAG: I appreciate that, and I have no intention whatever of making any suggestion to the Committee which would require for its approval certain additional legislation. If I find it neces-
  1144
  sary to do that at any time I appreciate that I must find some other occasion and some other means of doing so. This is a matter in regard to Which I cannot proceed with arguments which require additional compensation, seeing that that would require further legislation, but I should like to dispose of the idea which is very prevalent in all parts of the country that the present crusade is one against bloated landlords. My experience is very different. I was giving an instance to show that a large number of very small hard-working people are affected by the administration of this Act and the manner in which the legislative enactments are carried out by the Ministry of Health.
  I was referring to what happened at a particular meeting. The people who attended were practically all of them owner-occupiers, small people, some of them old and retired; people who had expended their life's savings in providing a home over their heads for the eventide of their lives. Some were old age pensioners, some were miners in their working clothes, who at the end of the meeting were to go down the mine on their shift. All were apparently destined to lose the only bit of property they have in the world. Let me give one case. It is that of an elderly woman, over 70 years of age, who had worked all her life as a labourer on a farm. She is too old now to work. She had expended all her life's saving on the purchase of a cottage, and with her old age pension she looked forward to spending the remaining years of her life in the little bit of property that she had purchased out of her own money. I visited the house. It was scrupulously clean and kept by a house-proud little woman, who was unquestionably happy and comfortable there. That poor soul is going to have her little cottage torn from her under the administration of this Act, and all the efforts of a lifetime are to be cast into the gutter. This property is not in the heart of a slum in a big city, but right away in the country, open to fresh air and all the winds that blow.
  I ask the Committee how the administration of the Act in that way can possibly be justified. The compensation which that poor woman will get will be of a niggardly description. As you have

  1145
  very properly pointed out, sir, the Bill when it was before the House provided for a certain measure of compensation. That measure of compensation was merely three times the rateable value. The rateable value of the cottage being about £6, the total of £18 is what will be payable to that woman. She has to bear the cast of the demolition and the carting away of the debris, and she will be very fortunate if she has left out of that small amount of money more than £2. To inflict that injury is un-English and cannot possibly have any justification. That case is typical of hundreds of cases right throughout the length and breadth of the land. There are scores of cases with which I have had personal connection.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's argument is getting perilously near to a suggested alteration of the law.
  Mr. McKEAG: I have in mind the case of a medical officer who, in accordance with the requirements of the Act, made what is called the necessary representation. About 115 houses were concerned in that representation which he made to the council, for demolition, but he admitted in cross-examination that he had not inspected a single one of those houses for a period of approximately 18 years. That is the type of thing that is going on. I have another case in mind where a medical officer of health was dealing with the provisions of the Act, and the political complexion of the council changed. The medical officer was called upon to schedule houses which he could not honestly condemn. Things were made unpleasant for him and he had no alternative but to resign, rather than be a party to the wanton destruction of property which was never intended to be dealt with by the Housing Act of 1930.
  I have had a most difficult task to perform in making these few remarks, and, very properly, you have called me to order. The chief point that I am making is that we are not dealing under this Housing Act with property which is merely that of bloated landlords. A great number of poor, hard-working working-class people are being vitally affected by its operations. I am not making an appeal on behalf of the type of landlord that the Committee commonly has in mind. I am appealing on behalf of poor people of the kind I have described. There can be no doubt that there is a real tendency
  1146
  on the part of certain officials and in some cases of whole councils to be over zealous and in some eases to be even harsh and inconsiderate in the scheduling of properties for demolition. I hope that I have said enough to give the Parliamentary Secretary some cause for thought. I am perfectly certain that after all that has been said about the hardships caused by the administration of the Housing Act of 1930 it will no longer be held up as something sacrosanct. Hardships are being inflicted under the operations of that Act, and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to have proper regard to the representations which have been made to him under that head.
  9.3 p.m.
  Wing-Commander JAMES: I do not intend to pursue the very interesting argument of the Noble Lady opposite and the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan). But I was interested to notice in the latter part of his speech that he appeared at one moment to be on common ground with the Noble Lady. I understood him to say that, while he objected to the promiscuous dissemination through the post of certain information, he did approve of poor people, mothers, whose physical condition rendered further child-bearing dangerous to life being able to seek that advice, by which I presume he meant contraceptive advice, from their medical practitioners or from a hospital. That is a very right and proper attitude. I was glad to hear it from him.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, hear.
  Wing-Commander JAMES: I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Maitland) pay a tribute to the late Minister of Health. While we are all glad to welcome the present holder of the office, I think that much less than justice has been done in this debate to his predecessor. Speaking as an obscure back bench Member, I have never once on any occasion that I went to him found him otherwise than courteous and willing to take any trouble to deal with any point brought to his notice. He may have lacked a flair for self advertisement, but I suggest to the Committee with all respect that that in a politician should be regarded, not as a vice, but as a rare virtue.

  1147
  I want to put, briefly, two points to the Minister of Health. The first is in regard to building in general. We are all delighted to have this immense building drive which is now under way, but I want to enter a caveat. There are three factors which limit the extent to which efficient building can be pushed at one time; they are management, skilled operatives and sound material. I speak from my experience in the locality in which I live. I am a little afraid, when we have a vast amount of money for which we are anxious to find a sound outlet and a popular urge towards buildings of all kinds, that if the, Government presses too hard we may get an artificial boom which will be followed inevitably by a slump. I know that in my own particular area, where I am doing some little building, that all these three limits are being approached. There are any number of mushroom firms rushing to tender, with bad workmanship and bad materials, and, if we do not want to have a set back, the Minister must watch carefully the capacity of the industry efficiently to meet the demands made upon it. One of the reasons why many of us are profoundly suspicious of any sort of artificial boom which some people are so anxious to create is that there is always the danger of a slump afterwards.
  The only other point to which I want to refer is the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. One of the greatest misfortnues in the housing problem at the present time is the little use which is made of the best Housing Act ever put on the Statute Book. There are only two counties in Great Britain in which this Act is being properly used, one in the South-West of England, and the other Argyllshire, of which latter I have some personal knowledge. The Housing (Rural Workers) Act is an absolutely first-class Measure. When people are using their own as well as somebody else's money, they usually take care to get good value for it, and it is extraordinary with what a relatively small sum of money and with good management a veritable pigsty can be made into a good cottage. I have recently used the Act myself, and at a cost of £87 I have transformed a cottage which was not fit for a dog into a jolly good cottage. I would urge the Minister to inquire why it is that this
  1148
  Act is not being used more. Possibly some advertisement would help it along, and it is also possible that he may find, in view of the experience of the last nine years, that the Act is capable of some amendment as to make it of more general use. It would not be in order for me to suggest what amendments should be made. Those are the two points I desire to put before the Committee.
  9.11 p.m.
  Mr. BATEY: I want to call attention to an inquiry which was arranged for by the Minister of Health. Dr. Walker, of Sunderland and Darlington, wrote a letter to the "Times" on the 11th December, which the Ministry of Health found to be of sufficient importance to arrange for an inquiry to be held. They appointed Dr. Pearse, Medical Officer of Health to the Ministry, Dr. Glover, Senior Medical Officer to the Board of Education, and Mr. Grant, General Inspector of the Ministry of Health, to hold the inquiry. In his letter to the "Times," Dr. Walker said:
  "Between the Tyne and the Tees there is, in spite of what Sir George Newman says in his last two reports, a substantial and progressive deterioration in public health."
  These gentlemen held the inquiry, and it seems as though they had been given a brand new brush and plenty of whitewash in order to whitewash the Ministry of Health and show that there was really no malnutrition in the county of Durham, and that Dr. Walker's statement was altogether beside the mark. My complaint is this. Dr. Walker said that there was malnutrition and deterioration in public health between the Tyne and the Tees. These doctors confined their inquiries to the north-east part of the county of Durham, including Sunderland, Seaham Harbour and Houghton-le-Spring. By far the worst part of the county of Durham referred to in Dr. Walker's statement is the south-west part, but they held no inquiry there; they simply confined their inquiry to the northeast part. The letter was written to the "Times" on the 11th December, and the inquiry was held in the same month last year. The unemployment index shows that in Sunderland unemployment was 43.5 per cent. for adults and 36.7 per cent. for juveniles. In Seaham Harbour it was 19.2 for adults, and for juveniles none. In

  1149
  Houghton-le-Spring the adult unemployment was 20.7 per cent., and juveniles 14.9 per cent. If they had gone to the south-west part of the county these doctors would have found an altogether different condition of things in regard to unemployment. In Bishop Auckland the adult unemployment in December was 52.8, and juvenile unemployment 66.5 In Crook the adult unemployment was 40.9 per cent., and juveniles 42.3 per cent. In Spennymoor it was 28.4 for adults, and 48.6 for juveniles; just double what it was in the area selected by these doctors when making their inquiry. In their statement they say:
  "The physical condition of the majority of the individuals passed under review is good."
  Another of their statements is:
  "From our knowledge of conditions in the county of Durham since 1928 we do not find evidence of deterioration in that county over the intervening period, but rather an improvement, more especially as regards women."
  How these medical men could hold an inquiry and come to conclusions like that is beyond understanding. I urge that a fresh inquiry should be held into this matter, not confined to one part of the county but covering the whole county.
  Mr. McKEAG: Are we to understand that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there is acute malnutrition in the county of Durham, including the areas he has mentioned and the area which he represents.
  Mr. BATEY: There is no question of that.
  Mr. McKEAG: Then are we to understand from the hon. Gentleman that the Durham County Council is not doing its work properly?
  Mr. BATEY: Do not try to be so smart. I would remind the Committee that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office when he was Civil Lord of the Admiralty conducted an inquiry in the county of Durham and spent a long time in his investigation. This was his opinion on the condition of the people there, set out on page 74 of his report.
  "In the course of the investigation it has been impossible to avoid a strong, general impression that the area as a whole is losing hope."
  1150
  Again, on page 100 of the Report he states:
  "The general condition of the people, in spite of the slight improvement in the unemployment returns, during the last two months must be regarded as undergoing a process of progressive deterioration."
  On page 76 he says:
  "Prolonged unemployment is destroying the confidence and self-respect of a large part of the population. Their fitness for work is being steadily lost and the necessity of living always upon a bare minimum without any margin of resources or any hope of improvement is slowly sapping their nervous strength and powers of resistance. Instances have occurred of men who have been out of employment for a long time being unable to stand the return to work."
  That story is contrary to the story told by these medical men in their report. While the investigation by these medical men was being held, an interesting statement was made by the medical officer of health for Newcastle-on-Tyne. The Newcastle dispensary had expressed concern about the great increase in poverty, sickness and malnutrition among the poorest classes in the city with the result that the Newcastle corporation asked Dr. Spence, their medical officer, to make an inquiry. Dr. Spence reported that he had examined two groups of children between the ages of one and five. One group consisted of 125 children, mostly of unemployed parents selected by chance from the poorest areas in the city. The other group consisted of 124 children of parents of the professional class. Records were taken of weights and heights and zones of normal weight and height were determined. The measurings showed that while 48 per cent. of the children from the better-class homes were above the normal zone of weight and 13 per cent. below it, only 11 per cent. of the children from the poor homes were above the normal and 55 per cent. were below it.
  Similarly, 25 per cent. of the children of the better-class parents were above the normal range of height and 4 per cent. were below it, whereas only 1.7 per cent. of the poorer children were above it and 47 per cent. were below it. Dr. Spence concluded that no less than 36 per cent. of the poorer children examined were unhealthy or physically unfit and appeared malnourished; that since the same incidence of malnutrition was not found among the children of the better-class parents, it was due to preventable causes and that the youngest children were the

  1151
  worst sufferers. That report was made just when the inquiry by these medical men was going on, almost next door, in the north-east part of the county. But these medical men paid no attention to it and I submit that the report which they issued is not a correct report of the real condition in the county of Durham. There has been published recently a book by Mr. C. E. McNally, honorary treasurer of the Committee against Malnutrition. The book is a protest against the statement of the Ministry of Health and the Board of Education that unemployment has had scarcely perceptible effects on the national health. This books states:
  "There is no investigation among the lowly paid and unemployed workers which does not show that a large proportion are living below the minimum standard which the British Medical Association considered necessary to maintain life. … Our conclusion is inevitably that there exists in this country a mass of people who are nowhere near the health and nutrition standard of those more fortunately situated and still less approaching an optimum. … Experiment has shown that the barrier to better health is largely the fact of inadequate feeding."
  The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) mentioned this question of malnutrition but it was not long before she left it. She left it just a little earlier than she ought to have done—although possibly she said more than she ought to have said when she was dealing with it. She argued that malnutrition was not due to insufficient food. She said definitely that the mothers were not giving the children the proper food.
  Miss HORSBRUGH: Hear, hear!
  Mr. BATEY: Does the hon. Lady know the facts?
  Miss HORSBRUGH: Since the hon. Member has addressed the question to me, may I suggest that malnutrition is wrong feeding and that under-nutrition is insufficient feeding. I thought the hon. Member was referring to malnutrition.
  Mr. BATEY: The hon. Lady reminds me of the medical men who have made this report. I suggest that it is worth while for hon. Members to read that report, which is Command Paper 4886. They talk about malnutrition and then proceed to divide it up into malnutrition and subnormal nutrition and so forth until you
  1152
  hardly know where you are, in reading it. Those of us who are not medical men, who are mere laymen, prefer to call it under-nourishment or starvation and there is no doubt in my mind that in the county of Durham at the present time thousands upon thousands are suffering from under-nourishment.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Including children?
  Mr. BATEY: Yes, children too. There is no question but that they are suffering under-nourishment and starvation and when the Noble Lady lays the blame upon the mothers and accuses them of not feeding the children properly, she must remember the main reason why the women in the county of Durham cannot give the children the food they would like to give them. It is because of low wages. Where men have come under the means test they have been sunk down to such a level that the women cannot get the money to feed the children properly. That is the trouble. I would like to see the Noble Lady change places with some of those miners' wives for six months.
  Viscountess ASTOR: I have no doubt I could change places with some miners' wives and do better than they do on the miners' wages—and worse than some of the other miners' wives do. The hon. Member talks as if all working men's wives were alike. They are not. Some of them are very competent, and others are not so competent. The hon. Member has talked about under-nourishment. If he will show me any children in Durham who are suffering from under-nourishment I will guarantee that the Government will put it right. I will guarantee it. But he cannot show it to me.
  Mr. BATEY: Here is another new Under-Secretary. We shall probably have a Bill next week which may legalise her appointment in order to help the Government through this difficulty. The Noble Lady must not attempt to get out of it like this. I would like to see her change places with one of our miners' wives for six months and feed a husband and children on the wages our miners have. Low wages are the real reason for this. Do not try to put the blame on the miners' wives by saying that they are not capable of supplying their children with proper food.

  1153
  I want to protest against this inquiry and this report. I submit that it is a misleading report, and that the Ministry ought to hold another inquiry covering the whole of the county of Durham. We may be laymen without medical qualifications, but we believe that we can see our people gradually sinking. We can see an immense difference in them during the last few years. We can see that with our own eyes, and nothing that any medical man may say in a report will change our opinion as to that, or make us believe that there is no under-nourishment, no poverty and no starvation. I urge the Minister to hold another inquiry covering not one corner of the county of Durham, but the whole of the county.
  9.28 p.m.
  Dr. HOWITT: The sole object of this Debate is that we may discuss how best we can improve the health of the people of this country. I wish to bring to the notice of the Committee and the Ministry a subject in which I am deeply interested, and which, as far as I know, has never been spoken about in the House of Commons—the work done by the almoners attached to hospitals. I have worked with hospital almoners—with the exception of the interval of the war—for something like 30 years, and I know the advantage of having a properly trained almoner attached to a hospital. There are at present many people who call themselves almoners, and who do excellent work, but who are not trained almoners as I would wish them to be. There is to-day an Institute of Hospital Almoners which undertakes the proper training of persons for this work. It is so easy to do your best for anybody, but so very difficult to do what is best for those who approach hospitals. Let me give one or two examples. Suppose a woman is suddenly taken ill with pneumonia and removed to hospital. It is a matter of the greatest concern to her to know what is happening in her home and what is happening to her husband and children; and this anxiety may be the greatest deterrent to her recovery. It is essential, I feel, that immediately a woman comes into hospital in those circumstances she shall be able to turn to somebody who will keep her in touch with her home, and who will also look after the home and see that the husband and children are properly cared for.
  1154
  Let us take another case. Suppose a man goes into hospital and has to have his leg removed, or anything of that sort, which will make it quite impossible for him to work at his previous job. There must be somebody there to look after his home and also to look after him when he leaves hospital, so as to see that he is trained to some new job in which he can support his home and family. In hospitals to-day, so far as I know, there is nobody who has a true knowledge of all that can be done for a patient. In these days you must have expert knowledge if you are to help any patient as that patient can be helped. You must have expert knowledge of all the charitable help which can be brought to bear on that patient; and expert knowledge of how to obtain Government help for that patient. So far as I know, no man or woman on the staff of a hospital has that expert knowledge to-day. Neither has any of the hospital officers.
  To ensure that hospital almoners shall be able to see that there is no waste in hospitals, the Institute of Hospital Almoners first of all select the right type of person to be almoners. These persons have then to obtain a Diploma of Social Science, which means two years' work and the passing of examinations, say, at the School of Economics. They then have to work for four months in a Charity Organisation Society; and subsequently they have to work for 10 months in a hospital almoner's office. After a training which lasts for a little over three years such a woman—who, to start with, must be well educated—has really an idea how she can do scientific social service. If you have not got that knowledge and have not studied the subject, you cannot possibly go into a hospital to-day and do your best to help patients. You must have a, proper training before you can do the best for the patient. In a properly organised hospital where there is a certificated almoner every patient who goes to that hospital, after seeing the physician or surgeon in the outpatients' department or being treated as an emergency case, is at once seen by the almoner.
  A woman may go into an outpatient's department and see a physician who gives very good advice, but advice which it is impossible for her to follow out. She may be a woman with a large family or a woman who is overworked, and may be

  1155
  quite incapable of looking after her home to the best advantage. She goes in to see the physician, and if there is not a trained almoner she goes out again sadly, and leaves the hospital with a bottle of medicine. She may never go to that hospital again. If the advice given her is looked over by a properly certificated almoner, and that advice is that she must rest much more every day, or take extra nourishment, and she says to the almoner: "It is quite impossible for me to do that on the wages my husband receives," then it is made possible for her to follow that advice through the almoner being able to call in various agencies, some charitable and some Governmental. In that way the woman, instead of giving up hope and getting downhearted, will work in co-operation with the almoner, will come occasionally to the hospital and receive help at home which will make it possible for her to carry out that advice and become well again. If you have not in the hospital a properly certificated almoner, you can imagine the misery that must attend her when she goes home after her visits to the hospital. She feels downhearted and depressed, as if there is nothing to be done about it, and she just drags on.
  There are other wide fields on which I will not detain the Committee, but I will mention the question of tuberculosis. Suppose a patient comes to a hospital with tuberculosis, she is infectious to the home, and it is essential that every person, man, woman, or child, who lives in that home, her relatives, should be brought to the hospital to be certain that they are not starting with the same disease. This work with regard to tuberculosis has gone on for many years. The almoner brings all these contact cases to the hospital to be examined, and she also sees that the home is made fit for persons who are subject to tuberculosis to be properly looked after, and that it is properly aired and ventilated. If you do not have a properly certificated almoner attached to a hospital, I hope hon. Members can see, from what I have said to-night, that there must be an infinite waste of hospital work, that people come to the hospital, hear what they should do, go away, and nothing is done, and there is further misery and disease.
  1156
  Therefore, I wish to bring before the notice of the Ministry to-night the importance of their keeping their eyes open to see that all hospitals in this country do have proper almoners attached to them. At the present moment the demand for almoners is steadily increasing all through the country, and the hospital authorities are becoming awake to the advantage of them and to the work of the hospitals of having properly trained almoners attached to them. I do not think the work of the almoners who are trained by the Institute is sufficiently known to the ordinary governors of hospitals Dr Members of Parliament, though I am certain that it is known to the Ministry. In fact, I have talked many times in private to the Ministry of Health on this subject, and I would ask that everybody in this House should study the importance of the subject in preventing waste, in helping people who are ill, and in preventing the spread of disease.
  9.39 p.m.
  Mr. CHORLTON: The number of hon. Members who wish to speak makes it desirable for me to restrict my remarks to the smallest possible compass within the wide ambit of the activities of this Ministry. I would like to address myself on this occasion to what is arising out of slum clearance, the various difficulties that have arisen and the comparative removals or otherwise effected by the Housing Acts. I will, however, stick more closely to a subject that I know more about, and that is the question of water supplies. I am sorry that neither the Minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary is here to take notes of some of the points that I would like to put. I am most anxious to discover the amount of progress that they are making in the administration of the water policy of the country. When the late drought was on, we had many debates, and many important points were raised periodically, nearly always with the assurance that affairs were nothing like so bad as had been pictured and as we had stated in this House. Lately an important official has been giving evidence, and I read that he has said:
  "It is not generally realised how serious was the drought last year."
  That is said after all these months of being reassured on so many occasions that we were exaggerating the state of affairs. Now it is admitted, though not

  1157
  in this House, how bad affairs were. I want to find out in more detail what steps are being taken. I know, of course, that there is a large grant for the purposes of assisting rural water supplies. That is dealt with in the Estimates, I think, but I should like to ask if the figure of £250,000 which is given bears any relation to the £1,000,000, or whether it is in addition to it. In the carrying out of the various schemes, we were assured and reassured that the Ministry had taken special steps, by increasing their staffs and by various other means, to afford the largest amount of technical assistance that they could, but when I look into the Estimates again, at the item "engineering inspectors," who are those concerned, I believe, with this particular work, I find that last year, in 1934, there were 33 inspectors and this year, 1935, the estimate is for only 34 inspectors. Is the activity of the Department to be represented by only one additional inspector? It is probable—at any rate, I hope it is so—that this important part of the health of the nation is being dealt with more adequately than is represented by one additional inspector.
  Much has been said about the health of the nation, but there is a danger of overlooking the fact that a pure water supply is of the first importance to good health, and, therefore, we should never lose sight of it in anything that we are doing. I want to ask next what is the progress made with the setting up of the advisory committees, some of which have been in existence for quite a long time and others quite a short time, whether it is progressing at a rate that we can reasonably expect. There seems to have been a lull in the setting up of these committees, and if it was considered the right thing to do to get all the authorities concerned to come into more general, common practice within their own localities, why has this rate slowed up, if such be the case? Is it because these advisory committees have been found in practice not to be as effective as they should have been and in fact to be merely talking bodies, with no real effect afterwards on the policy of the various constituent authorities represented upon them?
  May I ask next, with regard to what are called the consulting committees, those committees which are supposed to join up the activities, as it were, of other advisory committees and reduce them to
  1158
  a common level, what progress has taken place? We have in our part of the world two advisory committees, but the consulting committee which was proposed to join the two in their work has not been set up. What is the reason? I have asked one or two questions about it, but I have never had a satisfactory reply. Has the Minister considered the appointment of a further committee which would join up the activities of two districts, in this case South Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire? Those districts and others near obtain the bulk of their water from the Pennines, and the policy of all those who draw the water from that quarter ought to be co-ordinated and made in agreement one with the other. Will the Minister consider setting up a joint committee which will have that effect in practice? I want to refer to some evidence given by the same gentleman in which he estimated the amount of water required as 20 to 30 gallons per head in urban areas, and 15 to 20 in rural areas. I think that the former is a really low estimate, because the consumption of the towns is above 30, while in many rural areas it is less than the 15 to 20 gallons mentioned.
  Another authority, when estimating the future consumption of water, put the figure at 80 gallons per head. That is a figure for the future, upon which the water policy of the country ought to be formulated. I regret to say that we are continually finding that no attention is paid to this future policy. If attention is paid to it, the amount and direction of the attention is never disclosed to us. If we take the figure at 80 gallons, the total figure for this district, assuming 12,000,000 population in future, would be over three times the present capacity. Two new reservoirs that are being constructed will increase the capacity 50 per cent. Then it is said that they are not making provision for the future to the extent that that particular authority suggested it should be. Objections can be raised to this higher figure, but there are now so many people concerned who can reasonably anticipate the future, and so many towns which use over 80 gallons per head at the present time, that it seems to me risky to use the figure of 30 gallons which was mentioned in evidence before the committee which is now sitting. I want to ask whether the water policy of the Department ends with the setting up of the survey committee which

  1159
  is now determining the actual supplies in the country, although not their allocation, and the setting up of the committee which has just begun to take evidence. Is the Department going to wait until the new committee has reported on the evidence it has received?
  There is so much evidence in existence that it will be a great pity if nothing further in the way of a development policy is brought forward until this committee has reported. I have quoted before in the House the findings of the 1920 interim report of the Board of Trade Committee on Water Supply, and I do not want to quote it again. There is so much evidence as to the position of water supplies that we should have something more than the day-to-day policy which is all I can discover from the utterances of those concerned. With regard to rural supplies, does the assistance which has been given up to now indicate the progress that the Department hope to get? Are we getting development as rapidly as we should do? I would like again to press the need for inter-connection of the existing water authorities' supply mains. By interconnecting the mains we make, as it were, a common supply, and if we go in for reserve supplies wherever they are—in central Wales or the Lake District—these reserve supplies, tapped into the network of connected mains, will always prove a reserve for any part of the country. It is strange, after all the rebuffs some us have had in speaking on this subject to be told that we ought to be planning ahead. We have been trying to get the Ministry to plan ahead for all these months. If it has been planning ahead, it has kept it very secret indeed, and I hope that the Minister will tell us to-night a little more of what he proposes to do.
  9.52 p.m.
  Mr. CONANT: I want to draw the attention of the Minister of Health to a question which affects my constituency and a comparatively few other areas. It concerns the payment of children's allowances under the National Health Insurance Acts in those areas where the school-leaving age has been raised by by-law to 15. Under the present regulations these allowances must cease as soon as a child leaves school and obtains employment.
  1160
  If the employment turns out to be temporary and the child returns to school in the same area voluntarily, or in the by-law areas compulsorily, the allowances are not in any circumstances re-issued. That may be sound practice in those areas where the school-leaving age has not been raised, because one might argue that the re-issue of children's allowances to parents who send their children back to school would lead parents to send their children back to school from a job in order to get the allowance rather than on educational grounds. That, of course, would not apply in the by-law areas where parents are compelled by law to send their children back to school. There is need for a differential treatment of those districts. There are only five or six where the school-leaving age has been extended by by-law. I would ask the Minister to look into that point and see whether the regulations can be altered so that what I believe to be a real and substantial grievance affecting my constituents can be remedied
  9.59 p.m.
  Dr. O'DONOVAN: Sitting as a practising doctor through this Debate I have learned that this House exercises the utmost freedom in expressing its opinions on the weather, the National Government and the medical profession. When I listen to my hon. Friend (Mr. Batey) who represents Spennymoor and the miners with equal zeal and eloquence, I find that he takes the same attitude towards my profession as the noble Romans did towards their doctors. They are to him properly slaves, and if they do what they are told, "God bless them," but if they do not please the emperor or the hon. Member for Spennymoor he will demand another doctor and then another until one reports as he desires, and then he would endow him with a knighthood or whatever recognition or honour pleases the hon. Member for Spennymoor. But that is not a position which my profession would willingly accept. I do believe that from the highest to the lowest they are trained in our teaching schools to be independent-minded men, and whether they serve the Government or the public, the rich, the poor or even the hon. Member for Spennymoor, when they put their signature to the result of their observations, it is a signature to a piece

  1161
  of honest work, accurately observed and faithfully reported.
  And I was a little hurt that my distinguished and right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) gave a gentle kind of hint to suggest that even the late Chief Medical Officer of Health was not as zealous and as upright as he should be, for he suggested that when he held the doubled post of Chief Medical Officer of Health and also Medical Officer to the Board of Education, if only he had had a little stimulus from his Minister he might have given stronger and better advice on the question of the distribution of milk. These little pleasantries affecting the credit of a decent profession may be pleasant to the palate of politicians—
  Dr. ADDISON: No such suggestion was made by me in any form whatever. That is a piece of inaccurate reporting from the hon. Member.
  Dr. O'DONOVAN: The question of accurate reporting can be settled by reference to the OFFICIAL REPORT, but that is most certainly the impression, the slightly hurtful impression, left on my mind by the right hon. Member, and to what he says we naturally attach some measure of importance. If I have misrepresented him he knows that my apologies would be instant and my withdrawal speedy. I do not wish to discuss the question of malnutrition at length, because the politicians have seized hold of it, but I would remind even the reddest of red politicians that the first case of death in a condition of starvation in London was publicly reported by a Tory doctor and a Member of this House, myself, and the only person who recognised it publicly was the right hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), and if I, vaccinated with the virus of obscurantist Toryism, could, on the eve of a London County Council election, give public evidence that an English woman had died in a condition of starvation, I am quite certain that all and any other brothers of mine would give equally frank evidence if the occasion arose.
  I was very hurt by the suggestion of the happy mother of six who represents Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) when she said, "If only doctors would speak up." Sweetly she conceded to us the right to maintain and preserve the secrets of our patients. I hope my brothers, even
  1162
  under the pressure of Government or police, or legal inquisitor, will never give away the secrets of suffering women, but I do repudiate the suggestion made publicly by the Noble Lady that my profession has not done its duty in teaching the Noble Lady and this House that abortion is a menace to the health of English women. I was taught it when I was a young medical student, I have taught it when I was practising pathology, and I have given evidence in public, which has been reported in local papers, of the fatal danger of abortion to women, and what I have said hundreds of other doctors have better said, and to suggest that there is a kind of trade union conspiracy to keep from this House and the public the dangers of abortion is really too dreadful. We speak and we repeat this advice and this warning to the public, but when they are seized with a fear of pregnancy then what we advise is forgotten, and they seek evil and wicked counsellors, to their own danger. But do not let it be repeated, please, that we doctors do not speak up. Unfortunately this House and the public outside do not enjoy lectures on health; they would rather not hear them. That is a human and natural instinct, and I cannot find much fault with it.
  The suggestion that we should have a discussion on birth control was first mooted by the hon. Lady for West Willesden (Mrs. Tate). Then we had a zealous, enthusiastic and, I am told, courageous speech by the Noble Lady who represents Plymouth on the question of birth control, and the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) to some extent dealt with the general issue, but, apparently, one is left with the impression that birth control is a boon which the poor are denied. I suppose that I have a familiar working knowledge of the poor, and I have never got the impression that either the poor or the rich have, since the war, been unfamiliar with birth control knowledge. I can tell the Committee that the supply of birth control goods and apparatus is a most competitive and big business. Various interested parties conduct a battle royal betwixt themselves for the profits from the public. That knowledge is lacking, is, I think, a, misrepresentation of the state of affairs, and to suggest that abortion is practised, leading to the frequent death of women, and this

  1163
  through lack of birth control knowledge, is, in my opinion, and only in my opinion, and I thrust it down no one's throat, a misreading of the facts as they are. I did not interrupt the Noble Lady—
  Viscountess ASTOR: And I am not interrupting.
  Dr. O'DONOVAN: Well, there is a kind of high diapason note with which we are familiar, an accompaniment which is a little discomposing. Perhaps I should not hear it. To return to the point. There is to-day a tremendous propaganda to the effect that marriage need not be associated with the production of children, and once that idea becomes bitten into the public mind there is a demand that contraceptive practice shall be efficient. The demand for efficiency becomes almost a passion, and, if birth control through contraceptive practice fails, then the woman who finds herself pregnant demands that efficiency shall be put into practice and abortion shall complete what birth control failed to do. The one grows out of the other; and when you add to that, through the same advocates, the policy of sterilisation you have a trilogy of birth control, abortion and sterilisation which, if imposed upon an unwilling Ministry, would turn it from a Ministry of Health to a Ministry of Death. Reference has been made to clinics which have Government approval. I think the position ought to be stated with much greater clarity. There are no clinics established in this country with Government approval for propagation or practice of birth prevention, but it is permitted that birth control advice should be given to women whose condition is such that further pregnancy would be a danger to their health. In the report of the Committee on Maternal Mortality the phrase used was:
  "Those in whose condition pregnancy would be a danger to life."
  In the last Memorandum issued by the Minister that phrase was altered slightly to
  "Those in whose condition pregnancy would be a danger to health."
  In that Memorandum, and I speak from memory, because the resources for obtaining documents during debate in this House are very meagre, a, list is given of the diseases in which pregnancy would
  1164
  endanger health. It includes heart disease, diabetes, tuberculosis, cancer, epilepsy and amentia. I suggest that if a woman is ill with consumption, a condition which we all recognise, characterised by cough, night sweats, wasting and fever, she needs the utmost care that my profession can give her. She needs nursing and hospital aid, and to suggest that a woman in that condition should be taken to a birth control centre so that she in her weakness may be matched against the desires of her husband is a dreadful proposition. There are many women with weak hearts to whom pregnancy would be a danger to health, but to suggest that those women should be led by my profession to birth control centres, when they need rest from all excitement, is a misuse of the art of healing, and to suggest that those ill with diabetes and cancer and those who have no minds, the cements should be treated similarly, is a libel on men and a misuse of medicine. To suggest that there should be a frigidarium or a village pond for these lusty men would be a reasonable policy.
  Wing-Commander JAMES: The hon. Member for the Scotland division (Mr. Logan) who represents in this House with others so ably the same dogma, in replying to the Noble Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), stated that he was opposed to the dissemination through advertisements in the post of contraceptive information, but that he would approve of a married woman whose health would be endangered by child-bearing seeking advice from her medical practitioner or hospital. The hon. Member who is now speaking has skated round that point. Would he state quite clearly what is his view of contraception in relation to a woman to whom child-bearing is dangerous?
  Dr. O'DONOVAN: I heard the remarks of the hon. Member for the Scotland division on that particular point, and I gathered that if a woman sought private medical advice on such a matter the Member for the Scotland division would not act as a censor of the hospital doctor's or private doctor's conscience. He had every possible objection to using public money and giving, apparently, public sanction to a practice to which a large number of people have grave moral objections. But he did not take up the

  1165
  attitude of objecting, as a public man, to a perfectly private act between a woman and her doctor, who are each responsible to their Maker and not to the hon. Member for the Scotland division. Government control of contraception introduces a practice more objectionable than any imagined priestcraft, for whereas "priestcraft" might be practised to lead people to Heaven, contraception-craft might be practised to lead them to a sterile emptiness.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James) referred to my faith and that of the hon. Member for the Scotland division. I trust that the Committee will believe that those who happen to belong to the Catholic and Roman faith have a gift of right reason. I am sure he did not refer to our "dogma" to imply that Catholic Members cannot argue reasonably and accurately upon scientific or philosophical or medical or statistical matters. We were told that this was a Protestant country. That has never been denied. Why such an obvious fact has been thrust on our notice I cannot think. All that I can say to the Noble Lady who has thrust such an obvious fact on our notice is that what she has suggested will lead in time to a population made up of the progeny of the unwanted Catholics, together with such children who have escaped birth control and abortion technique.
  Might I make one appeal to the chivalry of the Committee in this matter? If the Government were to lend support to the establishment up and down the country of contraceptive clinics, great harm would be done to the good esteem of womankind. Up to now nursing has been looked upon as a great profession; we give our virginal and best daughters to the life of nursing. If the Government insist on contraception as an essential part of the practice of hospital life, then every nurse wearing the uniform, once religious and later consecrated by the austere life of Florence Nightingale, will be pointed at as an expert in every aspect of sexual intercourse. I have heard the interjection, "Disgusting!" by the Noble Lady. If the Government take charge of contraception and make it an official practice in England, those who propagate and introduce this practice to the homes of the poor will be recognised
  1166
  by their uniforms and their calling and the epithet of "disgusting" will be properly applied to their work. As a result of such propaganda decent married women with six or nine children are addressed by judicial persons and public officials as though they were guilty of some impropriety though their married lives may be sweet and affectionate and intercourse rare. Those who use marriage with the greatest freedom in a sterile fashion may win the approval of many authorities. And yet the women who take up the burden and heat of the day and bring up sons for England have the finger of scorn pointed at them. If I have been permitted during my membership of this House to say something for the decency of English private married life, I am grateful.
  10.11 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I feel very moved by what the hon. Gentleman has said, but at the same time I feel too embarrassed to follow him in a discussion on matters which have either been reserved for the bedchamber or the after-dinner port. At the same time, I agree that to-night this matter has been treated with a spirit of courage and openness of mind in this House that I have never before heard. Whether that is to the good or the bad, I do not know. I suppose that it is well that we should face facts in this House. In a matter of this sort, which is vital for the future of our country, it is essential that we should open our eyes and face the facts.
  I should like to congratulate the Minister on the masterly way in which he dealt with the record of the last year of his predecessor in office, who was a proof that under an austere external appearance there can exist a warm and human heart, and that was what we all found in the late Minister of Health. I had to approach him many times on behalf of constituents, and I have never once found anything but a receptive and extraordinary understanding. There was one topic which the Minister left untouched, and with which I would like to deal. The matter obtruded itself first on the national conscience during and just after the War, and it was when our people saw the hideous disfiguration that was caused by war and the terrible wounds, especially facial wounds inflicted on our men, that we began to realise there was something which our surgery

  1167
  had not achieved. As very often happens when such occasions arise, someone was thrown up to deal with the emergency. I do not want to advertise anyone. I understand the General Medical Council—or I thought I did until I heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Dr. O'Donovan)—and their views against self advertisement on the part of any of their members. Members of the medical profession have been ostracised by members of their own council because of advertisement, so I want to make it clear that I am not advertising or propagandising on behalf of any member of the medical profession. I do not suppose, if Sir Harold Gillies' golf had been challenged, that the Royal and Ancient Club would take violent objection on the ground of advertisement of Sir Harold Gillies, so I do not see why the General Medical Council should do so if I pay tribute to a man who has done more to restore the souls as well as the bodies, and their hope in the future, of a large number of people, especially of ex-service men, than has Sir Harold Gillies.
  Once disfigurement was found to be capable of cure, when it was disfigurement resulting from the War, there came immediately into the minds of all those who had been disfigured in mining accidents, by fire, or who had been born disfigured, perhaps with blotches on their faces which militated against their future employment or happiness in life: "Here is a chance for us; here is a possibility for our troubles to be cured." There were very few plastic surgeons, but they were overwhelmed by demands upon their skill and service. That is the position to-day. The few plastic surgeons that exist are rushing about the country spending most of their time in railway trains trying to deal with all the claims that are made upon them. That is where my suggestion to the Under-Secretary comes in. Why not devote some of the resources which are at the disposal of the Ministry to assisting in the formation of a plastic surgery hospital, where all those poor people who are disfigured by nature or by accident can find their way for treatment, just as those who are suffering from ordinary diseases can go to an ordinary hospital for treatment? That would confer upon our country one of the greatest benefits.
  1168
  I suggest that it should be done in conjunction only with the London County Council and the other county councils throughout the country. I am told that Lord Dawson of Penn, that distinguished ornament of the medical profession, gives, on behalf of the profession, his friendly support to the scheme. I believe it would be the means not alone of training plastic surgeons throughout the country and enabling them to come together and be taught their jobs under skilled supervision, but of bringing fresh courage, hope and enthusiasm to millions of our fellow countrymen who at present are, and for the future will be, doomed to a life of despair and misery. If my hon. Friend cannot say anything to me tonight, I suggest that he brings my suggestion to the notice of his right hon. Friend, in the hope that something may be done during next year to rectify this omission in our national life.
  10.20 p.m.
  Mr. STOREY: The right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) spent a large part of his speech in seeking to grove that there has been deterioration in the health of the people, particularly in the distressed areas. He quoted from inquiries and reports. I was rather surprised that he did not refer to the latest report on the subject, which has since been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). The hon. Member for Spennymoor tried to dismiss that report on the ground that it referred only to a portion of the County of Durham, but I think the Committee should know that the report was made in response to a series of charges contained in a letter written to the "Times" by a, physician in Sunderland. That physician is consulting physician on the staff of the Sunderland Royal Infirmary, and, therefore, gathers the bulk of his experience from Sunderland and the surrounding districts, so that it would seem fair that, in dealing with these charges, the inquirers should deal with the area on which his experience is based. I do not want to quote at length from the report, but it contains many disagreeable facts for those who make statements such as have been made by the hon. Member for Spennymoor and the right hon. Member for Swindon. As the right hon. Member for Swindon referred particularly to rickets, I might perhaps be allowed to quote one

  1169
  thing which the commissioners said on that subject. They reported as follows:
  "Minor manifestations of rickets have been found by clinical examination in 4.1 per cent. of young children seen at welfare centres. Marked bow-legs and marked knock-knees due to persistent rickets were only recorded in 0.5 per cent. of children seen at schools. Without doubt the disease has been much diminished in prevalence. Instances of gross rickets may occasionally be found, but their number is small in relation to the child population, and such cases do not occur among children who have been regular attendants at child welfare centres."
  That is one instance of the kind of result shown by this inquiry. It is no wonder that the commissioners were able to report that they were unable to accept Dr. Walker's statement that there has been in this area a substantial and progressive deterioration of health. I think the Committee should know these facts. This inquiry has been made in a distressed area. It indicates that there has been little deterioration of health, and that, where such deterioration has taken place, it has been partly due to the fact that people would not take advantage of the facilities offered by the excellent health services of this country.
  There is another point to which I should like to refer. The hon. Member for West Willesden (Mrs. Tate) made an appeal for a co-ordinated system of hospital treatment for fracture cases. I would go further; I think the time is coming when we must consider a co-ordinated system of hospital treatment for the whole country. Hon. Members on the Labour benches would probably like to see a purely State hospital service, while most of us, knowing the good work done by the voluntary hospital system, would like to see all that is best in it maintained and extended. Probably the solution lies in co-ordinating the voluntary hospital system with the local hospital system, but I am afraid that such co-ordination is now lacking. In my own constituency we have two voluntary general hospitals and a municipal general hospital, all rendering general hospital service; but in one of the voluntary hospitals there are 50 vacant beds, while at the same time the local authority is proposing to build a new ward block containing 80 beds.
  In Durham County the County Council have recently asked the voluntary hospitals to agree to the building of a new central hospital, to deal, not only 1170
  with their public health work and with their public assistance work, but also to deal with general hospital work, and they want the voluntary hospitals to agree to that new hospital being built without first settling on what principles cases will be admitted to that hospital and how it is to be staffed—both points of vital interest to the voluntary hospitals in the county. The more I see of hospital work, and particularly of voluntary hospital work, the more certain I am that no efficient hospital service can be built up in small watertight compartments. The small town cannot provide the specialised equipment that the modern hospital requires, nor can it provide a living for the specialist staff which is necessary. I think, therefore, that any really efficient hospital scheme must be considered for a much larger area, such an area, I would suggest, as the whole of the North-East Coast from Berwick to Middlesbrough.
  What is wanted is a co-ordinated scheme, probably centred on some large training hospital—with general hospitals wherever necessary—where there should be no overlapping of expensive equipment, where general surgical and medical services can be available at all general hospitals and where specialist services shall be available for the whole district. Such a plan must provide that equipment and services shall be available to all classes and not only, as now in the provinces very largely, available for the working-classes and the poor. I would, therefore, suggest to the Minister that the time is ripe for an inquiry into the whole hospital system of the country so as to provide a co-ordinated plan.
  Such a plan would provide a guide to voluntary hospitals and local authorities in any hospital extensions that they wish to make. It should maintain all that is best in the voluntary hospital system along with a State system and help us to build up a real hospital service available to everyone, with the poor still treated free, as they are now, and those able to pay paying in accordance with their means, so that they have the full benefit of the hospital equipment and staff, and so that the staff shall be adequately remunerated and not as at present, have to seek their income from those who can afford to pay not only for themselves but for a large number of other cases. I hope, therefore,

  1171
  that the Minister of Health, who I know has great sympathy for the voluntary hospital system, will seek to work out such a co-ordinated plan so that all that is best in it can be maintained, and we can provide, with the help of the State, a thoroughly up-to-date and modern hospital system for the whole country.
  10.28 p.m.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The Debate that we have had has been the most interesting that I have heard on our annual supply day since I have been at the Ministry. The only thing that concerns me is that so many questions have been raised that I must apologise in advance if, in trying to satisfy the natural curiosity of hon. Members, I have to give somewhat dull and technical replies. Some of the big questions are so vital and so interesting that it would take half-an-hour to do justice to any one of them. I appreciate very much the warm tributes which have been paid by all parties to the former Minister of Health. I think it is no exaggeration to say that some of the tasks that he achieved will always remain as a monument to his vision and courage. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) referred to the work done by a distinguished surgeon. We appreciate at the Ministry that a very distinguished man has had an honour conferred in recognition of his services. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Conant) raised the question of the continuation of children's allowances if there was a break in school attendance. That has been dealt with in the Health Insurance Bill that we passed a few days ago. If it is not, I will communicate with the hon. Member, but I am nearly sure that it is dealt with.
  We then come to the very controversial topic of birth control. I have not time to enter into that, though I wish an occasion would arise when that and the sterilisation of the unfit were more ventilated. We want the guidance of public opinion on the sterilisation of the unfit. Let me in a few sentences say what is the policy followed by the Ministry of Health. We say that it is wrong for a maternity and child welfare centre or a clinic for the treatment of sick persons
  1172
  paid for out of public funds to be used for giving contraceptive advice, except in cases where further pregnancy would be injurious to health. That has been the well-recognised and established policy of the Ministry of Health, and we maintain that position in the circulars we issue.
  I am not going to give an elaborate reply on the question of water supply. We have had so many water Debates in this House that my hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Chorlton) almost knows the answer that I am going to give him beforehand.
  Mr. CHORLTON: Yes, I do.
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: But he does not know this. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the £250,000 already expended in respect of rural water schemes was part of the £1,000,000 capital subsidy. The answer is, "Yes." He wanted to know whether we had appointed new inspectors to deal with the water supply, and the answer is, "Yes, we have appointed six new inspectors to introduce expedition into the rural water business."
  Mr. CHORLTON: They are not in the book.
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I did not say this year, but since we started our policy. The hon. Gentleman asks about the progress of the schemes. We have given provisional approval for schemes in the rural districts in respect of 1,317 parishes, the capital cost of which will be £3,800,000. Of our 1,000,000 subsidy, grants totalling £600,000 have already been allocated, and that is in addition to loans sanctioned amounting to a total cost of £827,000 for schemes which did not attract grant. The net result is that, whereas the average sum allocated in the ten years ending 1934–35 was £425,000 a year, in the last year we sanctioned just over £1,000,000 worth of schemes. I think that that shows very substantial progress.
  A number of smaller points were raised, all of them interesting. First of all, there was the effect of the block grant formula which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison). The position is as follows: I do not want to go into the very technical question, but, broadly speaking—and I am speaking from memory—we give a block grant to local authorities of some £45,000,000 a year, of which about

  1173
  £15,000,000 goes according to the formula. The formula is so devised that the money is tipped into the areas which most need it according to that very complicated formula, which depends upon four or five factors. The formula has been criticised in many quarters, as every formula can be, but the right hon. Gentleman will remember that we are under a statutory obligation to hold an inquiry into the working of the formula before 1st April, 1937. He will be pleased to hear that we are making preparations to start that inquiry forthwith, and for that purpose we are calling a lot of evidence and shall be getting into touch with the representative bodies of the local authorities.
  Dr. ADDISON: Can the hon. Member give us any information as to the form of the inquiry?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: It will be a Departmental inquiry in consultation with representative bodies of local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) asked a question arising out of the retirement of Sir George Newman, the late Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry, and asked what would be the position of his successor. The answer is that the recently appointed Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health will enjoy the same salary as his predecessor, has the status of a Secretary in the same degree as his predecessor, and has the same right of direct access to the Minister.
  The next question raised was in regard to rent restriction. It was raised by the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner) and the Noble Lord the Member for East Norfolk (Viscount Elmley). So many of the points that they raised touch legislation that I cannot reply to them. We had an exhaustive discussion on this and similar topics. No report or committee that I know of has ever suggested retrospective legislation. If we are criticised it is because we do not interfere in the innumerable cases of difficulty that arise. Heaven forbid that the Ministry of Health should ever have to sit in judgment on the innumerable cases that crop up, all of great legal complexity. The remedy under the Rent Restriction Acts is in a court of law. I know of the infinite amount of trouble that the Noble Lord has taken in regard to the North Waltham case. I know the whole history
  1174
  of that case and the remedy, as I have so often told him, is for some tenant's defence league, or some league of some sort, or some philanthropic person to assist the tenants who are not getting justice under the Act to seek their remedy in a court of law.
  The hon. Member for Whitechapel raised the question of bugs. Very few Members who do not represent London constituencies realise the alarming extent of this problem. I was present at a disinfestation demonstration a few months ago and I was horrified to learn that out of some 311 families removed in one borough in London, not removed from the slums but from ordinary overcrowded areas, no fewer than 309 were bug infested.
  Mr. WEST: What division was that?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I think it is pretty common to most of London. I will send my hon. Friends a copy of the report of the Departmental inquiry which gives the latest research on this question and shows the local authorities how they can best tackle this very difficult matter. So many local authorities in removing slum tenants from their houses use vans in which in the process of moving they disinfect the furniture. This is very essential, so that the tenants can start in their new homes with a new opportunity of cleanliness. I cannot conceive how some of the tenants in London after a hard day's work can go home and night after night have their sleep disturbed by bugs dropping on them from the ceiling. Very few people realise the extent of this problem and how the ordinary working man and woman in London suffers from it. Anything we can do to help local authorities to overcome it we shall do. We have a good Departmental committee which is at the moment carrying on another investigation into the habits of the bed bug.
  The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) taunted us that the number of persons on public assistance had gone up by, as he said, 500,000 during the time the National Government had been in office. Taking the figures for May last the increase has been 379,000 persons, and the bulk of this increase is due to dependants and sick persons. Let us be quite frank on this matter. There is not the slightest doubt that when boards of guardians were

  1175
  superseded by public assistance committees under the 1929 Act applicants were given far more generous treatment and availed themselves more freely of it. Why we should be taunted by a Socialist Opposition because we are seeing that public money is properly expended in relieving these cases I cannot conceive. I should have thought that it was a matter for congratulation. But in case an attempt is made to make party capital out of this increase let me remind the Committee that of that 379,000 householders, breadwinners, all but 20,000 were registered at the employment exchanges, so that there is a duplication of figures. When we talk about a fall in unemployment, it is an actual and real fall, and is not off-set by people leaving the employment exchange and going on to public assistance.
  The hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. West) raised a question relating to infantile mortality in Kensington. An hon. Member for one of the Kensington Divisions has kindly put in my hands a, letter from the medical officer of health which shows how careful one should be in quoting statistics. In one division of Kensington, Holland Ward, there is an infantile mortality rate of 133 per 1,000. That is very high, and is accounted for by the fact that there were 18 deaths. I will show the hon. Member the letter from the medical officer which shows conclusively that of these 18 deaths only three could have benefited by the maternity and child welfare services, and that in fact only three availed themselves of them. Of the 18 deaths a considerable number were of children who had been adopted by institutions in Kensington; they came from outside and had been adopted by societies. Anyone who reads the letter will see how dangerous it is to try to make party capital out of a case like this.
  Mr. WEST: Does the Parliamentary Secretary deny that for the last 10 years, not in one ward, but over the whole of North Kensington, there has been a death rate of 50 per cent. above the average for London?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I have not the slightest doubt that much of the high infantile mortality rate in Kensington and other boroughs in due to bad housing conditions, but I object to statements in
  1176
  this House which suggest that a borough like Kensington is not tackling this and the housing problem as vigorously as any other borough in London. In so far as they have failed, it has been due to the fact that they have not had the powers, about to be conferred upon them by our new Measure, which was passed by the House of Lords an hour ago, when it receives the Royal Assent. I know Kensington, and I know that it is not a question of the slum, problem there. That has been dealt with. It is a question of the old middle-class house which is not a slum house but is grossly overcrowded and of old areas which might be redeveloped under the powers which will be secured to Kensington and other boroughs by the new Measure.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. McKeag) raised again the question of compensation of which we have heard so often already. Our policy on this matter was endorsed in the Housing Committee upstairs by a majority of 28 to three, and I do not propose to say anything more about it. My own view is that nobody, rich or poor, should be allowed to profit out of the ill health and bad housing conditions of other people, and that if a house is unfit for human habitation, it is no defence to say that the owner is rich or that he is poor.
  Mr. McKEAG rose—
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I am sorry, but I cannot at this hour give way to the hon. Member. We take a strong stand on this matter, because we realise that far too much profit has been made out of this kind of property in the past.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield repeated the statement that the National Government were responsible for stopping the building of 40,000 houses in rural areas. I have no time to go into that charge again, further than to say that anyone who does me the honour of reading my winding-up speech in the Debate on 31st January this year will find conclusively set forth the reasons why the National Government have nothing to do with that allegation, and I am not going to keep on repeating those arguments to hon. Members opposite. Let me summarise what our housing policy has done. We have succeeded in differentiating the functions of the various agencies. We have told private enterprise to do what it best can

  1177
  do. We have asked the local authorities to do what they alone can do. Before we started, houses were being built by local authorities under subsidy, and were not always going to the right persons. No slums were being cleared and overcrowding was not being touched. As a result of our policy, private enterprise has provided a record number of houses for artisans and those who can afford that kind of accommodation and who prefer ownership. The slums are being cleared at a phenomenal rate and the new Measure will enable local authorities, for the first time, to rehouse and to provide accommodation at the right places and the right rents for those persons for whom the subsidy was originally intended but who have never seen the inside of a council house. I was opening an estate last week in rural England in the heart of Wiltshire. The town of Trowbridge, with a slum problem proportionately six times as big as that of London, has in 2½ years actually completed 60 per cent. of its programme. That shows how our campaign has reached into the heart, of rural England.
  I come back to the most interesting topic of this Debate, and that is the question of the nutrition and health of the people, particularly in the more distressed areas. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon did great service in raising this problem to-night. One thing I must challenge him very closely upon. He suggested that we had economised on the care for children and mothers during the last four years. There is not a shadow of truth in that. In every circular we have issued we have made is plain that although economy was necessary in 1931, the question of maternity and child welfare centres must not be impeded, but must be pressed forward.
  Dr. ADDISON: How many maternity centres have you provided in the last four years?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: If the right hon. Gentleman reads the speech of the Minister of Health he will see the figures. There has been a steady increase year after year. The right hon. Gentleman then asked whether the Government would publish the report of the Economic Advisory Committee. He must know that the Committee reports to the Cabinet. It was set up by the Prime Minister of the
  1178
  Labour Government in 1929 or 1930. It made several reports to him and the Cabinet, and these reports are entirely confidential. If, indeed, they were to be published the whole purpose of the Committee and the value of these reports would be lost. What has happened as a result of that last report is that we have enlarged the Advisory Committee on Nutrition set up a few years ago, and turned it into a standing committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Luke. We have added to it a number of lay persons of great qualifications, and we now have a standing committee consisting of expert dietiticians, statisticians, medical men and people with a great knowledge of public health and social conditions. I believe there is a great deal of useful work they can do. This question of nutrition has hardly been touched. Talk about asking working women questions of diet: how many Members of this House, if I asked what is the comparative nutritive value of an oyster, a piece of white fish and a herring, would know? I did not know myself until recently. If you take an equivalent amount of these three fish, an oyster will give you 100—I am talking in terms of calories, energy value—white fish 800, and a herring 3,000.
  I have not left myself enough time to deal with the question of nutrition so may I, therefore, briefly summarise some of the salient points? One would naturally expect that with continued and prolonged unemployment one would see a slow deterioration of health, and we as a Ministry of Health are always looking for that. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) raised the question of the report of Dr. Walker. He complained that the report was of a narrow area in Durham. I can only say that the investigators were in touch with Dr. Walker, and he could have asked them to go anywhere. He made no complaint at any time. This is what the report said:
  "While we have found in the area under review a considerable incidence of subnormal nutrition and some incidence of malnutrition, our investigation shows little evidence of any increase of disease and none of increased mortality. The physical condition of the majority of individuals passed under review is good. Realising the long-continued economic stress to which this population has been subjected and with knowledge of the home conditions of many we have often been surprised at the high standard of health and courage which has been maintained."

  1179
  However, this report did show that the condition of adolescents, from 14 to 16, was far from satisfactory, and immediately we took steps to rectify it. In so fax as these adolescents came within the juvenile training centres under the Ministry of Labour, that was the easier problem, because free meals were supplied, but in so far as they did not, we instructed the local authorities in those areas that they must pay especial attention to giving relief to families containing adolescents.
  The right hon. Gentleman quoted two reports of medical officers of health of a rather contrary tenour, one from Burnley and one from Newcastle. As regards Burnley, he showed that the rate had gone up from one to eight per cent., so that the medical officer of health for Burnley found that—I am speaking from memory—about 64 children were malnourished, but he added a footnote that 30 were children of the unemployed and 30 odd children of the employed, which bears out the reports of so many medical officers of health that malnutrition is not solely a question of poverty. Malnutrition should be treated—
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: You can be employed and in poverty.
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Poverty is a factor, but there are half-a-dozen other factors as important.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: There are people employed who are in poverty.
  Mr. SHAKESPEAREWhen a person is nourished, it means that he enjoys a balanced diet of proteins, carbohydrates, vitamins, and so on. If he is malnourished, very often it does not mean that more food will rectify it. On the contrary, more food may accentuate the digestive disturbance. What is wanted is advice and instruction so as to secure that the right food is taken, and not only that the right food is taken, but that the right food is properly cooked, which is very material. My view is that if in Durham or any other area you gave 10s. per head to the families in cases of malnourished children, it might work little good. The real danger is that, whatever the circumstances, the mother of the family will always see that from the resources available the bulk will go to the children. I am far more concerned
  1180
  about the health of the mother, sometimes, than about the health of the child, and I see no way of stopping that legislatively or by public assistance.
  There was an interesting experiment recently conducted in London which bears out exactly the same point. Dr. Simpson, in 1934, examined the condition of children in some of the poorer areas of London, and he found this result, which is borne out by the reports of so many medical officers of health: He took a sample of malnourished children, and he found that seven per cent. of a certain batch came from the homes of the unemployed, and in another area, another school, he found that another seven per cent. of malnourished children all came from homes where the means were substantial and the parents were employed, which just shows what a poor service it is to try to make political capital out of physiological facts. What is vital is that the Ministry of Health, which is the watchdog of the nation, should be on its guard constantly and in all ways, and whenever we receive reports from medical officers of health, or any evidence of any signs of malnutrition, we immediately get into touch with the local authorities. I may say, in conclusion, that the machinery of public health in this country, both national and local, has so far proved adequate, because we have weathered these four years of storm without any real general, serious, decline in health, and that is due, surely to the high efficiency of our public health machinery.
  Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £14,416,740 be granted for the said Service," put, and negatived.
  Original Question again proposed.
  It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the Rouse.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1935, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the rural district of

  1181
  West Lancashire, in the county palatine of Lancaster, which was presented on the 26th day of June, 1935, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1935, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of part of the county of Argyll, which was presented on the 21st day of June, 1935, be approved."—[Captain A. Hudson.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  CENTRAL ELECTRICITY BOARD.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
  11.2 p.m.
  Mr. HOROBIN: I want to take the opportunity to raise a matter of considerable financial importance, namely, the financial position of the grid of the Central Electricity Board which has been given a monopoly of wholesale electricity in this country, and for which we are responsible. The situation to which I would call the attention of the House is ore of great magnitude. The borrowing powers of this corporation extend to no less a sum than £60,000,000, of which the major portion has already been borrowed. The responsibility is fairly upon us and upon the Minister, because by a procedure which is becoming more and more common, although it is not altogther without its dangers, this huge sum of money is not in the hands of any authority which can be dealt with by the ordinary company procedure in general meeting where questions can be asked. The responsibility is upon the Minister of Transport under the Act for giving us the only information that we can obtain for the form of accounts has to be approved by him. He has to prescribe it, and the first point I wish to put to the Minister is that the form of these accounts is in fact exceedingly unsatisfactory. It does not give information which the House and the country ought to have.
  Although that vast sum has been spent on capital expenditure on the grid we are entirely in the dark as to what, if any,1182
  provision has been made for obsolescence and renewals, and I think the figures should be provided. We have been given no particulars of the capital expenditure apart from a gross sum, and, perhaps most curious and objectionable of all, there is no provision in the revenue account for showing exactly what the sales of current are. We are given a gross figure, and there are no means of telling how many units have been sold in the country as a whole or in particular years. This body, which has a monopoly of electricity, is in close competition with other great and important industries, particularly coal, oil and gas; and I would draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that these other industries, particularly the gas industry, which is under the Board of Trade, are compelled to give all these particulars for which I am asking, and give them in great detail, and it seems exceedingly undesirable that private enterprise should be compelled to give a great many particulars which apparently are not required from an industry for which Parliament has taken the responsibility. Absolutely complete details of capital expenditure, sales, provision for depreciation and so on have to be given.
  Passing from that, and still upon the point of the insufficiency of the information given, the almost secretive nature of the accounts, I come to the most important point on that head. The Minister will remember that by a provision, with which I have no quarrel in the least, the whole of the interest and sinking fund upon this enormous capital expenditure is being borrowed and added to capital account. I am sure he will agree that it is a dangerous procedure and one which requires to be watched carefully, because it is a comfortable thing to be able to go on for a great number of years borrowing your interest and sinking fund and running deeper into debt. Therefore, the House and the Minister ought not to be satisfied with approving forms of accounts for this enormous corporation which do not give any actuarial basis to show how the charges and the margins which the Board allows itself have been arrived at if at the time when this interest and sinking fund become payable, the Board is to be self-supporting. There is a very great danger that when very large sums do become payable from

  1183
  interest and sinking fund on this enormous expenditure the Board should not be in a position to meet those new charges.
  So much for the insufficiency of the information which is given to us in these accounts. But we are given some information, and I submit that the information we have got is exceedingly disquieting. I will ask the Minister to follow me for a moment in one or two calculations upon the basis of the information which is available to us. I will only say that if these calculations, though I have made them as carefully as I could, and had them checked, should turn out not to be accurate, the blame, if any, lies on the Minister's shoulders and not upon ours. I have done the best I can to interpret the exceedingly "scrappy" information available, and I think that I shall not have wasted the time of the Minister or the House in raising the matter even if it turns out that those calculations are not, in fact, accurate.
  I would draw the attention of the House and the Minister to the fact that we already have some indications that the fear which I have expressed that the Board will not be self-supporting is not an imaginary one. I have here particulars, with which I will not weary the House unless the Minister desires, of no less than three schemes which already have, shall I say, got themselves into difficulties in this matter of electrification. There is a scheme for rural electrification in Bedfordshire; and another in Dumfriesshire, where a loss equivalent to a sixpenny rate throughout the county has been incurred. There is another in North Wales, where the Government are already pressed by the local authority to give general financial assistance to rural electrification, because, as they say, there is no likelihood that the scheme will be a paying proposition unless financial assistance is given. That shows that already there is a growing danger that we may be faced once more with this situation of putting up Government subsidised businesses to compete with private industry which has not the benefit of a subsidy.
  I have no doubt that the Minister is cognisant of the 1934 report of the Central Electricity Board. We find from the
  1184
  revenue account that they make, roughly speaking, a turn of 5 per cent. between their buying and selling price of current. I have been able to make a calculation, which I do not think is far out, that by 1942 an increase in the resources of the Board of no less a figure than £2,000,000 will be required to meet interest and sinking fund charges upon capital. I am leaving out of account all the capital which is used for the unification of frequency. For reasons which I confess I do not regard as satisfactory this money was in fact given to the electrical industry by the Government. Taking their capital used purely for the grid, there is a charge which will come upon them of something like £2,000,000 for interest and sinking fund money in about six years' time. The gross turn, as shown in these accounts, is only about £1,000,000. That means that within a few years the gross revenue of the Board will have to be multiplied about three times and will have to go up from the present sum of £1,000,000 to about £3,000,000.
  Let me examine what likelihood there is of that taking place. We are given in the report of the Board the information that in the last five years the sales of current have gone up by something like 50 per cent. That is a very great increase. It must be borne in mind that it is something like five times as great as the increase over the world as a whole. In that period, of course, they have been taking the cream of the market; and obviously they have been working at a time when business recovery has been going on, thanks to the National Government, at a very rapid rate. It is exceedingly unlikely that the increase of 50 per cent. in five years is going to be turned into an increase of something like three times that figure. It is fair, however, to point out to the House that there is a small increase—which is almost in the nature of a bookkeeping increase—due to the fact that general trading had not begun in the whole country at the time of these accounts. Therefore, as general trading does come into operation in the whole of the country there will be a considerable increase in the amount of current going through the Board's books without any increase in current generally. That figure, as near as I can calculate, is at a maximum not more than 25 per cent., for in something like 80 per cent. of the country general trading had come

  1185
  into operation at the time of these accounts. Nothing of substantial importance should be attached to that figure. That makes it improbable that this huge increase in income which will be necessary to meet interest and sinking fund charges will be obtained.
  We can check that figure in another way. Roughly, what density of electrical consumption will that imply? At present we are using something like 15,000 million units a year. The United States, with considerably more than three times our consumption per head of the population—there are other considerations with which. I will not trouble the House, as time is short—reached a figure in 1929 which, I think, they have never reached since, and even then they only arrived at a figure of 90,000 million units. Allowing for an increase of something like 25 per cent., due to general trading to come into operation all over the country, if we were to have an increase of three times, it means that there would have to be a consumption in this country of something like 30,000 million units by 1942. That is a considerably bigger consumption per head than the maximum ever consumed in the United States. I am not going to say that it is an impossible consumption, but it is a very optimistic one, and if it is on that assumption that the board's plans are being made it is well that the public should be told at an early date. We do not want to have an optimistic estimate; we ought to be told frankly upon what assumption, over the period of the next few years, the board are proceeding, in framing their charges for current and in the provision they are making for meeting those very heavy charges for interest and sinking fund.
  I will give one other figure before we leave this calculation. Lord Weir's Committee made a calculation of the probable consumption in 1942. Their figure was something like 21,000,000,000 units. It is interesting to observe that if you take our present figure of 15,000,000,000 units and estimate a 10 per cent. increase over the whole period, that roughly, corresponds with the Weir Committee's calculation. It is extremely probable that the most optimistic figure will be the original figure of Lord Weir's Committee. If that figure is true, the House will observe that a deficiency of something like £7,000,000 per annum of gross in-
  1186
  come will be in store for us in the early 40's of this country. If those figures are anything like correct, I submit that the House should examine them at an early date. We do not want to be faced, when time is short with the position that here is an enormous industry, with Government support, organised by Government compulsion, with enormous sums of money held by the public, not under a Government guarantee but under one of those vague Government participations which are so dangerous because there is nothing by which you are limited. We do not want in this House to be faced with the position in which we can neither afford to let the scheme go completely and publicly broke nor on the other hand face yet one more subsidy; one more illustration of something which is bad enough in regard to agricultural finance and which we do not want to be faced with in electricity.
  So important is this possibility of a deficit that I have checked these figures in another way. I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for giving us a most important figure that we have never been able to have before, in answer to a question of mine the other day. That kind of figure should not be left to be dragged out by casual questions in the House, but should be properly put into a candid statement of accounts issued by the Department. He gave us a figure that the average gross revenue per unit sold by the Board was approximately 0.4d. I have taken the figure which I have already quoted to the House, the Weir Committee's estimate, which seems to me a most optimistic estimate of output in 1942. If that present gross revenue figure remains, and the Weir Committee's estimate is reached, the position will be that the gross revenue of the Central Electricity Board will have to be over £35,000,000, and their surplus would be, at a maximum, £1,800,000. Even if we assume that there is no increase in transmission and management expenses, you have to deduct from that £80,000, leaving a balance of £920,000. The capital charges in that year will be something like £1,500,000 on the wrong side, and that means that in four years' time there is a grave possibility of a deficit, on the accounts of the Board, of £750,000, while by 1942 that deficit may easily be largely increased.

  1187
  I am afraid I have had to go rapidly through some rather complicated calculations, but I have raised this matter because of its magnitude and because it is proper that it should be raised in good time, now. My first point is that we are not given enough information—information which could be given without disadvantage to anyone, and which we should now be given in much fuller measure. My second point is that such information as we have, and the best calculations that we can make, show that there is a real danger of a very substantial deficit at a very early date. If that be so, I submit that the House should take early steps to ensure that we are not faced with the possibility, either of a heavy subsidy, which we cannot afford, or of letting an industry of great importance to the country come to grief, or, if we give a subsidy, of being faced with the position of subsidising this industry and leaving private enterprise competing with it as best it can under very unfair trading conditions.
  11.22 p.m.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): I am certain that no one in the House will complain that this matter has been raised in this, the only manner in which the hon. Member could raise it. I think it is only right that the House should take an interest in and study these accounts. The hon. Member will not expect me to go into all the details that he has given. All I can do is to give a very general answer to the points which he has raised. First of all, the Minister's powers under the Act of 1926 are fairly strictly regulated. Section 25 lays upon the Minister the duty of prescribing the form of report by the Board of their proceedings during the year, and Section 30 lays upon him the duty of prescribing the form of and the particulars to be contained in the annual report of the accounts which that Section requires the Board to prepare and publish. But Parliament definitely laid certain obligations on the Central Electricity Board which was set up under the Act of 1926—first, that the tariff should be so fixed that, over a term of years to be settled by the Board themselves, receipts and expenses should balance; and, secondly, that the express
  1188
  powers which Parliament granted for the payment of interest out of capital, and for the suspension of sinking fund, should be exercised with the approval of the Treasury and subject to the consent of the Commissioners. The House having granted those powers, the Minister himself actually has no power in the matter. It has frequently been the practice of this House, in the case of great schemes and works of the type of the grid system, to grant power, when those schemes are started, authorising the capitalisation of interest and the suspension of sinking fund.
  I think that the House, realising that the Central Electricity Board is composed of business men, would be wise to allow them to carry out the powers granted by Parliament. It has always been realised that a long-range scheme of this kind would be unremunerative at first, but that later surpluses would wipe out deficiencies, and I am assured by the board and by my advisers that with continued increase in the consumption of electricity there need be no fear that this scheme will not be self-supporting. Another point raised by the hon. Member was the question of giving a figure for the whole country rather than a figure for an area. It would be, in my opinion, wrong to give such a figure. First of all, the division into areas is entirely for administrative purposes. It has no particular significance. It is simply done for the purpose of making it easier to carry out the administration of a great scheme.
  The board has taken 10 years as the budget period over which it thinks it can make the scheme pay. All these areas have different starting times for that 10-year period, and therefore while at the present moment it is obvious that certain of them have only just started and cannot be remunerative, some will become remunerative before others. For instance, Central Scotland and Mid-East England started on the 1st January, 1933, and South-West England and South Wales on the 1st January, 1935, and we feel that we cannot ask the Board to give these figures separately, for one reason only, namely, that in cases which started earlier, when these schemes become remunerative, you might have an occasion where there was a big surplus, and you would immediately have had a demand

  1189
  from them for lessening the charges. The whole idea of the grid was that the schemes should be taken as a whole, and therefore that the schemes which were already paying during the lean years should pay for the later-started ones. There is the further slight complication that the intercommunication of grid areas makes it difficult to give these figures, because of the question of getting supplies of current from one area to another, and it would be extremely difficult in these circumstances to get figures which would be really of use to the House and strictly accurate.
  All that I can say to my hon. Friend is that I have taken note of what he
  1190
  has said, and I will see that the Board has a report of these proceedings. I have the assurance that I gave at the beginning of my remarks that the Board are confident that they will be able to make the scheme pay for the budget period, and I feel confident that if they think so now, in view of the tremendous increase which is bound to come in the use of electricity, that very optimistic feeling at the present moment will be fully carried out by the facts.
  It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

  AIR MAIL PILLAR BOXES (CHISWICK AND BRENTFORD).
  AIR MAIL PILLAR BOXES (CHISWICK AND BRENTFORD).
  KENYA (LOAN).
  KENYA (LOAN).
  PALESTINE (RAILWAY COMMUNICATION).
  PALESTINE (RAILWAY COMMUNICATION).
  BRITISH ARMY (MERITORIOUS SERVICE MEDAL).
  BRITISH ARMY (MERITORIOUS SERVICE MEDAL).
  INSTITUTE OF CHEMISTRY (UNIVERSITY GRADUATES).
  INSTITUTE OF CHEMISTRY (UNIVERSITY GRADUATES).
  ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.
  ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.
COAL INDUSTRY.
  RHONDDA.
  RHONDDA.
  CANNOCK CHASE.
  CANNOCK CHASE.
  WAGES.
  WAGES.
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The EARL OF ONSLOW on the Woolsack.
CROYDON CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.
EASINGTON RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

DERWENT VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (BOROUGH OF WIMBLEDON ORDER).
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department for extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act to the Borough of Wimbledon be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department for extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act to the Borough of Wimbledon, and laid before this House on the 9th instant, be approved.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
PUBLIC HEALTH (WATER AND SEWERAGE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

SLAVERY.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON LORD NOEL-BUXTON rose to call attention to the Report of the Slavery Committee of the League of Nations, and to the recommendations made by that Committee to the Council of the League; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is no need to remind this House of the stupendous nature of the evil of slavery. It has been debated several times in your Lordships' House, and many members of this House took part in celebrating the centenary of the liberation of the slaves in the British Empire. When they did so they had to have regard to the really amazing fact that, after one hundred years, slavery still survived in many parts of the world. Certainly several million slaves still exist, and the volume of suffering which this debate may possibly affect in course of time is therefore great. We know that slavery is very deep-rooted in the social customs of many countries, but its antiquity does not prevent it from being a deadly canker. It is said very often that the evils of slavery are exaggerated; but there is no need to exaggerate the facts, which are known from calm inquiry.
Of course many slaves are well treated. A predial slave may rise to be an important person. He may even rise to the comfort of the position of one of the family of the owner. There is never, however, any security against savage cruelty if the master is so minded, or, as often happens in slave-owning countries, is a drug addict. The most terrible facts are being elicited at intervals. At the best it is a system in which the husband may be sold away from the wife and in which the children are frequently torn away from their mothers. There is no need of "sob stuff" in connection with this subject to remind us of the urgency of reform. If the question has not the prominence in the public eye of a matter of Party controversy still, measured by the happiness or unhappiness involved, its importance cannot be over-stated. Today I want to show the urgency attaching to the new situation in regard to slavery.
I would like to say how much I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Lugard, is not here to-day. We had hoped that he would have opened this debate, but it was not found possible to arrange any date that would suit him, and he has asked me to say that he deeply regrets

393
to have to be away to-day at a meeting of the African Institute at Basle. He was a member of both the previous Slavery Committees of the League, and his monumental work, "The Dual Mandate," is the classic on the subject of slavery. It was he who stated his conviction, after unparalleled experience as an administrator, that slavery is as demoralising to the master as it is debasing to the slave, and he took a leading part at Geneva in the development of the action of the League. We have to-day reached an important stage in that development. We have got machinery established, and we have the first Report of the new Expert Committee. I would remind your Lordships that the establishment of that Committee had been urged in this House on the Government, and we may feel legitimate pride that British influence has played a leading part in this development at Geneva. The British representatives there and the Foreign Office itself, backed by the untiring efforts at Geneva of Sir John Harris, have been the chief factors in bringing that about. We have now what is called the Advisory Committee of Experts with seven members, including as the British representative Sir George Maxwell. He is a man of the widest experience in the Far East and I think we are very fortunate to have him as a member of the Committee.
This debate is no occasion for criticism of His Majesty's Government but for suggesting lines of action while thanking them for what they have done. Let me remind your Lordships of what is defined as slavery by the League of Nations. The League has advanced further in regard to slavery than in regard to other parts of the great question of the treatment of native races. The other sections of the subject are classified as "forged labour" and again as "contract labour." There may be differences of opinion among us with regard to those fields of the subject, but there is none in regard to slavery. The definition of "slavery" in the Slavery Convention is this. It involves "the status of a person over whom any of the powers attaching to the rights of ownership are exercised." But though the League has advanced further in regard to slavery than in regard to forced labour, its work is not complete and the machinery of to-day is not the machinery
394
which was urged in this House in previous debates.
Two main points arise from the Report. The first is that slavery is widespread and the second that the Committee is limited in its powers of exposing it. Let me take the first point. The Report deals with various aspects of the question, with the status of slavery, with trading, raiding, dealing in slaves, and with the modified forms of bondage. Reviewing what has happened since the last Report of the Temporary Slavery Committee of 1932 it begins by mentioning the States where slavery is still legal, notably Arabia, Yemen, Ethiopia, the various Sultanates of the Persian Gulf, with hesitating references also to Liberia and to China. The Report deplores that slavery still subsists where it was established in 1932 and later it says no measures appear to have been taken with a view to its abolition in those countries.
We can find several things in the Report which are hopeful. At Jeddah the British Legation has exercised its rights which were obtained by Treaty to deal with slaves transported across the Red Sea who present themselves at our Legation on the Eastern Shore, and 212 were liberated in that way who had originally come from Ethiopia. Then we have the statement of the Abyssinian Government, covering the period from 1933 to 1934, giving the figures of 3,647 slaves liberated in that time, 218 of those belonging to the interesting incident of the insurrection of the powerful Prince Hailu, which was suppressed, and following on that the Emperor liberated that considerable number of slaves. Then we have in the Italian Report a reference to 927 slaves who were liberated at the Kufia Oasis, from the Senussi.
In other directions there is not so much consolation. Take the matter of Arabia, conspicuous as the chief slave market still left in the world. We know how the Moslem law regards the slave as on the same legal footing as cattle. On the other hand the Koran enjoins kindness and liberation as an act of piety. But very little is known as to the numbers of slaves in Arabia or the real situation. His Majesty's Government in their very interesting contribution to the Report note how it had been urged by the previous Temporary Committee that any Treaty with an Arab State ought to in

395
clude a clause abolishing slavery, but there we cannot record any advance. When we ourselves made a Treaty with Saudi Arabia we were only able to stipulate that the slave trade should be forbidden. The Report goes to to speak of the Yemen and says it has been undertaken by the Yemen Government that there should be no importation from Africa. The Report, however, is obliged to say that no information has been received in regard to the steps taken to carry out this obligation, and it goes on to say that:
"The Committee would be glad to know whether any proclamations have been published, whether any persons have been arrested for slave trading, and whether in reality the importation of slaves from Africa into these countries has been prevented."
This lack of information is really of very great importance. The well-known authority on Arabia, Mr. Rutter, holds that Ibn Saud would listen seriously to proposals for abolishing slavery altogether if other Moslem States, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan and others, were to express their views as to the advantages which would accrue to them from liberation, but that cannot be done till the League Committee can speak.
Now I come to a country which occupies a prominent place in the Report, Ethiopia. If I were to deal with the subject as the Report does under the headings of status, raiding, and trading, I should have to turn to that country each time and I want to avoid boring your Lordships by reiteration and to condense what must be said about it. There is a special reason also in these days for condensing what one says about Abyssinia. We shall all agree, I think, that this is a question which must be kept perfectly distinct from that of the present international crisis in which that country is involved. While it is not possible in such a debate as this to omit all discussion of conditions in one of the main centres of slavery in the world, what has to be said on that subject must not be taken as an apology for acts of aggression. On the contrary, the frank discussion of the evils in question and the genuine attempt to find a remedy for them, one which will not infringe International Law or the principle of collective security, is the best answer to any attempt to make the existence of those evils an excuse for military action.
Abyssinia reported in the autumn of last year to the League Committee and gave some very interesting facts. They recorded how in August, 1932, the Central Slavery Bureau was established followed by local bureaux combined with courts—slavery Judges—the number of which was raised from twelve to sixty-two. Reference is also made to the advantages in regard to slavery of new motor tracks, of trained troops in different parts of the country, and of sentences passed upon offenders. Perhaps I might add what the Emperor did not, in regard to himself. Lord Polwarth and I, on behalf of the Anti-Slavery Society, went to Abyssinia in 1932 and had many interviews with the Emperor, and I should like to say how much I feel that the admiration felt for him is justified. He struggles against reactionary forces of very great power. We urged upon him that he should ask the aid of the League of Nations in the form of an adviser, and I feel that success is almost impossible without such aid. The position, indeed, would be very much better in every way to-day if such aid had been invited.
The report from Abyssinia goes on to speak of the number of slaves liberated, but it says nothing to indicate any new legislation since the last Report. On the other hand, slave-trading has been tackled in some parts. The suppression of the rebellion of Prince Hailu gave good ground for optimism in the spring of 1932, and a very noticeable fact was the appointment of a British ex-official as adviser on the question of slavery, with a department responsible directly to the Emperor. A very good secretary-general was appointed, and things looked very well in the autumn of 1933. Unfortunately, then a set-back occurred, efforts were relaxed and at the end of 1933 the British adviser, Mr. de Halpert, felt that it was useless to remain, and he resigned. A great deal had been made of his appointment, but in the Report there is no mention of his resignation. That illustrates the extraordinary limitations under which the Committee worked in securing information.
There is much else that one might say on the subject of Abyssinia, but I see Lord Polwarth here, and I hope that he will deal with the details. I should like to say that I think the breakdown of 1933 has been largely due to the fear of

397
aggression. There are two curious facts in regard to Abyssinia. One is that the Emperor has virtually the whole administration of the country in his hands, and that is almost beyond human capacity to deal with. Secondly, the officials of the provinces hove up to now been very largely unpaid. Owing to the fear of aggression, the attention of the Emporor was naturally diverted in a marked manner; and the funds which might have been available for a real bureaucracy, for a paid police, for paid Judges—all essential to reform—were also diverted. The fear of aggression became a deplorable influence against the development of a hopeful movement. Partisanship in regard to this question is no help to the cause of the abolition of slavery. To reach a just view in regard to Abyssinia one must take into account, on the one hand, the extraordinary difficulty of reform, slavery being rooted in custom and a so in religion. On the other hand, also, it is necessary to consider the gravity of the evils which remain and which are described, for instance, from official and other sources in Lady Simon's book on slavery. We shall, however, all agree that, Whatever settlement follows the present crisis, slavery must be dealt with.
Then the Report has passages on China and on very many British Colonies and Dependencies. There is the greatest variety in the character of slavery with which they deal, but every variety has some character of property abiding in the relation of master and slave. There are so many varieties and different countries that I can only touch very briefly upon them. I trust that other speakers will deal with them at length. The British Report deals with no fewer than 22 of our Colonies or Protectorates: most careful reports, full of interest, but not as a rule dealing with anything like crude slavery. We may feel the greatest pride, I think, in the prominent part occupied in the Report by these reports showing the enormous attention paid to the native question by British officials. Only two evils seem to me to be serious among the British reports—one is that of the girl slavery in Hong-kong, and the other is that of the Masarwa in Bechuanaland. In those eases, delay is frankly admitted. It may be regarded as blameworthy by some people, but none of us would wish that there should be
398
concealment of the facts, and I hope that our example in facing them will encourage those States which opposed the formation of the Committee at Geneva in fear of the exposure of facts which existed under their administration.
What the Report says is very notable, but what it does not say is still more notable. There is nothing about Portugal, there is practically nothing about Liberia, yet Portugal has figured in the slavery connection again and again. It has, indeed, had an international history: Lord Grey was constantly occupied with the conditions prevailing in the Cocoa Islands. Rut such is the procedure under which the Committee has to work that there is no reference to Portugal at all, and the same applies to Liberia. The noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, has himself talked in this House on the misery prevailing in Liberia not very long ago; in fact, it is on the tapis at this moment. There was a debate in this House last year, and Mr. Eden raised the subject at the Council in the autumn. The American Government was invited to give its view, but not a word appears in the Report on this great question. Indeed silence, as well as these statement of the Report, is a reason for more means of information.
Now I come to the action that I want to suggest to His Majesty's Government. I want especially to urge that greater powers ought to be given for the obtaining of information. The limitation imposed on the Committee is as follows:
"The Committee may not receive depositions, or consult international or national organisations, whether public or private, or private persons. These may only send their complaints or observations to the Committee through the intermediary of their respective Governments."
Of course the Governments about which it is most necessary to obtain information are the least anxious to give it, and here are some of the statements in the Report showing the need.
The Committee expresses the hope that the Chinese Government will agree to furnish more definite information, and "will be good enough to communicate statistics concerning the application of the Edict of September. 1932." As regards Arabia, the Committee
"does not possess information as to the steps which have been and are being taken by the Sultans and Sheiks of Muscat, etc., to give effect to the Treaties mentioned above."

399
Again, the Committee is
"not in possession of any information regarding the slave trade inside Saudi Arabia and the Yemen."
It has "no official information" with regard even to the situation of slaves in the peninsula. It would be glad to obtain information in particular on slavery in the plantations and pearl fisheries. Indeed the appeal for further powers appears on every page. The need for stirring the interests of backward States is shown by the proportion of matter appearing in the Appendices contributed by various Governments. Out of ninety pages your Lordships will hardly believe that various British Governments provide 68 pages, Italy 6½, France 2½, Holland 1½, Ethiopia 1¼, and Belgium, Spain and China one-half each.
The procedure for obtaining information is really as ridiculous as the procedure of a Law Court would be if it prescribed that no evidence can be adduced by the plaintiff, and that the case against the defendant must rely entirely upon any evidence which the defendant may feel disposed to provide. Of course every reasonable safeguard should, and could, be provided, but regard must surely be given to the main object of the slavery Committee's existence, which is to abolish slavery. It is no use blinking the fact that there is opposition to reform by some interested States; but that is an opposition which has in the past been shown to be capable of defeat. It is actually the case that the present powers of the Committee regarding information are less than those of the former Committees. Lord Lugard was a member of both previous Committees, and he has sent me his conclusions, which I think will interest your Lordships.
In 1924 no restriction was placed upon the Committee on Slavery as to the collection of evidence. It proposed to the Assembly that it should be free to consult persons designated by any Government, and that if it wanted information from other persons it should ask that Government if they were reliable persons; that charges should be forwarded to the Government accused, and that persons should be invited to appear, or to write their memoranda to the Committee. The Assembly approved that system, and no adverse comment arose from its practice; but when we came
400
to the Committee of 1933 less power was given. In the discussion at the Council Mr. Madariaga said the rules consisted of a series of negations, and Sir John Simon urged that more powers were needed. I very much hope that the noble Earl will be able to tell us that the Government's delegates will press for an extension of those powers.
There is one specific proposal which I should like to make. There are many in the course of the Report, and I select one in regard to the Red Sea traffic—the chief case of oversea trade in slaves. It is a trade which has happily become difficult because it must pass through a, European Colony to reach the coast. It is still more difficult because of the British naval action, which has been well known and has been so active for a very long time, but the trade is not entirely suppressed. I myself have evidence of the fact that this trade in small dhows, which conceal themselves behind the coral reefs and cross the narrow straits with a favourable wind in a single night, continues, and without motor boats and hydroplanes it is perhaps impossible to eradicate it altogether. The proposal in the Report is that a new Convention should be brought into being. Indeed the Slavery Convention of 1926, in Article 3, urges that there should be a special Convention in regard to local problems of this kind. I will say no more on that, because I think my noble friend Lord Arnold will give the facts and the details.
There is one other point that I would like to urge, and that is that the Committee should not be limited, as it is now, in regard to the frequency of its meetings. At present the rule is that it should meet every two years. Anyone who glances at the Report can see that there is work to do without delay and the Committee must have parted at its last meeting with the feeling that a meeting in the early future would be very appropriate. The Mandate's Committee meets twice a year. The British delegates have before now expressed their view at the Assembly, and it was owing to British interest that permission was given to hold an extraordinary meeting next year. But that is hardly enough, and I trust that His Majesty's Government will instruct their delegates to press at the Assembly that there should be a meeting at least not less than once a year. These are the

401
main points that I want to make, my Lords. I am sure the Government agree with the dictum that slavery is a crime against human nature. They know that before even the slave trade can cease slavery must come to an end, and I am confident that they will wish to expedite what is an avowed and specific object of the League of Nations, the abolition of slavery in all its forms. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I desire to lay a few words in support of the Motion of My noble friend, and they must be very few, because I have to be elsewhere, I am sorry to say, shortly, under the orders of the Government. Therefore I cannot, even if I wished to, occupy a great part of your Lordships' time. This Report which is the occasion for this debate initiated with such thoroughness, and such a very hereditary right to be heard on this subject, by Lord Noel-Buxton, is an extremely interesting document, and deals, though prepared under evidently great difficulties, with the subject extremely fully.
I think it is perhaps worth while recalling to your Lordships, though I hope most of you know it very well, that in this matter a succession of British Governments have played a very worthy part, if I may be allowed to say so. It was the late Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland, acting for a British Government, who originally raised this matter before the League in 1923. The result of that was the appointment in 1924 of the Commission to which my noble friend has referred, which reported in, I think, 1925. The matter was then raised by a British delegation in the form of the Slavery Convention in 1925–26, and that was adopted. We did not get everything we wanted in that Slavery Convention. If we had had the drafting of it exactly as we liked it would have been a more effective document than it actually was, but still we got a good deal. In 1929 again the British Government desired to appoint a Commission to see how the thing was getting on, how it was that such very meagre results were presented to the League, and so on. We struggled for three years at that time before we succeeded in getting it. We then did get the appointment of a Commission which reported in favour of a permanent advisory body, which was created.
402
There again, I think you may say without undue national vanity that it was the British Government which urged the appointment of this permanent body, and was principally instrumental in persuading the Assembly to appoint it, and to draw up the rules of procedure under which it functioned. Again we were not able to get everything we wanted. There were certain Governments—one in particular which it would be indiscreet to mention by name, which I am quite sure was very anxious to prevent slavery, but was also so obsessed by the desire of not doing anything which could possibly interfere with national sovereignty that it saw difficulties and dangers where my more obtuse intellect was quite unable to perceive them. However, that was ultimately done, and this is the first Report as the result of that long study.
I think the document is, on the whole, an encouraging document. It is perfectly true that it testifies to the fact that a considerable amount of slavery still remains, and that here and there, particularly I am afraid one must say in China, the extent of something which is really indistinguishable from slavery, at any rate in some forms of its existence—the well-known mui-tsai—exists to a larger extent than I was aware of, and apparently it exists in many other countries which are more or less under the influence of Chinese institutions. Still, a great deal has been done there. I read with great pleasure of what has been done in Hong-kong in that respect, because your Lordships will be aware that for many years there has been great anxiety in many quarters as to the toleration of the institution of mui-tsai in Hong-kong and it was only after very considerable struggles that at last the local Government there was induced to agree to the institution of the system of registration. It is rather interesting to note the fears which they entertained as to the result, because I think it is encouraging always to see how official anxieties so often turn out to be quite unfounded when you overrule them and adopt your system in spite of the dangers that are threatened.
It was said that in view of the movement of the population to and from the mainland registration in. Hong-kong would be impossible until it was also enforced on the mainland; that it was practically impossible to prove that any girl was a mui-tsai girl; that an army of

403
inspectors would be necessary and their visits would arouse resentment in respectable families; and that enormous expenditure would be incurred in providing homes and employment bureaux for mui-tsais. I believe it to be true to say that not one of these anticipations has been proved to be even moderately correct; and that, in point of fact, the number of registered mui-tsai girls has gone down to less than half what it was when the system was instituted; that in point of fact the expense has been negligible; that instead of an army of inspectors I think there have been two or three—all but one of whom, if I remember rightly, were voluntary workers—and that the system has moved with great smoothness and without exciting any anxiety or serious opposition. I think that is very satisfactory, because it gives one hope that it may be carried out in many other parts of the world. Indeed, I gather that in many other neighbouring parts the same system has been adopted, and I hope will produce the same results. You can only hope that something of the same kind may be done in China, though the difficulties, one must admit, are very great in China at the present time. I know that it is said that mui-tsai is not slavery, and no doubt very often it may not be, strictly speaking, slavery, but on occasions it is very bad indeed, and I do not think you can really seriously doubt that it does come within the definition of slavery—namely, the exercise of ownership by one human being over another.
My noble friend has gone through the matter very carefully, and there are only two other countries about which I wanted to say a word. One is Abyssinia, and there I quite recognise that there is still an immense deal to be done. Yet I think it is a fair reading of this Report that the Commissioners think that something has been done, and that there has been at any rate good will in the Central Government of Ethiopia in this matter. As to Liberia, the other country to which my noble friend referred, I should like to know whether the Government have any more information on the subject. Liberia is a difficult country, I admit, and the efforts which the League of Nations made to come to its assistance proved entirely abortive, owing mainly to local jealousies, and partly also to
404
a feeling which is very important and must never be neglected in any consideration of this question—namely, the great, and perhaps one must admit the growing, jealousy between the black and white races. If my noble friend can give us any further information as to the circumstances in Liberia I am sure it will be very acceptable.
My noble friend Lord Noel-Buxton asked for three definite things. He asked for a fresh Convention to facilitate the prevention of slave trading, particularly in the Red Sea. The second thing lie asked for was the sweeping away of the hindrances imposed by the rules of admissible evidence for the Advisory Commission; and the third thing was that there should be more frequent meetings of the Advisory Commission. I want to say a word about each of those three points. As to a fresh Convention, the history of that matter is interesting. In the British draft of the 1926 Convention we proposed to make slave trading piracy. That would by itself have given very great rights to British ships both to search and to arrest dhows thought to be guilty of slave trading and to free any slaves that were found on board them. Unfortunately, certain of the other maritime Powers thought this was a device to fasten the British marine tyranny on the waters of the oceans. They were up in arms and would not hear of it, and all we could do was to get this rather feeble alternative, as I am afraid it is—namely, an undertaking that the countries concerned would formulate and conclude Conventions giving all necessary powers to deal with slave trading. That, I think, is really necessary.
I observe it stated—my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong—that within the last ten or twelve years British ships, of which I understand two are detailed for the duty, have arrested as many as 126 dhows which they had some grounds for thinking were engaged in slave trading. In each case they were forced to release the dhow because there was no evidence that there were any slaves on board belonging to other people. In each case there were slaves on board, but they were alleged to belong to the owner of the dhow, and so there was no question of slave trading. All that may be quite true, but it does present a certain amount of doubt to my mind as

405
to whether, in the powers that now exist, the real facts were disclosed to the British commanders. My noble friend will know whether that doubt is shared by any of those engaged in the business of checking slave trading, but I cannot help having that suspicion myself. Certainly there is the strongest possible suspicion that slave trading still goes on. Indeed, not long ago, I read a book of reminiscences by an adventurer—not a British adventurer—in which he openly declared he had quite recently been engaged in this slave trading. Therefore I hope we may revive that suggestion of the Convention of 1926 and press that something should be done after these nine years to carry that into effect, if the advisers of my noble friend think it desirable and that more effective powers may be given to stop this horrible trading.
There is the second point which my noble friend raised on the question of the rules of evidence. I do not think that outside "Alice in Wonderland" any more fantastic arrangement was ever agreed to than we find here. The Committee may not receive depositions from, or consult, any international or national organisation, whether public or private, or private persons. These may only send their complaints of observations to the Committee through the intermediary of their respective Governments; at any rate that is how it has been treated. That is a perfectly ridiculous situation. There again., it was the result of vehement opposition, and it was a question of whether we could get an Advisory Committee at all or whether we should make the concession, the very large concession, of limiting its power of getting evidence in that way. I cannot help hoping that in some way or other that difficulty may be overcome. My noble friend has pointed out with great truth that from this document itself you can see that on many occasions the Committee have had to report they do not know about this or that, that they had not been able to ascertain exactly what the facts were about it is, that, and so on. I have not counted the number myself, but I should think it would be an underestimate to say that the phrase is repeated half-a-dozen or a dozen times in the Report. The broad fact that we get such very meagre reports from some of the Governments compared with the
406
reports we have made, shows I think a very unsatisfactory state of things.
I cannot help hoping that every effort may be made to get that put right, and I am going to make if I may two suggestions on that point for the consideration of the Government. I do not ask them to reply, but I hope they will do me the honour of considering them. The first suggestion is this. I remember that when we agreed to that provision we contemplated that some well-disposed Government, the British Government for instance, might undertake to forward complaints by serious people, even if they were not strictly from Governmental sources. I think that is within the terms of the rule. As long as it comes from a Government, and the Government make themselves responsible for the seriousness of the evidence, that evidence may be received by the Commission. I should like the Government to consider whether they have done as much as they can do in that respect. Of course that is not a very satisfactory solution.
The other, and much the better plan, would be to get a simple change in the rule. On that point there is an important technicality which, again, I would ask the Government to consider carefully. As your Lordships are aware, nothing, as a general rule, can be done by the Assembly of the League—and I suppose this would have to be done by the Assembly of the League—except by a unanimous vote; but there is an exception on matters of procedure. It certainly appears to me that this is emphatically a matter of procedure. The nature of the evidence that may be received is a matter of the procedure of the Advisory Committee, and in that case any change can be carried by a majority of the Assembly. I have very little doubt it would be very easy to get a majority for a more easy rule. It may be, of course, that one or two countries with exaggerated fears as to their sovereign rights may resist, and if it is a question of unanimity that makes the position very difficult; but I believe this is a case where unanimity is not required, and it can be clone by a majority.
These are the observations I wanted to make on the question of evidence. The only other specific point raised by my noble friend's speech was the right of the Committee to sit more than once every two years If I remember rightly

407
that provision was purely a matter of economy. I thought it was a ridiculous provision at the time, but it was thought it would cost so much more at that time; and the view prevailed, and perhaps still prevails, the perfectly idiotic view, that the amount spent at Geneva was very important, whereas it is really very unimportant. If you could save a few pounds by having meetings only once every two years instead of meetings more frequently, that was a reason which overbore any question of efficiency in stamping out the slave trade! I hope that kind of point of view is passing, if it has not already passed, and I hope the Government will press for what is the reasonable thing—namely, that the Committee should meet as often as it thinks desirable from the point of view of its work. That is the reasonable thing to do. That also seems to me to be a matter of procedure which, I venture to think, can be set right by a majority vote of the Assembly. I shall not trouble your Lordships any longer. I would only say in conclusion that we have for more than one hundred years a very fine tradition in this matter. That is not only a matter of gratification to us, but it imposes a very special responsibility on us with regard to what may be done in forwarding the great cause of stamping out slavery in the world.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I think we shall agree that the noble Lord opposite has done a good service in asking your Lordships' House and the Government to pay heed to the remarkable Report which has just been issued. After what has fallen from my noble friend about the position of this country, I do not require to stress the need of paying great attention to every matter that concerns this great cause—the suppression of slavery throughout the world. It has been for a hundred years the special privilege of this country and of each successive Government to regard this as a matter which lies upon their honour. It will be within your Lordships' recollection that it was chiefly on the initiative of His Majesty's Government that this Permanent Slavery Committee was appointed by the League of Nations and therefore its first Report must needs be a document of very special interest and importance both to the Government and to the country.
408
I do not propose to dwell upon the two defects which have been fully explained by the two noble Lords who have just spoken. Suffice to say that I most cordially associate myself with what has fallen from them both as to the inadequacy of the present rule of procedure by which the Committee is debarred from receiving evidence except through the channel of the Governments concerned. No one can read this Report, as I have tried to do, without seeing the truth of the observations that it is just those Governments from whom information is most needed who obviously supply least—the countries especially of China, Liberia; Ethiopia and Arabia. It seems to me common sense—and I hope that common sense will prevail over the technicalities which have just been mentioned—that this most important Committee should not be debarred from taking depositions from private bodies or individuals in the course of their inquiry.
True, every care must be taken lest the Committee should be embarrassed by the effusions of all those irresponsible cranks and enthusiasts who follow in the wake of every good movement, as no one knows better than I do. But it will be sufficient to make it plain that all these depositions which come from private individuals or bodies must be regarded as confidential until they have been submitted to the Governments concerned for their observations. I do not think we can get much further in this matter unless greater freedom is allowed to the Committee as to the sources of its information. I think the remark made by the noble Lord cannot really be questioned, that the present procedure is really as if in a court of law it were laid down that the only evidence admissible was evidence on the side of the defendants. The other point, about the time of the meeting of the Committee, seems to me also to carry with it obvious agreement. No one can read this Report without seeing the range of matters with which it deals in every part of the world, and I think there is grave danger lest, within two years, evils may grow up which might have been checked if the Committee had been able to meet more frequently.
After what has been said with far greater authority than I can possess by the two noble Lords who have spoken, I only propose to refer, and that briefly, to three matters within the Report itself.

409
First of all with regard to Arabia, still one of the main centres of anxiety in this matter, I think His Majesty's Government in the past have done everything they can through the various treaties which they have made with the different States in Arabia, and nothing could be more praiseworthy than the efforts of our own Navy in the Red Sea. I think there are now two sloops continually engaged in this work, and, if I remember rightly, in 1932 they covered no less than 38,000 miles in that comparatively restricted sphere. I think it s true that they have not discovered any slave dhow of the old and bad description, but I fear there is only too much reason to believe that what my noble friend Lord Cecil has just said is true, that under the guise of shipments of other kinds and under the excuse that the apparent slaves found on board were in the employment of the shipowners, a great number of persons are admitted into Arabia who are really slaves, and a considerable number of those who may be admitted free are afterwards enslaved.
I am afraid there is need of constant vigilance in this matter. And here I would hope that His Majesty's Government would at least give careful attention to the suggestion of the Report, that in this matter, in order to prevent—shall I call it the hoodwinking which goes on in the transhipment of slaves from Ethiopia into Arabia?—the three high contracting parties who have territories on the Red Sea, France, Italy and ourselves, might make that special agreement contemplated by Section 3, paragraph 3, of the original Slavery Convention.
Then I turn, and may perhaps say a little more about it, to that old centre of anxiety to which both noble Lords have alluded, the system of mui-tsai in China and other parts of the East. I give it the name that is most familiar to us, though it has many other names in different parts of that area. Your Lordships are well aware of the system. It is that by which the parents of a poor family transfer one of their children to the guardianship of another family. There was much to be said for it in the old days. Economic pressure, and the poverty of families made it very natural that some of the poorest families should endeavour to have what they hoped would
410
be a comfortable home for some of their children, and were willing to allow other families to go through the process which was called "adopting," but it really meant taking the child into the permanent and unremunerative employment of another family.
When conditions were more simple, and when the home to which the child in infancy was transferred was within reach of the parents or of their relatives, everything in many ways worked well, and it is unquestionable that there was a very great deal of kindness shown by the adoptive home towards these adopted children. But circumstances are entirely different now. The children are taken to an immense distance from their homes, and I fear there is only too much reason to believe that there is a very shameful traffic still going on with these children. Not to take up your Lordships' time, if you wish to see the evils which are still inherent in this system you have only to read that extremely able memorandum on the whole system which is appended to the Report by Sir George Maxwell, one of the greatest authorities on the subject. I think, after reading that Report in that Appendix, there can no longer be any question as to our right to regard this system as little short of the kind of servitude which we are pledged to do our utmost to suppress.
So far as China is concerned, it has put itself right, in a manner, by the Edict of 1932, by which it was declared that the taking of one of these Children into a home was prohibited unless the master regarded her as an employee and undertook the obligation of returning the child, if she ceased to be employed, to the parents or to some charitable organisation. But there is absolutely no information as to how far that Edict is observed. I fear it may be like other admirable Edicts in that country, where the control of the Central Government is so difficult. But here again is a matter on which further information is urgently needed, and is not likely to be very readily given by the Government of China itself.
I turn with more concern to our own Colony of Hong-kong, and there I agree with what the noble Viscount has just said about the improvement that has taken place. As I think he said, since the law of 1929 was passed making the

411
registration of the children and the inspection of them compulsory, there has been a rapid diminution from 4,368 in 1930 to 2,291 in 1934. This has been done, it is worth noting, with the cordial cooperation of public opinion and of many voluntary societies largely composed of the Chinese themselves in Hong-kong. On the whole it is true to say that conditions there are immeasurably better than they were when attention was first called to this matter in your Lordships' House by my revered predecessor many years ago. I doubt very much whether it would be wise at present to press for anything like prohibition at least until the economic conditions of China are very different from what they are now, but a great deal could be done in steadily encouraging and pressing forward the good work that has been done in Hong-kong.
But things are not nearly so satisfactory in the International Settlements. In Shanghai, as I understand, most of the better-to-do Chinese families have one or two of these unfortunate children. I am not for a moment saying that in many cases they are not most kindly treated, but there are, so far as I know, no municipal regulations. And the same is true of Kulangsu in the Fukien Province. Therefore with great confidence I think that pressure can be brought to bear in the International Settlements to extend the system prevailing in Hong-kong. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I again call attention to the Report of Sir George Maxwell because I think it is full of information on the present system in different parts of the world.
Let me turn for a moment to a country which is much in our thoughts to-day, Abyssinia. I have not much to add to what has been said already, and what has to be said here at the present time must be said with great care and with no desire to enter into the most formidable region of international tension which exists at present and is probably more tense than has existed, shall I say, since the War. It is, true, I am afraid it must be admitted—though I cannot speak with the authority of the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, or Lord Polwarth, who I understand will speak—that there was a raid in 1932 into the Soudan region where, I think, men, women and children were dragged from our territory into Ethiopia. There was a recent
412
raid into French Somaliland which had to be followed up by a punitve expedition in which a French officer was killed. I suppose it must be admitted that large tracts of that country are still to be found where slavery still exists deep-seated in the traditions and customs of the tribes.
But it is only fair to recognise the efforts which have been made. My noble friend Lord Noel Buxton seemed to imply that there has been no legislation of a definite kind on the matter of slavery, but unless I am misinformed there were legislative acts of 1923 and 1924 declaring at any rate the status of slavery to be illegal within the Empire of Abyssinia. We all know how difficult it has been to enforce them, but let us at least remember what was said this afternoon that there are sixty-two bureaux and courts in Abyssinia, and that between September, 1933, and August, 1934, no fewer than 3,640 slaves have actually been liberated.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: Will the most reverend Primate forgive me if I interrupt to say that my allusion was to the statement in the Report that since the Report of 1932 there had not been legislation?
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Thank you very much. The reduction in numbers and the efforts to spread these bureaux which are intended to make legislation more effective, is a sign that the Emperor has been endeavouring to do his best. It has been questioned whether with slavery existing it was wise to allow Abyssinia to enter the League of Nations, but I cannot refrain from saying that Abyssinia was not the only country as to whose internal government no inquiries were specially made before admission to the League. At any rate Abyssinia is not to blame for that. I think every sympathy should be extended to the Emperor, whom some of us know personally, on account of the efforts he has gallantly endeavoured to make in spite of many difficulties. I am quite certain that the noble Lord was right in saying that it was the beginning of the threat of forcible intervention from outside that has retarded efforts which otherwise would have been made, and certainly no such aggression is likely in the least to solve, and may very likely increase, the difficulty of slavery in Abyssinia.

413
May I conclude by saying that a great step has been taken by the appointment of this Commission and by the publication of its First Report? It must be extraordinarily difficult for His Majesty's Government, with the deepest difficulties and anxieties in every part of the world, to be as alert as they otherwise might be about this particular matter, but it is essentially one in which constant vigilance is necessary and in which want of vigilance increases difficulties and makes them harder to overcome in the future. I am sure I shall carry your Lordships with me when I say that I hope that His Majesty's present Government, like all British Governments, will regard it as one of their honours and privileges to be foremost throughout the world in combating if not suppressing this worst crime against humanity.
LORD STRICKLAND; My Lords, I feel it to be my duty to say a few words in this debate because many years ago I had the honour of being Governor of a part of His Majesty's Dominions where three-quarters of the population were the children of slaves and where there were still living those born as slaves under the English flag—the Federation of the Leeward Islands. As a result of my experience I would suggest to your Lordships' House that there should be differentiation between the general question of slavery and the repression of the slave trade. I am in full accord with and. indeed, I would go much further than the noble Viscount who spoke, with regard to regulations and administrative measures to suppress the slave trade, but as regards slavery itself those who were close to the time when the slave traditions and habits existed under the English flag feel it a matter of doubt whether the conditions of slavery were not preferable to those that exist under the system of competition. Life is easy in some tropical countries, in countries where food is easily procured, and where raiment is only required for the purposes of modesty, but not where between one season and another there is no food and no certainty for the future.
That exists also in China, for opposite reasons. What the most reverend Primate said with reference to Hong-kong was impressive, because there the long contact with English government has had and is having its educational effect. But when he referred to Shanghai and
414
Northern China, he showed that the conditions are even worse than were put before your Lordships' House. There are large bodies of Christians only a short way outside Shanghai who are Christians because for three or four generations the children have been bought by the missionaries or by charitable persons for sixpence. The Christians have grown in numbers through those charitable efforts because life is so difficult in that part of the world. There is nothing but work, work, work; no Sunday, no Bank Holidays, no limitation of labour There are, therefore, conditions where to have certainty as to the food for to-morrow and the next week may have for human beings and for human nature an attraction which must be separated from the necessity of dealing with the slave trade.
As regards the slave trade, the sea belongs to all the civilised nations. There is something even more powerful on the sea than what the most reverend Primate referred to as common sense. There we have the law of nature, which is imperative; we have International Law; we have the right of the English nation and the English flag to enforce our principles, perhaps apart from the feeling of other nations and other communities. Nothing too great can be done to strengthen and support British ships and British officers in suppressing the slave trade, even to the extent that if mistakes are made, those who make those mistakes should be supported. But that is a very different thing from our nation, or any influence and power on our behalf, interfering with the internal-affairs of other nations and perhaps interfering with the best interests of the majority of the community, where very rapid or excessive interference with existing conditions might tend to lower instead of increase the standard and duration of life and that measure of peace and contentment which is called liberty, and which we should not seek to impose too rapidly and without a mandate upon other nations.
Let us remember that, before Christianity and altruism came upon the world, there was no progress and no civilisation except under the slave-driver's whip. Altruism and Christianity have changed all that. We have our noble friends opposite, and those who think with them in another place, talking about

415
the slavery of the competitive system in countries whose condition of life we cannot possibly understand without going there and living there—we who live here amidst a standard of comfort never known before in the history of the world, or in Australia, where the standard of comfort and prosperity is even greater than we can imagine, in a country where a man can buy an acre of land for 10s. and have twenty years in which to pay for it.. There is no starvation and no pressure, and nothing can make him fear for the morrow. We should not interfere in countries where life of that kind does not exist, but should leave things alone. I hope that pressure will be brought to bear upon those in authority to refrain from using it to take steps beyond what is really required by the principles of Christianity.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, my only reason for venturing to intervene in this debate is that it was my privilege three years ago to accompany the noble Lord, my relative, on the other side of the House, who proposed this Motion, when we paid a visit to Ethiopia on behalf of the British Anti-Slavery Society and on the invitation of the Emperor himself to advise him as to how he could best liberate the slaves in his country. However doubtful we may have felt at first as to whether the Emperor really desired this reform, we were quite convinced after we had seen him and consulted him and his Ministers. We had three interviews with the Emperor and more with two of his Ministers appointed for that purpose. After that we were quite convinced that the Emperor really was in earnest in his desire to abolish slavery from his He expressed his views quite plainly: he said to us that his was a very Christian country, that slavery was inconsistent with Christianity, and that therefore he wished to see it abolished. He, at all events, had no doubt whatever that slavery was inconsistent with the character of a nation claiming to be civilised and in the comity of nations.
But I must say—and one speaks just now with great reserve and great thought—that I cannot help thinking that we have a little cause for disappointment with the results already obtained. As was mentioned in the Report of the Slavery Committee, he expressed to us
416
the view that, as a result of the measures he had taken or would take, slavery would be extinct in his country in fifteen or, at the most, twenty years His own people stated to us the probable number of their slaves at 500,000 or 600,000. This was probably a very great underestimate; doubtless they put it as low as they could. But even taking that figure, and taking the figure stated in their own report that some 3,600 had been liberated during the year up to August last, you will see that it will take a very long time at that rate of progress before slavery ceases to exist, even allowing, of course, for the additional decrease in the number of slaves through death.
Here I may digress for a moment to refer to the legislation, to which indeed reference has already been made by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. The law of 1924 provided that the children of slaves born after that date should be free. Unfortunately, that law did not abolish the status of slavery as regards existing slaves, only as regards the children who should be born of them. These are entitled to claim their liberty when they reach an age to act for themselves—fifteen or sixteen years—and in the meantime the masters of their parents are obliged to support them. The number included also, as the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, has already mentioned, those who were the property of Ras Hailu. When that man, who was the most powerful of the Chiefs in Ethiopia, was convicted of treason, the Emperor confiscated most of his property, and ordered, in a Proclamation of which I saw a translation, those in charge of Ras Hailu's slaves to bring them to a certain place in order that they might receive their freedom. I cannot help thinking that those in charge of his slaves must have used a great deal of discretion in carrying out that order. Certainly popular repute would have assumed that Ras Hailu possessed far more than 200 slaves; he was living in Addis Ababa when we were there, with a very large retinue of 1,000 men, of whom many would be slaves, and probably his subordinates took the opportunity of disposing of the slaves in some other way.
But we must admit that the difficulties concerning the Emperor are very great. He did carry out his promise, and he did appoint a special bureau. We have

417
been told, and they tell us in the Report, that it has 62 subordinate bureaux in different parts of the country, and they have, upon one ground or another, and mostly under the law of 1924, liberated 3,647 slaves. This law provides also that slaves escaping from their masters, and being absent and unclaimed for eight days, can claim freedom, as also can a slave who is treated cruelly. The law also forbids the sale of slaves from one person to another do not imagine that we can for a moment suppose that the sale of slaves does not go on, but it has been driven underground and is very difficult to trace. We also have evidence of kidnapping, even of children, in order to make them slaves.
A disappointing thing is that the British adviser has found it, impossible to carry on his work, and has had to resign. The slave bureaux are functioning to a limited extent, but until the officials are paid salaries, whether they be Governors of Provinces or Judges of outlying Slave Courts, the temptations to abuse will, I am afraid, be undoubtedly too great. One would not like to criticise the Emperor for perhaps failing to take action at the present time, as his thoughts must be very fully occupied with other matters, but the Report which has been quoted brings us down only to August of last year, before the present crisis had in any way arisen. Making every allowance for the difficulties, I do feel some disappointment. On the other hand, it is satisfactory to note that the Report of our Soudan Government states that since the raid of 1932 there has been no raid across that frontier for slaves, and there has been more control over the local Chiefs exercised by the Ethiopian Government.
I do think, however, it is due to that country to make allowance for the very great difficulties that, have to be faced Not only are the rulers owners of hundreds of slaves, who form a large part of their retinue, for no Abyssinian Chieftain would ever think of riding into the town on his mule without fifty, a hundred or even five hundred followers behind him; not only have the great men their slaves, but the priests of the Church, who are very numerous, all have their slaves for the purpose of doing domestic service. Even quite small men have their slaves. We saw an instance of a woman slave acting as nurse to the little child
418
of a comparatively small headman living in a thatched but in a village outside the capital, and a man whom we employed as a groom for a time told us that his parents also had slaves. That will convince your Lordships how very widespread slavery is in that country, and that it will take a long time to eradicate it. The problem is also an economic one. If by a sudden decree you were to liberate all these slaves, what would they do Unless work could be provided in some way for them, or unless they could be settled upon the land, you would be faced with the problem of having thousands of men who could only live by thieving and robbery, and who would tend to become brigands in the country. This is a matter which will require careful attention in any general measure for emancipation in that country.
I do not think there is any occasion for me to detain your Lordships any longer after the clear and full statement which has been made by the mover of the Motion; but I very earnestly hope that action will continue to be taken, and that the League Committee will be given those greater powers which have been asked for, and about which Lord Cecil spoke a few minutes ago. They are absolutely necessary if the Committee is to function properly. I think we can quite safely say this with regard to Ethiopia, without in any way prejudicing the present position. The Emperor is in earnest, but he is faced with immense difficulties. There is no Press, except a small official Gazette and there is no public opinion behind him to support him. He deserves our sympathy, because he is an enlightened ruler, and it has been said that he has practically the whole government in his hands. Ministers do not function as Ministers, and a story is told of a call made at a Ministry when the whole staff of the Department was found to be out making hay for the Emperor. Doubtless it was a pleasant occupation for them, but hardly one tending to the efficient transaction of official business. I beg to support the Motion.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord who initiated this debate has an hereditary interest in the subject of the freedom of slaves. I had not the pleasure of listening to his speech, owing to another engagement, but one hundred years ago my grandfather, in the 1832

419
Reform Parliament, did raise his voice repeatedly in favour of the liberation of slaves. At that time the case was very clear for emancipation, the facts were easily to be ascertained, and the country was horrified when it learned of the facts relating to slavery throughout the world. Emancipation was gradually proclaimed. It is now some forty years ago since I ventured in another place to protest against slavery in the East of Africa, especially in the British Protectorate of Zanzibar, and to move Resolutions year after year, even as a private Parliamentary secretary voting against my own Government, in order to call attention to the evils of the slave traffic and especially to the frightful mortality among the slave-bearers of commodities carried between the coast and Uganda.
To-day I have been looking through the Parliamentary Paper which contains a Report indicating that slavery is still existing in many parts of the world, but one of our difficulties in connection with the slavery which exists to-day is that steps have been taken to prevent evidence being procured—evidence which is required in order, I think, to convince the country of the necessity of the Government taking action. All we can do in this House is to press the Government, when they go to Geneva next September, to use their best endeavours to prevent the limitation which now exists on the means of securing evidence. The provision which we object to is "that the Committee may not receive depositions or consult international or national organisations, whether public or private, or private persons." We are aware from this Committee's Report that there is a good deal of slavery going on. There is a certain amount of raiding, there is a certain amount of selling of slaves, and a certain number of slaves are being imported from the mainland into Arabia.
We give full credit to our British Navy for endeavouring to stop the traffic in slaves. They have not succeeded in doing so, although they have examined a great number of dhows that have passed across the Red Sea. That that slave trade continues to a limited extent we have every reason to believe, and it is very easy, I am informed, for dhows containing slaves to go across from the mainland to Arabia. But what is essential is that we ought to be allowed to get that evidence in
420
order to bring home to the individuals representing various countries at Geneva the responsibility of those countries. At the present time that is prevented, and that is the one point that I want to press upon the Government more than any other.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend who introduced this debate whether I have correctly understood him. He said that there is a considerable amount of slave trade across the Red Sea. All the west coast of the Red Sea is in the occupation or jurisdiction of European Powers. If that is so, how is it that such a considerable amount of this traffic should be allowed to continue? Is any one particular portion of the coast specially advantageous for this traffic? I gathered from the most reverend Primate that only small vessels were engaged in this trade, vessels ostensibly engaged in commercial business, and under that disguise carrying slaves across to Arabia. Presumably there can be only a very small number carried in this way. These vessels cannot be like real slave dhows. They can only carry three or four slaves in such small craft. I am only asking questions of my noble friend. At the same time I am glad to have heard—and fully concur in—the praise given to the Emperor of Ethiopia for his bold and honest efforts to put down slavery in his dominions. I think he deserves all the credit given to him this afternoon.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, although the discussion this afternoon has been necessarily somewhat long, but not too long for the importance and magnitude of the subject, I would crave permission to make some remarks, particularly about the transit of slaves across the Red Sea. It is not necessary for me to make any remarks of a general nature after the speeches which have been made, and after the very comprehensive and valuable speech of my noble friend Lord Noel-Buxton. Before I come to the Red Sea, I would just like to say one word on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strickland. I was under the impression that this was one of those occasions when there was practically no difference of view in your Lordships' House, but I am not quite sure what the position of the noble Lord, Lord Strickland, is. It seemed to me that nearly all his arguments about the

421
slave trade were used in the old slave days to buttress up slavery itself. It was the same kind of argument. I do not think anybody wishes to go back to those days, though perhaps the noble Lord wishes to go still further back to the days of Aristotle, who had something to say about slavery. However, speaking generally, there is unanimity in your Lordships' House.
In regard to the transit of slaves across the Red Sea I would say in the first place, in reply to the noble Lord opposite, that I do not think it is suggested that the slaves who may be carried across or through the Red Sea necessarily come from Ethiopia. There may be some, for instance, who come from Madagascar or other places further a field Still his main observations were directed to Ethiopia, and I will try to deal with that. What does the Advisory Committee say? In paragraph 37 they say:
"It is not impossible that, in spite of the measures taken, human beings in limited numbers are still introduced into Arabia as slaves or, having entered as free men, are there enslaved."
Then they say in paragraph 32:
"In reality Ethiopia and Arabia are at present virtually the only countries that persons engaged in the slave trade have in view when committing acts outside those territories."
So it would appear that slaves are being imported into Arabia and, if so, many of them must come across the lied Sea. The Committee also say:
"It is chiefly from Ethiopia that slaves introduced into Arabia can come."
Those are, I think, the main passages dealing with the particular point which the noble Lord raised.
It is true, as the noble Lord has said, that all the Red Sea outlets on the African side opposite Arabia are held by European Powers. There are the Soudan, Eritrea, French Somaliland, British Somaliland and Italian Somaliland, in that order. There you have the whole coast on that side of the Red Sea. Much has been said to-day about the Emperor of Ethiopia and his position in regard to this matter, but the Emperor has made this point I believe—and it seems to me with some force—that if the traffic across the Red Sea is going on, at any rate he cannot be held altogether responsible for that, because he has no outlet to the Red Sea. As I say,
422
it is the European Powers who have the control over the outlets to the Red Sea. The noble Lord asked: How is it possible for these things to be happening, if that is so? I am not going into that. There are various ways which occur to me in which it can happen, and I think, as far as we can be humanly certain, that to some extent it is happening. I will read to your Lordships a sworn statement from a Chief Officer on board a cargo liner trading between Europe and the Far East. Obviously I cannot give any of the names. it is not very old—the date is July 24, 1934, and it relates to something that happened in 1933.
This is what he says:
"I am Chief Officer on board the … a cargo liner trading between Europe and the Far East.
"On or about the fifteenth day of August, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-three, the … on which was then Chief Officer, was passing through the Red Sea on a voyage from China to London.
"At about 6 o'clock a.m. when the … was about thirty miles north of Abu Ail I saw a large dhow speeding tinder sail …"
this was a large dhow; not a vessel carrying only three or four slaves, which the noble Lord referred to—
"across the Red Sea from the African side to the Arabian side.
"While looking at the dhow through my telescope the force of the wind broke the main halliards of her lateen mainsail and caused it to come down with a run, and the dhow flew up in the wind under the influence of her mizen sail. The Master of the vessel who had now come on deck gave orders that she should run up close to the dhow as we suspected that she was engaged in the slave trade. The vessel came to within about 100 feet of the dhow—"
100 feet is very close; it is not very much longer than your Lordships' House, so that it is possible to see very clearly what is happening—
"and I could clearly see that the dhow was packed from end to end of her open waist with negroes. The negroes were seated on thwarts or benches and appeared to be fastened by their ankles to the bottom of a compartment. About twelve or fourteen negroes were stowed abreast, and there were about twenty rows of them, so that considerably over 200 were being transported in tins one vessel.
"The crew of the dhow having effected the necessary repairs, the dhow continued on her voyage towards the Arabian coast with her human cargo. A wireless message was sent out from the vessel, giving the position of the dhow, in the hope that it might be received by some vessel which would

423
intercept the dhow before she reached the Arabian coast.
"I make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act, 1835."
Statements like that—and I think that can be accepted—go to confirm the fear that slaves are being transported across the Red Sea.
I want particularly to emphasise—and this is the point I am coming to in regard to the reply of the noble Earl—that officers and others engaged in antislavery work in the Red Sea are often in great perplexity because of the difficulty of not knowing exactly what the legal position is. The question which I should like to ask the noble Earl is this: What is the legal position? Possibly that cannot be said this afternoon, but I want it to be considered. Under what Treaty has Great Britain the right to stop and to search vessels suspected of slave trading? There seems to be no general rule. It depends on what flag the suspected vessel is flying, and our rights vary in different cases. They derive apparently from a whole number of bilateral treaties with different Powers. Our general obligation to suppress the slave trade rests on the clause in the Treaty of St. Germain, which has superseded the Brussels Act, and on the 1926 Geneva Convention. We are relying more and more on the Geneva Convention. As regards detailed procedure, the matter rests on usage and on those two bilateral treaties of which I have just spoken. In most cases, for instance, we have the right to send the boat back to its own port to be dealt with by its own authorities.
In some cases, without having the right of search, we have the right to ask to see their papers and verify their flag. If they are not flying their correct flag we can complain to the Power concerned, probably a signatory of the Convention. Therefore it is not easy to see what the legal rights in the matter are. If we here in your Lordships' House do not really know that, how are officers on these two sloops in the Bed Sea, which have been referred to by previous speakers, to know precisely what their legal rights are. Surely the time has come when something should be available much less confused and less confusing so that they may know exactly where they stand. This
424
matter has been pressed on the Government—it is referred to in the Committee's Report—the question of the three European Powers, ourselves, France and Italy, possessing African territories on the shores of the Red Sea, considering the possibility of concluding a special agreement for this purpose, an agreement such as is envisaged in paragraph 3 of the Slavery Convention. I do want to ask the noble Earl whether the British delegation at Geneva cannot press that that should be done. As the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, has said, nine years have now elapsed since 1926. That is a long time, and nothing has been done. This Convention is badly needed. So far as I know there is no objection to its being made, and, if this Convention were made, it would, I think, have great value. If, as the result of this debate, that should happen, it would be a very satisfactory outcome of our deliberations this afternoon.
I want in one minute to refer to a matter which has not been touched upon so far or, if so, has only just been mentioned. That is the question of pilgrims and their servants going into Arabia to the holy places, to Mecca and so on. I am afraid there is only too much reason to believe that pilgrims going to the holy places across the Red Sea, taking servants with them, in some cases take servants who are in reality slaves, and these slaves may be left in Arabia and become definitely slaves there. Not a great deal can be said about this matter, because the Committee are so hampered, as previous speakers have said, in getting at the facts. That is another reason for their having more powers. But something has been done to deal with this very problem. I am glad to see that Great Britain in various territories over which she has control has encouraged a system of transports. A list of those travelling has been sent, I think, to the British Legation in Arabia so that the matter can be checked, and it may be seen whether the people come back or not. One Government actually sends an officer who accompanies the ships and then waits until the last ship has returned to cheek the whole position. That seems to be a very excellent plan. There are other ways in which something can be done to deal with this evil in so far as it exists. In this matter of the pilgrims, the Committee should have more powers to get

425
information. If they have more powers to get information it would be possible to do more in this and other respects to remedy the evils to which attention has been drawn by my noble friend this afternoon.
LORD STRICKLAND: My Lords, I rise to offer a personal explanation. I have not advocated slavery. I have respectfully submitted that there are some who wish to suppress it by greater evils, evils more repugnant to the natural law, to the Decalogue, anti to the precepts of Christianity.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, no one who has to speak from this box on behalf of the Foreign Office ever welcomes a debate, but I think I can, at any rate, say that the debate which we have bad this afternoon is one which I welcome far more than any other I can remember. It is quite true that several of your Lordships have trodden on dangerous ground, and perhaps have not fully realised how widely your words would be read and followed in many parts of the world. I was glad indeed that the most reverend Primate was good enough to remind us of the difficulties with which we are faced at this moment, and how serious they really are. I think every member of your Lordships' House is agreed that this is not a Party matter, far less a Party matter even than foreign affairs. It is the general rule with regard to foreign affairs that we agree with the policy of successive Governments although we sometimes criticise the methods by which that policy is pursued. In this case think every one of your Lordships has emphasised the work done by successive British Governments, and now being carried on by His Majesty's Government at the present moment.
I was glad indeed that my noble friend Lord Cecil of Chelwood, who has had to leave the House to attend a Committee, emphasised the great work which has been done by this country over a long period of years and drew attention to the fact, which was also mentioned by the noble Lord who introduced the debate, that there would have been no Committee for Slavery, and no Report before us to-day, had it not been for the action of successive British Governments. I should like, too, to support what
426
was said in thanking Sir George Maxwell for the admirable Report which he made on the mui-tsai system which appears as a final appendix of this Report. I think we were extremely lucky to have got someone with such wide experience in Malaya and elsewhere to become a member of the Permanent Committee. One more word of commendation perhaps might be allowed, and that is upon the work being done by His Majesty's sloops in the Red Sea. Thirty-eight thousand miles, which was not, I think, done in one year as the most reverend Primate thought, but in three years, is none the less a tremendous performance, and when we, who sometimes are inclined to complain of the heat of the weather in this country, think of what the Red Sea is at this time of year in a small vessel, I think we will realise that the officers and men of His Majesty's Navy are doing strenuous work in covering that distance.
I am not going to pretend that the work which they are doing in the Red Sea has definitely brought the slave trade to an end, but what I think it has done is to reduce it from a big stream to a trickle. I think it is true that dhows may slip across during the hours of darkness, and, of course, as only a few of our ships cover this very wide area, there is always a chance of some of these dhows slipping through. But even taking the cases that have been quoted, apart from that given by Lord Arnold who talked of a dhow filled with people, the fact that there are dhows with one or two natives on board who may be slaves is obviously a very different story to the story that used to be told in old days when dhows were constantly crossing crammed with individuals going to be sold as slaves. As your Lordships are aware, the Report of the Slavery Committee was only signed on the 10th of April, and was submitted to the Council of the League of Nations by the Minister for League of Nations Affairs, my right honourable friend Mr. Eden, on the 22nd of May. There has not been a great deal of time therefore to get in touch with authorities all over the world to see what action should be taken, but the idea of a Convention with the Powers round the Red Sea is a matter which is receiving consideration at the present moment.
Your Lordships will note that the Council of the League, at its meeting on

427
May 22, gave full effect to the conclusions of the Committee. If your Lordships have looked at the report of the proceedings, you will have seen that my right honourable friend drew attention strongly to the lack of evidence which was received from various Governments, and proposed a Resolution to the effect, first of all, that those who had not acceded to the Slavery Convention should do so at the earliest possible moment, and that those who had acceded but had not ratified, should also do so at an early date. Then the Resolution went on, in paragraph 7 (e), to say:
"Trusts that the Governments will continue to supply full and precise information on the basis of Article 7 of the Convention and of the various resolutions of the Assembly."
Paragraph (f) was as follows:
"Requests the Governments concerned to be good enough to note the suggestions put forward in the Advisory Committee's Report, in conformity with Article 16, paragraph 1, of the Committee's rules of procedure, for obtaining such further light as the Committee has deemed desirable on points arising in the documents supplied by those Governments."
Several of your Lordships have drawn attention to the rules of procedure of the Committee. That, as I must point out, is a matter for the Committee itself. My noble friend Lord Cecil, I think, thought that we should have to get unanimity at the Assembly before these rules could be changed. As I understand it, the terms of reference were drawn up by the Assembly, but the rules were made by the Committee on Slavery itself, and, therefore, it appears to be a matter for the Committee on Slavery to make a recommendation saying that they wish to alter their rules in such and such a manner and to make that recommendation to the Council. I need hardly say that if the Committee decide to take such action His Majesty's Government will give them every possible support, because they are anxious to increase the influence and power of this Committee to the utmost possible extent. As your Lordships will see, it is not a matter upon which we can, first of all, take the initiative, because it is one that the Committee must themselves start; then we can give them our support. I can definitely tell your Lordships that we are anxious to give the fullest possible support to the work of this Committee. If they make a recommendation we shall do our best to use all our influence to
428
get it received and, I hope, accepted by the Council.
So far as we ourselves are concerned, I think we have always forwarded any evidence that we have received which we think is suitable—when I say "suitable" I mean reliable—whether it is in accordance with our views or whether it is not. For instance—I am not suggesting that we disagree with them—any reports and recommendations which are made by the Anti-slavery and Aborigines Protection Society are always forwarded to the Committee. I understand that so far as we are concerned we by no means rely only on official evidence, but we are only too ready to send any evidence which we think will be valuable to the Committee. I think your Lordships have noted that in this Report of 92 pages no less than 70 pages are taken up with matters which were communicated by either His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom or other parts of His Majesty's Dominions. Your Lordships will therefore see that this country is maintaining the lead and the share that it has always taken in the attempts throughout the past hundred years to abolish slavery. The lack of information which is due to the non-communication of information by other foreign countries of the world causes this Report to be little more than a preliminary Report, and the Committee say that they are not yet in a position to decide exactly how far they can be of value until they get more information and see how that information can be used. That appears in the preliminary note to the Report. It is obvious that the small amount of documentary material has definitely limited the work of the Committee in the past.
As regards the more frequent meeting of the Committee, my right honourable friend the Minister for League of Nations Affairs himself recommended at this meeting that there should be a special meeting of the Committee on Slavery next year, and this will come up for consideration before the Assembly at its meeting in September next in order that financial provision shall be proposed for the meeting of that Committee. As the Committee at present is to meet every alternate year, that will mean that, subject to the approval of the

429
next two years, we shall get what is equivalent to an annual meeting. At the end of that period, or before no doubt, the Committee will be in a position to consider whether they can do useful work by meeting annually, or, indeed, even more than once a year; but it will depend how information comes in. It is obvious that it would be of very little use if the Committee were to meet and have no reports from the countries on which they could make recommendations. I am not sure that I would quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, in saying that slavery is as widespread as he intimated to the House So far as I have been able to gather, slavery exists in various forms in many parts of the world, but it is being reduced and slavery as we used to understand it is very much less than it was, although there are a good many cases of systems analogous to slavery. At any rate the purchase aril sale of slaves and the slave trade are, I am glad to think, steadily getting better thanks to action taken in various parts of the world.
Both the noble Lord and the most reverend Primate referred to the mui-tsai system in China. It is quite true that the officials of Hong-kong viewed the proposals put forward by His Majesty's Government with considerable dismay, and thought they would lead to a number of difficulties which in fact have not eventuated. But it is fair to say that one of the predictions they made turned out to be true. They said that as the distance from Hong-kong to the mainland was so small there would be a considerable traffic and it would be difficult to keep in touch with the mui-tsai girls. The last report is that the addresses of 754 of these girls were unknown, so that registration was not quite so easy as would appear on the surface and it was difficult to keep in touch with these girls. That is even more the case when you get to the international settlements on the mainland. I need hardly say that the Government will take what action seems possible to see that the method adopted at Hong-kong shall be brought before the International Treaty Ports for adoption by their municipalities if we can manage to persuade them to do so, but it will nut be easy in view of the widespread nature of the system throughout the whole of China.
430
I think the noble Lord behind me was right when he said that it is not advisable to press these things too fast. The report of Sir George Maxwell in fact rather suggests that when these proposals were brought forward at Hong-kong for the registration of the mui-tsai girls a good many of the owners were frightened into thinking that some drastic action was going to be taken against them. They were rather inclined, therefore, to hide these girls and not to give the information required. When it was found that we were going to behave in a perfectly reasonable way, that all we wanted was to know where the girls were and to see that they were properly treated and looked after as they should be, then the owners came forward and registered their names freely. Sir George Maxwell suggests that when similar procedure is brought in elsewhere in China and in Malaya it might be desirable to give more time so that the owners of mui-tsai girls may discover what is intended and not be frightened into opposition. We want to educate them to our views and not send them into opposition, which makes the task of looking after these girls, and others in similar conditions, so much more difficult.
The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, asked me under what treaty we stop slave trading. I am afraid I cannot give him that information off-hand. I should imagine that a good deal depends on custom. We have for such a long period of years taken to ourselves the duty of performing this service both in the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf that I think nobody now is inclined to dispute it, unless we get right up against the Persian coast and interfere with Persian vessels. Even there I understand the Shah and others feel in accord with us in trying to suppress this traffic. There was a case in which a dhow was engaged in the slave trade and we dealt with the owner and publicly burned the dhow. I doubt whether there is provision for that in any treaty. It was probably the most effective method, though I do not suggest that it is a method we are going to adopt in all parts of the world. It does, however, show that we take drastic action whenever we find a suitable case. I think there is very little I can add in the way of definite information to what I have already stated. I am most grateful

431
to the noble Lord for having brought the matter forward, and I hope he will recognise that the Government, no less than their predecessors, are going to give their utmost support to the suppression of slavery in all forms and are going to support the Committee at Geneva.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, I desire warmly to thank the noble Earl. Before I go further perhaps I might be allowed briefly to reply, to the question put to me as to how the trade succeeds in passing through European Colonies. Apart from other reasons there is a very evident geographical reason—the coast line is of immense length, extremely broken, and has a peculiar feature unknown in Europe of coral reefs along a great part of it. A small dhow, perhaps twenty feet in length, can pass into an immense number of small harbours, and it is extremely difficult to control such dhows without a very large number of reliable officials of the country concerned. I am sure we are all greatly obliged to the noble Earl for the sympathetic reply he has given, and I would repeat how much all of us concerned about the question feel indebted to His Majesty's Government and to previous Governments and to the Foreign Office for the great activity they have shown in this matter. I am glad to know that the noble Earl is in favour of burning dhows that may be concerned with the slave trade.
He has given a lead to the Advisory Committee that it should ask for further powers in regard to obtaining information. I understand that a certain amount of hesitation was felt by the members of the Committee in regard to making that proposal themselves, but what the noble Earl has said ought to be an encouragement to the Committee to ask for further powers. I am quite sure that we may take it that His Majesty's Government will instruct their delegates to take any opportunity of putting forward proposals particularly because of what the noble Earl has himself said in regard to frequency of meetings. He said the need for meetings would depend on the information for them to deal with, but unless there are further powers for obtaining information the information will not be there. I am sure he will be good enough to bear that in mind. We all know that if His Majesty's Government will press for-
432
ward this cause, they will be contributing to the alleviation of human suffering on a vast scale. I thank the noble Earl very warmly on behalf of us all, and I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, with drawn.

IMPERIAL AND COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD THE EARL OF MANSFIELD had given Notice that he would draw attention to the lack of any policy on the part of His Majesty's Government for Imperial and Colonial development, and of any long-term proposals for the permanent reduction of unemployment in this country, by a scheme of properly organised settlement overseas, in co-operation with His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions; and move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, if there were anything beyond the importance of the question itself which would justify my raising it to-day in your Lordships' House, it is the result of the by-election which has been declared in today's papers. The result of that by-election is yet another proof that it is quite useless to expect a democratic electorate to remember past benefits; one can only expect them to look to what they are promised in the future. Had the Government received at this by-election the just results of all the good work they have done during the past three and a half years, there is no doubt that their candidate would have been returned with a triumphant majority. It is quite obvious that the solution for all our problems put forward by noble Lords on the Socialist Benches entirely failed to appeal to the electorate, but unfortunately it was obvious also that a great many of them, while not attracted by Socialist nostra, were still of opinion that the Government have not to-day a programme for the future sufficiently attractive to enlist their suffrages at the moment.
It is not my intention to make an attack on the Government. I am a supporter of the Government and I fully recognise all the great and good work which they have done since they were returned to office. But I have never taken the view, either since I became a member of your Lordships' House or when I was a member of

433
another place, that it was an act of heresy to criticise the National Government. I will remind them and your Lordships that "whoso loveth his child chasteneth him" and I hope that the Government will accept my quasi-paternal correction in the friendly spirit in which it is offered!
In dealing with the problem of unemployment, which is one which has utterly defeated every Government in this country since the War, there are three orthodox views. The first is the one of the ultra-pessimist who maintains that you must expect to see, as a natural part of our social system in the future, the permanent presence of a large number of unemployed, very likely stabilised round the present greatly seduced, but still deplorable, figure of 2,000,000. That type of person shrugs his shoulders and seems to think that we have to accept that, and that it is not worth while to do anything really serious about it. For such a person, I think, no one ought to have anything other than unlimited contempt, because that anyone should contemplate that. 2,000,000 of our wage-earners And their dependants should remain in a state, not of absolute destitution but very often of some destitution and malnutrition, is to me a sin Against the Holy Ghost.
Now we come to the second set of theories. These are mainly to be found in those who support, in fact or in theory, Mr. Lloyd George. There is a cartoon in one of the great daily papers to-day which shows Mr. Lloyd George, in the garb of a clergyman, about to perform a marriage between a very fat woman representing Idle Capital and a very thin man representing Idle Labour. The idea is a magnificent one, but I am afraid that in this particular case the marriage is not likely to be legal, for the clergyman performing it has certainly long since been proved to have been politically unfrocked. At the same time the idea is a right one, to join idle money and idle labour. But, my Lords, those who claim—and they, I believe, include most members of the Socialist Party—that we can overcome our unemployment difficulty merely by indulging in vast quantities of public works are, I am certain, committing a very grave error.
Mr. Lloyd George, I understand, wants to raise some £250,000,000 for the purpose of carrying out a grandiose scheme. Formerly it was always supposed, and
434
accurately, that for every £1,000,000 you provided 4,000 man-years. That is to say, Mr. Lloyd George, if all his plans produced that result—and it is very doubtful whether at the present time they would—might produce work for 1,000,000 men for one year, or, of course, equally for half a million men for two years, or whatever proportion it worked out at. But when Mr. Lloyd George's schemes had been tried, what would the result of them be? They would merely mean that an enormous expenditure had been undertaken, that men had been given work for a limited time, but that when that work was finished we should have very little permanent employment to show for it And should merely have burdened our country with a much greater load of debt. Public works in the past, upon a system like that, have been proved to be a failure. Public works in the future will, I see no reason to suppose, be anything less of a failure than in the past.
Now we come to the third school of the orthodox politicians, and that, I think I may say without offence, is more or less the school represented by His Majesty's Government. That school maintains that as a result of the admittedly admirable measures undertaken by the present Government, especially in protecting the trade and industry of this country by tariffs against unfair competition; and by the negotiation of the Ottawa Agreements, which although not perfect, have nevertheless done a very great deal for the trade of this country with our Dominions; and by what they hope will be the return to prosperity of the rest of the world, we shall be able in due course to assimilate the greater portion of those who are at present; unemployed. That is a very pleasant theory, but unfortunately I cannot see very much which in point of fact renders it likely to be a complete success. I propose as briefly as possible to give your Lordships one or two reasons why I hold that belief.
There are, in our great staple industries to-day, a very large number of unemployed. In the coal-mining trade the average number for the last year, ending at the end of last month, is, I believe, That is 264,000 unemployed 264,000 unemployed on an average throughout Great Britain for the last year. What hope have those men of ever regaining their own occupation in the pits? I am afraid that they have very little hope, because, so far from

435
there being a great increase in the consumption of coal in the future, it is quite likely that there will be a decrease. How have we lost our markets up-to-date, the markets abroad upon which perhaps one-third of our trade used to depend? We have lost them through unfortunate trade disputes, especially the stoppage of 1926. The responsibility for that stoppage is not one which has to be considered to-day. All we have to say that it did take place, and with lamentable results. One of the results was that our foreign competitors started developing their mines in a way that they had never thought it worth while to do before, and as a result of cheap labour and new mines they are able to undercut us in many of the markets which we had with justification in the past regarded as particularly our own.
Those markets, many of them, are gone for good. Then we have to remember that the consumption of coal is reduced by the infinitely more effective grates, fires, furnaces and the like which are employed to-day; it is reduced by coal substitutes taking the place of coal, and also to a large extent by the way in which hydroelectric schemes are replacing those in which coal was formerly used. We know also that in very many ships—battleships and mercantile vessels—oil has replaced coal to a very great extent and, although it is possible that some small increase might take place if and when we really get a successful and economical process of distillation of oil from coal, I still do not think that we should be able to have any expectation of absorbing more than a very small number of those colliers who are unemployed to-day.
The position in other industries is very much the same. We have, to-day, in the textile trade, very little short of 160,009 men unemployed, two-thirds of them in the cotton trade, largely as a result of Japanese competition. It is practically impossible to hope to regain the markets where the goods used to be absorbed. So we might continue, but I do not wish to weary your Lordships, through a great many of these staple trades, the heavy engineering, shipbuilding and the like. In shipbuilding, while the gross figures might not be so bad, the percentage of unemployment is something like 45 per cent., which is very high. That brings us to the fact that we have many hundreds of thousands of men in the staple in-
436
dustries alone for whom there is little prospect of ever finding work in their own trades again. I submit there is no indication whatsoever that trade abroad, and world-trade generally, can within a measurable distance of time improve to such an extent that we shall be able to recover our former foreign markets, or make new ones in a sufficient degree to absorb more than a fraction of these unemployed workers.
What then is to be the solution? Let us turn from this country for a moment and look at our Dominions. One of the most salient facts is this, that almost entirely to the stopping of emigration from this country since the War do we owe the problem of unemployment. If emigration had continued since the War at the same rate as during the five years before the War, three million additional persons would have emigrated, and instead of our having two million unemployed in this country we should have had a shortage of three-quarters of a million workers, so that the Government would have had to take steps to put an end to emigration for the time being.
We are told that it is useless to try to consider the question of emigration at the present time, for two reasons. Firstly, that people in this country do not wish to emigrate; and secondly, that even if they did the Governments overseas would be unwilling to receive them. Both of those ideas are completely wrong. The political group with whom I am associated, and who are largely represented in both Houses, the Imperial Policy Group, has lately been conducting investigations in practically all the industrial areas of Great Britain, and wherever we have put forward suggestions that there should be a new and modified scheme of assisting emigration to the Dominions, and possibly in some cases to our Colonies, there has been no place from Lancashire to Lanarkshire, or the Eastern Counties to South Wales, where the idea has not met with favour. It is untrue to say that people are unwilling to emigrate, and even to face difficulties and privations at the other end, if they can be sure that they are going to emigrate under a proper system, under which they will be getting a fair chance at the other side.
Then I come to the question of the attitude of the Dominions themselves. A

437
few days ago in another place the Dominions Secretary, with that super-suavity which characterises his Parliamentary replies, informed a friend of mine that there was no reason to believe that any one of the Dominions was willing to take our people, and equally that there was no truth in the rumour that other countries were preparing to supply workers to our Dominions, if we were unwilling to do so. Both of those statements are far from being the fact. There is no doubt that what the Dominions objected to, and will continue to object to, is the recurrence of a haphazard system of emigration. In the past we had large numbers of people leaving this country with insufficient capital and insufficient experience, who were in many eases unsuitable for the Dominions. No one can blame the Dominions for one moment for objecting to a renewal of such haphazard emigration; but they are undoubtedly in favour of this scheme of assisted emigration from this country—assisted by the Government to some extent.
I have beside me a large number of resolutions from various municipalities, townships and others all over Canada, expressing the view that that country cannot recover her prosperity until she gets more British settlers. It may seem a paradox, but most far-seeing Canadian politicians are convinced that Canada will not be able to absorb her present unemployed until she gets more settlers. So far from Canada and her leaders being unwilling to absorb people from this country, it is the definite objective of Canada to double her present population of 10,000,000 in the shortest possible time. Mr. Mackenzie King has definitely stated that her ideal is a population of 80000,000, which she can support. There are various schemes which have been thought out so far as Canada is concerned. One there is, that of General Hornby, which aims al; bringing out numbers of people to work ground which is more or less already cultivated, and these schemes have the approval of practically every section of opinion in Canada, except a section of unorganised labour and of certain farmers. It was suggested by a certain Canadian Member of Parliament that any such scheme was absolutely visionary. For this statement he was taken to task severely by the leading Conservative newspaper in Canada, which asked him
438
if he had never observed the words over the door of the Canadian Parliament House, which are: "Where there is no vision the people perish." That is the text of my sermon this evening. Mr. Mackenzie King and the leaders in Canada have vision. They recognise that it is impossible for Canada to recover unless she gets more men, and therefore they are willing to assent to any sound scheme of emigration.
Again, it is sometimes said that Canada cannot take any mere men because should she increase her production she would be unable to increase her consumption in equal measure. Chat argument again falls down. Consider what is the present position with regard to the home consumption of Canadian products. Apart from wheat, which is a special subject, Canada consumes 96 per cent, of her own beef; 94 per cent, of her own oats; 95 per cent, of her own pork and bacon; and 99 per cent, of her own mutton and lamb. This, too, at a time when there is great unemployment in Canada, and when Canadian people are not, many of them, in a financial position to buy as much meat as they desire. It is quite obvious that a very small rise in the standard of living in Canada would more than absorb what surplus there is. Canadians maintain that only by getting new and properly financed schemes of settlement will Canada be able to get the standard of living raised, so as to absorb the surplus, and not merely recover the standard which she had in the past, but even to exceed it. The two great railway systems in Canada are enthusiastically in favour of emigration. Everyone in Canada is in favour of it. There is practically no responsible man in Canada, to-day, who would venture to say he was not in favour of a scheme properly drawn up.
Then there is the question of Australia. It is true that there have been failures there, but Western Australia has proclaimed that, if given an opportunity, she alone could settle 5,000,000 men in fifteen years. Those figures are, I fear, outside practical politics. But it is sufficient to say, first, that there is a belief in Western Australia in the practically unlimited resources of that State, and, secondly, that there is no objection whatever in Western Australia—or I believe in any other part of the Australian Com

439
monwealth—to properly run schemes of emigration.
Various people have been considering these schemes. I have already mentioned those of General Hornby and of the Committee presided over by that great Imperialist, Sir Henry Page Croft. Sir Henry Page Croft's Committee considers that roughly it costs £800 to put a, family of four into a decent economic position in the Empire. If one works that out and if one sees what can be done with a loan of, say, £250,000,000, it is obvious—if those figures are correct, and they have never been successfully challenged—that we shall be able eventually to establish 1,000,000 of our citizens overseas. And when one considers that those people would themselves either be drawn from the unemployed, or else would leave vacancies for the unemployed to fill up, it is obvious that there would be a very great saving indeed to this country in unemployment benefit alone. Let us take the interest on that £250,000,000 at something like 3 per cent. That would cost £7,500,000 per year. But if the figures were worked out, it would be found that we should save over £16,000,000 against the expenditure of £7,500,000, a margin sufficient to provide for an ample sinking fund, even if the figures I have given are on a somewhat optimistic scale, which there is no reason to suppose.
I have pointed out to your Lordships that I have not brought this Motion forward with the idea of suggesting that the Dominions should be the dumping ground for our surplus population. Nothing is further from my thought, and it is quite obvious that the Dominions themselves would not consent to any such scheme, even if we were foolish and inconsiderate enough to attempt to force it upon them. But they have shown, and shown most definitely, that they are absolutely in favour of a really good scheme of controlled emigration from this country, and that emigration need not be confined to the ranks of those who are unemployed, although, heaven knows, there are plenty of them who would be glad to get out of their present situation. If one takes, for example, the Rhondda Valley, where I was something less than three weeks ago, there you will find unemployment in side valleys, not at the rate of twenty or fifty, but of something approaching one hundred per cent, of the population—men who can never hope to obtain em-
440
ployment again because the mines at which they have worked are completely worked out, from which every man who could get a job in other parts of Wales has hastily departed, and where there are men who have not the slightest opportunity of ever obtaining employment again. We may be quite certain, as I know from personal experience, that they would be only too eager to accept a really good scheme of emigration, and especially as we hear to-day that the situation in South Wales is likely to become even worse in the near future by the removal of the tinplate industry to Lincolnshire.
What is the result of all this? What, after all this criticism, if I may so call it, do I suggest that His Majesty's Government should do? We cannot expect that very much that is definite can be undertaken until after the next General Election, but I suggest that it would be well for His Majesty's Government to sound the Prime Ministers of the various Dominions, and some of the Governors of our Colonies, to see whether they would be willing—as I know they would be—to attend an ad hoc Imperial Conference to be held on this point some time during next year. Not merely can we expect Australia and Canada, but I know from his own lips that the Premier of Southern Rhodesia wants 100,000 more settlers in that country. There the position is different, and it would be preferable that those who went out should have a certain amount of capital of their own. But unemployment is not confined to those who are normally called the labouring class. There is a good deal of unemployment among office workers, clerks and the like, and there are many in slightly superior positions in life who are finding it extremely difficult to obtain employment, even although they, or their families, may possess a certain amount of capital. For people of this type emigration to Southern Rhodesia would be suitable.
There is no doubt—and others with much greater experience than myself agree with me in this—that unless we set up some form of emigration again, we can never hope to overcome the difficulties of unemployment. That is why I ask the Government to approach the various Dominion Prime Ministers and all those who are likely to be of assistance, to sound them as to whether they

441
will attend this Conference, the Conference to be followed up by the setting up of a permanent Imperial Commission to superintend the details of emigration. I have not attempted to give details today; first, because I am not qualified to do so; and secondly, because in dealing with a scheme as great as this it is always a mistake to go into details before you have the principle worked out. All I have tried to do is to point out ways whereby I believe we can definitely and for the first time since the War make a real hole in unemployment. I suggest to the Government that by the adoption of a long-range policy such as I have sketched, they will be not merely going a very long way towards solving our difficulties, but they will completely rehabilitate themselves with the people of this country, who are by no means anxious to see a Socialist Government, and, at the same time, would like to see a. definite and considerably more constructive policy, especially as regards this Empire, than we have at the present time. I conclude with the words that I used before, words which I think ought to be engraved on the hearts of every one who has the interests of his country and the Empire at heart—"Where there is no vision the people perish."
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, the noble Earl commenced his speech by saying that he had no intention of making an attack on His Majesty's Government. It is just as well that we had that assurance, for he has put upon the Paper what certainly amounts to a Vote of Censure on the Government. He draws our attention to the lack of any policy on the part of His Majesty's Government for Imperial and Colonial development. If there were one subject which all Parties would admit to be of the greatest importance it is this very question of Imperial and Colonial development, and a Government that had no policy on so vastly important a subject would certainly not deserve to retain the confidence of this House. If the noble Earl had deplored the lack of success which had attended the efforts of His Majesty's Government in this sphere, he might have hoped to command a wider measure of agreement. I do not suppose that the noble Earl who is to answer for the Government will claim that in the matter of emigration His Majesty's Government, has been very strikingly successful, and I sup-
442
pose that the noble Earl will point out the enormous difficulties that, have stood in their way. But when we see on the Paper a Motion which practically amounts to a Vote of Censure, we surely expect to have some very convincing and particularised facts pot before us.
We would not readily accept such a Motion, and we should not be asked to accept such a Motion, unless the noble Earl is prepared to show us exactly, or fairly exactly, what the Government might have done, and exactly how they have failed to do it. We should surely hear something of the opportunities that were theirs, and something of their failure to seize those opportunities. I am afraid we must admit that in the speech of the noble Earl we have not had any very definite or very valuable information upon the actual facts of the situation as far as emigration is concerned. We have heard, for example, some economic fallacies which certainly surprise me, coming from a representative of so well-informed a group as the Imperial Policy Group. For instance, it has been suggested by the noble Earl that if emigration had continued on the pre-War scale we should have had no unemployment problem. Surely it is not necessary for anyone to instruct a member of the imperial Policy Group in the elements of economics, or to inform him that unemployment is caused by dislocation between consumption and supply, and that it is comparatively little affected by the population of the country concerned? Surely the noble Earl does not imagine that if you were in quite a, short time to eliminate the present 2,000,000 of unemployed from this country, there would remain no unemployment problem? Of course the unemployment problem would probably assume an even more critical character because so many more consumers would have been taken away.
Then we heard a great deal from the noble Earl about Canadian opinion in the matter. The noble Earl was not able to quote any official Canadian opinion, but he did quote Mr. Mackenzie King, the Leader of the Opposition in Canada, and he spoke of the number of resolutions that had been passed in Canada. But the answer that you get from Canada must depend entirely on the way in which this question is put. I imagine the question that was put was: "Will you

443
welcome what I describe as a properly-assisted form of immigration—in other words, if we are prepared to buy large tracts of land in Canada, bring over our settlers, spend money on the development of those tracts, and keep the settlers alive during a number of years, in fact be responsible for them, would you in that case welcome increased immigration? "I suspect that the question put to the Canadian public was expressed very much in those terms, and if you express it in these terms you will get a very favourable answer indeed. It must have occurred to your LordShips that if His Majesty's Government are to spend large sums of money in rendering habitable and in developing large tracts of land in Canada, and in settling unemployed from this country in Canada, they might at least consider whether the same sums could not be with greater advantage expended in developing this country. In fact, I do not know that I see very much difference between the policy which the noble Earl is prepared to advocate and that policy of public works which he declared to be a grave error. There is not so very much difference between spending vast sums of money in order to gain employment for our workers in Canada and spending large sums of money with the same object in this country.
In point of fact, it is not correct to maintain that the return on money expended in the Dominions would necessarily be very much greater than the return on money expended in this country. There are in Australia comparatively few districts that are now ripe for development, or, rather, which would be ripe for development if the primary products which can be obtained from these districts could be cultivated on a more economic basis. It is altogether a mistake to look upon Australia as an empty land in the sense that European settlers have only to go there with a little capital supplied by the Government to make an instant success of farming. There is still a world glut of many primary commodities which they would be producing, and it is very little use settling people on the land until the economic position of the world is considerably improved in that respect. I will not take up much more of your Lordships' time on this question, but there is one matter on which I cannot forbear to comment. That
444
is with regard to the statement of the noble Earl that the railways in Canada have expressed themselves strongly in favour of a planned and properly assisted system of immigration. The railways in Canada own most of the land on which the settlers would be put, and it is purely a case in which special interests are involved. There is, at least, every temptation for the Canadian railways to take an optimistic and rosy view of the chances of settlers coming on to their land.
I am afraid that in these debates on emigration I generally have to assume a pessimistic rôle. I do so because I am quite convinced that schemes of emigration promoted at enormous expense, as they would have to be, in the long run cannot flourish because they are naturally unhealthy at birth. I very much trust that His Majesty's Government will not pursue too active a policy in this matter at present, because it would be very likely to prejudice the possibilities of large and successful emigration at a time when the world economic situation has improved. We have to remember that every unsuccessful emigrant, every emigrant who is sent out and only kept alive by "doles" from this country, or every emigrant who, attempting to farm in a new country, fails and returns to England, has enormous influence in deterring other people from emigrating. I believe that a few more unsuccessful emigration schemes—and, after all, we have seen some emigration schemes which were far from effective—will go far to prejudice permanently our people against the whole idea of emigration. That would, of course, be in every way the greatest possible calamity, because when, as we may reasonably hope, in a few years the price of primary commodities improves, I believe there will be every possibility for large and successful emigration from this country, or, as I prefer to call it, Empire settlement. It is a matter which it would be very unwise for us to prejudice by hasty and ill-conceived schemes which, at the best, would involve us in very large expenditure, and, at the worst, might do permanent injury to the cause which both the noble Earl and I have at heart.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I only intervene for a few moments, because it has fallen to my lot in years past to reply to speeches such as that made by the noble Earl who

445
initiated this debate, speeches which seem to imply that there is an easy and ready solution for the question of unemployment in Empire settlement. It does always sound very plausible to those who have not very closely examined the matter that the vast territories of our Dominions would seem ready to receive the crowded population of our own islands, that the great continent of Australia, with a. population very little bigger than that of Greater London, would seem to be able to absorb the hundreds of thousands of our unemployed. It is not quite so easy as all that, and I think those who have devoted a good deal of time and attention to it will see the underlying fallacy of supposing that you can ship a population from a crowded area into territories where there is room for them. There is a great deal more in it than that.
The noble Earl who initiated this debate seemed to be unaware that there is a Government Department, the Overseas Settlement Department, devoting its time and energies to the examination of this question. He spoke very glibly of the willingness of the Dominions to receive numbers of our unemployed. He may have heard of certain interests in the Dominions, such as those spoken of by the noble Earl who has just sat down, who would like to see British emigrants, but I do not think he was speaking on behalf of the Dominion Governments. The Dominion representatives when they have been over here have had many an opportunity of consulting with representatives of successive Governments in this country with regard to this question, which naturally exercises their attention, and has exercised the attention of successive Governments in this country. But the solution is not so easy.
To begin with, what is involved in this transfer of population? You prejudice the whole case to begin with by talking of it as a solution for unemployment. If that is placed in the forefront as a reason for Empire emigration, as it was by the noble Earl, then the Dominions are suspicious at once. The Dominions think that you are going to ship out the unemployable who are not wanted in this country, and that puts them on their guard. You have first of all to find out whether your emigrants are willing to go. The noble Earl said lie had conic across in various parts of the country a
446
number of people who were willing to go. I do not know that that was my experience some years ago when I tested meetings in industrial areas as to whether people were willing to go to the Dominions. A suspicion on their side was at once aroused that the Government of this country thought that the best way of getting rid of the unemployed was to ship them off elsewhere. That produced a feeling of resentment, which is very easily aroused among the workless in this country.
Having got the willingness of the emigrant to go, you have got to get the willingness of the Governments of the Dominions to receive him. You have got to get a scheme which will be satisfactory. The noble Earl who has just resumed his seat has said that we have had the experience of many schemes that have been unsatisfactory. But that has not been the fault of the Government officials in this country who have done their best to guide and to construct schemes which they hope may eventually be successful. Having got a scheme, you have got to secure the maintenance of your emigrant; you have got to see him over the trial period; you have got to see that he has money in his pocket and is not put on the scrap heap in the particular Dominion to which he has gone. You have got to see that he is cared for. In many cases you have got to train him before he goes out. This complex matter is one which naturally engages the attention of successive Governments. It is futile whether in this House or in another place or in the country for anyone to get up and say: "Here is an easy solution of unemployment; you have so many millions of unemployed; you have room for so many millions overseas; just ship them over." People keep on doing that.
I fully admit that the noble Earl said that the schemes must be properly drawn up. Every imaginable society is anxious to help. A lot of voluntary institutions have their own schemes which they subsidise and which the Government help, and there is a flow going on, under carefully thought out schemes, of emigrants from this country to the Dominions. The time may come when circumstances will allow the Dominion Governments to receive more, and, if there is a sufficient number in this country willing to go, they will be helped to go. This must

447
be a natural flux and not an artificially stimulated political move. I have intervened, not to go into all the questions about the cures for unemployment which the noble Earl discussed, but just to warn him that his short-cut is not one which any responsible Government in this country could possibly adopt.
LORD ROCKLEY: My Lords, I have long taken an interest in the subject matter of this Motion and would like, therefore, to address to your Lordships a few remarks upon it. I always welcome a Motion directing attention to this matter, because I think it is one of really great importance. Empire settlement is a matter of which we can never lose sight. The more continuous attention we direct to it the better it will be for its ultimate solution. The noble Earl who has moved the Motion has given us a very full description of many of the facts which have hitherto appertained to it. He also said that he was addressing them to the Government from a quasi-paternal point of view. I could not help feeling that lie is delightfully and fortunately young to adopt that attitude so soon in his life, but, while much of what he has said deserves very careful consideration, I do not altogether feel able to endorse some of his rather dogmatic statements; for instance, when he told us that the scheme of General Hornby in Canada was very widely accepted; I gathered practically unanimously. I venture to question that in spite of its having many merits. I am not by any means so sure myself. I have seen the scheme and it involves enormous expenditure on Government guarantee, and, while having an excellent object in view, is probably not feasible at the present moment.
I want to say another thing at the outset which strikes me about this Motion. The noble Earl has drawn attention to the question of Imperial and Colonial development and in the same breath talked about a permanent reduction of unemployment in this country. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, that, these two matters ought not to be, and cannot be, treated together. It is an annoyance in some of the overseas Dominions, as I personally know, when these subjects are put side by side as though the Dominions were merely a dumping ground for our surplus population. They do not like it. They therefore would not be impressed by a Motion
448
framed in these words, although both the problems independently need careful treatment and attention. They are not connected with, and ought not to be connected with, each other, and I want to make that as clear as I possibly can. Then, when it is suggested that there is a lack of policy on the part of His Majesty's Government, I am not so sure. For myself I should say the proper policy is one of active watchfulness, and there is no lack of watchfulness. Whether this is exactly the moment to bring forward a motion for active movement, is to my mind a very debatable question. Certainly the overseas Dominions have not shown a desire for it. In Australia the tendency of public opinion is rather the reverse. In Canada we know there are many economic and other difficulties which make a very large expenditure of money on this matter at the present time vary problematical.
There is a good deal to be said on those lines, to whatever country you may refer. On the other hand, I think this is a very useful time for carefully considering what can be done in the future. How is it best to assist the individual migrant? It may be very helpful to work out some more careful system of community settlement by which migrants can be selected and the Governments both of this country and overseas can exercise a general supervision over them. You may encourage mixed farming—milk and chickens as well as wheat—so that if the price of wheat falls, the situation will not be desperate. Many other suggestions can be made, and I dare say an Imperial Committee might help to make them. But I am quite sure that to vote at this moment an enormous sum of money to carry out general schemes of this kind is not really the most diplomatic road to success in the long run. I think in General Hornby's scheme that he would buy fifteen thousand acres of land in many places in Canada or elsewhere—I am not quite sure who was to pay, but I rather gathered it would be the British Government. Any financial suggestion of that kind requires very much consideration and expert knowledge and opinion. The Government can continually consult with overseas Dominions how best to promote and finance a sound scheme at the right opportunity, and indeed mutually to finance it generously, but I do not think that at this moment any

449
Government in this country can wisely do more.
LORD STRICKLAND: My Lords, not because I am young, but for another reason, because I have spent a great part of my life in three Australian States, I think it would be a dereliction of duty on, my part not to give my experience with brevity. The reason why emigration cannot be on the same standard to-day as before the War is that the standard of living has increased very largely in Australia and elsewhere since the War. That is a very cogent reason. There is doubt as to whether, in Australia, immigration is wanted. Immigration of artisans is not wanted. Immigration of agricultural labourers and of people who will go on the farms and stop on the farms may, or may not, be welcomed but certainly is not opposed. The immigrant who goes on the farm produces cheaper food for the artisan in the towns, who commands the political machine, and knows where his interests lie. His interests do not lie in encouraging immigration of a class that can compete with him, but they do lie in the immigration of others who will supply his factories with customers.
I do not criticise the Government for their emigration policy. They have done a great deal by not doing too much. I praise them for that; and I should like them to continue, not trying to do too much but trying to discover by experiment where practical administration can be applied. No one since the seals of the Colonial Office were held by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain has done such splendid work as Mr. Amery in regard to emigration, but Mr. Malcolm MacDonald has also done first-class work. Now that I have said that, some of your Lordships may ask what I would recommend should be done. I say encourage that movement which has been successful, the movement that is called the "Big Brother" movement. Let Government encouragement be given to the system by which, before you send out an emigrant, you find someone on the other side who will be a good brother and help him to make a good start. But let it be clearly understood that that start must be made by people who will go on the land and remain on the land and not go for the attractions of high wages and more pleasure in the cities.
450
Let there be no delusion that the Government official who has got into his job by a competitive examination is going to, be a successful member of an organisation for the mass settlement of farmers or even for the settlement of single farmers. The training of civil servants precludes them from understanding what farming requires and what farming means. Let there also be a development of a system of advancing money upon collective security so that two or three may share each other's indebtedness, in the hope that some day they may flourish and the money may come back. That can be done without waiting, and I beg the Government to consider that as a practical step.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House for long, in view of the time and of the fact that there is important business still to be dealt with, but nobody can deny that the importance of the problems which have been raised during the course of this debate is very great, and I therefore cannot dismiss them in a few sentences. I do not intend to follow the noble Earl who initiated the debate in his criticism of Mr. Lloyd George's schemes and his analysis of the coal industry and of other depressed industries. The main feature of his speech was that he linked up the position with regard to unemployment in this country with the question of emigration to various parts of the Empire. In dealing with this question he spoke as if there were no liaison whatsoever between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Governments of the Dominions. That is a complete fallacy. There has for a long time been the closest liaison between the various Governments of the Empire on this question, and we are fully aware of the views of the various Dominion Governments upon the question of migration. Successive Governments in this country have for a great many years fully realised the importance of this question, and as a result of various actions taken by successive Governments between the years 1919 and 1931 a very large number of people—I think it was something like two and a-half million people—migrated from this country to the Dominions and the Empire overseas.

451
In those circumstances it is very natural that there should be great disappointment at the fact, that stagnation has come to this Empire emigration movement. It is, of course, perfectly right that we should explore every avenue in order to see whether it cannot, to some extent at any rate, be revived. But it must be realised that the position has in recent years fundamentally altered. In the first place, most assisted emigrants from here to the Dominions become primary producers when they reach the Dominions. Unlike the time before the depression, when I think it is fair to say that there was an almost inexhaustible market for primary products, at the present time there is actually an oversupply of these products in relation to the demand. Then, again, the amount of labour which is required for any particular unit of production has, as a result of the introduction of labour-saving machinery on a large scale, been reduced.
Moreover, and this is perhaps the most important of the changes that have taken place: most Dominion Governments—in fact, I think I may say all Dominion Governments—have at the present time serious unemployment problems of their own, problems which were quite unknown in days before the War but Which have now arisen and have radically altered the situation. In spite of these facts the Government have taken advantage of this period of lull to make an extremely careful examination and investigation into the principles which should underly any policy of assisted migration in the future, and of the best methods of carrying out this policy when economic conditions alter and become favourable. They have, in coming to their conclusions, taken into consideration all relevant facts. They have taken into consideration the experience which was acquired during the years of depression, and the economic causes and effects of that depression. That examination was made by a Committee of which the present Secretary of State for the Colonies was Chairman, and has reported.
What I want to point out, however, is that the Government do not intend to rely solely upon official advice in this matter. That Report has been circulated to the different Governments of the Empire, those which are most chiefly concerned in a matter of this kind, and to a
452
number of voluntary, organisations and individuals who have shown an interest in this question and who have experience of migration problems, for their observations. The question has also been very carefully considered, naturally, by the Overseas Settlement Committee. Although there are still a number of replies to come from Dominion Governments, a large number of replies have been received and observations have been made which go to show that the principles and recommendations made in the Report are generally approved and supported.
Briefly speaking, the Committee have taken the view that this question is not an isolated one; it is not a question which can possibly be dealt with as a separate problem. They feel that it is an integral part of the general economic problem which confronts not only the Empire but the whole of the world as well. One view they have expressed, which I think will receive the general approval of all people who have given really full consideration to this subject, is that migration is a symptom of prosperity rather than a cure for depression. As far as we are able to judge from the replies which have been received, that is a view that is acquiesced in by the Governments of those countries to which migration has mainly flowed in the past. Migration can only be carried on with the full approval and co-operation of the overseas Governments. That is an incontestible fact, and nothing could be more harmful than that the impression should become general that the United Kingdom Government wished to make use of migration as a convenient method of ridding themselves of the burden of unemployment. I know that the noble Earl was at pains to point out that he was not arguing that the Dominions should be made a dumping-ground for unemployed. But still, in almost every sentence he uttered he linked the two questions together, and indeed it was perfectly obvious that he was dealing with this particular problem from the point bf view of solving our unemployment difficulties in this country. If it became the general feeling in other parts of the Empire that that view was held here, it would do an infinity of damage.
Then, in the course of his remarks, he was guilty of what I venture to say was a most extraordinary statement, with which the noble Earl who sits behind me, Lord Iddesleigh, dealt: that if we had

453
been able to transfer during the past ten years some 2,000,000 more people from this country to the Dominions, we should have no unemployment problem here at all. That seems to me an extraordinary economic proposition, and a very dangerous fallacy indeed. To my mind there is not the slightest doubt that a transfer on that scale would have dislocated, to an enormous extent, the economic structure of the Empire as a whole, and in my view it would, not have tended to decrease our problems but very greatly to aggravate them.
If I may, I would like to quote from the Report of the Committee which dealt with this subject, to show what in their view were the principles that should underlie any system of assisted migration between this country and the Dominions overseas. They say this in their Report:
"The right line of approach to a more desirable redistribution of the white population of the Empire, therefore, is not to endeavour to transfer men and women from the United Kingdom overseas regardless of economic conditions such as the possibility of marketing their produce, and to maintain them there until (if ever) they are in a position to maintain themselves, but to do all that lies in our power to assist in creating the conditions overseas which have in the past provoked and will in the future provoke a large volume of spontaneous migration, and then to see that every obstacle which lies in the way of such migration is removed and that every facility which can increase it is provided."
I do want to emphasise those words. I feel very strongly that any attempt to force the situation with regard to migration is bound to do harm. It would, in my view, jeopardise the possibility of sound future plans being formulated, which may in due time be possible, with a view of once again instituting a flow between this country and the Dominions. It is absolutely essential that people who emigrate must have the, prospect of a remunerative living in the country to which they migrate, and I venture to say that at the present moment those prospects cannot be considered good. For those reasons it is my view, at any rate, that the action which was taken at the Ottawa Conference, and results such as those which were achieved there, which were calculated, and are calculated, to increase the general prosperity of the Empire, are of far more value at the present moment than any number of assisted emigration
454
schemes to the Dominions. As I have stated, the principle upon which we should work, as the Committee have already said, is that once there is a spontaneous movement towards the resumption of migration we should not only remove all obstacles but grant every facility which is likely to increase that movement.
With that object in view the Committee have made certain proposals, which I shall not enumerate to your Lordships this evening, devised to achieve that very object; but, as I have said, they do take the view that these measures can only be taken when the position becomes more favourable. The Report of this Committee has received, on the whole, very general approval, but I must admit that there have been a number of criticisms, and the main one is perhaps that to which the noble Earl referred—namely, that the recommendations are not sufficiently far-reaching, and that they do not include any large schemes of group-settlement upon the land.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask where that criticism comes from? I am not quite clear. Is it a Government criticism, or a general criticism?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: It is not a Government criticism. It is a criticism which comes from outside the Government, and one which the noble Earl who initiated this discussion made. These questions of group-settlement on a large scale are questions which have to be very carefully examined by experts, and all I want to say at the present moment with regard to them is that there are weighty reasons which can be adduced in favour of the view which the Committee express—namely, that the concentration of assisted migration on land settlements at the present moment would be extremely unwise. As your Lordships know, it has become necessary lately to consider the regulation and even the restriction of production of commodities normally produced by those settling on the land overseas. Therefore, to say the least of it, it is doubtful whether this is a good time to push forward schemes which can only result in considerable additional production of those commodities, and I know that that is a view strongly taken in many of the Dominions. I would, however, make a qualification of that rather general statement which I have made—

455
namely, that this question of the reintroduction of group-settlement on any considerable scale must depend upon future economic development in the Empire and the world, and any change which might result in increasing the demand for primary products would undoubtedly alter the whole situation and justify reconsidering the position in consultation with other Governments interested.
I want to conclude by saying that the Government are riot in the least apologetic because they have not taken active steps to stimulate migration in the last three or four years. It certainly is a matter of fact that activity of this kind would have been unwelcome to the Dominions. The noble Earl has said to us that the Dominion Governments—I think he used the words "Dominion Governments"—would welcome the introduction of schemes of properly organised and controlled migration. I do not know exactly what he means by those words. If he means schemes one of the conditions of which is that no charge is at any time to fall upon a Dominion Government in connection with them, I am not in a position to say, but generally speaking, I can assure the House that the view which the noble Earl expressed, that the Dominion Governments would welcome emigration of this kind, is not borne out by the facts as I have been given them.
It is generally agreed that a resumption of movement must depend upon the good will and co-operation of the Dominions. It may be perfectly true, as the noble Earl has said, that there are not only individuals but organisations in the Dominions which have expressed themselves strongly in favour of migration, but I can only repeat what I have said, that no Dominion Government has demanded such resumption of migration, nor has any Dominion Government shown any readiness to acquiesce in a demand on our part. I am perfectly certain that if they did wish for a resumption of migration they would come to us, and I can assure the House that the Government would not, in any way, be slow to take advantage of any opportunities which were forthcoming in that respect. I can only repeat that in my view any activity towards the stimulation of emigration in recent years would have aggravated the situation rather than have alleviated the
456
difficulties with which we were faced. I would like to conclude on a more optimistic note; that is, that the Government definitely feel that we are now within sight of better times. Things are improving, though they are improving slowly, and such informal discussions with representatives of overseas Governments as have taken place give reason to hope that it may be possible in the comparatively near future to look to a revival of some emigration. That definitely will not be on a large scale at first, but it will be a beginning, and it may do something at any rate to offset the inward flow which has unfortunately been such a distinguishing feature of the last four years.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, there are certain points in the debate which I must answer, although I will be as brief as possible. I must protest against the no doubt unwitting injustice which has been done me by the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, and the noble Lord, Lord Rockley, in suggesting that my whole purpose in initiating this debate has been to find an outlet in the Dominions for surplus British workers. What I was endeavouring to show to your Lordships, albeit apparently unsuccessfully, was that the Dominions require people to populate their open spaces just as much as we require to find work for our unemployed. The Dominions not only must have more people from an economic point of view, they must also have them from a strategic point of view, because other countries are casting envious eyes upon those undeveloped lands, especially in Australia; and, though the Secretary of State for the Dominions denied it in another place not long ago, I have myself since then met and spoken to a German who is endeavouring to organise the sending out to Australia of one hundred thousand Germans. It is evident, and the Dominions appreciate it, that if we do not populate our Empire, other nations will do so in the future. Canada, as I have said, wants to double her population. Australia also wants immigrants, and nothing that the noble Earl has said has in any way refuted, or indeed touched upon, the statements in regard to the economic position of industry in this country with which I began my speech.
As regards the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, I would remind him,

457
when he talks about the reduction of consumption if many people emigrate from this country, that the people who would go would be for the most part those who, having had in the past very small amounts on which to live, have not contributed largely to consumption. As regards the difference between my suggestions and those of Mr. Lloyd George, the difference is that" whereas Mr. Lloyd George's proposals would merely employ a number of men for a short time and pile up a lot of debt at the same time, a proper emigration scheme would mean permanent employment in the Dominions for a vast number of people, and a consequent opening up of new markets for British goods. I must say, without wishing to be offensive or derogatory to the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, that his speech did seem to me to be a magnificent example of laissez faire. He seems to think that everything will cure itself. At the present time there can be no greater fallacy, and no view which it is less helpful to propagate. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition said that he found some years ago that a certain section of the people of this country were unwilling to emigrate. Events nowadays change with bewildering rapidity, and a few years ago is not to-day. I think if he repeated his investigations he would find a very different state of affairs. It may be, of course, that the people of whom he spoke did not wish to emigrate, because, being of the same political opinion as the noble Lord, they were waiting for the noble Lord and his Party to provide the bigger and better "doles" which would seem to be their only solution of the problem of unemployment.
As regards the flew of emigration at the present time, to which the noble Lord alluded, I hardly think that 2,400 emigrants from this country to Canada last year can be considered sufficient; and what are we to think of the emigration to Australia—74 in 1933 and 174 in 1934. Before that trickle becomes a flow, some much more drastic action will have to be taken. The noble Earl in his reply for the Government made the most remarkable statement that emigration was a sign of prosperity. I should not have thought that that could be substantiated, especially when one considers what happened in the Ireland of the potato famines. But there has, I submit, been no adequate reply to the contention I
458
have put forward, neither have we had an explanation of why the Government are unwilling to come forward and at least support a general official consultation with the leaders of the Dominions. I am afraid that there is a certain lack of enterprise, it may be a certain lack of courage. It may be that certain vested interests, political or other, are hampering them. But I submit that until we have a real argument given in reply to the facts I have stated, until we have some prospect of being able in the future to absorb those hundreds of thousands of unemployed men, miners and others, it is incumbent on the Government to show a little more enterprise than they have done.
I do not wish, of course, to force a Division on my Motion, but I hope that in spite of the discouraging reply of the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, the Government may take this question a little more to heart, and take steps to make at least the preliminary investigations, which is all I ask, into this great problem. If they do so, they will find, I am convinced, that there is far more good will in the Dominions towards a properly worked out scheme, instituted only with their consent and approval, than they appear to imagine. Let them go forward in this direction, and then let them come back and tell us the result. But in these difficult times I suggest that it is hardly helpful to the solution of our problems when any suggestion of a constructive character that is put forward is received with a pailful of cold water. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 3 [Restrictions on use of vehicles for conveying sand or ballast]
LORD TEMPLE MORE: My Lords, my first two Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 34, leave out ("by means of") and insert ("in or on")
Page 4, line 42, leave out ("by means of") and insert ("in or on").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 8 [Marking of bottles for use as measures]:
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved to add to the clause:
"Provided that this section shall not affect the operation of the Weights and Measures Acts, 1878 to 1926, in relation to the use of any bottle as a measure otherwise than for the purpose of a transaction whereby some liquid is sold or supplied in the bottle, or in relation to the possession of any bottle for use as a measure otherwise than for that purpose."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the debate on the Committee stage of the Bill I promised to consider a suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, who, I observe, is not in his place. That suggestion, as I understand it, was that the use as measures of bottles marked in accordance with the provisions of the Bill should be legalised for the purpose of selling liquids in these bottles but not for any other purpose. This Amendment has that effect.
Before explaining it, I should like to deal with another point raised in the course of the debate on the Committee stage, which has some bearing on the subject. Several noble Lords expressed a fear that the Bill might have the effect of depriving the consumer of some of the protection which the law now very properly gives to him. This, I am advised, is not the case. In the case of milk, for instance, the protection given under the existing law is furnished by the fact that it is an offence for a dairyman to use, or have in his possession for use, an unstamped measure, or even a stamped measure which he knows to be inaccurate, or knowingly to sell milk which is deficient in measure. Apart from this, the consumer would, of course, have his ordinary rights against the dairyman for breach of contract where less than the stipulated quantity had been supplied. The Bill does not change the position in any way, except that it places the marked bottle on the same footing as a stamped measure, and this is justified by the fact that, when the precautions provided by the Bill are taken, the risk of a marked bottle being inaccurate will be no greater than the risk of a stamped measure being inaccurate.
The Bill does not, therefore, diminish the protection given to the consumer. On the contrary, it increases it. When all that is said, however, I recognise that
460
there is some force in the noble Earl's contention that these bottles should be used as measures only for the purpose of selling liquid in them. It was for this purpose that the scheme embodied in the Bill bas been framed and this scheme, as your Lordships will appreciate, represents a new departure. It is, in a sense, experimental. There is, therefore, no need for the Bill to provide that bottles marked under this scheme should be used as measures for any other purpose than that for which they are really intended. After all, no one wants to use a milk bottle for measuring out oil into a can or beer into a jug. It is not a convenient shape for this purpose and there are other forms of measure which are much more suitable for this sort of use. Accordingly, the Amendment provides in effect that the recognition of a bottle marked under the Bill as a legal measure shall be confined to the purpose of transactions by which some liquid is sold or supplied in the bottle. My noble friend Lord Eltisley had put down certain Amendments to Clauses 10, 11 and 12, but has withdrawn these Amendments. They have been put down again by my noble friend Lord Strachie, but I venture to hope, after the explanation I have given, that the noble Lord will be satisfied and may see his way not to press his Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 23, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Templemore.)
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I was asked by the County Councils' Parliamentary Committee to put down the Amendments which appear in my name on the Paper. While I cannot admit that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has entirely met our objections in this matter, yet at the same time he has to a large extent done so. As I understand the position of the county councils and other local authorities, what they feel is that they are not allowed sufficient discretion in this matter. Even under the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, this discretion will still be rather limited. Therefore it does not entirely do away with the objections of the County Councils Association. The principal objection taken by the local authorities, from the county councils downwards, is that they are subject to Departmental control by regulation. That, of course,

461
is a thing which no county council likes. It is bad enough when such control is provided for in an Act of Parliament. The view of the local authorities is that these regulations might have the effect of requiring inspectors to spend a large part of every day in factories where these bottles are manufactured in large numbers, and might add enormously to the staff and duties of the county councils.
I should not be willing to withdraw my Amendments were it not for the fact that, on looking into the Bill very carefully, I find that he fears of county councils in this respect are really not justified, for this reason. I notice in the Bill, and I hope it will appear in all Bills, that these regulations have to be placed on the tables of both Houses of Parliament, and, if either House of Parliament takes objection to them, then they become null and void. Speaking as a county councillor myself, I am perfectly certain that if the Board of Trade were to bring in any regulation which in the eyes of the county councils were objectionable, members of both Houses of Parliament would not be slow to move the ejection of these regulations. It may not be so easy to do so in another place because of the difference of procedure, but in your Lordships' House there is no difficulty at all; and as this is a question in which Party considerations do not arise, I feel that, if such objectionable regulations were tabled, most of your Lordships would be prepared to oppose them and they would be thrown out and made null and void. That being so, I feel I am justified in not moving these Amendments, particularly as the noble Lord has gone some way to meet our objections. There is also the fact that the hour is late and there are five other Notices of importance on the Paper, including a very important Scottish Bill. I think it would be rather futile for me, and really be obstructive, if I were to press these Amendments when the noble Lord has already informed me that he is not prepared to accept them.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, two points seem to have crept into these debates. The original point on which considerable discussion took place on the Committee stage was on whom responsibility for errors should rest. Those of us speaking on behalf of the Municipal Corporations Association and the County Councils Association took the
462
view, and still hold the view, that the responsibility for errors should rest on, and remain with, the manufacturer of the bottle. We therefore tabled our Amendments again so that they might be reconsidered on the Report stage. As the result of an undertaking given by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, he has to-day tabled an Amendment which goes some way towards meeting our point—namely, that a marked bottle may only be used for measuring the quantity of liquid in the bottle and not for measuring liquid to be sold in some other receptacle. Shortly, a bottle so marked shall not be used as a general measure. This Amendment does not go quite so far as we wanted, but it dues go sonic way to meet our objections, and is a sort of half-way house. Therefore we do not wish to press the Amendments which we tabled on the first occasion.
As regards the second point, which seems to arise on a later Amendment—namely, the question of regulations and the objection of local authorities to being tied hand and foot, which apparently will be the case—we feel that local authorities should be allowed the fullest possible measure of discretion in the performance of those duties which have been assigned to them by Parliament. They should not be subject to the views of any particular administrator who may be presiding over the affairs of the Board of Trade. We are fearsome that regulations may be enforced which will necessitate the appointment of a great many inspectors and that these inspectors will have to have their salaries paid by the local authorities. We think that the fullest possible measure of discretion should be allowed to rest with the local authorities, who are such important bodies and have such excellent officers. In view of what Lord Strachie has said, these Amendments are not now being pressed, but I have thought it right to ventilate the views of the fecal authorities on this matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Licences to mark bottles]:
LORD COZENS-HARDY LORD COZENS-HARDY moved to insert in subsection (1):
"Provided that the qualifications, conditions and restrictions which may be prescribed for the purposes of this subsection shall be limited to such as appear to the

463
Board of Trade to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to this Part of this Act."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I had put down this Amendment in a more specific form, limiting the conditions which may be imposed by the Board of Trade to those which, I understand, are actually contemplated by the Board of Trade of to-day. These conditions would deal with such matters as the applicant's ability to comply with regulations, his financial standing, making provision as to fees, as to the facilities for the inspector's work, and. as to the extent and frequency of inaccuracy which would justify the withdrawal of the licence. I have had the advantage of a conversation with the Board of Trade, and I gather that the Government are not opposed to the intention of this Amendment.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: We accept it.
LORD COZENS-HARDY: I am very grateful for the intimation that the Government are prepared to accept it, but I still think it gives the Board of Trade too wide and too absolute a discretion. I hope before the Bill gets further, that the Government will agree to omit the words "as appear to the Board of Trade" and the word "expedient," which seem to give the Board of Trade more complete and absolute power than is necessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 32, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Cozens-Hardy.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to insert at the end of the clause:
"Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Board of Trade to revoke or suspend his licence may apply to the County Court of the district in which he resides for an order for the removal of such revocation or suspension and the Court may make such order thereon as may seem just."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, if your Lordships will look at subsection (4) of Clause 9, on page 10, you will see that:
"The Board of Trade may at any time revoke or suspend a licence if the holder thereof has contravened or failed to comply with any of the restrictions or conditions prescribed by virtue of this section, or has been convicted of an offence under this Part of this Act."
464
It is not necessary, therefore, that he should have been convicted by a Court before he has his licence revoked or suspended, so there is all the more reason why he should have access to a Court. I suggest that the most Court suitable Court is the County Court of the district in which he resides. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 5, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment for a legal reason which I will give as shortly as possible. The noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, during the debate in Committee, proposed that there should be an appeal to the Court from the arbitrary decision of a Minister to revoke a licence. To give effect to this principle the Amendment is unnecessary. Clause 9 as now worded obliges the Board of Trade to grant to any person, and to renew, a licence, if that person possesses the prescribed qualifications and complies with the prescribed conditions. Further, the Board are only empowered to revoke or suspend a licence if in fact the conditions prescribed by the clause arise. Consequently, if the Board fail to comply with this statutory duty of granting or renewing a licence or wrongly revoke or suspend a licence, the person aggrieved can already, under the existing law of the land, obtain redress by the appropriate proceedings in the High Court.
Such proceedings, known as mandamus, certiorari or declaration proceedings, according to the nature of the circumstances giving rise to them, are of a special order and are regarded as falling solely within the jurisdiction of the High Court. They relate either to the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to supervise the exercise of judicial functions by subordinate Courts or other bodies entrusted with such functions, or to the public interest involved in compelling public bodies to carry out their statutory duties of a public nature or to refrain from acting in contravention of such duties, and it would be a serious departure from principle to confer jurisdiction of this kind upon the County Court.
This Amendment in terms provides for something much more than a right to appeal to the Court against decisions of

465
the Board of Trade wrongly given It would confer upon the Court the right to review any and every decision of the Board to revoke or suspend a licence quite apart from any question as to whether there had been compliance with the terms of the Statute. It is submitted that there can be no reason for conferring upon the Court as a mere matter of discretion the right to review and modify an order made by the Board of Trade in accordance with the terms of the Statute. This reply has beer, given in somewhat legal terms. I do not pretend to be a lawyer nor do I think is my noble friend—
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I am.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon. Then he will understand what I have read.
LORD COZENS-HARDY: My Lords, the legal statement which the noble Lord has given lends point to my request that he would consider before a later stage omitting the words "appear to the Board of Trade" and the word "expedient." If that is done the legal remedy which Le has elaborated would be greatly facilitated.
VISCOUNT BERTH OF THAME: My Lords, I am not going to press the Amendment. At the same time I think an application to the High Court would he much more expensive than one to the County Court. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Interpretation]:
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 15, leave out ("carrying") and insert ("conveying").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now resolve itself into Committee.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: My Lords, I must make a protest on behalf of the Scottish Peers against the way in which we have been treated over this Bill. A few days ago it was put down, I think, for Second Reading as the first Order of the Day, and then a Standing Order was suspended, practically without any notice, and it had to be taken later on. Now I think everyone must admit that this is an important Bill, yet it is being taken at this late hour not long before the time at which your Lordships' House, as a rule, adjourns—namely, a quarter to eight. It is not as if this was the only instance in which Scottish business has been dealt with in this way. In the past Scottish business has always, I think—and I believe I shall be supported in saying this by most of my fellow Peers from Scotland—been treated more or less with contempt, and if His Majesty's Government are in favour of Home Rule for Scotland there is nothing they can do more to advance it than their present conduct. I must point out that a large number of Scottish Peers—I do not include myself amongst them—have come here at very considerable inconvenience and also very considerable expense, and it is only fair and reasonable that their Bills should be taken at a time when they can receive a fair and proper discussion.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I would like to join with the noble Duke in the protest that he has made. I agree with every word he has said on the general question as to the way in which Scottish questions are usually treated. At the same time, to-day, I must say that it is a little unfortunate that a Scottish Peer should have kept us for an hour and forty minute; on a matter which we particularly asked him to put off until another day. Even if he had not agreed to do that he need not have kept us waiting so long. He has now gone away, and is the only Scottish Peer who has not remained.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I can only say on behalf of His Majesty's Government that we very much regret that this Bill should come on at this late hour. I think it was almost impossible to foresee that the two Motions on the Paper were going to take so long as they did. I knew that there were to be three Peers who would take part in the debate on the first Motion in regard to slavery, but other members of your Lordships'

467
House, whom I did not know were going to speak, also took part in that debate. As regards the second Motion on the Paper, I think I must leave the noble Earl who moved it in the hands of his Scottish colleagues who, perhaps, will deal with him adequately without my saying anything further. I can only say I am extremely sorry that this should have happened. As your Lordships know, just before a Recess it is always difficult to arrange business, and we are very much in the hands of your Lordships as to how long a time will be taken upon a particular Motion.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: What are you going to do about the Bill? Are you going to take it now?
EARL STANHOPE: I suggest we should go on and see what progress we can make. We are very businesslike in this House, and get through a great deal of business in a short time when we have to do so.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Duty of local authority to inspect and to make reports and proposals as to overcrowding.
1.—(1) It shall be the duty of every local authority before such dates as the Department may, after consultation with the authority, fix as respects their district, to cause an inspection thereof to be made with a view to ascertaining what dwelling-houses therein are overcrowded, and to prepare and submit to the Department a report showing in such detail as the Department may direct the result of the inspection and the additional housing accommodation required in order to put an end to overcrowding in their district, and, unless they satisfy the Department that the additional accommodation required, in so far as it is required for persons of the working classes, will be otherwise provided, to prepare and submit to the Department proposals for the provision thereof.
(3) Any proposals under this section for the provision of additional housing accommodation shall be accompanied by a statement of the steps which the local authority propose to take to secure that the rehousing of families living under the worst conditions as regards overcrowding is provided for first.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved to insert at the end of subsection (1):
"Provided, however, that there shall be no obligation to submit such proposals for
468
additional accommodation for farm and other rural workers who occupy their houses as part of their remuneration until legislative provision has been made enabling the local authorities to remedy overcrowding in these houses."
The noble Lord said: I will endeavour to move this Amendment in the briefest possible terms, as we are beginning the business upon this Bill at a late hour. I move it as Chairman of a local authority and housing committee because I feel that the clause as it stands imposes upon local authorities an impossible obligation. The clause requires us to complete a census and examination of all houses, and to report on all eases of overcrowding which exist within our area, and then to prepare and to submit to the Department of Health proposals for the provision of houses to meet that overcrowding. I move as a proviso that there shall be no obligation to submit such proposals for additional accommodation for farm and other rural workers who occupy their houses as part of their remuneration until legislative provision has been made enabling local authorities to remedy overcrowding in these houses.
I am all for remedying overcrowding in farm workers' houses just as much as in other houses, but I think it was practically admitted by the Government in another place that this Bill does not make any provision whereby we can remedy overcrowding in the case of these houses, which, as many of your Lordships know, are occupied almost throughout Scotland by farm workers as part of their remuneration, and are situated on the farm where they work. Local authorities cannot build houses for a particular class of workers. Even if they could, the chances are that the man with a large family would have removed elsewhere before the house was built. It has been said that the Housing (Rural Workers) Act will meet the case, but I think that is hardly so. In my own county, we stipulated that most of the houses built should have three rooms and the rest two, but houses with three apartments will only accommodate five people under the standard of this Bill, and I am afraid many farm servants will have to seek work elsewhere. You cannot expect the farmer, or the landlord, to be at the expense of providing larger houses when the farmer can so easily get a man with a smaller family to do the work required.

469
I fear that the man with the large family will have a hard time of it.
It is obvious that some fresh proposals must be made. The Government propose an Advisory Committee to consider the matter. By all means let that be done, and then fresh legislative proposals can be introduced which will make it possible to deal with this difficulty. But, in the meantime, it is not fair to call upon local authorities to submit schemes which they really have no possible means of carrying out. They can only say that they cannot do it. There is no provision in the Bill which enables this real difficulty to be met. I will not enlarge on it further, because I believe your Lordships are fully familiar with it, but I move this Amendment with the object of putting on record that, as the Bill stands, it cannot deal with the problem of farm servants' houses. I hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will see his way to accept the proviso and not impose upon us an impossible obligation.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 12, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I am quite aware of the difficulty which the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has raised, and of course it will all come up again in other forms in later Amendments. The overcrowding provisions in the Bill as it stands apply to tied houses as they apply to other houses on the principle that the enactment of one standard of accommodation for one section of the community and another standard, or none at all, for another section can hardly be justified.
LORD POLWARTH: I agree to that.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The noble Lord's Amendment would merely have the effect of excluding tied houses occupied by farm workers and other rural workers from the operation of the Bill, in that: it would destroy the only means of making the overcrowding provisions effective in these cases—namely, the duty which is placed on local authorities to provide the additional accommodation that is necessary to put an end to the over in the houses in question. The arguments against the exclusion of tied houses from the Bill will be fully dealt with in a statement which I propose to make on another Amendment, and f also propose later to
470
deal with the question of large families. In the circumstances I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I gather that the noble Lord does not want this Amendment put in the Bill here, because he wants to have the same rules for all and does riot wish to divide Scotland into two halves, but I suppose he will tell your Lordships that the Bill is not going to be operative as far as farm servants' houses are concerned.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I do not say that the Bill is not going to be operative as far as farm workers' houses is concerned, but the Bill will not be operative until the appointed day is reached.
LORD POLWARTH: I do not wish to exclude them from the Bill, but only to defer the matter until the Government can make some provision to enable the local authorities to remedy this overcrowding.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I am sorry the Government will not accept the Amendment, because I think that what it really means is that any farm worker who has a large family will be thrown out of employment. There is another difficulty which has not been mentioned. It takes a very long time to improve rural housing, especially in what are generally called "out-by" positions, where you can only get certain tradesmen to take the work. There is another thing which is quite disregarded by the Government. It is the custom in Scotland to have larger rooms than in English houses. In England people prefer more rooms and smaller rooms. That may be right or wrong, but there it is. If the Amendment is not accepted, I think it will have a very serious effect on a class of people for whom I think your Lordships will agree that a very strong effort should be made—that is, the man in rural employment, the ploughman or shepherd or whatever he may be, who has a large family—because, after all, it is these men with large families who work on the land who are going to make the future of this nation.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: There are several reasons why I think my noble friend should press the concluding portion of this Amendment. All who have had anything to do with agriculture in Scotland know that the

471
engagement of married men is for one year. Therefore, it is possible that in one year the house will be overcrowded, and next year it will not be overcrowded. It is obvious, I think, that you cannot deal with the problem of farm servants' houses in Scotland so long as the present custom is maintained without special legislation, for the simple reason that you have a changing population from year to year. It is the custom to engage a married man for one year, and a single man for six months, so that you may easily come across cases where the unmarried men's quarters are also affected. The whole question requires special treatment, and I press the Government to realise that.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, put a question to the Government which has not been answered. The case for the Amendment as it stands seems a very strong one, but I should like to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether there are not provisions in Clauses 4 and 5 which would enable some relief to be obtained. If noble Lords will look at the marginal note to Clause 4, they will see that it reads "Power of Department to increase the permitted number temporarily to meet exceptional conditions," and the marginal note to Clause 5 is "Power of local authority to authorise the temporary use of a house by persons in excess of the permitted number." I think we should all agree with the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, that under the Bill as it stands these particular houses cannot be dealt with, but I do think that the more desirable course, rather than the omission of these houses from the operation of the Bill, would be to put in a clause, as my noble friend suggests, to allow the operation of the Bill to be suspended. It comes to the same thing, as far as I can see.
LORD MARLEY: If a mere Sassenach may be allowed to intervene for a moment, I would like to say it is rather difficult sometimes for us to understand the actual effect of some of these Amendments. Is it not possible that this Amendment may have the effect of tempting the local authority to take no action because by not taking action they will not have to apply the terms of Clause 1? It looks to me as though, since it says "until legislative provision has been made enabling the local authorities to
472
remedy overcrowding in these houses," that nothing need be done. They might be tempted to do nothing in order not to have to remedy the overcrowding. That seems a possible effect of the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: There seems to be a great deal of force in the argument with which my noble friend has supported the Amendment. On the other hand, in my judgment there is much in what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, will not press this matter to a Division at this stage.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: May I ask the noble Lord a further question, more by way of elucidation than for any other reason? I understand that the general purpose of this Bill is to prevent overcrowding and to enable local authorities to make provision for new houses. As I understand Clause 29, whereas the central administration undertake to make contribution towards providing housing accommodation required for the purpose of putting an end to overcrowding, yet they are to be specifically debarred from doing it in the case of the houses now under consideration, houses tenanted by farm servants as a part of their remuneration. In other words, the Bill makes it impossible for the Government to make provision for those houses which we all want to see, although it is possible to make provision for houses in urban areas. If that is so, it is a very serious disadvantage of the Bill. Some provision should be made to enable local authorities to remedy this overcrowding instead of leaving us in the position of having large numbers of houses tenanted by large families while, because the Government has said that they are not going to allow people to live in them, the local authorities are unable to make financial provision whereby the evil can be remedied.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I understood from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that he would answer my question when I moved my Amendment in Clause 4. I suggest that he should answer it now and, if it meets with his approval, I need not move my Amendment, but if he does not approve, then I shall be able to move.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: The Marquess of Aberdeen put his

473
finger on the spot when he said that the real trouble is that you cannot make any arrangement under Clause 4 whereby you can meet the changing population from year to year. This is a real difficulty which is not met in this Bill.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I cut short my answer on this Amendment because I see on the Paper an Amendment in the name of the noble Duke" the Duke of Atholl, later on in Clause 2: and also the one to which the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, has referred dealing with the question of rural areas. Now, with regard to the question which has been raised by a great many noble Lords, about the difficulty of forcing a situation wherein unemployment would be caused among rural workers, I think there are these two safeguards. First of all, on the general point, from information we have received as a result of investigations which have been made, we do not see any reason to believe that there is a much larger proportion of farm labourers with large families than there is among the urban workers. The percentage shows a very small increase. Secondly, there are the provisions to which the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, referred.
In addition to that I was going to tell the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, when I came to his Amendment, that the question of the relaxation of safeguarding under Clause 4 cannot arise until the standard itself has come into operation; that is to say, upon the appointed day to which I have already referred. After that there is a duration order made under Clause 4, which provides that relaxation of the standard after the appointed day must not, exceed three years. Moreover, there is power under Clause 5 for local authorities to grant licences to permit the standard to be exceeded in individual cases. There are obvious difficulties, from the point of view of keeping in proper touch with the different parts of a district, in the way of making an order postponing the provisions for as long as ten years, which is what the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, suggests. No local authority, however, is likely to take the risk of bringing the standard into operation before ample accommodation has been made for their people, and I hope that the noble Earl
474
will rest assured that every application made under that clause for extension of the period will be carefully considered.
LORD POLWARTH: Will the extension of time be made for any particular class of house? We are anxious to bring in the decrowding provisions as soon as we can. I speak for a county that has an industrial population as well as a rural one—even perhaps greater. We do not want the appointed day postponed for a long time. It is only in regard to this particular class that I am anxious to see the Government bring in provision to enable us to deal with the rural houses as soon as possible. I am not anxious to postpone it for ten years or longer for all classes of houses.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The noble Lord and are in agreement that the Government want to provide new houses as soon as possible where they are necessary. In the rural areas the operation of the Bill must be postponed beyond the appointed day, as long after it as necessary, but in the urban areas, the provision must be made as soon as possible.
LORD POLWARTH: That does not answer my question. I am anxious to see the appointed day quite soon for urban areas, but we have to wait for it in rural areas and may have to wait a long time.
THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE: The Bill says that the order may specify different classes of houses.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Will the noble Lord answer my question? I understand that this Bill makes no financial provisions for meeting the particular difficulty with which the noble Duke dealt. Whereas financial provision is made for any other situation, it does not make any for this particular difficulty; is not that the case?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I should like to look into that question which the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, has raised, but I am afraid I cannot give an answer at the moment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, in subsection (3), after "overcrowding," to insert "or otherwise living under unsatisfactory housing conditions." The noble Lord said: This Amendment was put down to implement

475
a promise given in another place. The subsection is designed to secure that, in framing the proposals for the relief of overcrowding, local authorities shall make provision for dealing with the worst cases of overcrowding first. The question was raised in another place whether, in considering what was the worst case of overcrowding, the local authorities were able to look merely at the numbers of persons in the different houses. It was pointed out that there were other factors which could be taken into account. For example, it might be more urgent to re-house a family containing a number of members suffering from a disease such as tuberculosis; it would be difficult to re-house a large family under such conditions. Again, there might be two families of the same size and different sex composition, and from this point of view one family might be regarded as more overcrowded than the other. The intention of this Amendment is to secure that local authorities shall not be restricted to looking at mere numbers. The Amendment will enable them to take other relevant factors, such as those I have mentioned, into account.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 28, after ("overcrowding") insert ("or otherwise living under unsatisfactory housing conditions").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Might I ask the noble Lord if this is in accordance with the preamble of the Bill?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I think it is quite in agreement with it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Definition of overcrowding.
2.—(1) A dwelling-house shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be overcrowded at any time when the number of persons sleeping in the house either—

(a) is such that any two of those persons, being persons ten years old or more of opposite sexes and not being persons living together as husband and wife, must sleep in the same room; or

(b) is, in relation to the number and floor area of the rooms of which the house consists, in excess of the permitted number of persons as defined in the First Schedule to this Act.

(2) In computing for the purposes of this section the number of persons sleeping in a house, no account shall be taken of a child
476
under one year old, and a child who has attained one year and is under ten years old shall be reckoned as one half of a unit.
THE DUKE OF ATHOL THE DUKE OF ATHOL had given Notice of an Amendment, in subsection (1), at the beginning of paragraph (b) to insert "in the case of a house situated within a burgh" and of another to insert in subsection (2):
"Provided that paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to houses of farm workers or of other workers who as a condition of their employment are required to occupy a particular house."
The noble Duke said: On Clause 2 I have two Amendments and, although I feel strongly that this Bill should not apply to rural areas, I do not propose to move the first now, because it is late and we have not much time, and also because I know perfectly well that the Government have not the slightest intention of accepting it. But I am going to move my next Amendment to insert a proviso at the end of subsection (2). As the Government have not agreed to the omission of the rural areas as a whole, or rather as I have not moved my Amendment, I beg to move the omission of those houses which must be occupied by farm workers and others as a condition of their employment. These others are, of course, shepherds, gamekeepers, head gardeners, lodge keepers and so forth, whom I might call generally estate servants, who are given these houses as Dart of their wages. It is obvious that here we have a problem which is totally different from anything in the towns. A man has to live in a particular house, and if the house provided in relation to a particular job on a farm or estate is not large enough for the applicant and his family, according to the standards here laid down, it must inevitably make it very improbable that he will be given the job, or retain it if, like a ploughman, he has to go away and be again engaged.
A large proportion of ploughmen's houses in particular consist of only two rooms, with a third room too small to be counted, and the Bill would only allow for three people to sleep in this—a married couple, that is, with one child of ten or over. The estate owner may well find it difficult to enlarge the house, and in consequence will prefer to take a man without a family, or with a smaller family, in order to avoid pressure from the local authorities, in which case he

477
will, of course, be quite within the law; or the farmer may wish to avoid being urged by the local authorities to put pressure upon his landlord. It seems to me unquestionable that unless tied houses are excluded, young married men with families still at school or families which are likely to increase, will be handicapped in finding employment, and they are the last people one would wish to see handicapped. The handicap may not be so serious in the case of shepherds and gamekeepers, as this work can be done by older men, although I think we should legislate for them just the same. Ploughmen, however, by reason of their work, have to be men in the prime of life. That means that they will probably have large families, or be at a time when they are having families, and it will be a serious matter for many of them if tied houses are not exempted.
It will also be a serious matter for the farmers, as they will necessarily be restricted in their choice of workers, and this is assuredly not the time to place any obstacle in the way of farmers getting the best men they can to work on the land. I therefore fear that this clause, unless it is amended, will place a serious handicap on the employment of married ploughmen, and in doing this will seriously handicap the farmer and also Scottish agriculture at a difficult moment in its history. We are told that this will not come in until the appointed day, but we are not told when the appointed day may be, and if there is going to be an appointed day then in that case when it does come it will mean that half of these men will lose their jobs. If, on the other hand, there is not going to be an appointed day, why trouble to deal with this matter at all? It seems to me that it is utter humbug to waste our time in dealing with this matter if the Government have not the slightest intention of trying to work the Bill in rural Scotland.
My point is this. Most of these houses are two-roomed houses with possibly a bed closet at the back, very airy as a rule but very small. The Act only allows three people to sleep in that house. Most of these ploughmen's houses are of that description. There are two large rooms both well within the Bill and bigger than most rooms outside. It seems to me that if we allow these ploughmen's houses to have four people
478
sleeping in a house which at present is scheduled for three, then you would get over a great deal of the difficulty with regard to ploughmen. I think the matter is so important that I am going to press this Amendment in the ploughmen's interest. Surely we want to see their houses improved if we can, but as the Bill stands many people will be very careful not to take men having families or who are likely to have families, and so bring them under the Bill. If the excuse is that that they are not restricting the employment of these married men, because they are not going to bring the Bill into operation, then it is waste of time to discuss these matters.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 44, at end, insert the said proviso.—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD BALFOUR, OF BURLEIGH: I hope the noble Duke is not going to take this Amendment to a Division, particularly as it is a manuscript Amendment, of which none of us have had any notice.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: It has been on the Paper for a week.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Amendment before the House is that on the Paper, to line 44 of page 2.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am sorry that I misunderstood the noble Duke. I thought he had withdrawn that Amendment. The Amendment being on the Paper, it entirely removes that objection. At the same time I think this Amendment was debated on the Amendment of Lord Polwarth. I do not see anything in the Bill to prevent the giving of the subsidy which is provided. I see no reason why the Bill should not be worked, and during the delay which is provided by the clauses adequate houses be provided for this class of worker. The subsidy of £6 15s. for forty years is an adequate subsidy.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Is this subsidy to be given to the owner, or to the local authorities? If it is to the local authorities, then they will have to take over all the private houses everywhere, and they will be responsible for making those houses big enough for the biggest family any proprietor wants to put in.
THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE: The point is that the farm servant would in these circumstances be the tenant of the local authority.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I must point out that my question has not been answered. These houses vary in the number of people they have to accommodate every year. You build on, say, two more rooms, and next year those rooms may be empty. We must be practical 'and try to help agriculture at the present time, and not thwart it. I would ask the Government to back up the agricultural policy of the Secretary of State for Scotland by making things as easy as possible for those who work the land. If you tie the farmer's choice to a farm servant who possesses a family which meets the accommodation of the house, you are really practically enforcing uneconomic business on the farmer, on the landlord, and on everybody concerned. I think we need, a little common sense as to how we treat these houses in Scotland, and we must face facts as they are. Do not pass legislation which cannot be enforced, and which brings the law into disrepute.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I do not quite understand how this £6 15s. Is paid. Is it paid to the local authority? If it is, does the local authority take over the house? And supposing the local authority declines to take it over: what is the position then? Is the house left with the landlord, and has the landlord to assume the responsibility of including the house with the land?
LORD POLWARTH: Speaking as one who has very extensive practical knowledge as to what the local authority can, and does, do, may I say that it is impossible for the local authority to take over these houses. They cannot keep them as tied houses. We have been asked by coal companies to build houses and let the companies have those houses for their employees, but we cannot do it. I confess I do not altogether like the Duke of Atholl's Amendment, because it seems permanently to exempt these houses from the operation of the Bill. It seems to me that the noble Duke's object would be better obtained by some alteration of the standard, allowing people to go into these two-roomed or three-roomed houses, as the case may be; and that was the re
480
commendation made by the County Councils Association and rejected by the Government. If we have a clear understanding that this exemption is to be only for a time until legislation is granted, or if the Government will undertake to introduce legislation, then we could accept this in the meantime. Failing that, I think we must rely on the clause mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, endeavouring to get a postponement for a particular class of house.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: If the Government can give us a definite period of years, then I should be quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I am not in a position to name any definite period, but I think it is fairly obvious that the appointed day is a very long way off. It will give us time to get the situation cleared up in the rural districts. The standard in the Bill will not be applied in any district until the greater part of the additional accommodation required for decrowding purposes in the locality has been provided. Even after the appointed day the application of the standard can be relaxed in connection with particular classes of houses in a district, and therefore if, when the time comes to apply the standard, it is still necessary for some time to exclude farm workers' cottages, that can be done within the provisions of the Bill as it stands. Moreover, there is power, under Clause 5, for local authorities to grant licences to permit the standard to be exceeded in individual cases. This power can be used in exceptional circumstances to allow a particular farm cottage to be occupied in excess of the standard until suitable arrangements can be made for the proper accommodation of the family.
The provisions of the Bill are, therefore, sufficiently flexible to enable local authorities to deal with the peculiar difficulties connected with the housing of persons living in tied houses. The Government realise, however, that the housing of these persons constitutes a special feature, and they intend to seek early advice of the Rural Sub-committee of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee, to be set up under Clause 22 of the Bill, with regard to the further steps which should be taken in the matter. In

481
the meantime the grants available under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts for the reconstruction and improvement of agricultural workers' houses are being continued for an extended period up to June, 1938, and it is proposed to secure that these grants will, as far as possible, be used for the enlargement of farm workers' houses. That, I think, answers the point which one noble Lord raised that there was to be no grant made to the landlord himself. I may add that no one is more desirous than I am of seeing better agricultural conditions in Scotland. I hope the noble Duke will not press his Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I should point out that the ploughman is a migratory person. He goes away, and you cannot tell what size of family the next man has. It is very difficult in such circumstances to determine what size of house is wanted. I am prepared, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, said, to withdraw this Amendment, but I shall divide later on on a manuscript Amendment which I have handed in to a later clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Offences in relation to overcrowding.
3.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, if after the appointed day the occupier of a dwelling-house causes or permits it to be overcrowded, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty shillings.
(3) The occupier of a dwelling-house shall not be guilty of an offence under this section in respect of any overcrowding thereof which is occasioned by the residence therein for a period not exceeding sixteen days of a person to whom lodging is afforded by the occupier otherwise than for gain.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved, in subsection (1), after "day," to insert "or prior to the appointed day in the case of a house which has ceased to be overcrowded through the action of the local authority. "The noble Lord said: This Amendment was put down in consequence of a question that was raised at a recent conference held with the Secretary of State for Scotland, attended by a very large number of local authorities, both rural and urban, and the need for such
482
an Amendment was supported by a large number of representatives. As the Bill stands, there is nothing to prevent the house, once it has been decrowded by the local authority from being again let by the owner to a large family, again becoming crowded, and the local authority having again to step in to provide another house for this new family. Of course, that does not apply to the case of a house owned by the local authority, but cases of the kind are common. Perhaps we have a colliery company's house, or a private owner's house, with a large family. We are asked to begin with the worst cases of overcrowding as soon as we can. We are even now in my county making plans for building sufficiently large houses, and we shall as soon as the houses are ready endeavour to get the people moved into those houses out of the smaller ones, but we shall have no control over a house which has been emptied. The moment it is empty, the owner will be besieged by applicants to let it again, and there is nothing to prevent him letting it again to a large family, and very likely that family will come in from a neighbouring district.
If it were one of our own families, it would not much matter, because we should have to provide for their accommodation in any case. But if a family comes from another district and fill up that house, it will again be the duty of the county council to provide accommodation for that family.
So I propose to insert the words:
"or prior to the appointed day in the ease of a house which has ceased to be overcrowded through the action of the local authority."
We have just been told that the appointed day may be postponed for a long time. We are not anxious to see a long postponement. We are anxious to begin with decrowding as soon as we can, but we do not want to decrowd the same house again and again. That will be the case unless some such provision as I suggest is made. At the conference we were told that the Government would take this into consideration, and I should have thought some proposal would have been submitted to us to meet this very real objection.
We may be told it is dealt with under Clause 8, but that does not to my mind remove the difficulty at all. If the owner wishes to let the house again to a large family after it has been decrowded, there

483
is nothing on earth to prevent his doing so. All sorts of appeals will be made to him to do so. I myself have had a case in which an appeal was made to be allowed to occupy just such a house on behalf of a large family. The larger the family, the more urgent the plea will be. I suggest this as a perfectly simple. way of meeting the difficulty, so that once a house has ceased to be overcrowded through the action of the local authority, it shall be an offence for the occupier of that house to overcrowd it again. The alternative, which of course would be rather absurd, would be to say that the local authority shall not be called upon to decrowd a house once it has been decrowded.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 2, after ("day") insert ("or prior to the appointed day in the case of a house which has ceased to be overcrowded through the action of the local authority ").—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The noble Lord's Amendment appears, on the face of it, rather attractive at first, but there are one or two reasons which I should like to give for resisting it. It would have the effect of bringing the penal provisions of the Bill into limited operation sooner than otherwise need be and before there is a sufficiency of houses in the local authority's district as a whole to warrant penal action against particular tenants. It is the policy of the Government to use the penal provisions, not as an instrument of punishment, but in the last resort as a compulsitor to secure the removal of recalcitrant occupiers from overcrowded conditions. Further, the Amendment would lead to anomalies in that a situation would arise under which it would be an offence to overcrowd some houses and not an offence to overcrowd others in the same local authority's district. It would be difficult to justify penalising one occupier for overcrowding his house when his next-door neighbour, living under exactly similar conditions, might be immune from prosecution.
In the third place it is surely better to avoid any piecemeal introduction of the "appointed day" provisions and, indeed, having in view the Amendments made on Clause 8, the proposal in the present Amendment is not necessary. Clause 8 (3), as amended in another place, gives the local authority power
484
before the appointed day to obtain an order from the Sheriff for the removal of a tenant from an overcrowded house which has been overcrowded for at least six months, if the Sheriff is satisfied that the tenant's removal is reasonable and an offer of suitable alternative accommodation has been made to him. This provision will give the local authority all the control they need until the appointed day has been fixed for their district. For these reasons I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD POLWARTH: I do not see how that provision will meet the case if a house becomes overcrowded again. We can move the first large family but, if it is let to another large family, have we to go to the Sheriff again for an order? We hope to get over this overcrowding by offering alternative accommodation.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 27, leave out ("passing") and insert ("commencement").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved in subsection (3), after "person" to insert "or persons (not exceeding two units)". The noble Duke said: This clause means that people can stay for a holiday of sixteen days provided "lodging is afforded by the occupier otherwise than for gain." This clause brings home to one how serious may be the interference, because of this Bill, with family life. It will allow one person more than the standard number to sleep in a house for sixteen days if "lodging is afforded by the occupier other than for gain." This would allow an elder son or daughter who had gone away to work to come home for a holiday, which is an excellent idea, but it would not allow a married daughter to come home and bring with her a child of over twelve months. A child of two or three could not be left behind, and therefore a married daughter would never be able to visit her parents in certain circumstances and bring her child with her for the grandparents to see. This Amendment would enable her to come with two small children or with her husband. As such an interference

485
with family intercourse seems to be likely to be much resented., I am moving this Amendment, and I think it is one the Government ought to accept.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 37, after ("person") insert ("or persons (not exceeding two units)").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I am informed that this Amendment is not really necessary. I understand that under the Interpretation Act, 1899, the singular includes the plural, and therefore the word "person" includes "persons" That being so, the provisions of the subsection are not limited in the manner which the noble Duke suggests.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Do I understand that under this clause, in spite of all that there is in the Bill, a married daughter can go home and bring her children with her, even if her children are in excess of the number allowed, for a period of sixteen days?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: That, I understand, is the case.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Power of Department to increase the permitted number temporarily to meet exceptional conditions]:
THE EARL OF AIRLIE THE EARL OF AIRLIE had given Notice of an Amendment to enable the application of the First Schedule to be suspended in the rural areas for ten years in certain circumstances. The noble Earl said: In view of what the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has said, the more one hears about this Bill, the more it prompts one to believe it was "cooked up" in England and does not apply to Scotland at all in any way. The fixing of the appointed day seems to be a matter of some surmise, rather like the Day of Judgment. We should all like to know when the Day of Judgment will be. We should all be better, and probably better off, if we knew. It seems we may have to wait for a long time for the appointed day. The time factor is a very strong factor in the case, because it affects the landlord as well as the farm worker with a large family. I believe, myself, that in a great many cases the landlord will wish to do the work that may possibly be done by the local authority, for the reason that
486
he will do it much better and more suitably. The question of practicability has already been discussed, and I cannot believe that the local authority can possibly make a practical affair of the whole thing. I do not move my Amendment.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Information with respect to the permitted number and certification of number and floor areas of rooms.
(4) The Department shall prescribe the manner in which the floor area of a room is to be ascertained for the purposes of the First Schedule to this Act, and a certificate of the local authority stating the number and floor areas of the rooms in a dwelling-house, and that the floor areas thereof have been ascertained in the prescribed manner, shall, for the purposes of any legal proceedings, be evidence of the facts stated therein.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, in subsection (4), after "Act, and," to insert:
"the regulations may provide for the exclusion from computation, or for the bringing, into computation at a reduced figure, of floor space in any part of a room which is of less than a specified height.
(5)"
The noble Lord said: This Amendment has been put down to implement a pledge given by the Secretary of State in another place. It has, throughout, been the intention that the rules of measurement to be prescribed by the Department under Clause 7 (4) of the Bill should provide that in certain cases, for example, rooms with sloping roofs, only so much of the actual floor should be measured for the purposes of Table II of the First Schedule as was more than a minimum distance from the ceiling. This intention has been declared in the House of Commons and elsewhere, but it is now considered doubtful whether the present wording of the Bill would authorise the Department to take such action and for that purpose the Amendment has been put down.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 21, after ("and") insert the said words.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Duty of medical officers to furnish particulars of overcrowding]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved to insert:
" (2) Before furnishing particulars under the foregoing subsection the medical officer of health shall consult with, or obtain a report from, the sanitary inspector of the authority."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment proposes to leave the duty to report on the medical officer of health, but it provides that, before reporting, he must either consult the sanitary inspector or obtain a report from him. The Amendment in this form is acceptable to the representatives of the Sanitary Inspectors Association with whom a conference recently took place on this matter.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 10, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: This Amendment certainly makes the clause more feasible than it was previously. The clause as it was originally printed in the Bill was one which seemed to me to be in controversy with Clause 1 of the Bill, which left on local authorities the duty of carrying out inspections and making reports. Then in Clause 11 it is the duty of the medical officer, quite apart from his responsibility to his local authority, to make a report in accordance with instructions from the Department of Health. I know that this is a procedure which is adopted in other Public Health Acts, but it is a procedure which is certainly not conducive to very harmonised work on the part of a local authority. Over and over again the Department of Health may issue instructions to the servants of the local authority, quite regardless of their terms of appointment to that authority, to make reports direct to the Department. I merely wish to enter a protest, but, as the Amendment has included the sanitary inspector also, it has made it more workable than it was previously.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12:
Definitions for purposes of provisions relating to overcrowding.
12. In the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, and in the First Schedule
488
to this Act, except where the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them respectively:
"Suitable alternative accommodation" means, in relation to the occupier of a dwelling-house, a dwelling-house in which the occupier and his family can live without causing it to be overcrowded, being a house which the local authority certify to be suitable to the needs of the occupier and his family as respects security of tenure and proximity to place of work and to be suitable in relation to his means.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I have been handed a manuscript Amendment to line 14 in page 8 to insert the words "'Local authority' means county council or town council or burgh council or any special committee to whom a county council may delegate its powers."
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: I beg to move the Amendment to which the Lord Chairman has referred. This Amendment has been handed in because it was not thought to be quite clear what was meant by the term "local authority" If this Amendment is adopted "local authority" would mean "the county council, or town council, or burgh council or any special committee to whom a county council may delegate its powers." County councils, I may remind your Lordships, do delegate powers over roads, education, public health, and other matters to special committees, and I think that in order to administer this Bill when it becomes an Act efficiently in distant parts of counties we should include "district commitees." When I say this I am particularly thinking of the Islands. It is in their interests particularly that I am anxious to get this special committee included. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 14, insert (" 'Local authority' means county council or town council or burgh council or any special committee to whom a county council may delegate its powers").—(The Duke of Montrose.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: This is the first time I have seen or heard about the Amendment in question. I would like to postpone it to a later stage, and I hope the noble Duke will agree to that being done.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in the definition of "suitable alternative accommodation," after "work,"

489
to insert "and otherwise." The noble Lord said: The point of this Amendment can be stated in very few words. "Suitable alternative accommodation" is defined in the definition as relating to three specific things—security of tenure, proximity of buildings and work and suitability in relation to means. With the definition, as it stands, it is quite possible that the alternative which would have to be certified as being suitable might in fact be much less suitable than the accommodation already occupied by the family. The object is to give a wider discretion to the local authority. I think it would be a useful addition.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 33, after ("work") insert ("and otherwise").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The words "and otherwise" used by the noble Lord are in the opinion of the Government too wide for what is a definition clause. If the noble Lord can produce more specific words, or if he would agree to act consultation with the officials at the Scottish Office and would like to have suitable words added, I shall be glad, and will put down any agreed words on Report, but I cannot accept the words "and otherwise" as they stand. I agree with the sense of the Amendment entirely.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am much obliged to the noble Lord and in view of what he has said I will consult with the Scottish Office. In the meantime I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE: I do not know what the wishes of your Lordships are. I suggest that we should resume the House now and adjourn the debate on the Committee stage of this Bill until either Monday or Tuesday of next week. It is obviously going to take a considerable time to get through the Amendments on the Paper, and I think we should find ourselves very late if we tried to get through them to-night. I suggest that Tuesday is probably the best day on which to resume the Committee stage. The Government of India Bill is likely to take the whole of to-morrow both before and after dinner, and it may take a good deal of Monday as well. There
490
are two other matters on the Order Paper on Monday which take precedence. These are the Unemployment Insurance (Crediting of Contributions) Bill, Second Reading, and the Diseases of Animals Bill, consideration of Commons Amendments. I suggest that we should adjourn the Committee stage of this Bill until Tuesday and that it should be the first Order for that day. If that is your Lordships' desire I will move accordingly.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I cannot be here on Tuesday and I know one or two other noble Lords who cannot attend then. If we could have the Committee stage resumed on Monday, there is little left to be done, and I think we could do it on Monday evening.
EARL STANHOPE: I might suggest that we put it down for Monday and see how we get on with the Government of India. Bill to-morrow.
NOBLE LORDS: Yes.
EARL STANHOPE: I move that the House do now resume and that the Committee stage on the Housing (Scotland) Bill be resumed on Monday next.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT (CONVEN TIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I do not think it necessary to detain your Lordships for any length of time in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to carry out two Conventions which were adopted by the International Labour Conference last summer and which the Government have announced their intention of ratifying, subject to the necessary legislation being passed. The first of these Conventions, contained in Clauses 1 and 2, is a Convention as to the employment of women at any industrial undertaking and it embodies the Convention on the same subject adopted at Washington in 1919 and later ratified by the British Government and also by many other countries. The substantial difference between the new Convention and the old one which necessitates this Bill is that the new

491
Convention contains a specific examination for women holding responsible positions of management who are not ordinarily engaged in manual work. Effect is given to the old Convention by the Factory and Mines Act, which was supplemented by the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act, 1920. The purpose of Clauses 1 and 2 in this Bill is to modify those Acts so as to exempt from certain of the provisions women holding responsible positions of management who are not ordinarily engaged in manual work.
The other Convention dealt with in the Bill is of a technical character and is of a limited application. It relates to the system of shift working for persons employed in continuous operations in sheet-glass works where the machinery is automatic. The only firm of glass manufacturers affected in this country are the well-known firm of Messrs. Pilkington, who supported the proposal for the Convention and who are understood to agree in its ratification. In fact the Convention is substantially, if not entirely, in conformity with their present practice. I hope with that short explanation of a comparatively simple Bill your Lordships will not hesitate to give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Earl of Feversham.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition I need hardly say that we welcome most heartily this Bill and the decision of the Government to ratify the Convention. There are just one or two points that I want to raise. I will not detain for more than a few moments those of your Lordships who have remained. I think the pathetic belief which the Government have in the general lines of organisation of one firm, Messrs. Pilkington Brothers, is a little touching. They may have accepted this in full, but it does not follow that it is perfectly satisfactory to the workers engaged by Messrs. Pilkington, and it is important, when we are ratifying an International Convention, that we should apply very strictly the rules of that Convention to prevent other countries who adopt similar legislation providing loopholes through which unfair competition might be applied to this country or might adversely affect our trade.
The loopholes I venture to suggest are these. First of all it does not seem to
492
me that there is adequate provision in regard to the variations or extensions mentioned on page 3 of the Bill. For example, Clause 3 (1) (a) makes reference to a change over of shifts. A firm might change over every few days. I should have thought it would be a good thing—perhaps the Government will consider this—to put in something to ensure that notice is given to the Home Office or to the inspector concerned of arrangements or alterations of the periodical change of shifts. Again, there is the case of urgent work. We do not know what that means. There might be urgent work every day of the week for a year. Again, force majeure is mentioned in this clause, but it is not properly defined. Then there is a reference in the Schedule to raw materials subject to rapid deterioration. That, it seems to me, should be made the subject of inquiry. I refer to these points in order to show the need for safeguards in order to prevent loopholes being left through which a less reputable firm than Messrs. Pilkington's might escape from the conditions imposed upon them. The inclusion of some words which would ensure things being brought to the knowledge of the Home Office inspector would show that this country at least did not intend to leave any loopholes, and then other countries might perhaps follow suit.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that if this Convention is to be ratified, it is necessary for all parties concerned to have a statutory right to make any representations that they may find necessary. The noble Lord is somewhat concerned as to whether such a right belongs to the employees of Messrs. Pilkington, which I understand is the only firm affected by this particular Convention.
LORD MARLEY: At present.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: At present. I think perhaps the noble Lord might be satisfied if he reads Clause 3 (3). He will see that that subsection says:
… compensation for the hours so worked shall be granted by the employer in such manner as may be agreed between the organisations of employers and the workers concerned, or as may, in default of such agreement, be determined by such method as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State after consulting the Minister of Labour."

493
I think that such a decision arrived at between the Department I represent and the Minister of Labour must rest upon the facts of the particular case. It seems to me that there is little doubt that the point raised by the noble Lord will be met by the provisions already contained in Clause 3, but if he so desires, I should be very glad to consider the point further, so that, if it is found necessary, an Amendment may be moved at a later stage.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I am extremely obliged to the noble Earl for his very helpful answer. The proviso to paragraph (d), however, does not seem to apply to the periodical change over of shifts. If he would look into the point and perhaps make the proviso in Clause 3 (1) applicable to the whole subsection, I think that would meet the case.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSING BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Viscount Halifax, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a—(Viscount Gage.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, of course it is obviously useless to say anything at this hour with so few noble Lords in the House, but I do not want to let this Bill be read a third time without giving it, shall I say, a good kick, although we wish the Bill well. This Bill is a confession of failure on the part of the Government. I will not say more than that. The Act of 1924 I believe abolished subsidies, and now we have to reintroduce them. We, on these Benches, strongly object to the standard of overcrowding set out in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who, I am sorry to see, is not now in his place, certainly did a great deal to improve matters, but I would like to make a formal protest against this standard of overcrowding. With regard to the clause giving power to local authorities to hand over housing schemes to housing associations, I would like to point out that under
494
this Bill apparently they cannot regain control. Under the Scottish Bill they can. I have seen no real argument why a thing which is right in Scotland is wrong in England and Wales. I have been told on fairly good authority that the big local authorities much prefer the 1930 Act. It is much more workable than this Bill. Although I wish this Bill well, I do not think it will be really workable by local authorities.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 20:
Extension of power of local authority to acquire houses and other buildings for housing purposes.
(5) Where a local authority acquire a house or other building, which can be made suitable as a dwelling-house for the working classes, or an estate or interest in such a house or other building, they shall forthwith proceed to secure the alteration, enlargement, repair or improvement of the house or building, either by themselves executing any necessary works, or by leasing or selling it to some person subject to conditions for securing that he will alter, enlarge, repair or improve it.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (5), before "alter," to insert "forthwith" The noble Viscount said: My Lords, if it is thought necessary, as it appears to be by this clause, that a local authority who acquire houses and land shall forthwith set to work to carry out certain works, then surely, a fortiori, if they sell or let it to some other person, that other person should also be bound to do the work forthwith. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 2, after ("will") insert ("forthwith").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Viscount's contention, but I cannot agree that the interpretation which he places on the wording of this clause is correct. I am informed by legal advisers that the words "forthwith proceed to secure the alteration," and so on, govern the action of a local authority whether they do it by themselves or lease out the duty to some other person. But I should like to point out that they would, in leasing the house, normally put in a specific date by which the repairs should be completed. I think that the noble Viscount, as a lawyer,

495
would probably know better than I that to include a definite date of that kind in a lease would be preferable to including the word "forthwith," which in a lease has a somewhat vague meaning. Anyhow, it is perfectly clear that the local authority will be compelled, so far as the wording of the clause goes, to apply the same expedition to a lease under which these operations would be conducted as if they were doing the repairs themselves.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I cannot quite agree with my noble friend, because he says that a date will be put in. There is nothing to force the local authority to put a date in. They may not wish to carry out these works forthwith, and they may have a fellow-feeling with the person to whom they sell or let. But there does not seem much good in pressing the point, so I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25:
Power to establish Housing Management Commissions.
25.—(1) Where it appears to a local authority to be expedient that a Housing Management Commission should be established with a view to the transfer to and the performance by the Commission of all or any of the functions of the authority under the enactments relating to housing with respect. to the management, regulation and control, and the repair and maintenance, of working-class houses and other buildings or land provided in connection with such houses, the authority shall prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme making provision for the establishment of the Commission, and for the incorporation thereof, under the name of the Housing Management Commission with the addition of the name of the district of the local authority, with perpetual succession and a common seal, and power to hold land for the purposes of their constitution without licence in mortmain.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), after "repair," to insert "alteration, enlargement, improvement." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, if your Lordships will look at Clause 20, page 17, line 18, you will see that there are certain distinctions made between altering, enlarging, repairing or improving. Surely, if it is necessary in that place, it is as necessary, or more prudent, to have the words included throughout the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 35, after ("repair"), insert ("alteration, enlargement, improvement")—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I should like to point out that the two clauses to which the noble Lord has referred, 20 and 25, refer to different matters. The clause the noble Lord seeks to amend refers to Housing Management Commissions, and it is not intended that they should be given these extended functions. The functions of the Housing Management Commission are rather, as is stated in the clause, to effect repairs; it is not contemplated that they should have these extended powers of improving and enlarging houses. I hope that with that explanation the noble Viscount will be satisfied.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Force majeure, in this case!
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26:
Definition of housing association.
26. For references in the Act of 1925 and in the Act of 1930 to a public utility society there shall be substituted references to a "housing association," that is to say any society, body of trustees or company established for the purpose of, or amongst whose objects or powers are included those of, constructing, improving or managing, or facilitating or encouraging the construction or improvement of, houses for the working classes, being a society, company or body of trustees who do not, trade for profit or whose constitution or rules prohibit the issue of any capital with interest or dividend exceeding the rate for the time being prescribed by the Treasury, whether with or without differentiation as between share and loan capital.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after "constructing," to insert "repairing, altering, enlarging." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the same sort of arguments apply here. I do not know whether my noble friend is prepared to accept them, and to save time I formally move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 14, after ("constructing"), insert. ("repairing, altering, enlarging").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I do not want the noble Lord to place force majeure in this immense majority which we had over him to-night, but I must point out to him that this is the reverse

497
of the argument which he was advancing on the last Amendment. This Amendment refers to housing associations, which are quite different from Housing Management Commissions. Indeed, they have very different powers, which are already defined in the clause. We are advised that the words which the noble Lord suggested are already covered in Clause 26. He will observe them in line 14: "constructing, improving or managing, or facilitating or encouraging the construction or improvement of, houses for the working classes." We maintain that there will hardly ever be an occasion where a society, whose objects include repairing, altering or enlarging working-class houses, will not also include in them construction, improving or managing. We think that would be an impossible situation, and we think that the housing associations will discover powers in the clause to give them all that is necessary.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I am certainly not going to press it, but I hope that no difficulty will arise!
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg to move, That this Bill do now pass. I only wish to refer to the remarks of the noble Earl: I think that probably every point he made was answered in Committee.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Gage.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: If I may say so, I do not think they were answered.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
ASSURANCE COMPANIES (WINDING UP) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order); Amendments (privilege) made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
MONEY PAYMENTS (JUSTICES PROCEDURE) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, before the House adjourns, I should like to remind your Lordships that it is proposed that we should meet to-morrow at three o'clock.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past eight 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:
London Passenger Transport Board (Finance).
And also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Marriages Provisional Orders.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORA TION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Reported, without amendment.

KETTERING GAS ORDER, 1935.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Kettering Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

LUTON GAS ORDER, 1935.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Luton Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME GAS ORDER, 1935.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Mayor, aldermen
500
and burgesses of the Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to Special Orders Committee.

DERBY GAS ORDER, 1935.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Derby Gas Light and Coke Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

BIRMINGHAM GAS ORDER, 1935.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Lord Mayor, aldermen and citizens of the City of Birmingham:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
ARGYLLSHIRE (MID ARGYLL AND KINTYRE) ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1935.
LIVERPOOL ELECTRICITY EXTEN SION ORDER, 1935.
PORTSMOUTH GAS ORDER, 1935.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

IPSWICH CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CUDDINGTON JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (EAST SURREY WATER) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HARPENDEN WATER) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MONKS AND PRINCES RISBOROUGH WATER) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (RAINHAM WATER)BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SOUTH OXFORDSHIRE WATER) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

GLOUCESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
URMSTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
REGISTRATION AND REGULATION OF OSTEOPATHS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee (with the Proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed. Bill reported without amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House. Minutes of Evidence laid up-on the Table and to be delivered out.