Sitting of 2 April 1936

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill,
Lead the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    MECHANISATION.
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Labour whether his Department has collected any statistics showing the number of persons displaced by the introduction of improved machinery or mechanisation during the last 10 years; and whether he can supply any reliable figures?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): No, Sir. It would not be possible to obtain any reliable figures owing to the difficulty of tracing the influence of improved machinery or mechanisation among the many varied factors which have determined the upward course of employment in this country in recent years?
    Mr. DAY: Can the hon. and gallant Member say whether his Department have followed up the statistics which have come to their notice as to the number of people who have been displaced?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: As I have said, it is impossible to determine what influence the question of mechanisation has had.
    Mr. DAY: Have not the facts been supplied to the Minister?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Naturally, we take all the relevant facts which come to our notice.
    Mr. COCKS: Am I to understand that mechanisation is not a relevant fact?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Certainly not.

    DOMESTIC SERVANTS (INSURANCE).
    Captain BULLOCKasked the Minister of Labour whether he proposes to remit to the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee the possibility of evolving a scheme for the insurance of domestic servants?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: My right hoe. Friend proposes in due course to refer to the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee the question of the desirability and practicability of including private domestic service within the unemployment insurance scheme, but I must warn my hon. Friend that the committee will not be in a position to consider this question for some time to come, as they are fully occupied with other matters.

    EXCHANGE, CANNOCK.
    Mr. ADAMSONasked the Minister of Labour whether it is contemplated that new premises for the Employment Exchange are necessary in Cannock, Staffordshire; and whether he can state the districts which the administration of the Exchange will cover?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: This Exchange is scheduled for urgent rehousing. The area which it covers is the same as that of the branch office which it replaced.

    ARMY RESERVISTS.
    Miss WILKINSONasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Army reservists in the Jarrow-Hebburn area have 29s. deducted from their unemployment allowance the week they receive their quarter's Army reserve allowance; and whether he can make regulations to prevent this?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Members for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley) and Aberdeen North (Mr. Garro-Jones) on 26th March, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.
    Miss WILKINSON: Have the Government considered whether this practice is likely to help recruiting?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: That is a question which should be addressed elsewhere.

    APPEAL TRIBUNAL, GLASGOW.
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Minister of Labour the names of the chairmen of courts of referees under the Unemployment Board in Glasgow; and the amounts

    Tribunal.

    Chairman.

    Reserve Chairmen.

    Fees.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Glasgow, C. and

    G. Kerr, J.P

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    107

    7

    6

    N.W.

    D. McGill (Jnr.)

    …

    …

    …

    7

    0

    0

    W.E. Robertson

    …

    …

    …

    4

    11

    6

    Glasgow, N. and E.

    Walter Alexander

    …

    …

    …

    …

    104

    2

    0

    Neil R. White

    …

    …

    …

    30

    16

    0

    J. Rankin Rutherford, J.P., F.C.I.S.

    34

    3

    0

    Glasgow, S. Side

    …

    D. McGowan Hutchison, LL.B.

    …

    …

    …

    87

    4

    0

    Andrew Aitken

    …

    …

    …

    17

    2

    6

    Allan Arneil

    …

    …

    …

    11

    17

    6

    SEASONAL WORKERS.
    Mr. ROLAND ROBINSONasked the Minister of Labour what number of insured persons in Great Britain is definitely regarded as seasonal workers; what number of these is regarded as being entitled to less than full insurance benefit rights; and what further steps he proposes to take to improve the insurance position of seasonal workers?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: As regards the first two parts of the question I regret that no statistics are available. No changes in the regulations affecting seasonal workers under the general scheme are at present in contemplation.
    Mr. ROBINSON: Will the hon. and gallant Member consider whether some of the surplus of the Unemployment Insurance Fund cannot be used to improve the unfortunate position of seasonal workers?

    ROAD WORKERS, WESTERN ISLES.
    Mr. MALCOLM MacMILLANasked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he is aware that the road workers in the Western Isles are being paid much less in many cases by Ross-shire and Inverness local authorities than they formerly received in unemployment benefit; and whether he will take steps to investigate, report upon, and end these conditions;
    paid to each chairman since the setting up of the board?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I assume the hon. Member refers to the appeal tribunals set up under the Unemployment Act, 1934. As the answer contains a table of names and figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the particulars:
    (2) whether he is aware of the conditions of labour in the Western Isles where road workers are being compelled to give part of their labour free in order to secure work under the county councils of Ross and Cromarty and Inverness, and that wages often are as low as 2½d. and 3d. an hour; and when he intends to end this under-paid labour?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: My right hon. Friend has no authority to control the rates of wages paid by local authorities, nor has he any information with regard to the cases to which the hon. Member refers. In reply to a previous question on 20th February he said that he would make inquiries if the hon. Member would give him detailed particulars, and the hon. Member has not yet done this.
    Mr. MacMILLAN: Will the hon. and gallant Member himself take steps to get these statistics, as it is not my job?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I think my right hon. Friend met the hon. Member reasonably by asking him, as he had raised the question himself, to bring details of specific cases to his notice.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Minister of Labour whether he can make a state-

    2101
    ment on the age distribution of the wholly unemployed registered at Pontefract, Castleford, Normanton, and Goole, respectively, at the latest convenient date?

    The following table shows, for each age-group for which particulars were obtained, the numbers of persons, aged 18 years and over, registered as wholly unemployed at the Pontefract, Castleford, Normanton, and Goole Employment Exchanges, at 4th November, 1935, the latest date for which a detailed analysis is available:

    Age Group.

    Pontefract.

    Castleford.

    Normanton.

    Goole.

    18–20 years

    …

    …

    …

    94

    103

    37

    75

    21–24 years

    …

    …

    …

    231

    317

    96

    144

    25–34 years

    …

    …

    …

    536

    848

    165

    184

    35–44 years

    …

    …

    …

    454

    665

    157

    158

    45–54 years

    …

    …

    …

    415

    805

    159

    130

    55–59 years

    …

    …

    …

    239

    435

    104

    66

    60–64 years

    …

    …

    …

    222

    398

    79

    54

    65 years and over

    …

    …

    —

    —

    —

    1

    Total aged 18 and over

    …

    2,191

    3,571

    797

    812

    Corresponding statistics for juveniles under 18 years of age are not available in respect of 4th November, but at 25th November, the numbers wholly unemployed, registered at the under mentioned Employment Exchanges, aged 14 and under 16 years, and aged 16 and under 18 years, were as follows:

    Age Group.

    Pontefract.

    Castleford.

    Normanton.

    Goole.

    14 and under 16 years

    …

    …

    137

    84

    29

    111

    16 and under 18 years

    …

    …

    53

    36

    20

    63

    Total aged 14 and under 18 years.

    190

    120

    49

    174

    FISHERWOMEN, STORNOWAY.
    Mr. M. MacMILLANasked the Minister of Labour whether the Unemployment Assistance Board is to be allowed to continue its present practice of penalising fisherwomen in Stornoway because of their failure to secure work, where it is not available for all in Stornoway during the local fishing season, despite the fact that in many cases they have made up their full number of contributions in other areas according to season; and whether he will take steps to end this injustice?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I am informed by the Unemployment Assistance Board that they are unable to identify the cases to which the hon. Member refers, but if he will supply particulars of specific cases they will be happy to have full inquiry made into the matter.
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: As the reply includes a table of figures I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:

    NON-MANUAL WORKERS (INSURANCE).
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Minister of Labour whether it is his intention to introduce legislation during the present Session to give effect to the recommendations of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee on the remuneration limit for the insurance of non-manual workers?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The report is under consideration, and I cannot at present say what action the Government may decide to tae.

    SHIPWRIGHTS, MERSEY.
    Mr. WHITEasked the Minister of Labour whether, in the course of his inquiry into the working of the Unemployment Insurance (Inconsiderable Employments) Regulations, he will give special attention to the position of the Mersey,

    2103
    where it would be possible for shipwrights to be employed on each day for months without an insurance contribution being paid in respect of them?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: This question will be examined by the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee at an early date and representations with regard to the workers referred to by the hon. Member and any others who may be affected may be made to the committee.

    SPECIAL AREAS (NEW INDUSTRIES).
    Mr. W. JOSEPH STEWARTasked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to meet the suggested causes responsible for new industries going south instead of being set up in the Special Areas of the north-east, namely, inaccessibility to markets, fear of industrial unrest, general depressed state of trade in the areas, fear of high rates, and difficulty of obtaining finance for new business?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I would refer the hon. Member to the' answers to the questions which he put on 16th and 26th March, and to that given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) on the earlier of these dates, of which I am sending him a copy.

    ASSISTANCE FUND.
    Mr. J. J. DAVIDSONasked the Minister of Labour the contribution per head of the population of Scotland and England, respectively, to the Unemployment Assistance Fund?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The grant to the Unemployment Assistance Fund for 1936–37 as shown on page 83 of the Civil Estimates (1936), Class V, 12, is paid wholly from voted moneys and is not allocated as between England and Scotland, respectively. I may add that various details as to the expenditure on social services, with separate figures for Scotland, are given in the Public Social Services Return issued in November, 1935 (Cmd. 5025).
    Mr. DAVIDSON: In view of the fact that the report shows that Scotland is asked to pay a much higher burden than England or Wales, is there any
    2104
    chance of the hon. and gallant Member's Department taking this into consideration in their report?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I cannot give the hon. Member any promise.

    EXCHANGE, MARYHILL.
    Mr. DAVIDSONasked the Minister of Labour the total number of unemployed persons who attend at the Employment Exchange in the Maryhill division of Glasgow?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: At 24th February, 1936, there were 5,068 unemployed persons on the registers of the Maryhill Employment Exchange.
    Mr. DAVIDSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that for the accommodation of those 5,000 unemployed people there is only a wooden hut in Maryhill, and will he therefore make inquiries with a view to setting up a decent building for them?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: That, of course, is a separate question, but I will certainly make inquiries into the accommodation of that particular exchange.

    EXCHANGES (STAFFS).
    Mr. DAVIDSONasked the Minister of Labour whether any arrangements have been made to ensure increased staffs on Employment Exchanges, in view of the contemplated changes in Part II of the Unemployment Act, 1934?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I am not aware of any contemplated changes in Part II of the Unemployment Act, 1934. Provision is made in the printed Estimates for all staff requirements, so far as they can be foreseen.
    Mr. DAVIDSON: Am I to take it the rumour that the additional staff which would be necessary to carry out the provisions would lead to increased expenditure, is not correct?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I am not exactly clear as to what the hon. Member's question refers to. No change in Part II of the Unemployment Act, 1934, is contemplated.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that he has not answered the question, and that what he is asked is whether, when persons chargeable to public assistance come to be

    2105
    chargeable to the National Board, there is an increased strain on the Employment Exchanges?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: That is another question.

    JUVENILE TRANSFEREES.
    Mr. BANFIELDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that cases have occurred where boys of 16 years of age, transferred from the distressed areas, are being worked hours of labour far in excess of those allowed by law and where the provision for the weekly half-holiday is ignored; and whether he will instruct the factory inspectors to pay special attention to protect these boys from any possible exploitation?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The attention of my right hon. Friend has not been drawn to any such cases. If the hon. Member will be good enough to send particulars, inquiry will be made.

    INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONVENTION.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour whether the Government propose to ratify the draft convention on unemployment provision adopted by the International Labour Office in 1934, in view of the fact that all lour British delegates, Government, employers, and workers, voted for it?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) on 30th March last. The Order in Council ratifying the convention has now been made.

    WORKERS (ANNUAL HOLIDAYS WITH PAY).
    Mr. R. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Labour to what extent an annual holiday with pay is regularly given to workers in British industry; and what steps the Government propose to take to bring about a more general adoption of this principle?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: As regards the first part of the question, particulars
    2106
    of the collective agreements known to be in operation, providing for annual holidays with pay, were published on pages 232 and 233 of the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" for July, 7934. The principal addition, since that date, to the list of industries in which such arrangements have been agreed upon is the road motor goods transport industry, in which an agreement made by the National Joint Conciliation Board for England and Wales contains a clause providing for a week's holiday with pay, annually, for regular employés. As regards the second part of the question, the arrangements which it is possible to make in this connection are, like other matters of wage regulation, dependent on the circumstances of the particular industry and the appropriate method of dealing with them is by industrial agreement.
    Mr. ROBINSON: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether this practice is becoming universal?
    Mr. KELLY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what number of people are covered by these agreements?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Not without notice.

    SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING RESTRICTIONS) BILL.
    Mr. DANIEL SOMERVILLEasked the Minister of Labour whether he is able to state the effect on employment which may be expected to result from the operations of the Shops (Sunday Trading Restrictions) Bill?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: No, Sir.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: In view of the repercussions of the passing of the Shops Act on small traders, will the hon. and gallant Member make some inquiry?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The Bill about which the hon. Member is inquiring is at present going through Committee, and, therefore, it is impossible to make any estimate.

    EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES.
    Mr. BURKEasked the Minister of Labour whether he can give any information on the inquiry into the effects

    2107
    of changes in the commercial policy of various countries on the employment and wages of workers which has been undertaken by the International Labour Office?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The International Labour Office was instructed by the governing body in February last to carry out, in collaboration with the Economic Section of the League of Nations, an investigation into the question of the relation between the volume of employment and wages on the one hand and commercial movements on the other hand. No report has yet been received from the International Labour Office.
    Mr. BURKE: Have the officials of the International Labour Office been in communication with His Majesty's Government?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I will look into that question.

    PUBLIC MEETINGS.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Home Secretary whether he will instruct the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolitan Area to adopt the use of loud-speakers to give due notice to those assembled at any meeting that the gathering has been forbidden and that at a given hour the meeting must disperse?
    Mr. LLOYD: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that no difficulty is usually experienced in getting into touch with the chairman of a meeting, but the use of loud-speakers will be considered on any future occasion if the need can be foreseen.
    Mr. COCKS: Is the hon. Gentleman getting any suggestions from Herr von Ribbentrop as to how public opinion should be suppressed in this country?
    Mr. DENVILLEasked the Home Secretary whether he will take steps to prevent the practice of painting notices of mass and other meetings with whitewash and other colouring matter on public and private property without permission from the owners?
    Mr. LLOYD: The marking of buildings, walls, etc., abutting on public places without the consent of the owner or
    2108
    occupier is prohibited in the Metropolitan Police District by the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839. Elsewhere the practice can be prohibited by good rule by-laws made under Section 249 of the Local Government Act, 1933. The initiative as regards such by-laws rests with the borough or county council.
    Mr. DENVILLE: Has the hon. Gentleman received a report from the police on the subject of walls being covered with whitewash?

    ALIEN REFUGEES.
    Mr. C. S. TAYLORasked the Home Secretary how many alien refugees in this country are unemployed and what are their means of subsistence?
    Mr. LLOYD: No figures are available to enable an answer to be given to the first part of the question. As regards the second part, some refugees have established themselves here in independent industrial, commercial or professional pursuits, or have become associated as directors or partners in new or already existing enterprises in this country; some are living on their own resources; and others are supported by relations or friends, or by the various organisations which have been set up for their relief.
    Mr. TAYLORasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that certain alien refugees who were permitted to reside in this country for the purpose of obtaining British medical qualifications are taking up appointments in this country; and what steps he proposes to take to stop this practice, in view of the undertakings given by the Home Office?
    Mr. LLOYD: Since March of last year refugees who have applied for permission to reside in this country for the purpose of medical study have been informed that permission can only be granted on the clear understanding that after qualifying they will not be allowed to establish themselves in medical practice in the United Kingdom but will be expected to leave the country; but amongst the refugee doctors who came here before that date there is a limited number to whom it has been thought right on various special grounds to grant permission to practice in this country after they have obtained a British medical qualification and been admitted to the British

    2109
    Medical Register. The number of cases in which such permission has been granted is 148.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Could the hon. Gentleman say what are these special cases?
    Mr. LLOYD: In some cases of eminent medical men having special attainments, their colleagues in this country have asked for them to be allowed to practise here.
    Mr. WATKINS: Does that reply mean that those who are not regarded as special cases are, by the action of His Majesty's Government, forced to go back to Germany and suffer the persecution that is involved?
    Mr. LLOYD: No, Sir, not necessarily, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that His Majesty's Government have to consider first of all the interests of British subjects.
    Mr. DALTON: Would it not be possible to send some of these people to Palestine, where their services are badly needed?
    Mr. LLOYD: My information is that there is already an overplus of doctors in Palestine.

    POLICE MOTOR-PATROLS (ACCIDENTS).
    Mr. DAYasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the number of accidents in which the motor-patrol police service of the Metropolis have been concerned, some of which have had fatal results, he is satisfied with the way that drivers are trained for this service; and is any reorganisation contemplated?
    Mr. LLOYD: During 1935, 413 vehicles driven by Metropolitan police on patrolling duties of all kinds ran nearly 13 million miles with only 19 accidents involving serious personal injury, including two fatalities. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that everything possible is being done to raise the standard of driving in the Metropolitan police to the highest possible level. A driving school has been opened at Hendon and every police driver will eventually take a course of instruction there, but as the school has only been in operation for 13 months, a number of drivers still await instruction.
    Mr. DAY: Could the hon. Gentleman say how long the police drivers getting this instruction have to attend the driving school?
    Mr. LLOYD: Not without notice.
    Mr. DAY: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the police drivers have sufficient experience before being put on the road?
    Captain STRICKLAND: In how many cases in which accidents have occurred have proceedings been taken against the police?
    Mr. LLOYD: I could not say without notice.
    Captain STRICKLANDasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of a road offence at Watling Street, Grendon, on 11th February, in which a police car travelling at 40 miles per hour over a blind bridge was involved; and whether police court proceedings have been, or are to be, instituted against the officer concerned on the charge of driving to the public danger?
    Mr. LLOYD: My right hon. Friend is calling for a report, and will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend.

    FACTORY INSPECTORS.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Home Secretary the number of factory inspectors whose duties are confined to the inspection of electrical apparatus and plant in factories, the extent of the area covered by each inspector, the number of clerical workers attached to each, and how many of such are part-time workers?
    Mr. LLOYD: There are nine electrical inspectors of factories under a senior electrical inspector. Their duties are to inspect the more important installations, to assist the district staff in the enforcement of the Electricity Regulations elsewhere, and generally to advise the Department on electrical questions. One is specially assigned to Scotland, two to the Northern Counties and North Wales, two to the Midland Counties one to the Western Counties and South Wales, and two to London and adjacent counties, while the ninth does special work. They do not have individual clerical workers specially attached to them but are assisted by the clerical staffs of the

    2111
    Factory Department offices in which they have their headquarters. At one of the Factory Department offices to which an electrical inspector is attached there is a part-time shorthand typist.
    Mr. SHORT: Would the hon. Gentleman consider the abolition of part-time work in this case?
    Mr. LLOYD: That is at present under consideration in the one instance in which it exists.

  LICENSED TRADE.

    COMPENSATION.
    Sir ROBERT YOUNGasked the Home Secretary what number of public house licences were refused without compensation during the periods 1926–30 and 1931–35, respectively; and the reasons for such refusals?
    Mr. LLOYD: The number of publicans' and beer house licences of which the renewal was refused without compensation was 20 in the years 1926 to 1930, and 12 in the years 1931 to 1934. The figures for the year 1935 are not yet available. The grounds of refusal in each case are given in Table III (A) of the Licensing Statistics for the year, but I am sending the hon. Member a summary.

    DIS-LICENSED PREMISES (CLUBS).
    Mr. AMMONasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the Newington licensing justices condemning the practice of brewing firms who, after receipt of compensation for the closing of licensed premises on grounds of redundancy, subsequently dispose of or let the same premises to clubs. in which alcoholic liquors are sold and consumed; and whether he will take power to prohibit such transfers which are unfair to licensees?
    Mr. LLOYD: The attention of my right hon. Friend had not previously been called to this resolution. As the hon. Member may be aware, the existing legislation prohibits the opening of a registered club on dis-licensed premises within 12 months from the date on which the licence was refused. An extension of this period was recommended by the Royal Commission on Licensing, and this
    2112
    recommendation will be considered in connection with the legislation to deal with bogus clubs which it is proposed to introduce next Session.
    Mr. AMMON: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to bear in mind that the brewers are the offenders in this respect?

    STATE MANAGEMENT SCHEME, CARLISLE (STAFF).
    Mr. MATHERSasked the Home Secretary whether he will explain the principles which determine the granting of pensions to certain employés of the State management scheme in Carlisle and the refusal of them to other employés; and whether he will arrange for all the staff to be pensioned an retiring?
    Mr. LLOYD: Established civil servants employed under the Carlisle State management scheme may be granted pensions on retirement subject to the fulfilment in each case of the conditions of the Superannuation Acts. I understand that the hon. Member has in mind the cases of two men who were ineligible for establishment owing to age. These men received gratuities on retirement, but I regret that there is no power to award them pensions.
    Mr. MATHERS: Are not other servants in similar circumstances paid pensions?
    Mr. LLOYD: Not as far as I am aware. These men were 70 years of age when the question of establishment was considered.

    WATCH COMMITTEE INQUIRY, GATESHEAD.
    Mr. JAGGERasked the Home Secretary whether he has yet read the evidence given at the watch committee inquiry held at Gateshead, including the evidence given by the mayor; and whether, in view of the evidence, he will inform the chief constable of Gateshead that he does not approve of the police being encouraged to retaliate on members of the public who are under arrest?
    Mr. LLOYD: I am not in a position to add anything to the reply given to the hon. Member by my right hon. Friend on 20th February.

    AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the Home Secretary whether the Government are now satisfied that they have equipment to protect all the population by new gas-masks; whether such gas-masks have been proved to be as efficient as the bigger models; and whether such gas-masks have been tested with any, and which, of the newer European and Japanese gases that are likely to be used in the event of another war?
    Mr. LLOYD: I hope to be able to make a statement before the Easter adjournment.

    JUVENILE OFFENDERS (FINGER PRINTS).
    Sir R. YOUNGasked the Home Secretary whether the police have yet furnished him with information regarding the arrangements in vogue for applying the practice of taking the fingerprints of juveniles convicted at juvenile courts; and, if so, what these arrangements are?
    Mr. LLOYD: My right hon. Friend is not in possession of detailed information regarding the procedure of the several police forces, but it is clear that at present there is considerable diversity of practice. The whole question is being considered in the light of the information my right hon. Friend has obtained from chief officers of Police relating to the volume and incidence of juvenile crime, and in the light of information as to their views regarding the conditions under which finger prints of juvenile offenders should be taken.
    Sir R. YOUNG: Can we get full information regarding this matter, seeing that the hon. Gentleman said he was seeking information a month ago.
    Mr. LLOYD: We are obtaining it at present.

    GRAND NATIONAL STEEPLECHASE.
    Mr. WATKINSasked the Home Secretary in view of the cruelty to the horses and risk to the jockeys competing in the Grand National steeplechase, whether he will take steps to prevent such cruelty and risk in future?
    Mr. LLOYD: My right hon. Friend has no power to take any action in the matter.
    Mr. WATKINS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has been this year, as in previous years, very widespread protests about this race, and will he impress upon his right hon. Friend the desirability of the Home Secretary seeking powers so that this race may be modified and made safer in the future?
    Mr. ANSTRLITHER-GRAY: Is my hon. Friend aware that the danger to horses at Liverpool is not much greater than at any other course, and, as far as the jockeys are concerned, there is no rider, professional or amateur, riding to-day who will not gladly face whatever risk there is for the chance of having the honour of winning that race?

    POLITICAL PROPAGANDA.
    Mr. MARCUS SAMUELasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider introducing legislation with a view to improving the law relating to the issue of political propaganda and making it more difficult to obtain votes from the public by fraud or other improper means?
    Mr. LLOYD: As my hon. Friend is aware, corrupt and illegal practices by individuals are dealt with by the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Acts. My right hon. Friend is not satisfied that legislation on the matters referred to by my hon. Friend is necessary or practicable.
    Mr. THURTLE: Will the Under-Secretary bear in mind that any such legislation as this will severely cramp the style of the Conservative Central Office?

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
    Mr. R. J. TAYLORasked the Home Secretary whether the Departmental Committee now considering workmen's compensation will have under consideration the inadequacy of the sum of £15 paid in cases of death from accident where no dependency exists?
    Mr. LLOYD: The answer is in the negative. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the terms of reference of the

    2115
    committee from which he will see that this question lies outside the scope of their inquiry.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a pit pony which was killed in a pit recently was valued at £20?
    Mr. CASSELLSasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that in Falkirk, Stirlingshire, a large industrial area, there is only one medical referee at present holding an appointment under the Workmen's Compensation Acts who repeatedly examines claimants for workmen's compensation on behalf of employers, and that on several occasions the said medical referee has given sworn evidence for the employers in Falkirk sheriff court; and if he will consider whether this gentleman is in a position to act as an impartial referee between workman and employer?
    Mr. LLOYD: There is only one medical referee specially attached to the Falkirk sheriff court, but there are other referees holding appointment in the sheriffdom and living at no great distance from Falkirk upon whom the sheriff may call if the usual referee is not available. My right hon. Friend has received no complaint of unfairness on the part of the referee in question and has no information to show that he is not in a position to act with impartiality, but if the hon. Member will furnish particulars, they will be considered.
    Mr. CASSELLS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the referee in question who holds a commission in connection with the Sheriff Court at Falkirk is the only individual to whom medical questions can be referred in that jurisdiction; and that on several occasions when he has given sworn testimony in that Court the presiding judge has referred the matter to an outside medical referee, and the gentleman has been contradicted?
    Mr. LLOYD: I am not aware of those circumstances, but I shall be glad to receive any information that the hon. Gentleman has.
    Mr. McGOVERN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the grave dissatisfaction at the contrary decisions that are given in many of these cases by medical referees in Scotland, and that attention has frequently been drawn to this point?

    PRISONER'S COMPLAINTS (BRISTOL).
    Mr. BEVANasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that George Berry, who is serving a sentence of three years at Horfield Prison, Bristol, after being in the punishment cell on bread and water for several days, refused to go out for exercise an the ground that he felt too weak, and that on his refusal two officers assaulted and beat him; whether the complaints made by the prisoner were recorded in the appropriate books on his appeals to the visiting magistrate, the doctor, and inspector or commissioner of prisons; and whether he will make a full inquiry into the case?
    Mr. LLOYD: I presume that the hon. Member is referring o an incident which occurred on 18th January when the prisoner in question refused to go to outdoor exercise though the medical officer recommended that he should do so. It is quite untrue that two officers assaulted and beat him. When they ordered him to put his shoes on and to go to exercise he declined to do so, and on their attempting to put on his shoes he at first resisted violently, but eventually desisted and went to exercise at which he was quiet and well behaved. My right hon. Friend had before him at the time reports on the matter, arid is satisfied that all complaints made by this prisoner have been properly investigated and recorded. A prisoner has the right not only to petition the Secretary of State, but to make representations to the visiting committee which is an independent body of local justices; and this prisoner was interviewed at the time by one of the visiting justices.
    Mr. BEVAN: Has the Home Secretary received a report from the visiting committee, and what is that report?
    Mr. LLOYD: My right hon. Friend has received a report, but I cannot give details of it.
    Mr. BEVAN: Will not the hon. Gentleman inform the House, if he is correct in saying that these statements are not true, whether he has received the confirmation of the visiting committee, and is he not in a position to tell me what the report is?
    Mr. LLOYD: If the hon. Member will put down a question with regard to the report, I shall be glad to answer it.
    Mr. BEVAN: In the meantime, will the Department, in view of the fact that the officers against whom the charge is made are still at the prison, secure the transfer of this man to another prison?
    Mr. LLOYD: There is no information before the Home Secretary to justify such a step.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Would it not be wise in such a case to obtain independent medical testimony about the condition of the man?
    Mr. BEVAN: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I will raise the matter at the earliest opportunity.

    FIRE BRIGADES (CO-ORDINATION).
    Mr. GARDNERasked the Home Secretary what progress is being made by the committee under the chairmanship of Lord Riverdale which is considering the co-ordination of fire brigades as a means of minimising the possible results of attacks from the air?
    Mr. LLOYD: I understand that the Committee has concluded the hearing of oral evidence, and is now considering a draft of its report.

    PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (REDISTRIBUTION).
    Lieut. - Commander FLETCHERasked the Home Secretary whether it is intended to introduce a Redistribution Bill during the life of the present Parliament?
    Mr. LLOYD: I am not in a position to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Hendon (Sir R. Blair) on 16th December last.

    RATE DEFAULTERS (DURHAM AND NORTHUMBERLAND).
    Mr. DENVILLEasked the Home Secretary the number of rate defaulters serving sentence in prisons in Durham and Northumberland, respectively, pro rata of population?
    Mr. LLOYD: The only prison in these counties is at Durham. The total number of persons in custody there yesterday was 386 of whom one had been committted in default of payment of rates.

  DEFENCE.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.
    Mr. BOOTHBYasked the Prime Minister whether he has set up a special committee to examine the question of food supplies in time of war; and whether His Majesty's Government propose to take immediate steps to increase food production in this country?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The various aspects of this question are dealt with in the appropriate Departments, and co-ordination is secured in the Committee of Imperial Defence. I do not think that the appointment of a special committee is necessary. As regards the last part of the question, my hon. Friend is no doubt aware of the steps taken by His Majesty's Government in recent years to safeguard the production of foodstuffs in this country, and I would remind him that the gross output from farms in this country increased by 14 per cent. from 1931 to 1934.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that in this question Scotland and England will be treated as one unit, and that there will be the closest co-operation between the Minister of Agriculture and the Scottish Office in regard to the general question of food supplies in this country?
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Can the Prime Minister say how many food committees are in existence?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Not without notice.
    Sir JOSEPH LAMB: While it is true that we have increased the quantity of food produced, is not percentage of that produce to consumption still very small?
    Mr. THORNE: Do the Government think it advisable to bring in a compulsory land cultivation bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We have not contemplated that step.
    Mr. SANDYSasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the importance of grain storage in relation to national defence, he will consider transferring the responsibilities for this question from the President of the Board of Trade to the Minister for the Coordination of Defence?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The question whether special action by the Government in regard to grain storage is called for at any time as an emergency measure is primarily a defence question and, accordingly, comes within the province of the Committee of Imperial Defence; but, in general, questions relating to food supplies other than those affecting home productions are within the province of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. CARTLAND: Is the Prime Minister aware that, on this matter, there is immense anxiety, which has not been dissipated by the answers given to questions recently, and will he cause a Government statement to be made at a very early date?
    The PRIME MINISTER: When there is anxiety, the best course to take is to have a Debate in this House on the subject. It is quite impossible to allay anxiety by answers to questions.
    Mr. SANDYS: Can the Prime Minister give an assurance that the Government are taking active measures to remedy the dangerous position which was revealed by the statement made last week by the President of the Board of Trade that the grain supplies of this country would not last for more than ten days?
    Mr. BEVAN rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We have a large number of questions on the Paper.
    Sir J. LAMBasked the Prime Minister to which of His Majesty's Ministers in the House of Commons questions relating to the supply of food for human and cattle consumption as a national defence Service should be addressed?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Questions relating to the home production of food supplies for human or animal consumption should be addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. As regards other questions relating to the supply of foodstuffs, I would suggest that in the first instance they should be addressed to the President of the Board of Trade or the Minister of Agriculture according as they are concerned with foodstuffs for human or animal consumption.
    Sir J. LAMB: Does that apply equally to the national defence Services?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should think it would be the Board of Trade.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Can the Prime Minister say whether the Minister of Agriculture can speak for Scotland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

    ARMAMENT SHARES (SPECULATION).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the gambling operations in armaments shares being organised at the present time in the form of so-called armament and allied share pools; and whether it is proposed to take any action to discourage this attempt to make money by speculation out of the Government's defence programme?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware of undesirable attempts which are being made to induce members of the public to participate in transactions of a gambling nature in the shares of armament and allied companies. Movements in the Stock Exchange prices of shares of this character have no necessary relationship to actual future profits. People who indulge in this type of speculation should bear in mind that they do so entirely at their own risk.
    Mr. MANDER: May I assume from that that the Government strongly disapprove of gambling operations of this kind?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I disapprove of such operations in any stocks.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Is it not a fact that over the last few weeks armament shares have, on the whole, gone down?

    COMMITTEE OF IMPERIAL DEFENCE (SECRETARY).
    Lieut. - Commander FLETCHERasked the Prime Minister whether, following the appointment of a Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, he proposes at an early date to rearrange the duties of the Secretary of the Committee of Imperial Defence so that this official may no longer have to bear in addition the burden of being Secretary to the Cabinet and Clerk to the Privy Council, observing that the responsibilities of this triple function are more than any one man can shoulder?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, the staff of the Committee of Imperial Defence and the Privy Council Office is being strengthened in such a way as to relieve the official referred to of some of his duties.
    Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: Is the Secretary of the Committee of Imperial Defence to retain his three present positions?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If I understood the hon. and gallant Member aright—I could not quite hear what he said—I think the answer is "Yes."
    Mr. EDE: Are we to understand, having heard the Prime Minister, that this gentleman will continue to hold the same offices but that additional junior appointments will be made to his staff to assist him?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The extra work is being arranged in such a way that I hope he will continue to function in the present secretariats he holds. Sir Maurice Hankey is, I think, without any doubt, one of the most able civil servants that any Government has ever had.
    Mr. ATTLEE: Granting what the right hon. Gentleman says with regard to the ability of Sir Maurice Hankey, is it advisable that the Government should depend upon one civil servant in so many offices?

    STAFF CONVERSATIONS.
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Prime Minister who will be the British representatives at the proposed staff talks between this country and France and Belgium; whether the Italian Government is expected to participate; what will be the nature of the discussions; and whether it is possible to postpone this conference until negotiations with Germany have further advanced?
    The PRIME MINSTER: As regards the first part of the question, this matter is still under consideration. As regards the second part, the conversations in which His Majesty's Government have agreed that their staffs shall participate will be with the staffs of France and Belgium. His Majesty's Government have
    2122
    no information as to whether the Italian Government propose to hold similar conversations with France and Belgium. As regards the third part, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the passage in the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the course of last Thursday's Debate which had reference to this matter. As regards the last part of the question, the conversations at present under discussion will, as my right hon. Friend explained in that statement, relate to the immediate situation pending negotiations. His Majesty's Government cannot agree to the postponement of these conversations, which they regard as an essential element in the restoration of confidence which is necessary for the success of these negotiations.
    Captain MACDONALD: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that when those conversations take place they will be kept strictly under Cabinet supervision, that they will be entirely for defensive purposes, and not for the purpose of waging war on Germany, as suggested by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in the "Times" of to-day?
    The PRIME MINISTER: In regard to the first part of the supplementary question, of course that will be the case. We shall have strict control over the conversations. The latter part of his suggestion is fantastic.
    Mr. DAVIDSON: Can we have an assurance from the Prime Minister that representatives from an already declared aggressor State shall not take part in these conversations?
    Lieut. - Commander FLETCHERasked the Prime Minister whether it will be made a condition of any conversations which may take place between the general staffs of the Locarno Powers that an agreed memorandum of the proceedings shall be drawn up and signed by the senior representatives at the conversations, so that no misunderstanding may subsequently arise as to what the conversations commit us to?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think that the hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that His Majesty's Government will take all precautions which seem necessary to them.
    Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: Will the agenda for these conversations be drawn up by the Cabinet or by the General Staff?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will put that question down.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Prime Minister whether, during the proposed discussion between military officers representing France, Belgium, Italy and Great Britain, the Royal Air Force will be represented and discussions take place as to the use of the air forces of the Allies and a decision taken as to the use of bombing machines and poison-gas bombs against the civilian population of an enemy country?
    The PRIME MINISTER: In the proposed conversations between military staffs, the Air Staff will take its part. As regards the latter part of the question, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the limited nature of these conversations, which was explained by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his statement in the course of last Thursday's Debate. In any case, His Majesty's Government will, of course, hold themselves bound in all circumstances to observe the Geneva Protocol of 1925, of which they were a signatory, with regard to the use of poison gas.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that our own Government and other Governments reserve the right to use poison gas and bombs providing some other nation is using them? It is to those circumstances that my question refers. I am quite aware of the Geneva Pact. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask the Prime Minister to give me an answer to the question I have just put. There is a reservation in regard to the Geneva Pact, and that is that in certain circumstances poison gas will be used by this country?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I am not quite clear what it is the right hon. Gentleman wishes to ask me. I do not see how the question which he has in his mind can possibly arise at the present moment. The question of the use of poison gases is, I agree with him, one of the most alarming questions the whole world has before it to-day, and I have in
    2124
    my own mind hopes t hat if we are successful in bringing together the proper nations in regard to these proposals, which have just come from Germany, that is one of the points that will be dealt with, and possibly settled.

    HIS MAJESTY'S CORONATION.
    Captain MACDONALDasked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to make a statement as to the precise date of the Coronation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am in a position to announce, with the approval of His Majesty, that the Coronation will take place some time in the month of May next year. The precise date will be announced as soon as possible.
    Captain MACDONALD: Will representatives of the Overseas Dominions and Colonies, as well as India, be invited?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I suppose so.

    MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (PERMANENT SECRETARY).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that the qualifications and experience of the junior assistant secretary of the Treasury, who has been appointed as permanent secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, were such as to justify his promotion over the heads of the second secretary, the principal assistant secretaries, and the assistant secretaries in the Treasury, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and other Departments of State?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I have already explained, I arm satisfied that the right selection has beer, made for the post of Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand from the reply that this young man must either be a super-man or that all the other officials in the Treasury and the Ministry of Agriculture must be very mediocre?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Oh, no.
    Captain GUNSTON: Is it not a fact that civil servants holding the post about

    2125
    to be vacated have always been promoted to responsible jobs, and was not the present financial adviser to the Government of India also junior assistant-secretary of the Treasury before he was accepted chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue?

    PALATINE COURT OF DURHAM (CHANCELLORSHIP).
    Mr. WHITELEYasked the Prime Minister on what grounds a barrister whose practice is exclusively at common law has been recently appointed as Chancellor of the Palatine Court of Durham, of which the jurisdiction is confined to Chancery matters; and will he give the number and the nature of the cases heard by the late Chancellor during the years 1932 to 1935, inclusive?
    The PRIME MINISTER: For the last 46 years the Chancellorship of the Palatine Court of Durham has been held in succession by leading members of the North-Eastern Circuit who did not practise at the Chancery Bar. It was not considered that there were any grounds for departing from this practice on the occasion of the recent appointment. The number of cases which the late Chancellor heard during the years 1932–1935 was 37. Those cases were of the following nature: five witness actions; four motions for judgment; six cases for further consideration; one petition; 13 motions; and eight originating summonses.
    Mr. SILVERMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the present salary of this gentleman?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Not without notice.

    GOVERNMENT BILLS (MINISTERS, ATTENDANCE).
    Mr. DALTONasked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange that in future, when Government Bills are under discussion, two Ministers shall always be in attendance and prepared to speak and answer questions so that the House may be able to obtain full and accurate information regarding proposed legislation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I shall always make what arrangements I think best to ensure that Measures presented to this House are adequately explained and conducted.
    Mr. ATTLEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the considerable dissatisfaction arising from the fact that, although this House has allowed the right hon. Gentleman to have more and more Ministers in the Cabinet, the House is frequently left without guidance, and that on several occasions recently when Ministers have disregarded the express opinion of the House there has been no responsible Minister on the bench to see that that was not done?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think that is a little exaggeration. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The question relates to the future.
    Mr. GARRO-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, owing to the dissatisfaction of the House with replies from Ministers when the House is in full session, it has become almost the general practice for the Minister to ask for permission to speak again, and that the old Rule under which a Minister could speak only once has been completely abrogated? In these circumstances will he ensure that there shall be two Ministers present when the House is not in Committee?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Such practice as the hon. Member refers to has certainly been followed in this House all the time that I have been in it, and for long before.
    Miss WILKINSON: Is it the fact that we have to put up with junior Ministers while the right hon. Gentleman's Cabinet is composing its differences on other matters?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I fear the lion. Lady has been contributing to the Liberal papers.
    Mr. COCKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the other night the Under-Secretary of State for Air could riot answer a single question?

    WORLD PEACE.
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have recently considered any proposals which could be presented to the League of Nations as a contribution to world peace; and what these proposals are?
    The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government are always anxious to render more effective the existing system for the preservation of peace, and certain suggestions to that end are included in the proposals contained in the White Paper which was issued on 19th March.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Do we understand that the proposals in the White Paper are the sole contribution the Government have to make to world peace?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The contribution any Government can make in these times, of course, must necessarily be altered by the rapidly changing circumstances of the moment. Probably the greatest contribution we can make is to try and bring ourselves and France and Germany into consultation together, to see what we can do for peace and disarmament.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not extremely desirable that the Government should, in the frankest possible fashion, state in precise form what the views are in relation to the peace of the world; and is it not also desirable that the Government should acquaint this House with what those proposals are?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know that that would necessarily expedite world disarmament.
    Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: May I ask the Prime Minister—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put his question on the Paper, as we have.125 questions to deal with to-day.

    AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL.
    Sir GIFFORD FOXasked the Lord President of the Council whether the sub-committee of the Agricultural Research Council set up in 1934 to inquire into the incidence of fowl paralysis is still in being and, in that case, what is the constitution of this committee; whether it has taken any evidence; and, if so, where such evidence has been published or, if such evidence has not been published, whether he will take steps to ensure its publication?
    The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The
    2128
    Committee on Fowl Paralysis and similar diseases which was set up by the Agricultural Research Council in 1932 is still in being, and its work is continuing. The Committee is now under the chairmanship of Professor D. M. S. Watson, and I shall circulate the names in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It has not been found necessary for the Committee to call witnesses. An account of the Committee's work up to September, 1933, may be found in the report of the Agricultural Research Council (Cmd. 4718) of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy. A further account will be contained in the forthcoming report of the council which is in preparation.
    Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Is this the disease that the Cabinet suffered from last night?
    Following are the names:

    Professor D. M. S. Watson (Chairman).

    Mr. T. Dalling (Secretary).

    Professor S. L. Baker.

    Professor S. P. Bedson.

    Mr. N. Dobson.

    Mr. P. A. Francis.

    Mr. R. E. Glover.

    Dr. H. H. Green.

    Professor D. Keilin.

    Mr. C. A. McGaughey.

    Professor F. C. Minett.

    Mr. E. L. Taylor.

    Mr. J. E. Wilson.

  EDUCATION.

    NEW SCHOOLS.
    Mr. DAYasked the President of the Board of Education how many new schools have been sanctioned and full approval given by the Board for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; and in how many of these cases has the work actually commenced?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Oliver Stanley): As the answer consists of a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. DAY: Can the Minister say to how many applications they have yet given attention?
    Following is the statement:

    —

    Year ended 31st December, 1935.

    Number of new schools for which plans have been finally approved.

    Number of these schools for which loans have been sanctioned, i.e., where, generally speaking, building operations have commenced.

    Elementary Schools

    …

    …

    166 (including 21 voluntary schools).

    129*

    Secondary Schools

    …

    …

    9

    7

    Medical:

    (a) Special Schools

    …

    …

    7 (including 3 voluntary schools).

    2*

    (b) Nursery Schools

    …

    …

    13†

    13†

    * Figures do no cover voluntary schools about which the Board have no information.

    † This figure includes 9 voluntary schools which were recognised for grant for the first time during this year.

    Note.—Figures relating to new premises for existing schools have been omitted.

    ATHLETIC COMPETITION (DAPHNE WALKER).
    Mr. DENVILLEasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the action of the education authorities in prohibiting, under the Young Children and Persons Act, Daphne Walker from taking part in an athletic competition for the British skating championship; and whether he will intervene in future to prevent any repetition of such action?
    Mr. STANLEY: I have no information about the case of Daphne Walker beyond what has appeared in the newspapers. The question whether it would have been contrary to law for her to take part in the competition while the public were present, is not one which I should have had any authority to decide, and I cannot therefore take the step suggested by the hon. Member.

    DOMESTIC SUBJECTS AND HANDICRAFTS (TEACHERS).
    Mr. EDEasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has yet formed an estimate of the number of domestic subjects and handicrafts teachers who will be required, in addition to the number required for present normal recruitment, in elementary schools in the event of the Education Bill being passed in its present form?
    Mr. STANLEY: No, Sir.
    Mr. EDE: When does the right hon. Gentleman think he will be in a position to make a statement on this matter?
    Mr. STANLEY: That depends largely upon whether certain arrangements, upon which this matter depends, can be made in the Bill now being considered upstairs.
    Mr. EDE: Then it will be never.

    POLICE FORCES (ESTABLISHMENT).
    Mr. EDEasked the Home Secretary the number of police officers authorised on the establishment of the police forces of England and Wales, including the Metropolitan Police Force, on the most convenient comparable date in the years 1913, 1920 and 1935?
    Mr. LLOYD: The authorised establishment of the police forces of England and Wales on 29th September in these years was, in 1913, 54,552; 1920, 56,567; 1935, 58,546.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (DELIMI TATION).
    Mr. BOOTHBYasked the Minister of Health whether His Majesty's Government will set up a Royal Commission to investigate the existing delimitations of local authorities and to make recommendations for their improvement?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I would invite my hon.

    2131
    Friend's attention to the reports of the Royal Commission on Local Government which sat from 1923 to 1928 under the chairmanship of Lord Onslow, and made recommendations which formed the basis of the provisions with regard to the rearrangement of county districts in the Local Government Act, 1929. I do not think that the appointment of another Royal Commission to deal with these problems is at present called for.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that that was one of the principal recommendations of the report on the North-Eastern distressed areas, signed by the Secretary for the Department of Overseas Trade, who is now sitting next to him?

    TERRITORIAL ARMY (PREMISES).
    Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLEasked the Minister of Health (1) whether he will inquire into the reasons why an application by the Surrey Territorial Army Association for the acquisition of premises as a depôt has been refused by the housing and town planning committee of the Wimbledon Borough Council; and whether he has approved such grounds of refusal;
    (2) whether he will inquire into the reasons why recent proposals by the Surrey Territorial Army Association to acquire premises for an anti-aircraft unit at Redhill have been refused by the local town-planning authority; and whether he has approved such grounds of refusal?
    Sir K. WOOD: I understand that both the Wimbledon and the Reigate Borough Councils have objected to the proposal of the Surrey Territorial Army Association to establish new premises on selected sites in their areas on the ground that this use of the sites in question would not be in keeping with the proposals of the planning schemes in course of preparation. I am advised, however, that the provisions of planning schemes are not enforceable against property owned and occupied for Crown purposes, and it, therefore, appears that while the Association quite properly consulted the planning authorities, the consent of those authorities is not necessary.
    Sir F. FREMANTLE: Does that mean that the territorial association can go
    2132
    ahead without any leave from the local town planning committee?
    Sir K. WOOD: That is what I am advised.
    Sir F. FREMANTLEasked the Minister of Health whether he will use his powers under the Housing and Town Planning Act or otherwise to facilitate the provision of drill halls or other premises for the use of the Territorial Army in areas of growing population under development in and around towns?
    Sir K. WOOD: I have no powers to facilitate the provision of premises for the use of the Territorial Army and I assume that what my hon. Friend has in mind is that I should see that no unnecessary obstacles are put in the way of the Army by local authorities. I would refer him to the answer I have just given and add that I am not aware that the Territorial Army are encountering difficulties from local authorities in securing what premises they need.
    Sir F. FREMANTLE: Does it really come into touch with the proposal that the Minister himself has made with regard to the difficulties of getting social centres in these large housing areas, in which the Territorial hall is generally one of the most useful centres—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]x2014;and is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is a very long supplementary question.

    HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS.
    Mr. SEXTONasked the Minister of Health (1) what is the term of years from the beginning of a housing scheme under a housing association to the dissolution of the housing association concerned;
    (2) whether, until the dissolution of the housing association concerned, the funds arising from the houses erected in the district of each local authority after the houses have been cleared of debt will be applied for the benefit of that district?
    Sir K. WOOD: No term of years is fixed for the life of housing associations. I have no reason to anticipate that any funds which may be available, when debt has been paid off, will be used otherwise than for housing purposes.
    Mr. SEXTON: Does that mean that the local authorities are to be handed over derelict property after 60 years or so, after the housing association has taken off the cream?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir, I do not think so.

    INSURANCE (NON-MANUAL WORKERS).
    Dr. LEECHasked the Minister of Health whether in view of the recommendations of the commission on the State insurance scheme that the wage limit for insured persons be raised to £350 per annum, it would be possible to take steps to extend the privilege of voluntary insurance to all workers earning above that figure?
    Sir K. WOOD: There has been no recommendation relating to health and pensions insurance on the lines indicated by my hon. Friend, but I would refer him to the reply which I gave to a question asked by my bon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) on 23rd March with regard to the Government's proposed extension of the contributory pensions scheme on a voluntary basis.

  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.

    INSTITUTIONS.
    Mr. A. HENDERSONasked the Minister of Health the number of county councils the public assistance committees of which have issued instructions to masters of Poor Law institutions within their respective areas to search all inmates on returning to institutions after leave of absence?
    Sir K. WOOD: I regret that the information desired by the hon. Member is not available.
    Mr. HENDERSONasked the Minister of Health whether, seeing that under the provisions of Section 1 of the Poor Law Act, 1930, all powers of regulating and conducting workhouses and of the government, care, and employment of poor persons therein are to be exercised by local authorities subject to the control and to the rules, orders, and regulations issued by him, he will take steps to prevent the indiscriminate searching of all inmates of Poor Law
    2134
    institutions within the area of the Staffordshire County Council on their returning to such institutions after leave of absence?
    Sir K. WOOD: It is clearly necessary that some watch should be kept to secure that inmates returning from leave of absence do not bring with them articles which are not proper to be brought into institutions, and I think this is an administrative matter which is properly left by the present regulations within the discretion of the local authority. I have, however, asked the general inspector for the district to look into the matter, and I will communiate further with the hon. Member when I have received a report.

    PENSIONS.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Health whether, in assessing need, a public assistance committee has the approval of his Department in taking into consideration an old age pension and an Army service life pension?
    Sir K. WOOD: There is no statutory provision which would enable a local authority to disregard these sources of income in considering applications for relief.

    RENT.
    Mr. PARKERasked the Minister of Health whether it is now the intention of his Department that public assistance shall be given in addition to unemployment benefit when the latter is not sufficient to meet a high rent; and, if not, whether he will take steps to make this possible?
    Sir K. WOOD: Until the second appointed day public assistance authorities have power to grant relief to persons in receipt of unemployment benefit in cases in which they are satisfied that there is a need for relief. After that date the responsibility for such cases will pass to the Unemployment Assistance Board, who will have a similar power.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    WASTE HEAPS.
    Mr. R. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Health what organised efforts, if any, are being made to restore the amenities of industrial towns by the removal of dumps and slag-heaps; and

    2135
    whether the Government is prepared to give special assistance to local authorities for such activities?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am aware that increasing attention is being given to this matter by the local authorities of certain areas, and of a limited number of instances in the special areas in which work of this kind has been done with the assistance of a grant from the Commissioner. The reply to the second part of the question is, outside the special areas, in the negative.
    Mr. ROBINSON: Has my right hon. Friend considered the views of the Lancashire Industrial Development Council on this subject, and, if he has considered them, will he adopt them?
    Sir K. WOOD: I have had interviews with the Council, and am considering the position.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to assist local authorities to deal with disused manufacturing buildings, slag heaps, pit heaps, and low-lying ground filled with water (caused by mining subsidence), all of which tend to make such areas unsightly and to repel any idea of new works being set up there?
    Sir K. WOOD: Clauses 57 and 259 of the Public Health Bill, which has been introduced in another place, would confer upon a local authority certain additional powers for the purpose which the hon. Member has in mind. Any application from a local authority for a loan for the acquisition or improvement of such a site as he mentions for purposes within their powers will receive my sympathetic consideration.
    Mr. TINKER: If a local authority takes over derelict buildings or waste heaps and makes them habitable, could it claim ownership of such buildings and land?
    Sir K. WOOD: I should like to see that question on paper.
    Mr. TINKER: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer my question, I beg to give notice that I shall take an opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.
    Sir K. Wood: I have said that I should like to see the question.

    RADIUM SUPPLIES.
    Mr. ROSTRON DUCKWORTHasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the statement by the Radium Commission that the present condition of radium supplies in the country presents a serious problem; and whether any steps can be taken to increase the supply of this commodity for the benefit of the hospital?
    Sir K. WOOD: My hon. Friend refers, I assume, to the Sixth Annual Report laid before the National Radium Trust by the Radium Commission. I am informed that the Trust have the report now under consideration, but that they are not yet in a position to make a statement as to their proposals.
    Mr. DUCKWORTH: Will the Minister consider an application for further grants from the Government in respect of this very important service?
    Sir K. WOOD: I think we must await the consideration of the trust.

  TOWN PLANNING.
  Mr. EDEasked the Minister of Health in how many cases a county district authority for town planning has relinquished its town-planning powers over the whole or part of its area to a county council; and what is the total acreage affected?
  Sir K. WOOD: Fifty six county district councils have relinquished their planning powers over the whole or part of their area to five county councils. The total acreage affected is approximately 2,600,000.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ATTLEE: I desire to ask the Prime Minister three question on business. In the first place, I think it is usual, after an incident such as that which took place last night, in which the Government were defeated on a matter of Supply when it had been expressly made a matter of confidence by the Government spokesman, that the Government should state what their intentions are in order to carry out the expressed views of the majority of the House. Secondly, I should like to ask how they intend to deal with the position of Government

2137
business caused by the carrying of the Amendment in question?
The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are not prepared to depart from the policy pursued by themselves and by successive previous Governments in this matter, namely, that salary and wages claims from Government employés should be considered in relation to the Fair Wages principle. It follows, therefore, in their view, that to single out a group of employés for an increase based on a theoretical formula which has no relation to that principle is a course which could not be contemplated by the Government. The Government are satisfied that the wages and salaries paid to women in the Civil Service, whether in common-entry grades or in grades reserved to women, compare very favourably with those drawn by women on comparable work in outside industry; and, in maintaining the policy they have hitherto followed of affording the fullest and fairest opportunities to women for employment and promotion in the Civil Service, they are confident that they will have the support of this House.
In consequence of the decision taken last night, it will become necessary again to set up the Committee of Supply. I am advised that it will be in order, on that Motion, to discuss the whole question of equal pay for men and women in the Civil Service. The Government, therefore, propose to put the appropriate Motion on the Order Paper to-night, and a Debate will take place on Monday next; and the Government will treat the Division arising thereon as a Vote of Confidence.
Mr. ATTLEE: Will the Prime Minister state what he means by the Fair Wages principle; and, secondly, will he say what he thinks is the purpose of this House coming to conclusions on matters of policy if the Government are to disregard them?
The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's second question, of course that does not quite represent what happened. When the substantive Motion was put, that substantive Motion was defeated. I admit that there was a great deal of confusion in the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Members all know that there was a great deal of confusion as
2138
to what really had happened, and it was the case that the first Division, which cleared the way in the wording for the Amendment to be put, went against the Government; and it is the admission of that fact that makes me only too ready to take the step which I think ought to be taken in these circumstances, and that is that this matter, which was discussed with these results in a very small House, should be discussed by the whole House. The subject is one of great importance and one on which every Government has to make up its mind. Hon. Members who sit opposite have sometimes to make up their mind as to what course they will take. It may be that, when they are in office, they will take a different course from what has been taken previously by other Governments. It is not as easy a matter as it looks when you discuss it theoretically. I think a debate on the whole subject in the House would be of value. It would give everyone an opportunity of expressing his opinion, and would enable the House to record whether or not it supports the Government in the line that it takes. With regard to the Fair Wages principle—I asked that same question—it is many years since I was at the Treasury, but I understand that that is the technical way of expressing a fair wage, that is, compared with comparable work throughout the country in other industries.
Mr. ATTLEE: The right hon. Gentleman's statement apparently amounts to this, that the Government can avoid an effective decision in the House merely by keeping their Members out. Does he mean that the House cannot come to a decision unless the Government choose to whip their supporters?
The PRIME MINISTER: Again I think the right hon. Gentleman has not quite appreciated what happened. The House was not quite at its best in coming to the decision. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but their laughter itself shows that they do not realise what happened. What really happened in effect was that the House within five minutes gave a contrary vote.
Mr. MAXTON: May I ask you, Sir, whether in your view the procedure that has just been outlined by the Prime Minister for extricating the Government out of the difficulty of last night is in keeping

2139
with good order and with the precedents of this House? About a month ago the House carried a Resolution against the principle of maintenance grants for school children on a private Member's Motion. Your Ruling at the time was that that decision precluded us from bringing forward that proposal in any shape or form on the subsequent proceedings on the two Education Bills, a Ruling which has been carried out by the Chairmen of Committees. I want to ask whether in your view the right hon. Gentleman's proposal is not a device that tricks the House out of the results of a decision that it took.
Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: For the guidance of some who were absent last night, may I ask if I am correct in assuming that the House resolved to leave out all the words after "That" and to put no other words in their place and that, accordingly, the House came to no decision on policy of any kind whatever?
Mr. GARRO-JONES: May I remind you, Sir, that I sought a few weeks ago to secure the establishment of a Select Committee, and you declined to allow my Motion to go forward on the ground that the House had by implication rejected the principle in a previous Session, and you said you would not allow the Motion to be brought forward again on the ground that by so doing you would be asserting that the House had been wrong in its previous decision. I should like to ask whether a similar principle may not be applied to this case? Further, was not the reason why the House took two contrary decisions within ten minutes that a number of gentlemen on those benches were subjected to more severe pressure in the second Division than in the first—
Mr. SPEAKER: The latter part of the hon. Member's question does not seem to me to raise a point of Order.
Sir HUGH O'NEILL: May I ask whether what happened last night was not that the substantive Resolution in favour of equal pay for men and women in the Civil Service was, in fact, defeated?
Mr. EDE: Is it not a fact that you, Sir, put from the Chair the Question that the words "I do now leave the Chair" stand part of the Question, and that that was defeated by a majority of eight? Whatever else the House may not have
2140
decided, it did decide that those words should not stand part.
Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: May I ask you, Sir, whether, if the first Division last night had gone the other way, you would have left the Chair or not?
Miss WILKINSON: Is it not a fact that most Members were naturally, and rightly, under the assumption that they were voting on the principle that the House had been debating, and that only after a period of considerable confusion it was decided, very largely on the intervention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, to take the vote again?
Mr. SPEAKER: My difficulty is that on this occasion there appears to be no precedent for the present situation, because on previous occasions either the Motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" has been defeated on a direct vote or the Amendment moved to that Motion has been carried. On this occasion neither of these things occurred. It is true that the way I put the Question is the way the Question is always put on the Motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" and an Amendment has been moved—"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." That is really only a preliminary to putting the Question that the words of the Amendment be added. It is stated in Erskine May that a vote against words standing part of the Motion "That the Speaker do now leave the Chair" is usually taken as a vote for the Amendment, and not as a direct vote on the Question "That Mr Speaker do now leave the Chair." There was no direct vote on the Question "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair"; the vote given was for the Amendment. The natural sequel to that, which I am sorry to say I omitted, was to put the Question, "That those words be there added." I ask the House to forgive me for not having put that Question. Had I put the Question the word "That" would have remained part of the original Motion. But what I put was what would be a substantive Motion, so that the whole Amendment included the word "That." On that occasion the Amendment was lost. So that we have the curious circumstance that the vote in the first instance was in favour of the Amendment,

2141
and then the vote 10 minutes afterwards was against the Amendment. That puts me rather in a quandary as to what is the proper procedure to adopt, but the rules laid down for the practice of the House relieve me of any responsibility. It is laid down that
"The Committee of Supply must be kept on foot throughout the Session,"
According to Erskine May, as was stated by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) last night:
"When the House, by the acceptance of an Amendment to the question for the Speaker's leaving the Chair or by negativing that question has thereby superseded the Order of the Day for the Committee of Supply,
in the case where the first Motion is defeated or an Amendment is accepted
"that Order is revived by a Motion made forthwith, either that the House will immediately or upon a future day resolve itself into the Committee of Supply."
That is the rule laid down in Erskine May dealing with similar circumstances to those which have arisen. As to whether it is the proper thing to do, to debate the whole question on the Question "That this House do resolve itself into Committee of Supply," it is not really for me to say before I hear the discussion as to whether it is in order or not; but certainly the question of putting down a Motion that the House do resolve itself into Committee of Supply on an early day is the proper procedure to take.
Mr. ATTLEE: If as a matter of fact we come to that Motion again, does that revive the Amendments which have been obtained in the ballot on first entering into Committee of Supply? Will the second or third Amendment be taken or will the original Amendment be taken again?
Mr. SPEAKER: On first going into Committee of Supply, when the Motion is "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" the right hon. Gentleman knows that we have a ballot and once a Member has succeeded in the ballot he puts down an Amendment to the Motion that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair. The right hon. Gentleman asks me now whether that same system will be adopted on the next occasion. Erskine May lays it down that on the first occasion of going into Committee of Supply only one
2142
Amendment is taken, that is to say that if the Amendment is negatived no further Amendment is taken. On an occasion such as this, when the same Motion will have to he put on another day, I think it remains within my discretion whether I take the Amendment or not. That will be the position.
Mr. ATTLEE: The most recent precedent is in 1923, when the Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," was defeated. It was then put down again and your predecessor ruled that that was on first going into Committee of Supply, because owing to the defeat of the original Motion the House had not gone into Committee of Supply. On this occasion there was a variation, because the Amendment was actually put and carried, but at the same time the substantive Motion was defeated. But the effect of that was that the Motion that you should leave the Chair was defeated. It now has to be put again. What I ask is, whether that action does not revive the right to raise an Amendment on first going into Committee of Supply, because we have not yet gone into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates?
Mr. MAXTON: My point bears on the subject raised by the right hon. Gentleman, but I put it to you in a somewhat different aspect. I accept unreservedly your Ruling that the business of Supply must go on, and that the proposal to have another Motion that you leave the Chair is the correct procedure; but I put it to you that it is not competent for the Prime Minister to put down for the business of that day a Motion which has the purpose of negativing the decision that the House gave yesterday. I ask you for your Ruling on that point, as to whether it is competent for the Prime Minister to put down as a Motion a matter on which the House gave a definite decision last night?
Mr. LEES-SMITH: Further to the point of Order raised by the Leader of the Opposition. If this Motion which the Government have put down is carried it will be necessary to take a Motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair, and on that you have said that you will then exercise your discretion as to whether you will take an Amendment. On that point may I call attention to the Manual of Procedure, page 207, which summarises

2143
the events which occurred on 11th April, 1923, to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred? That is what it says:
"On 10th April, 1923, the main question was negatived. A Motion that the House would to-morrow resolve itself into Committee of Supply was moved on the following day",
as has been done now—
"and the Speaker then ruled that the first Amendment having been disposed of, he would call the second Amendment if it were moved."
Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Is not this Motion an opportunity for private Members to draw attention to grievances, and are there not two Motions on the Paper in the names of private Members, in addition to the one that we discussed yesterday; and if this Motion is to be taken again on Monday ought not private Members to have the first right, which they have won by ballot, to draw attention to their grievances?
Mr. SPEAKER: I quite see the point raised. My difficulty again arises from the fact that on two different occasions two different procedures were adopted. In the one case no Amendment was allowed and in the other case an Amendment was allowed. I have done the best I can by saying that I shall use my discretion, but I cannot draw on any precedent when precedents are contradictory.
Sir A. SINCLAIR: Would you not agree that a Motion put down by private Members to draw attention to a grievance should have precedence over any Motion put down by the Government?
Mr. SPEAKER: That question would not arise on the Motion suggested to be put down on Monday to set up the Committee of Supply.
Mr. ATTLEE: I want your Ruling, Sir. The Prime Minister gave us to understand that we should have an opportunity of discussing what action the Government propose to take on the events of last night on this Motion, but if as a. matter of fact this Motion does revive the rights of private Members who have put down Motions on going into Committee of Supply, it is clear that we could not discuss this particular point which the Prime Minister said we could discuss on Monday. On the last occasion
2144
on which it was raised I think it was necessary to move the Adjournment of the House in order to have a discussion on the question of the Government's policy with regard to decisions come to by the House.
Miss WILKINSON: This does seem to me to be terribly important for future years, because it is rot only the principle, but this is the constitutional safeguard that the House has in order to raise the grievances of the subject. This question of Supply goes deep down into our history. What is going to happen? There is the question of the rights of private Members and the rights of the public when a very real grievance is felt as a grievance by supporters of the Government, many of whom when they were being lobbied by the Associations dealing with this matter definitely told the lobbyists that they were not anxious to vote against the Government, and therefore that they would stay away and by their non-presence here signified a general agreement—I ask you whether the Government, with its overwhelming majority, having faced up to what is really a fight on the rights of the subject, can use its automatic majority and put down the Motion again and treat it as a Vote of Confidence? I put it to you that the rights of the public and of private citizens are at stake on this matter?
Mr. SPEAKER: The questions as to Government Motions so long as they are in order have nothing to do with me. I have tried to explain that there are two questions raised, both in different directions, and that is why I suggested it would be better to leave it to my discretion. If this Motion on Monday is carried and the question arises that I leave the Chair, I am inclined at the present moment to allow an Amendment which is in my discretion, so as to safeguard the rights of the House.
Mr. MAXTON: We are discussing this matter on the announcement of business for next week. I want a Ruling from you and I have asked for it before. I am being told what my work here is to be next week and what is to be the work of every Member of the House. Am I to come here on Monday on the assumption that I am going to have repetition of the Debate that we had yesterday, with

2145
an opportunity to change my mind as to how I should cast my vote, or are we to have a discussion on Monday on the relative merits of the Fair Wages Clause and equal wages for men and women? What is to be the business on Monday? I know your difficulty in making a Ruling in advance, but I think that we are entitled to know what we are to be asked to discuss on Monday. Are we to do again on Monday the job we did yesterday?
Mr. GARRO-JONES: The House is in some considerable difficulty because the Prime Minister has not indicated at all clearly what Motion he proposes to put down on Monday. Is it to be a Motion dealing with the principle of equal pay and equal work, or with the question of whether the House voted for or against that principle, or both? I suggest that the Prime Minster should inform the House the proposed terms of his Motion, and what it proposes to deal with.
Sir H. O'NEILL: In order to clarify the position on Monday, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, a question in regard to the procedure? Am I to understand that there are to be two Motions—first of all, a Motion, "That this House do resolve itself into Committee of Supply," and then, if that is carried, a Motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," and if so, on which of those Motions will the Debate take place?
Mr. SANDYS: On a point of Order. I would like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the OFFICIAL REPORT of 1st April, in which it is quite clear, whether it was a mistake or not, that the hon. Lady, when she moved her Amendment, said:
"I beg to move, to leave out the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof,"—
the words following. [Interruption.] If that was what was moved by the hon. Lady, there was no opportunity for the House to have the second Motion put. Therefore, the original Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," is wiped out, and instead the hon. Lady succeeded with her Amendment with no "That" at the beginning but, "In the opinion of this House, the time has come, etc.," which was accepted.
Mr. SPEAKER: I think that that question has already been decided; at any rate, I have given my ruling.
Mr. THURTLE: May I put a point on the original ruling, Mr. Speaker? Your ruling was concerned with what took place in the House last night, and if I understood you correctly, you said that when the question was put in the form in which you put it, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," according to Erskine May, a vote given against that Motion was a vote in favour of the Amendment. In those circumstances, when this House is in doubt, I understand that the Chair usually falls back on the authority of Erskine May. Are we, then, entitled to assume, in view of the fact that the vote is understood according to Erskine May to be a vote in favour of the Amendment, that the House did, in fact, last night decide on the principle which Was involved in the Amendment?
Mr. SPEAKER: No, I tried to explain that what had happened was that that was a preliminary vote in order to clear the way for the vote on the Question, "That those words be there added," and when I put the Question of the Amendment the House voted against it.
Mr. CHURCHILL: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, at the end of these discussions, where we stand, what the business is to be on Monday, and what will be the scope of the discussion?
Mr. SPEAKER: I understood that the business on. Monday would be that the Prime Minister would put down a Motion, "That this House resolve itself into the Committee of Supply," and I said that I could not rule what would be in order on that Motion until I had listened to the Debate.
Mr. LANSBURY: The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has tried very hard to bring us up against what some of us feel is the actual case. As I understood the Prime Minister, he not only said that he was going to move to set up the Committee of Supply, but was also going to put a Motion on the Paper. [Interruption.] I am within the recollection of Mr. Speaker and the House that he was going to put down a Motion on the subject of you, Mr. Speaker, leaving the Chair. Perhaps the Prime

2147
Minister will clarify the matter. We do not exactly understand the position. Are we to understand that the Government will move that you leave the Chair, and, at the same time, move another Motion dealing with the same particular question?
Sir A. SINCLAIR: May I also ask the Prime Minister the question which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) addressed to him: what is to be the procedure on Monday? Are we to have two Motions, one that we resolve into Committee of Supply, and the other that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair? Are we to have on either or both of those Motions an Amendment discussing the same subject as that which was discussed yesterday on the Amendment of the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson)? Is it to be a Government Resolution, or it is to be in the form of an Amendment to one or other of those two Motions, and, if so, do not the Government realise that, if any Amendments are to be moved. they ought to be Amendments in the name of hon. Members calling attention to grievances?
The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know whether I can make the matter a little clearer than it seems to be at the present moment, but on Monday the House in any circumstances must set up again the Committee of Supply, and that we have made clear to the House. We must not confuse that with the Motion to get Mr. Speaker out of the Chair. It will have nothing to do with getting Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on Monday in any circumstances. The Motion is solely for the setting up of the Committee of Supply. That is a Motion which may be disposed of quickly, or it may take all day, but when Supply is once more on the Paper, then it will be open to the Government once again to take the question of moving Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Votes, and that definitely will not be until after Easter. So that disposes of that particular point. The words that may have been misunderstood here are, "The Government propose to put the appropriate Motion on the Order Paper," and that is the Motion to set up the Committee of Supply. We have made inquiries and
2148
believe that, if desirable, as I thought it would be, after what took place yesterday, the question which was discussed for three hours can be discussed further, and the vote taken would be on whether the Committee of Supply should be set up or not, and the Government are perfectly prepared to treat that particular vote and the Division arising from it as a vote of confidence. As to exactly what Motion may be moved or the exact conduct of debate that, as Mr. Sneaker said, must depend upon his ruling. I can say no more at the moment to elucidate this question.
Mr. ATTLEE: The point that arises for debate on Monday is not the specific merits of the Motion. The House came to a decision on that matter yesterday. The point that we have to discuss on Monday, is the statement of the Prime Minister, that he intends to disregard that vote altogether. I want to know whether we shall be able to have a full discussion on the action and the inaction of the Government in this matter on Monday?
Viscountess ASTOR: I am sorry to detain the House, but as we sat here the whole of yesterday discussing this question, I should like to know where we are. Does it mean that the Government are to make this a question of confidence, because I would remind the Prime Minister that yesterday there was but one speech delivered on his side of the House in favour of the Government? I think that it will be very unfair on Monday if he puts hon. Members, who are convinced of the justice of the claim of equal pay for equal work in the Civil Service, and are pledged to it, in the position of making this a question of bringing the Government down. He knows perfectly well that it will be defeated even before it comes before the House.
Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: We have been discussing very properly the procedure in this matter, but, after all, the private Member in this House has something more to consider than a mere question of procedure. We have the spirit of this House to consider. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman in all seriousness, does he really definitely propose, having had the Debate yesterday and an adverse

2149
vote having been given against the Government upon an important issue of this kind, entirely to disregard that vote and ask the House to reverse it on a second Motion of a vote of confidence? Does he propose in this way to flout the definite opinion of this House as expressed in the first Division?
Mr. MAXTON: I do not want to detain the House unduly on this matter, but I want to be very clear upon it. I understand perfectly well that a Motion to go into Committee of Supply will be in order for Monday. I understand also that a vote of confidence in the Government will be in order on Monday, as it is at any time, but I want to know whether a vote which has the effect, through its form, of bringing up for reversal the decision on Wednesday would be accepted by you to go on the Order Paper of this House?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) asked me whether I would accept a Motion, "That this House resolve itself into the Committee of Supply"—
Mr. MAXTON: No.
Mr. STEPHEN: I should like to make this submission to you, Mr. Speaker. A Motion will be made on Monday to go into Committee of Supply. The Government will treat that Motion as a vote of confidence. If the vote of confidence is carried, I submit to you that that Motion will not negative the decision to which the House came yesterday in favour of equal pay. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, although the vote of confidence were to be carried on Monday, the House, by its decision yesterday, is not bound to the principle of equal pay for men and women.
Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Is it not the fact that the House is able to repeal any legislation, and following from that surely the House, if the Government desire, can also repeal any Resolution?
HON. MEMBERS: No!
Mr. BEVAN: On a point of Order. I want to follow up the question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). What we are discussing is the business for next week, and what we desire your guidance about is this, that when we come to the House on Monday we want
2150
to know, not what the Motion will be, because we all know that the Motion will be to go into Committee of Supply, but what subjects shall we discuss. What will be the issue before the House on Monday? On such occasions, usually, the issue before the House is the issue raised upon the Motion made by the Private Member who has won a place in the ballot. That was the issue that was discussed yesterday. Are we to wait until Monday before we know what sort of discussion will be in order, or are we to know now whether we are to rediscuss the issue of yesterday and the action of the Government?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member raises the question of what is to be discussed on Monday. The question as regards a Motion made as the result of the ballot and the subject that was raised yesterday does not arise for Monday, because, as the Prime Minister has said, the Motion: "That the Speaker do now leave the Chair," will probably not come on until after Easter. Therefore, that question does not arise. What is to be discussed on the Motion, "That this House resolve itself into the Committee of Supply," is another question altogether. The hon. Member will understand that the usual custom is that that Motion is put and carried without discussion.
Mr. BEVAN: Hear, hear!
Mr. SPEAKER: It is only on a special occasion like this, when the House has for the second time to set up the Committee of Supply that the Motion is open for discussion. On this occasion it will be open to debate. It is, however, impossible for me to say now what subjects can be raised. The chief subject to be raised is the necessity for setting up the Committee of Supply and the reason for doing so. The question has been raised whether the action of the Government will be open to discussion on that Motion, and it seems to me that that will be so, because that will be the reason for having to set up the Committee of Supply on the second occasion.
Mr. THORNE: When we go into Committee of Supply will the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) be entitled to put down the same Motion again?
Mr. SPEAKER: The answer is definitely "no."
Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask very respectfully whether we can have a definite statement from the Prime Minister with reference to the notice that he gave that the Government would put down a Motion on Monday stating its position in regard to the question that was debated yesterday. We want to know whether that Motion—he gave us practically the terms of it—will be in order. As I understood it, his Motion would in effect, if carried, reverse the first decision that was taken yesterday. Perhaps the Prime Minister will tell us?
The PRIME MINISTER: I had hoped that I had made it clear that the Motion fur Monday will be that the House shall go into Committee of Supply.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister intends, if the Chair regards it as being in order, making a statement on behalf of the Government in respect of the particular vote which occurred yesterday, and to indicate whether the opinion of the Government on that matter has been altered at all by the expression of opinion given by the House yesterday. Am I to understand that he intends to make that as a prime statement in the course of the Debate, assuming that the Motion is in order, and that the discussion will naturally flow in accordance with his original initiation?
The PRIME MINISTER: That is the case. That is one of the penalties we have to pay for yesterday.
Miss WILKINSON: On a point of Order. In reply to a question whether the Amendment that I put down yesterday with regard to equal pay could be put down again on Monday, you replied "definitely no." If the Prime Minister does state the Government's position in regard to equal pay, is not that in contradiction of what you have just said? In that case shall we have a third discussion on the Question that you do leave the Chair, sometime after Easter?
Mr. SPEAKER: As regards the discussion on Monday, I have explained that on the Motion, "That this House resolve itself into the Committee of Supply," there will naturally arise the question of what took place yesterday, because that is the reason for the House having to resolve itself into Committee of Supply
2152
on a second occasion. The reason why we have to do that and what took place yesterday will naturally form part of the discussion on Monday on the Motion for setting up the Committee of Supply.
Mr. ATTLEE: Can the Prime Minister state whether the Government propose to make any statement in the House on the reply of the German Government?
The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs hopes to be in a position to make a statement at the beginning of business to-morrow. He regrets that it will be impossible to make a statement to-day.
Mr. ATTLEE: Will the Prime Minister state the business for next week and also how far he proposes to go to-night in the event of the Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule being carried?
The PRIME MINISTER: We are suspending the Rule to-night to enable the discussion on any Amendment that may be under discussion to be rounded off. We hope very much that we shall be able to conclude the Report stage of the Sugar Industry (Reorganisation) Bill tonight. The only other subject that we shall take is that of the Scottish Raspberry Marketing Order.
The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday: Motion to set up Committee of Supply.
Tuesday: If not disposed of already, conclusion of the Report stage of the Sugar Industry (Reorganisation) Bill, and Third Reading. Also the Committee and remaining stages of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill. It is hoped to bring on the latter Bill about half-past seven o'clock.
Wednesday: Motion to approve the Unemployment Insurance (Reduction of Weekly Rates of Contributions) Order; Consideration of any Lords' Amendments to Bills which have already passed this House, including Amendments which may be made to the Unemployment Insurance (Agriculture) Bill; Consideration of Draft Orders in Council relating to the India and Burma Legislatures, which have already been debated in this House.

2153
Thursday: The House will meet at 11 o'clock, and it is proposed to take the Motion for the Easter Adjournment until Tuesday, 21st April.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.
Mr. MAXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), who has just resigned from the Cabinet, will make the statement which is usual on such occasions, and has he any information of the date on which that may take place?
The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member is generally a stickler for precedent, but he has forgotten that a statement of that kind, as a rule, is confined to occasions where Ministers separate owing to failure to agree. There has been no such thing in this case.
Sir F. FREMANTLE: Does the Prime Minister realise the very great disappointment that will be felt throughout the country by the postponement of the Midwives Bill, which was to have been brought forward next Wednesday, and
can he give us an assurance that that Bill will be brought in at a very early date?
The PRIME MINISTER: I quite agree. This is one of the inevitable results of what happened yesterday, but we hope to introduce the Bill as soon as possible after Easter.
Mr. STEPHEN: Will there be an opportunity for discussion on the question whether there should be a Ministry of Thought, or not, and whether after what happened yesterday there should be a new Ministry of Thought in this country?
Mr. DAVIDSON: Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that at least two Ministers will be in attendance when we are discussing the question of Scottish raspberries?
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 264; Noes, 140.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUGAR INDUSTRY (REORGANISATION) BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Constitution of Sugar Commission.)
  Mr. BARNES: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 27 to 35.
  It cannot be said that the discussion of this Clause in Committee resulted in a satisfactory explanation by the Minister and I therefore welcome this opportunity of raising the issue on the Floor of the House in the hope that the Minister will give more substantial reasons for the retention of this proviso than we obtained in Committee. This Clause creates a Commission which is to supervise, in the public interest, the administration and reorganisation of the sugar industry. Subsections (4) and (5) provide that no private interests of a commissioner shall conflict with his public responsibilities and duties under the Bill. Subsection (4) lays it down that no person shall be appointed a commissioner if, within five years before the appointment, he has been engaged in carrying on the business of manufacturing or refining sugar. Under Sub-section (5) a commissioner within three months of his appointment must sell or dispose of any interest of that kind which he may have. It is the proviso to that Sub-section which I propose to delete.
  In that proviso the Minister introduces a number of qualifying conditions and I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman in the first place whether he considers those qualifying provisions to be essential. It is provided, for instance, that if a commissioner satisfies the Minister that any interest which he holds is remote, he may be excused from compliance with the Subsection. It appears to me that those words are contradictory of the earlier provisions respecting the responsibilities of the commissioners. It is first required that a commissioner should surrender any interest which he holds and then later on in this proviso it would appear that certain kinds of interests, either in the manufacturing, refining or selling of sugar are to be recognised and are not to be a disqualification. The difficulties
  2182
  created by this proviso will be further noted by hon. Members if they examine the wording. It states:
  "Any interest … which the commissioner holds or proposes to acquire or to which he has become entitled—"
  We are entitled to a clear and specific statement from the Minister as to what type of interest in the production refining and marketing of sugar a commissioner can acquire after he has been appointed a commissioner which would not conflict with his public responsibilities under the Bill. It appears absurd that Parliament should first take precautions to eliminate such interests and then, by this proviso, readmit them.
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present—
  Mr. BARNES: The words to which I particularly direct attention are:
  "or propose to acquire or to which he has become entitled."
  One can only assume that those words have been inserted to meet the case of a commissioner who has inherited an estate or other property after his appointment. One can assume, legitimately, that it would be possible for a commissioner to acquire a large interest in the industry by inheriting an estate upon which a considerable quantity of sugar-beet is grown. A crop which receives a public subsidy such as this crop is receiving can represent a very large improvement in the value of an estate. We have also to remember that one of the very large expenses connected with sugar beet refining is concerned with machinery and a commissioner might inherit shares in an engineering company or other concern of that kind which was receiving some advantage or benefit. Therefore, it appears to me that to leave in the words, "or to which he has become entitled," is contradictory of the previous provision and is likely to lead to abuse.
  A further qualifying provision is that the Minister is satisfied that the interest "is so remote" that the holding will not affect the exercise of the functions. I think it is dangerous to put into an Act of Parliament vague words of that description, especially in relation to a reorganisation of an industry which is only possible through the doling out of large sums of public money. It would be impossible to continue the industry without

  2183
  this pouring out of public money, and I think it is contrary to the public interest that vague words like these should be put into the Bill. Before this paragraph is allowed to remain in the Bill, I think the House is entitled to much more specific safeguards from the Minister than we secured upstairs in Committee, and as he has not yet defined how he would interpret these qualifications, I think he should do so now, and this Amendment will give him the opportunity.
  5.2 p.m.
  Mr. KELLY: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I hope we shall have some explanation from the Minister as to what would be considered "so remote" a position in which a prospective Commissioner might find himself that it would not affect his holding the position under this Measure. If he is in such a position at all that has to be considered by the Minister, I think he has no right to hold a position as Commissioner under this Bill.
  5.3 p.m.
  Mr. BELLENGER: I do not wish to repeat the arguments that I put in Committee, but I would like to draw attention to two questions which I then put to the Lord Advocate. I asked whether this Clause would allow the wife of a Commissioner to hold shares and whether a Commissioner could hold the position of trustee for his children. The Lord Advocate was very definite, and replied:
  "I should say without any hesitation that, as the Clause is drawn, a holding by a wife or by a person as trustee for his children or indeed for anyone else, would not be disqualified."—(OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee D), 20th February, 1936; col. 57.)
  I suggest, although the Minister was not impressed by my arguments in Committee, that for a Commissioner to be selected for this responsible position, he should not hold any shares as a trustee for his children or anyone else, and certainly his wife should not hold any shares. Although she is a separate entity in law, I submit that she should not be allowed to hold shares in this connection. If she were, just think where this would lead to. I suggest that such a thing would be against the public interest and against public policy.
  5.5 p.m.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Ramsbotham): The hon. Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes) defined the general object of the Clause, as to prevent any Commissioner having a private interest which conflicted with his duties under the Bill, and with that object the Government are in complete accord. We desire so to frame this. Clause that a Commissioner shall not be deflected from the proper course of his duty by any interest in these various types of undertaking, and that there shall be no ground on which, the public should think that he might be so deflected. There is also another object, to which the hon. Member did not refer, and that is that any Government operating this Bill when it becomes an Act would also desire to be, as far as possible, at liberty to choose the most suit role person as a member of this Commission, and such a Government would tot desire to be unduly restricted in their choice unless there should be sound reasons for imposing such fetters upon them. For that reason it would be undesirable to omit these lines which the hon. Member seeks to leave out, because it would unduly fetter the Government in the exercise or achievement of the object in view.
  I could perhaps illustrate that by one or two definite cases which would fetter the Government in their choice, and I am sure the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) will forgive me if I put it as an argumentum ad hominem. The right, hon. Gentleman might very well indeed commend himself to a Government as the type, the highest type, of member to serve on such a Commission.
  Mr. BARNES: But that is provided against in so far as Members of the House of Commons are concerned.
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I am naturally making the assumption that the right hon. Gentleman's constituents would take the necessary steps to relieve him of his obligations as their representative. That being so, this position would arise: The right hon. Gentleman as is well known, is closely connected with the Co-operative movement, and it happens that that movement holds a very large block of shares in the firm of Tate and Lyle—some 80,000 shares. When my right hon.

  2185
  Friend the Minister of Agriculture or some other Minister of Agriculture approached the right hon. Gentleman opposite and said, "It is the wish of the Government that you should serve as a member of this Commission," the right hon. Gentleman, if this Amendment were carried, would have to say in reply, "I am very sorry. I should like to place my services at the disposal of the State on this Commission, but unfortunately I have an interest, though remote in this connection, in the Co-operative movement, which in its turn is interested in the refining industry, and I cannot accept the position." The position in that case would be that the Minister of Agriculture would have no power to waive the objections in favour of the right hon. Gentleman, and the State would suffer the loss of a very valuable public servant.
  Mr. OLIVER: It does not matter how many shares the Co-operative movement might hold; it is only a community interest.
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I selected the right hon. Gentleman opposite because he is the kind of person who would naturally be selected to serve on this Commission, but I do not think I need weary the Committee with a long list of cases which the omission of these words would make it impossible for the Government to select. A gentleman might have a share in an investment trust, and that investment trust in its turn might have a very small holding in a Colonial sugar plantation or a West Indian sugar factory. Nevertheless, that individual, having all the qualifications which I have mentioned, would be debarred from serving on this Commission for the simple reason that the Minister would have no power to appoint him owing to the absence from the Measure of these words.
  As regards cases in which a prospective member of the Sugar Commission might become entitled to an interest, I have a case in point which would show how ridiculous it would be to impose this stricture on the Minister. Take the case of a man with a title in remainder to an estate, we will say, of 5,000 acres owned by trustees on behalf of a tenant for life, and on that estate there are, say, five acres of sugar beet. Assume also that the owner is an
  2186
  eminently suitable person to serve on the Commission. Then suppose that the tenant for life suddenly dies, and the prospective candidate for the Sugar Commission, quite unexpectedly, becomes the owner of that land which happens to be growing a very small acreage of sugar beet. He, ipso facto, is debarred from membership of the Commission. Quite unexpectedly he has come into possession of the land on which there is this small acreage of beet, it may be in the very middle of the estate so that he cannot sell it. Is it to be supposed that the House or the public would say that a gentleman of that type, eminently suitably to serve on the Commission, the type of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, should be debarred from serving the public in that way simply because of this technical defect.
  I suggest that the Committee would be well advised to reject the Amendment, in order to enable this Government, or indeed any Government, to secure, so far as is reasonably possible, the widest field of selection and so that they would not find themselves in the position of saying, "This gentleman, otherwise eminently qualified to fill this important position, cannot place his services at the disposal of the State because of an interest which is so remote and so trivial that no reasonable person could for a moment think it would influence him in the discharge of his duties or deflect him from behaving in a proper and honest manner in connection with his duties as a member of the Commission." I hope the hon. Member opposite will agree to withdraw his Amendment.
  5.14 p.m.
  Mr. OLIVER: If a position such as that put by the Parliamentary Secretary arose, I do not think many people would object to the proposal of the Government. Dealing with the remote possibility of a remainder man being placed in that position, I do not think any Minister of the Crown would ask or expect him to sell that part of his property which was in question until a reasonable time had elapsed for him to have done so, and if such a case should ever arise, I have no doubt that any Minister of Agriculture would allow a reasonable time to elapse for any such person to dispose of the property.
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): Will the hon. Member also apply that to the co-operative society?
  Mr. OLIVER: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will restrain himself for a moment. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) and to holdings in an investment company. Surely if it is the intention of the Government to treat such remote interests the Parliamentary Secretary will probably find that the right hon. Member for Hillsborough's holding is about one-seven-hundred millionth share in that undertaking. Surely it is not beyond the power of the Government's draftsmen to draft the Bill differently if it was intended to meet such a remote possibility as that. In Committee the Lord Advocate, replying to the hon. Member for the Bassetlaw Division (Mr. Bellenger), said:
  "I should say without any hesitation that, as the Clause is drawn, a holding by a wife or by a person as trustee for his children or indeed for anyone else, would not be disqualified."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee D), 20th February, 1935; col. 57.]
  Mr. ELLIOT: Hear, hear!
  Mr. OLIVER: Is the right hon. Gentleman advocating lumping the case of a man holding a legal interest, a beneficiary interest enjoyed by his wife, with benefit from the co-operative society?
  Mr. ELLIOT: Certainly not.
  Mr. OLIVER: If I understand the right hon. Gentleman aright then a trustee for a wife can be appointed?
  Mr. ELLIOT: No, I certainly should not give permission in those circumstances.
  Mr. OLIVER: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman would not allow a man to be chosen as a commissioner if he held such interests as were specified by my hon. Friend?
  Mr. ELLIOT: Certainly.
  Mr. OLIVER: Do I understand the Minister to say that whilst the Clause would permit a commissioner to be a trustee for his wife or children he himself would not permit it?
  Mr. ELLIOT: We are on Report stage and I cannot speak without leave of the
  2188
  House, but if a reply to that interjection is not to be taken as a speech I would say that I should certainly not approve of that. I should consider such a holding was not so remote that it would not influence a man in the exercise of his duties as a commissioner, and should insist either that he resigned the holding or that he should not be appointed as a commissioner.
  Mr. BARNES: What safeguard have we that this standard will be followed by subsequent Ministers? Why cannot it be put in the Bill?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I must remind hon. Members that we are sitting as a House and not in Committee. Hon. Members must make their points and the Minister must reply to them afterwards.
  Mr. OLIVER: If that is the intention of the Minister surely it will be possible to redraft this Sub-section and make clear what remoteness of interest may be. There is a vast difference between a commissioner holding as a trustee and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough's connection with the co-operative society. I think the Clause should be redrafted to make more precise what remoteness means, and not include people who whilst they are not holding a beneficial interest may hold a legal interest.
  5.22 p.m.
  Sir PATRICK HANNON: The appointment of commissioners in cases of this kind has frequently been before the House and it has always been the responsibility of the Minister to secure men with the highest qualifications and of the highest character. I was glad to hear the suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would obviously be a man who would be chosen notwithstanding his association with an enterprise which might nevertheless render him ineligible. These commissioners must be appointed on their merits and qualities, and it would be rather difficult sometimes to find such persons if you impose obligations and limitations of the nature contemplated by the Amendment.
  Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Does not that apply to the London Passenger Transport Board? They cannot have any shares or holding?
  Sir P. HANNON: That is rather a different matter. Here we are appointing commissioners to administer a great undertaking and the Minister should certainly be free to exercise his discretion in any appointment he makes. It is difficult, with all the complex commercial ramifications of business in this country, to find people with knowledge and experience to sit on these Commissions who would not in some way be remotely connected with an undertaking and, indeed, the fact that they are associated with the industry means that they have acquired the necessary knowledge to fulfill their duties. I hope the Minister will not accept the Amendment, because it would limit his freedom of choice in appointing men of the highest character and attainments.
  5.25 p.m.
  Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: It is difficult to understand why the Minister does not appreciate the fact that it is more important to have the good will of the country for a scheme of this kind than to have some particular person with excellent qualifications who may at the same time have some minor interests in the undertaking. It is far more important, when we are setting up machinery to deal with this industry about which most hon. Members in the House are really disgusted, to wipe out the past, the rotten past and all it contains, to have men who are absolutely free from any tinge of vested interest in the industry; otherwise the people of the country will feel as much disgusted about the conduct of the Minister in this matter as they do about the past of the industry. It is difficult to appreciate the point of the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon). Is there a scarcity of qualified men in the country? Has the Minister someone in mind whom he is likely to appoint who has had some connection with this industry in the past? How is the Minister to ascertain whether he has a minor or a major interest in the industry? What is the, definition of remoteness? The case put by the Parliamentary Secretary is really too absurd for words. I want the Minister to indicate how he is going to ascertain whether a person has a remote interest. If there is a remote interest surely he should not appoint him. We want to bury the rotten past of this industry and appoint persons who are entirely free from any suspicion of vested interest. It is more important
  2190
  for the Minister to have the good will of the public than it is to have qualified men.
  5.28 p.m.
  Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: I do not agree with the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) when he said that this matter is on a different basis from the London Passenger Transport Board. What we are concerned with is a general principle concerning any public enterprise or semipublic body which is set up to carry out these important duties. The London Passenger Transport Board is one case, this is another, and there is the British Broadcasting Corporation. We shall see more of this type of organisation in the future, and it is important that the public in connection with all these concerns, should feel that those who are appointed to these important positions are entirely free from any-suspicion of interest which may influence their judgment.
  Sir P. HANNON: Will the hon. Member keep this in mind, that in making appointments to a Commission of this nature the number of persons whom the Minister can select must be very limited, and that it would be a great hardship if we were to impose these restrictions.
  Mr. WHITE: That fact is very much in my mind, but I am not certain that it is altogether desirable that people appointed to this Commission should have a special knowledge of the industry. We have appointed a Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence Forces, and in that particular case it was essential that he should be a man of character and with a judicial mind. In this particular case, having regard to the past history of the matter, I think it is desirable that some of the Commissioners should have no special knowledge of the industry but should have a judicial mind.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. De CHAIR: I hope the Minister will resist the Amendment. I do not at all agree that what is required in these Commissioners is a judicial mind. What is very requisite is an expert mind; that they should have some knowledge of the matter to be dealt with, and that is why I think we want men of ability connected with the industry who are capable of deciding these grave issues. I do not wish to delay the House, but this is the most important Clause in the Bill, and I think it important that the

  2191
  Minister should have the discretion which is provided for in the lines which the Amendment seeks to remove. If anybody who has had in the past a remote connection with the sugar beet industry is to be excluded, it will annihilate at a blow a very big chance of having anybody with an expert knowledge of the industry at all. At the present moment we see a continual process of the delegation of the authority of Parliament to various bodies, and this Commission is typical of that process. Surely it is in the interests of the public that the representation shall be as expert as possible, and we ought not to delegate the authority to people who do not know anything about the industry. An enormous responsibility will rest on the Commission and the whole object is to secure people who are connected with the industry.
  All through the Committee stage we were told that anything on which there is doubt is to be referred to the Commission, which has become the crux of the whole Bill. Consequently it is important that the Commission, which will consist of only four members and a chairman, shall be composed of members with an expert knowledge of the subject. If there is to be taken away from the Minister the power to grant exemption to a person who has a very remote connection, it will mean hamstringing the Commission at the outset. Clearly the intention of this Sub-section is to prevent anybody who has a financial interest being a member of the Commission; the interest referred to is not that of a special knowledge. I think the Minister is entitled to ask for this power to exempt anybody who, in his opinion, ought to be a member of the Commission because of his great knowledge of the sugar beet industry, but who at the same time has no financial gain by being on the Commission. I hope the Minister will oppose the Amendment.
  5.33 p.m.
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: The hon. Member who has just spoken has so often revealed the Tory mind that we always welcome his contributions to the Debates. The Parliamentary Secretary was very anxious to assure the Committee that the real object of the Government in resisting the Amendment was to widen as far as
  2192
  possible the area from which the commissioners would be drawn. The hon. Member who has just spoken has revealed the true reason for the Government's resistance, and it is that they want, if possible, to retain the right to put on the Sugar Commission people who have had a connection with the industry in the past. The hon. Member was a Member of the Standing committee and he ought therefore to recollect that we have had some difficulty in making progress in the direction of a cleaning-up of the industry.
  We recognise that the Minister, in the course of the drafting of the Bill and by certain concessions made in Committee, has improved what was a very bad business. We still do not like the Bill and the structure, but we admit that the Minister has improved it a good deal, although that improvement was the result of pressure from the Opposition, both in the Committee stage and in previous discussions on the industry. In Committee we had some difficulty in persuading the Government to accept the inclusion of Sub-section (4) of this Clause, which says that no person who has held an interest within the last five years shall be eligible for appointment to the Commission. If the hon. Member who spoke before me is right in what he said, the Minister would have to go back on that.
  Mr. De CHAIR: I could hardly agree with that. I think it is a great pity that people who, during the last five years, have accumulated experience are not allowed to sit on this Commission. I certainly oppose that.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. Member cannot have done my hon. Friends and myself the honour of listening to us in the Committee, when we exposed the terrible financial ramp that has been going on in the industry since 1925. If he had really listened, he would have appreciated our statements, which have never been denied by toe Government at any time either in the House or in Committee, concerning this ramp which has been going on, and he would not have made the statement he has just made. We seek to make certain that nobody will sit on the Commission, the duty of which will be either to withhold a licence from an existing refiner or manufacturer or to refuse the granting of a licence to a new applicant, if he has any interest

  2193
  whatever in the ultimate profits arising from his decisions. I do not think that is an unreasonable attitude for us to take up. In his usual quiet but insinuating and ingratiating manner, the Parliamentary Secretary brought me into this matter, although there was no reason at all for doing so. It is true that I have official employment with a great social, consumers' movement, but I am responsible with my hon. Friends in the Labour party for the moving of this Amendment. If we are content to safeguard the public interest, what is the Minister worrying about?
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: To protect the right hon. Gentleman against himself.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: Surely we do not need protection froth ourselves when we are setting a high standard of public morality. Moreover, if this proviso which my hon. Friends are asking the Government to exclude is eliminated, there will not be the slightest difficulty in working the Clause. The Minister knows quite well that there is no difficulty whatever in local authorities running a municipal bank. Every member of the local authority having an interest must disclose it, and if he does not, he is liable to certain pains and penalties. Therefore, I am certain the Minister or his successors would have no difficulty in dealing with such a case on advice from their staff. The object must be to try to avoid as far as possible any semblance of a repetition of the financial scandals there have been in the industry for the past 12 years. If the Minister wishes, he can very much facilitate the passage of this Bill by agreeing to leave out this proviso, and if he does so, I am sure he will facilitate the passage of other things in the Bill. If the Minister will meet us on this matter, we shall be very glad, and we shall feel indebted to him at a later stage. We regard this matter as vital. If the Minister is unable to accede, he must expect us to go into the Division Lobby against him.
  5.38 p.m.
  Mr. ELLIOT: I would like to refer the right hon. Gentleman to a later Amendment which his friends have put down. After all, he said that his object was to prevent anybody from sitting as a member of the Commission who might in a judicial capacity have to take a decision to refuse a licence, but I would like to
  2194
  quote against him the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Broad) and the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Smith), who have put down exactly the same saving Clause in an Amendment regarding the licensing authority. On which of these does the right hon. Gentleman stand?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: If in regard to the appointment of the major Commission the Minister intends to exercise his discretion in favour of people with interests, then we would certainly require equal treatment in the other case; but if he will grant us the concession for which we now ask, we will withdraw the later Amendment.
  Mr. ELLIOT: Since I have gone to the great trouble of putting down an Amendment to meet that very point after the discussion in Committee upstairs, I think it would put hon. Members in a very grave dilemma if I were now to withdraw it. It is at any rate clear that the right hon. Gentleman's desire to safeguard public security and morality is not as strong as he put it. He said that the Amendment which his hon. Friends have put down on a later Clause was only put down in case the present one is not carried. The whole matter really comes down to the point which was fairly put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. J. Williams) and others, who said that surely it would not be beyond the wit of man to put into the Statute some indication of the degree of remoteness by which the Minister would be governed, but I do not think they could have followed the discussions in the Committee upstairs or the explanation given by my right bon. Friend the Lord Advocate, who carefully said that there was literally no limit to the indirect interests of this kind which existed. He said:
  "I do not hesitate to say that it would be beyond the wit of man to devise a Clause through which it would not be a comparatively simple matter to drive a coach and four."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee D), 20th February, 1936, col. 57.]
  One has to come back to the honour of the Minister and the honour of the Commission, and I do say that this proviso covers the question of honour. The question is whether this matter has to be dealt with in the Statute or whether it has to be dealt with on the

  2195
  responsibility of the Minister. I repeat that which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said, that it cannot be dealt with by Statute and that some discretion must be left to the Minister. The Clause would in no way be stronger if this proviso were struck out.
  Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: This point is a vital one. In the case of the London Passenger Transport Board there is this safeguard which we are now seeking in this case.
  Mr. ELLIOT: It would be impossible for me to go into the Clauses of the London Pasenger Transport Act or other Acts. I wish only to emphasise that I have the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate for saying that a coach and four could be driven through every conceivable Clause. I am content to take that as a fairly good pointer. I ask the House to consider this as a practical matter. The discretion here asked for is a real discretion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) laughed at the suggestion that he might be appointed as a commissioner. I appointed Dr. Addison to assume a most responsible post as head of a reorganisation commission, and if I had inquired into his private finances and asked whether he was prepared to resign from the co-operatives, would that not have been regarded by every hon. Member opposite as a case of gross persecution? Would they not have asked why I was not content to take the assurance of a man of the standing of Dr. Addison, that he was not in possession of any financial interest which would influence his judgment? I am sure that in assurances such as that there is to be found the great safeguard for the Minister and for the House. I do not believe we can draw a Statute so as to avoid all the contingent liabilities which might arise under it, and the careful statement of the Lord Advocate has proved that the liability could not be excluded by the words of the Statute. I do say that we have given evidence in the past of a desire not merely to have the highest security possible in public life, but to stretch our net as wide as possible in this matter.
  I have appointed such persons as Dr. Addison and others whose views are not
  2196
  my own. That is pretty good evidence of a desire to cast the net wide. It is not on the ground of any particular legality that I am asking for this proviso, or with the desire of making a job and putting in somebody who is patently unfitted to be a commissioner. I am entitled to ask hon. Members opposite to consider my own personal record in these matters and the fact that I have cast the net wide to the great displeasure of some of my own supporters. The holders of this high office will, I hope, in future as in the past take a wide view of their responsibilities and do their best to get the best men for the job, irrespective of the minor interests which they may have.
  Mr. DAY: It has always been looked upon as a tainted industry.
  Mr. ELLIOT: I do not think the hon. Gentleman's interest in agriculture has been so close and through that he is entitled to make a remark like that. His knowledge of the extensive sugar beet interest is a recent acquisition and he is not entitled to make a general statement such as that on the history of myself or of Dr. Addison or of Lord Noel-Buxton. I do not think that anyone is entitled to say there has been any taint about the Ministry under these holders of the office.
  Mr. DAY: I am saying nothing about the Minister; I am referring to the industry.
  Mr. ELLIOT: The Ministry is the Minister, and the Minister is the Ministry.
  Mr. DAY: I am referring to the sugar beet industry.
  Mr. ELLIOT: This is not a Clause about the industry, but about the Minister. This proviso gives the Minister discretion. That discretion has been exercised in the past by people with a high standard of duty and it will be exercised in future, I hope, by people of a high standard of duty. If it is not, no words inserted in the Bill will be of the slightest value.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 230; Noes, 130.

  Division No. 133.]

  AYES.

  [4.43 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

  Butt, Sir A.

  Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Duckworth, w. R. (Moss Side)

  Albery, I. J.

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Dugdale, Major T. L.

  Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Duggan, H. J.

  Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

  Cary, R. A.

  Dunglass, Lord

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

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Dunne, P. R. R.

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)

  Eckersley, P. T.

  Apsley, Lord

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Assheton, R.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

  Emery, J. F.

  Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)

  Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Entwistle, C. F.

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

  Clarke, F. E.

  Errington, E.

  Balfour, Capt. H. H.(Isle of Thanet)

  Clarry, Sir R. G.

  Erskine Hill, A. G.

  Balniel, Lord

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Colfox, Major W. P.

  Everard, W. L.

  Baxter, A. Beverley

  Caiman, N. C. D.

  Findlay, Sir E.

  Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

  Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

  Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

  Belt, Sir A. L.

  Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Birchall, Sir J. D.

  Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(W'st'r S.G'gs)

  Ganzonl, Sir J.

  Blair, Sir R.

  Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

  Gibson, C. G.

  Blindell, Sir J.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Gledhill, G.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.

  Gluckstein, L. H.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

  Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

  Crooke, J. S.

  Granville, E. L.

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.

  Cross, R. H.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Crowder, J. F. E.

  Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

  Brass, Sir W.

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

  Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Davison, Sir W. H.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

  De Chair, S S.

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hen. F. E. (Drake)

  Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

  De la Bère, R.

  Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Bull, B. B.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Gunston, Capt. D. w.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Denville, Alfred

  Guy, J. C. M.

  Burgin, Dr. E. L.

  Donner, P. W.

  Hamilton, Sir G. C.

  Burton, Col. H. W.

  Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

  Hanbury, Sir C.

  Butler, R. A.

  Drewe, C.

  Hannah, I. C.

  Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

  Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

  Sandys, E. D.

  Harbord, A.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

  Hartington, Marquess of

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

  Scott, Lord William

  Harvey, G.

  Markham, S. F.

  Selley, H. R.

  Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Maxwell, S. A.

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Shepperson, Sir E. W.

  Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

  Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

  Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Smithers, Sir W.

  Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

  Morgan, R. H.

  Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

  Holmes, J. S.

  Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

  Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)

  Hopkinson, A.

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

  Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

  Munro, p.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (Wm'l'd)

  Howitt, Dr. A. B.

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Storey, S.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.

  Srauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Hunter, T.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Hurd, Sir P. A.

  Patrick, C. M.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Jackson, Sir H.

  Petherick, M.

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

  James, Wing-Commander, A. W.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

  Pilkington, R.

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Plugge, L. F.

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Touche, G. C.

  Latham, Sir P.

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Train, Sir J.

  Leckie, J. A.

  Radford, E. A.

  Tree, A. R. L. F.

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Raikes, H. V. A. M.

  Tufnell. Lieut.-Com. R. L.

  Lees-Jones, J.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Wakefield, W. W.

  Leigh, Sir J.

  Ramsden, Sir E.

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Rankin, R.

  Wallace, Captain Evan

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

  Levy, T.

  Rayner, Major R. H.

  Warrender, Sir V.

  Lewis, O.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Liddall, W. S.

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Wells, S. R.

  Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

  Lloyd, G. W.

  Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Lumley, Capt. L. R.

  Rowlands, G.

  Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

  Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.

  Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  M'Connell, Sir J.

  Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

  Wise, A. R.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

  Withers, Sir J. J.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)

  Salmon, Sir I.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Salt, E. W.

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  McEwen, Capt. H. J. F.

  Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)

  McKie, J. H.

  Samuel. M. R. A. (Putney)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Maclay, Hon. J. P.

  Sanderson, Sir F. B.

  Sir George Penny and Lieut.-

  Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.

  NOES.

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

  Ede, J. C.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Adamson, W. M.

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Ammon, C. G.

  Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

  Kirby, B. V.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Foot, D. M.

  Lathan, G.

  Banfield, J. W.

  Frankel, D.

  Lawson, J. J.

  Barnes, A. J.

  Gallacher, W.

  Leach, W.

  Barr, J.

  Gardner, B. W.

  Leonard, W.

  Batey, J.

  Garro-Jones, G. M.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Bellenger, F.

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Benson, G.

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Bevan, A.

  Gibbins, J.

  McGovern, J.

  Bromfield, W.

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  Maclean, N.

  Brooke, W.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

  Burke, W. A.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  MacNeill, Weir, L.

  Cape, T.

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

  Mander, G. le M.

  Cassells, T.

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Marklew, E.

  Chater, D.

  Griffiths, I. (Lianelly)

  Marshall, F.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Mathers, G.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

  Hardle, G. D.

  Maxton, J.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Messer, F.

  Compton, J.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Milner, Major J.

  Cove, W, G.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Montague, F.

  Daggar, G.

  Hicks, E. G.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)

  Dalton, H.

  Holdsworth, H.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Holland, A.

  Muff, G.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Hollins, A.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Hopkin, D.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Day, H.

  Jagger, J.

  Parker, H. J. H.

  Dobble, W.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Potts, J.

  2156

  2157

  Price, M. P.

  Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

  Welsh, J. C.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Westwood, J.

  Quibell, J. D.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  White. H. Graham

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

  Stephen, C.

  Whiteley, W.

  Ritson, J.

  Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

  Wilkinson, Ellen

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

  Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Rowson, G.

  Thorne, W.

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Thurtie, E.

  Wilson. C. H. (Attercliffe)

  Sexton, T. M.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Shinwell, E.

  Viant, S. P.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Short, A.

  Walkden, A. G.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Silverman, S. S.

  Walker, J.

  Simpson, F. B.

  Watkins, F. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Sinclair, Bt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)

  Watson, W. McL.

  Mr. Groves and Mr. Charleton.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Division No. 134.]

  AYES.

  [5.50 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

  Findlay, Sir E.

  Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  Albery, I. J.

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Munro, P.

  Allen, Lt-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)

  Ganzoni, Sir J.

  Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H.

  Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

  Gibson, C. G.

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

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

  Gluckstein, L. H.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Apsley, Lord

  Goodman, Col. A. W.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  Patrick, C. M.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

  Penny, Sir G.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Granville, E. L.

  Petherick, M.

  Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

  Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Balniel, Lord

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Pilkington, R.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Baxter, A. Beverley

  Grimston, R. V.

  Porritt, R. W.

  Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Beit, Sir A. L.

  Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)

  Radford, E. A.

  Birchall, Sir J. D.

  Gunston, Capt. D. W.

  Raikes, H. V. A. M.

  Blair, Sir R.

  Guy, J. C. M.

  Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

  Blindell, Sir J.

  Hamilton, Sir G. C.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Hanbury, Sir C.

  Ramsden, Sir E.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Hannah, I. C.

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

  Rayner, Major R. H.

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

  Harbord, A.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Harvey, G.

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Heligers, Captain F. F. A.

  Remer, J. R.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

  Hepburn, P. G. T, Buchan-

  Rickards, G. W, (Skipton)

  Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

  Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

  Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

  Bull, B. B.

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)

  Rowlands, G.

  Burton, Col. H. W.

  Holmes, J. S.

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

  Butt, Sir A.

  Hopkinson, A.

  Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Howitt, Dr. A. B.

  Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Hunter, T.

  Salmon, Sir I.

  Cary, R. A.

  Hurd, Sir P. A.

  Salt, E. W.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Jackson, Sir H.

  Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)

  Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)

  James, wing-Commander A. W.

  Sanderson, Sir F. B.

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Keeling, E. H.

  Sandys, E. D.

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

  Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

  Scott, Lord William

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

  Selley, H. R.

  Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

  Kirkpatrick, W. M.

  Shakespeare, G. H.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

  Clarke, F. E.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

  Shepperson, Sir E. W.

  Cobb, Sir C. S.

  Latham, Sir P.

  Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

  Colfox, Major W. P.

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

  Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

  Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

  Leckle, J. A.

  Spens, W. P.

  Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

  Cooper, Rt. Hn.A. Duff(W'st'r S.G'gs)

  Lees-Jones, J.

  Srauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Craddock, Sir R. H.

  Levy, T.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Cross, R. H.

  Lewis, O.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Crossley, A. C.

  Liddall, W. S.

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

  Crowder, J. F. E.

  Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V.

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

  Cuiverwell, C. T.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Titchfield, Marquess of

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

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Touche, G. C.

  Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

  Lumley, Capt. L. R.

  Train, Sir J.

  De Chair, S. S.

  Mac Andrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.

  Tree, A. R. L. F.

  De la Bère, R.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

  Denville, Alfred

  MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)

  Wakefield, W. W.

  Donner, P. W.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Wallace, Captain Euan

  Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

  McEwen, Capt. H. J. F.

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

  Drewe, C.

  McKie, J. H.

  Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

  Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

  Maclay, Hon. J. P.

  Warrender, Sir V.

  Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

  Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Dugdale, Major T. L.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

  Wedderburn, H. J. S.

  Duggan, H. J.

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

  Wells, S. R.

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  Markham, S. F.

  Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

  Dunglass, Lord

  Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Eckersley, P. T.

  Maxwell, S. A.

  Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Elliston, G. S.

  Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Entwistle, C. F.

  Morgan, R. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Errington, E.

  Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)

  Captain Hope and Lieut.-Colonel

  Erskine Hill, A. G.

  Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

  Llewellin.

  NOES.

  Acland, R. T, D. (Barnstaple)

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

  Banfield, J. W.

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

  Ammon, C. G.

  Barnes, A. J.

  Adamson, W. M.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Barr, J.

  2198

  2199

  Batey, J.

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Quibell, J. D.

  Bellenger, F.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

  Benson, G.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

  Bevan, A.

  Hicks, E. G.

  Ritson, J.

  Broad, F. A.

  Holdsworth, H.

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Bromfield, W.

  Holland, A.

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Brooke, W.

  Hollins, A.

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Burke, W. A.

  Hopkin, D.

  Sexton, T. M.

  Cape, T.

  Jagger, J.

  Shinwell, E.

  Cassells, T.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Short, A.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

  Simpson, F. B.

  Chater, D.

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

  Compton, J.

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Cove, W. G.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Daggar, G.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

  Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

  Dalton, H.

  Lathan, G.

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Leach, W.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Leonard, W.

  Thorne, W.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Leslie, J. R.

  Thurtie, E.

  Day, H.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Debbie, W.

  MacLaren, A.

  Viant, S. P.

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  Maclean, N.

  Walkden, A. G.

  Ede, J. C.

  MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

  Walker, J.

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  MacNeill, Weir, L.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

  Mander, G. le M.

  Watson, W. McL.

  Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

  Marklew, E.

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Foot, D. M.

  Marshall, F.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Frankel, D.

  Maxton, J.

  Westwood, J.

  Gardner, B. W.

  Messer, F.

  White, H. Graham

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Milner, Major J.

  Whiteley, W.

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Montague, F.

  Wilkinson, Ellen

  Gibbins, J.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H (Ha'kn'y, S.)

  Williams, D (Swansea, E.)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Muff, G.

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Parker, H. J. H.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Griffiths, J. (Lianelly)

  Potts, J.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Price, M. P.

  Hardie, G. D.

  Pritt, D. N.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. Groves and Mr. Mathers.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Power of Treasury to guarantee debentures of Corporation.)
  5.58 p.m.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, in page 5, line 38, to leave out "one million," and to insert "two hundred thousand."
  May I say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I understood that, as the previous Amendment relating to Clause 3 has not been called, and as that is the important Clause with regard to reorganisation and amalgamation in the industry, it will be possible to have a general discussion on the Amendment which I have moved with regard to the future structure of the industry. We did not have the advantage until as late as Friday, after the Bill had left the Standing Committee, of having the Government's White Paper explaining the details of the agreement which has been arrived at in the industry for the future conduct of the dustry.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The arrangement come to with Mr. Speaker was that there should be a fairly general discussion on the Amendment, but the discussion should not go so far as to have
  2200
  the scope of a Second Reading discussion of the Bill. It means, however, that hon. Members will not be called to order by the Chair on the technical ground that they are referring to points which have been decided by Clause 3.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I am much obliged to you, Sir Dennis, and I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House and the Government. We shall thus be able to deal in a general discussion with the White Paper. We are moving to substitute £200,000 for £1,000,000 because, on the general financial condition of the industry at the time this Bill was first being discussed, we feel there was no need for the Government to be called upon to provide further working capital. As recently as last year, in continuance of the shall I say very sticky history of some of the companies engaged in beet sugar manufacture, people who knew, apparently, that this reorganisation was going to take place under an Act of Parliament, proceeded to distribute large cash bonuses to their shareholders. I have made one or two inquiries about those distributions and the figures are extraordinary. In May, 1935, Tate and Lyle—who, I must make it plain, are

  2201
  not occupied solely with the manufacture of sugar from beet, being also refiners, but who have a considerable interest in the manufacture of sugar from beet—distributed a sum of £1,360,000 out of reserve funds as bonus shares, at the rate of two new shares for every five shares held. The English Beet Sugar Corporation in the same month distributed £300,000 by way of cash bonuses to its shareholders, in addition to the dividend fixed for the year. The Ipswich Beet Sugar Factory distributed last year £140,000 by way of cash bonuses, this distribution being free of Income Tax. The Ely Beet Sugar Factory distributed in the same year and in the same way £300,000 by way of cash bonuses.
  In view of all that we submit that it is an extraordinary thing that we should now be asked, during the course of the reconstruction of this industry, to authorise the Treasury to advance another £1,000,000 towards the capitalisation of this industry, not, of course, by adding to the ordinary capital but by way of debentures. When we put questions about it we are told that this £1,000,000 is actually required for working capital, although the very people who are to have the advantage of a guaranteed debenture issue of £1,000,000 have so recently as last year distributed in cash bonuses over £700,000, in the case of three companies, and a considerable proportion of the further distribution made by Tate and Lyle must be related to the beet sugar industry. The people who distributed that money last year ought to be made to finance this debenture issue themselves. We have now had the advantage of studying the White Paper.
  My hon. Friends who sit and speak with me will, I am sure, agree that it was very unreasonable that Members of the House should not have had the White Paper until the Bill had left Standing Committee. We ought to have had far earlier information of the details of the amalgamation proposed. The Minister shakes his head, but he must see the difficulty, because here we are, at the Report stage, and called upon to deal with important financial Clauses which have been through the Standing Committee at a time when we had no real information of the financial details of the amalgamation. In the White Paper it says that £750,000 of this £1,000,000 which
  2202
  is to be backed by Treasury guarantee is to be subscribed by the transferor companies, who will be shareholders in the new Corporation. But they are to do it with the guarantee of the Treasury. It cannot go wrong.
  Mr. ELLIOT: Does the hon. Member want us to pay a higher rate?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: When the Minister says "us" is he speaking for the industry? Is he the industry?
  Mr. ELLIOT: No, I mean "we, the House of Commons"—the State.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: That point does not arise. Of course it does not. At any rate I shall be very glad to hear the Minister's explanation of his statement that it is going to cost us more money. If in view of Chapter 10 of the Wilfrid Greene Report the Minister had stood firm and had said, "If you distribute the liquid assets of the companies"—which Table 21 of the Report clearly shows to be there—"we shall not provide you with any further assistance" they would not have distributed the money.
  Mr. ELLIOT: That would mean it was going to cost us more.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: It need not cost you anything more at all. Surely you are going to arrange for future aid to the industry at so much per cwt. of what are the actual costs. That is all it is going to cost you. As we look at the White Paper the consideration is £5,000,000 of shares in the new Corporation based upon—at least I hope it is based upon—the written-down value of the industry, and I fail to understand how the Minister can say it would have cost the Government more if he had done it in any other way than this. You allow the cash assets to be distributed to the shareholders and never recovered from them—because you will not get that money back—and then you have to issue £1,000,000 in debentures to provide working capital for the Corporation.
  Mr. ELLIOT: The higher the rate I have to raise this capital at, the more it will cost, and if the right hon. Gentleman wants us to raise it cheaply I cannot understand why he objects.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: The Minister objects that if we had proceeded in any

  2203
  other way he would have had to raise capital at a higher rate. What we are saying is that if the Minister had been firm and prevented the distribution of those cash bonuses there would have been no need to raise further capital.
  Mr. ELLIOT: Nonsense.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: All right, then the Minister must explain that in detail later. I cannot understand how it is possible to distribute more than £1,000,000 in liquid assets to shareholders last year which could have been prevented if the Minister had been firm—
  Mr. ELLIOT: It would not have made any difference.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: Of course it would have made a difference. Instead of preventing that distribution he now has to mulct the Treasury in at least a contingent liability for a new issue of £1,000,000. If I am wrong we shall want a more detailed explanation of it than the Minister has given.
  We put another point during the Committee stage about which, even after we have seen the White Paper, I am still not satisfied. One of the groups of companies connected with this industry is the Anglo-Scottish Beet Sugar Corporation. We pointed out that this series of companies had financed their capital undertakings in the past largely by issues guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Act, and by a series of questions we were able to gather that there were still outstanding commitments to the amount of £948,000. We suggested that the £1,000,000 of working capital is now to be raised by the issue of debentures because the Treasury are to be repaid the £948,000 which the Corporation owe, but from the White Paper things will obviously not go as far as that, because I see that the transferor companies have to put up £750,000 of debentures, although the Treasury will still accept the contingent liability that follows from guaranteeing the stock. We should like to know how, inside this arrangement shown in the White Paper for financing the amalgamation, the Treasury are going to be repaid the £948,000. What is going to happen? Are the Treasury receiving cash from the Anglo-Scottish Beet Sugar Corporation? Are the Treasury only to receive a given number
  2204
  of the shares in the new Corporation? If so, are they going then to continue to hold shares in the new sugar Corporation which is to be set up, or is it proposed that this settlement of Lord Weir's liabilities to the sugar scheme should be made by the Treasury selling the new shares in the new sugar Corporation at their market value as soon as they are available?
  It is true that in the White Paper it is said that the normal rate of dividend expected on the new shares is 4 per cent., but it must not go beyond 7 per cent. without Treasury consent. It is also suggested that there are to be arrangements for sharing the results of the economies, or increased efficiency, so that the return upon these shares may go up to 7 per cent. Are the Government going to get rid of the shares at once, if this is the method of payment? I am still in the dark about it. Are the Government going to get rid of the shares at their early values, or hold them and take the advantage? The Minister smiles, but it really is not a smiling matter. Let us remember that this industry has already cost this country £50,000,000, and at this stage of re-organisation and amalgamation we are still providing for a maximum of 7 per cent. to be earned by the Corporation, still with the granting, either directly or by remission of Excise Duties, of £5,000,000 a year. Surely we are entitled to know what I have been asking. We have never had an opportunity of getting to understand what was really behind it, and the Minister must not feel vexed with us about it.
  Mr. ELLIOT: A moment ago you complained that I was smiling.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: We said at the outset of the Debate on the previous Amendment that we recognise that the Bill has been much improved. We know that the public interest is far more safeguarded in this matter because of the pressure of the Opposition than would otherwise be the case, and we know that if the Ministry of Agriculture had had their way three years ago we should be mulcted to-day in a perpetuation of the rotten type of system which would continue to batten upon the consumers of sugar. The scheme is much improved, but we have the right to know what is exactly the position, on the lines along which I have

  2205
  been inquiring, and to press for further public safeguards in the cleaning up of one of the greatest financial muddles and scandals that this country has ever had.
  We are moving the Amendment in order to get that information, and to get a further and adequate explanation. There is another point to which I ought to refer. I should like to have the answer from the Minister right away so that my hon. Friends can consider the matter. In the White Paper, the consideration to be issued in shares to the new Corporation, upon the transfer of the assets of the 15 beet sugar companies which are to be amalgamated, is £5,000,000, in which are supposed to be included all the assets to be transferred to the Corporation. I cannot for the life of me understand, in view of the fact that these companies have done so extremely well out of public funds in the past, why all the assets in the companies are not to be transferred for that consideration. We moved a certain Amendment in Committee to get the information, but it did not get us much further. In the White Paper issued last Friday, we see that there is something else in it. I will quote from page 10:
  "The transferor companies shall transfer to the Corporation all their good will and fixed assets (which, subject to the provisions of the preceding section shall be in good working order and condition), with the exception of those fixed assets which were excluded from the original scheme, viz.: those parts of the Kelham Estate which are not occupied by the factory or used in connection therewith, and the farming assets owned by the Home Grown Suger, Limited."
  Why on earth, at the end of something like 12 years of continuous payments out of public funds and 12 months after certain of the companies concerned have been distributing cash bonuses to their shareholders and we have come to the final amalgamation and the settlement of of the capitalisation of £5,000,000, there should be withheld from the Corporation all the assets of the companies amalgamated, I cannot imagine. We are entitled to know the answer.
  It may be said, and in view of what the Minister said just now I expect it will be said, that you can always alter the basis of capitalisation of the new Corporation by taking over land which you are not using or not likely to use, or this or that section of the assets, and that you can do it by putting up the amalgamated share capital, which would
  2206
  mean a larger annual return to be earned. If you took the assets to be excluded, no one could say, on taking into account the history of the industry, that the £5,000,000 now to be fixed was too low a figure. I should say that that figure is ample. If we are to try to bring this business on to an even keel and to save the public purse as much as possible in the future, we ought to see that all the assets which have been created with the help of public subsidies in the past should be brought into the possession of the new Corporation inside that figure of £5,000,000. We are entitled to have this matter explained to us.
  There are other aspects to which I do not propose to draw attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) will listen to the rest of the Debate on this very important issue which we are raising in this way, and it will depend upon the reply of the Minister and the general attitude adopted by the Government in Debate as to what decision we shall take upon this Amendment. As at present advised, and upon the information before us, I can see no course open to us but to press the Amendment strongly in the Division Lobby. We shall be very glad to hear the Government's explanation. We have no other object in view in this matter but of seeing that this industry is cleaned up, and that when once it is put into its new and reconstructed form it shall as soon as possible, be self-supporting, without the doles which it now gets from the public purse. If the Minister shows that this will be the effect of what he is doing, we shall be modified in our attitude. At present I have no such information.
  6.22 p.m.
  Mr. ELLIOT: I will follow the right hon. Gentleman at once because I realise that he wishes to have as far as possible the information at his disposal before the Debate goes further, and it is very desirable in complicated matters like this that we should put all the cards on the table forthwith. Therefore I would like to deal as specifically as I can with the three points which he raised and which were: why there should be an issue of capital here with a Treasury guarantee, what is the exact position of Anglo-Scottish, and why certain assets are not being taken over by the new Corporation. I think that puts the case fairly.

  2207
  As to the first point, I think it is due to some difficulty in appreciating the situation, which I tried to make clear during the discussions in Committee. The whole purpose of this proposal is to reduce the payments from the public purse. The reason why we are giving the Treasury guarantee is to raise this money at as low a rate of interest as possible. If we did not give this guarantee to the industry, already safeguarded by the well-known fact that the country and both sides of the House desire to continue the sugar beet industry, clever men might take advantage of that fact. The difficulty is that the continuance of the sugar beet industry is itself evidence that the minimum rate of interest will be earnable by capital secured upon this Corporation. The right hon. Gentleman says "This is something which is being given to the companies by the Government," but it is clear that it is something which is being taken from the companies by the Government.
  Mr. ALEXANDER indicated dissent.
  Mr. ELLIOT: Well, that is my contention, and is the point I am trying to make, and if I do not make it clearly, I am sorry. In fact, this is a device, a formula, by which the liquid assets of the companies are being taken over at the lowest possible rate. Let me see if I can establish that case. Clearly some proportion of the liquid assets of which the right hon. Gentleman complained would be used, and the remainder would not be used. It is undesirable for the combination to burden itself with too great a quantity of liquid cash. It requires some but not all of the liquid cash. That liquid cash would have to be taken over at some rate of interest. If it were taken over at a rate of interest comparable to what would be required to be paid in the open market, that rate of interest would be fully 5 per cent., and probably more. [HON. MEMBERS: "More."] I think more than that, but let me put it at 5 per cent., although it might be considerably higher.
  If I can carry the House with me in this matter, I would point out that in raising money, the Treasury guarantee enables us to pay one-half or more per cent. less for the money than we should have to pay if there were no Treasury guarantee. The Bill is better than a
  2208
  Treasury guarantee, because it is a Parliamentary guarantee. For good or ill, Parliament has decided that the industry shall be carried on. I think it is agreed in all parts of the House that though all of us desire, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), that the industry should be self-supporting as soon as possible, we want it to be carried on and we do not desire it to be discontinued. If there is a Bill on the Statute Book to say that the industry shall be carried on, that is equivalent to the contingent guarantee that the Treasury is giving here. Consequently if we are to get the benefit here—
  Mr. ALEXANDER: If we were dealing in the ordinary way with an amalgamation between two ordinary companies and taking over liquid assets, I should agree with the presentation of the case by the Minister, but what we strongly object to is that, in the course of the committees of investigation and of inquiry in the last three years, when all this was known and when it was known there was going to be a reconstruction by Statute, the Minister allowed the liquid assets to be disbursed. Had they not been disbursed, you could have paid a lower price for the fixed assets, or else you could have taken over that liquid cash instead of raising a debenture. That is the position which affects the whole basis upon which you have carried out your amalgamation. The disbursement of that block of hundreds of thousands of pounds of liquid cash last year has made it incumbent upon the Minister now to provide the new issue of debentures guaranteed by the Treasury. That is our whole point, and I do not think that it is unreasonable.
  Mr. ELLIOT: I think it is, because the right hon. Gentleman wishes to have it both ways. If, three years ago, it had been decided that the industry was to be carried on, and thereupon a Bill had been passed through Parliament to that end, no doubt the present position would not have arisen. After long debates and arguments, which went on from both sides, and the fact that we were pledged to the most meticulous inquiry by chartered accountants, by the Wilfrid Greene Committee and inquiries of one kind and another, the industry was carried on in the interim

  2209
  by merely prolonging the subsidy, admittedly at rates above those which would have been necessary if the Bill had been passed into law and the amalgamated company had been formed. The Bill was not law and the amalgamated company had not been formed, and the House and the country were continuing discussions whether they desired to carry on the industry or not. It is to that process of investigation that the right hon. Gentleman must refer, and not to any process of dissipation of reserves, because, the reserves having been accumulated, they have to be taken over by the Corporation or given back to the shareholders. The assets which are being taken over by the Corporation are being taken over at the lowest possible rate, and at a rate far below what would otherwise have been possible, by means of this provision which I am asking the House to accept. I do not think I can go further in my presentation of the view held on this side of the House about that point.
  With regard to the second point, as to the position of the Anglo-Scottish group and how the Treasury are to be repaid, in the first place, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the Anglo-Scottish companies will be among the companies taken over by the Corporation, and after the amalgamation they will be acting on behalf of the Corporation and not as separate units. The promoters of the groups raised money, which was loaned to them under the guarantee of the Treasury, under the Trade Facilities Act, the sum raised being 1,625,000. Some of the interest on that loan has been repaid, notably in the case of the West Midland Sugar Company, but for the past few years the Anglo-Scottish group have not been able to meet their obligations in interest. None of that money has been forgiven. It remains as a liability which they have to pay off if they are to clean their slate with the Treasury.
  The remaining debt due to the Treasury amounts, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to some £948,000, and the whole of that is secured by the assets of the companies. If this Bill is passed, those assets will be live assets; if the Bill is not passed, they will be dead assets. The Corporation will buy up those live assets by the issue of ordinary shares, as it is
  2210
  buying up the assets of all the other transferred companies. The procedure will be that the Anglo-Scottish group will realise the cash value of its allocation of ordinary shares, and, with the money thus obtained, will repay in full the remaining part of the loan guaranteed by the Treasury. They will be enabled to do that because the industry is going on; they would not be able to do it if the industry had been coming to an end. When the fixed assets of the Anglo-Scottish group are taken over by the Corporation, the Corporation will have bought and paid for them by the issue of ordinary shares, and the operation of the assets will be a matter for the Corporation. I think the right hon. Gentleman will now agree that this £948,000 has nothing to do with the issue of debentures which I have already explained, but is a debt still due to the Treasury which will be repaid by the companies concerned out of the proceeds of the sale of their fixed assets to the new Corporation.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: The right hon. Gentleman will surely complete his answer to my question on that point. Do the Treasury propose to hold the shares, or what is going to be done? Are the Treasury going to dispose of the shares, or are they going to hold what will be in fact a public interest in this new Corporation?
  Mr. ELLIOT: It was on that point that the right hon. Gentleman reproached me for smiling. If he were the Treasury at this moment, he would not explain to the market that he was or was not about to put on the market a very large block of shares. He would, like a good business man, decide whether he would continue to hold the shares or whether he would dispose of them, and, if he disposed of them, he would do so at some moment at which he would gain a maximum return for the Treasury, and therefore for the State. That is a perfectly straightforward explanation.
  Sir PERCY HARRIS: A little bit of speculation.
  Mr. ELLIOT: I think it is unjust of the hon. Baronet to say that, when we are liquidating funds under the Trade Facilities Act. Naturally, you must choose a proper moment at which to liquidate them.
  Mr. BARNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether the Treasury is taking over the whole of the share capital assets of the Anglo-Scottish Corporation, or a part of them, and, if so, how much?
  Mr. ELLIOT: The Treasury is taking over this debt. Whatever the Anglo-Scottish group owes will be taken over by the Treasury, what remains will be available for the shareholders—I do not think it will be very much—and the assets will be taken over by the Corporation.
  Mr. BE LLENGER: You are not getting cash?
  Mr. ELLIOT: We are getting a realisable asset which can be turned into cash. We are getting 4 per cent. shares, which may go to 7 per cent. with a reasonable amount of assistance from this House, and, if it is not cash, it is a thing that I would very much like to have a million pounds worth of myself. The Anglo-Scottish group are losing it all; it is all being taken by the Treasury.
  Mr. A. BEVAN: The asset that is being taken over is the amount owed to the Treasury?
  Mr. ELLIOT: It is not quite that. The assets are being realised as rapidly as possible, and the Treasury is getting out of the business.
  Mr. BEVAN: What it does with the assets is a matter for itself?
  Mr. ELLIOT: I am trying to deal with the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman that there was a danger of some sharp practice, if I may so put it. In answer to the last point raised by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), the Treasury is not itself taking the actual shares, but is in due course taking the cash realised by the sale of the shares; but, naturally, as to the moment when it realises it must be the judge—it must drive the best possible bargain for the State.
  The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question why the £5,000,000 does not include all the assets. As I tried to point out in Committee, there are certain of these assets which the Corporation does not want. I pointed out that in the case of Home Grown Sugar Estates the Corporation would very probably not wish
  2212
  to have them, and would not take them over, because it did not see its way to employing them profitably. If it had wished to take them over, some additional price would have had to be given for those assets. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, and no doubt, if he had been in our place, he might have driven a much harder bargain. His estimate of the financial skill which he would apply to this transaction is naturally that it would have been greater than ours. By skill I mean getting more out of the person with whom you are dealing than otherwise you would have got. These assets included certain properties which the new Corporation did not wish to operate, and, therefore, it has not bought them all; and the Bill provides that it would not need to buy these properties, because it would be of no use to saddle it with properties that it did not see its way to operate. I hope the House will agree that I have dealt exhaustively and as clearly as possible with the questions which the right hon. Gentleman raised, and that it will be possible for the House to accept the explanation I have given. I have tried to be as frank as possible. If any further information is desired I shall be very pleased to give it, but I think the explanation I have given will satisfy the House.
  6.42 p.m.
  Mr. BARNES: I regret that, although the Minister has dealt exhaustively with this subject, he has in no way satisfied my uneasiness with regard to this financial transaction. It is extraordinarily difficult to get the true facts either from the Treasury or from the Minister, and I think it would have been a distinct advantage to the House if we had had a representative of the Treasury on the Bench this evening, so that we could have put direct questions to him as well as to the Department affected. The Minister has not made clear how he can make dead assets into live assets. In the allocation of share capital shown in Appendix No. 2 on page 15 of the White Paper, there is a sum of £513,000 for the Anglo-Scottish Beet Sugar Corporation, and for the Second Anglo-Scottish Beet Sugar Corporation there is another allocation of £596,000. I think we are entitled to know whether that represents a full valuation of the assets of these companies, and, if so, why the representative of the Treasury, in reply to a question in this

  2213
  House, stated that if this Bill became law the fixed assets of the companies in question could be valued as the assets of going concerns, and that on this basis it could be assumed that they would realise a sufficient amount to enable the companies to repay their guaranteed loan debts. The Minister has dealt with that point, but there is one thing that he has not made clear. He has indicated that, as the result of the allocation of share capital in the case of these two companies, they will be in a position to repay their loan to the Treasury, but he went on to make the significant statement that the Corporation would have the assets. I should like that point to be cleared up. I do not know whether it was a slip of the tongue, but I do not see how at the same time the Treasury can receive payment of that loan and the Corporation can have any assets belonging to the Anglo-Scottish Beet Sugar Corporation.
  Mr. ELLIOT: I may have made a slip. I meant that they would operate the assets.
  Mr. BARNES: Who would operate them?
  Mr. ELLIOT: The Corporation.
  Mr. BARNES: How could they operate them if the Treasury has got them?
  Mr. ELLIOT: The Treasury has the usufruct of the assets but the Corporation has to operate them.
  Mr. BARNES: Assuming that the Treasury realises those assets, until it does realise them, I take it that the Treasury will be a direct and a large holder of the shares of the newly-created Corporation. Is that correct?
  Mr. ELLIOT: Not the Treasury as such. It will realise the assets as rapidly as possible.
  Mr. BARNES: Until the Treasury realises those assets, will it in fact be the owners of the Anglo-Scottish Beet Sugar Corporation?
  Mr. ELLIOT: No, because the group of factories will disappear as from the passing of the Bill. There will be a certain amount of shares which it will be getting rid of as rapidly as is convenient in the new Corporation but the Anglo-Scottish group as such will disappear forthwith.
  Mr. BARNES: And the Treasury will be in fact the owner of the shares of the amalgamated companies previously belonging to the Corporation?
  Mr. ELLIOT: No. It will have a lien on the pool. All the eggs are broken into an omelette and it will have a share of the omelette of which it will get rid as rapidly as possible, but it will not be able to point to one part of the omelette and say, "This was made with my egg."
  Mr. BARNES: This is the only public holding that we have in this Corporation. Why should the Treasury dispose of a holding of this kind and hand over a very important lever in the Corporation?
  Mr. ELLIOT: Because the Treasury want the money. It is like a claim on an estate for Death Duties. The Treasury does not hold it, but gets the money as soon as possible.
  Mr. BARNES: That argument cannot be substantiated, because in this case the Treasury is paying the whole of the subsidy upon which the Corporation will operate, and the provision of interest up to 7 per cent. depends entirely on the Treasury payments. The interest on the debentures depends on the Treasury guarantee. It is an extraordinary position that, on the valuation of these assets, a dead asset which could not previously pay its debts is suddenly in a position to repay the Treasury advances. When the Treasury gets the assets it disposes of them to private interests and allows them to take a high rate of interest, which the Treasury pays in the long run.
  6.49 p.m.
  Mr. BEVAN: I think the Minister has been admirably clear in his exposition of the birth of the Corporation. I understand that there is a company which at the moment has fixed capital assets on which it is not able to earn money to pay its debt to the Treasury. Now the Treasury proposes to put that company, along with a number of other companies, in a Corporation and transfer the assets that it has and then, by giving a Treasury guarantee up to a maximum of 7 per cent—[Interruption.] We understand that there is a Treasury guarantee and we understand that they can earn up to 7 per cent. and, inasmuch as the

  2215
  Treasury is going to guarantee the floating of the Corporation and the raising of the necessary sum, the Government will see to it by its own policy that the Corporation will be able to earn up to a maximum of 7 per cent. So it is the action of the Government which will convert that dead asset into a revenue-earning asset. It seems to me that, as it is the action of the Government that is going to make that asset into a revenue-earning asset, they ought not immediately to dispose of it.
  Mr. ELLIOT: It is not a guarantee. It may earn 7 per cent., it may earn 4 per cent. or it may earn very much less. The capital of the Corporation is not guaranteed in any way at all. That is why the Treasury wants to sell. After all, the Treasury is not prepared to enter into a speculation. Think of the condemnation of the House. The Treasury's business is to realise and get out.
  Mr. BEVAN: The right hon. Gentleman now overstates his case. Here is the Treasury with a capital asset which it is hoping to convert at the earliest possible moment into liquid money in order to get its debt paid. The right hon. Gentleman has explained that the Treasury will naturally select the proper moment to sell the shares in order to have its debt discharged. So the Treasury will wait until more money is being earned on the asset before it sells out. In other words, when the asset becomes more profitable to private business, the Treasury proposes to dispose of it because, if it disposed of it earlier, it would get less for it. The more potentially profitable it becomes, the more the Treasury could earn on it, the readier the Treasury will be to dispose of it. That is what my hon. Friends are protesting against, and I think their protest is reasonable. You have by your own action to make the property valuable before it pays you to dispose of it and, as you make it valuable by your own action, you hand the property that you have made valuable over to private finance because the capital realisation will be higher. It is just at that moment that you ought to keep it, when it is earning revenue. I think that is a reasonable contention. It is the policy of the Treasury to get its debts paid in full and not to hold property, but that
  2216
  is not the point of view of Members of this party, and inasmuch as the value of the property results entirely from public action, is maintained by public action, and has its birth in public action, it seems entirely reasonable that the value of the property thus created ought to remain a public asset rather than that the Treasury should seek the very moment when it is most valuable in order to disperse it and lose the advantage that the nation might otherwise enjoy.
  6.54 p.m.
  Mr. MacLAREN: I congratulate the Minister on having converted any hon. Friend, because he has a most rosy idea of the Stock Exchange. Whenever your shares rise hold on and do not let them go.
  Mr. BEVAN: The contention that I admitted is that it is only when shares are higher in value that it pays you to dispose of them.
  Mr. MacLAREN: It is not a constant characteristic of shares to remain at a high point. The Minister has made two points which we should appreciate. The first is very interesting. My right hon. Friend impeached the administration on the ground that they were rushing out to get financial props to hold up a structure that was rather fragile. He said that this structure had got into this weak condition, necessitating Government support, because of a liberal distribution of bonus shares before a certain date. The Minister's reply is very instructive. He says the distribution of bonus shares was necessitated because of the delinquency of the House of Commons in coming to a definite conception with regard to the policy that should be pursued in the future with regard to the sugar industry. Surely, if there was any lackadaisical attitude of the House of Commons, it was the fault of the last Administration. The fault does not lie with us on this side. The right hon. Gentleman made rather a fatal mistake when he said that what we want, when we hay e got hold of the shares, is to realise them as quickly as possible and that it was like imposing Death Duties. I have never heard of anyone wanting to realise Death Duties by pumping fresh blood into the corpse, and that is what is happening here. The right hon. Gentleman says that the debt could not be paid to the Treasury unless

  2217
  this amalgamation was carried through. In other words, if we were not now, in the name of the taxpayers who sent us here, passing this into law, the debt of the Anglo-Scottish group and the rest of the plunderers who have plundered the State to an extent unknown in the history of this land could not be recovered.
  What you are doing here is throwing a lifebelt to Lord Weir to pull him back into the business life of this country. The dead assets are suddenly to become live things, palpitating with new life and, possibilities. Who put the new life into them? We will be doing so by our vote to-day if we pass this Clause. What did the "Financial Times" say in reviewing the situation on 17th May, 1335? It said:
  "£40,300,000 almost exactly equals the amount paid for beet. After marketing and manufacturing costs of £15,400,000, the 15 companies were left with a trading margin of £11,200,000."
  The Minister says to-day that this inflated wealth in the hands of these companies had to be somewhat dissipated because the House of Commons had no definite policy on what was to be done regarding the future of this industry. It is well to remember, in conjunction with what I am now saying, that what we are about to do by passing this Clause is to put the State's good name behind dead assets, retrieve them from their rather precarious circumstances and give them a good reputation on the market. And, says the Minister, they may rise to 7 per cent. By virtue of what? Of what we are now doing. It is a sorry pass, but it is characteristic of the new policy of statesmen who will put their bands in and try to organise and correlate things in certain fields of activity where the last things you want to see are bureaucrats and statesmen.
  There are many hon. Members on the opposite side of the House not directly interested in this industry who must have qualms of conscience about this Clause. I hope they will show their courage and vote for the Amendment. It is all very well for the Minister to say that he must resort to this action in order to get the money at a low rate of interest. I thought for a moment that he was going to claim it as a virtue that these assets had been dissipated because it meant that there was not so great a burden to be taken over by the State. I have
  2218
  made these few comments to amplify what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and in the hope that some hon. Members will see the seriousness of the proposition that is before the House.
  7.5 p.m.
  Mr. SPENS: The picturesque description of an ordinary business transaction which the hon. Member has given deserves some answer. There is £948,000 owing from two companies and secured on certain assets which, if matters remain as they are, will not suffice to repay that sum to the Treasury, and the Treasury will have a bad debt. A scheme is put forward by which, if these assets are amalgamated with others, they may become remunerative. In exchange for parting with these assets these two companies get shares in the Corporation, subject to the charge payable to the Treasury, and instead of the Treasury and the taxpayer having an indifferent charge on a certain basis, the Corporation get shares subject to that charge, with a prospect at the right time and bit by bit of the shares being realised and the amount the Treasury originally lent being paid back. I hope in these circumstances the House will pass the Clause.
  7.7 p.m.
  Mr. BELLENGER: It is necessary that we should consider more than we have done the capital construction of this Corporation, particularly as the Treasury will be a shareholder. I do not agree with the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) that the Treasury are speculators, but I suggest that what the Treasury is holding is a speculative asset. If all goes well this asset may realise above its par value. I am not sure that the Treasury will get a better asset by its shares in this Corporation than by its charge on the assets of these two Scottish companies. If there is to be a reply from the Government, I would like an answer to one or two questions. On page 7 of the White Paper we are told by the tribunal:
  "Broadly, we considered that, in all the circumstances, written-down replacement costs, and not written-down original costs, should be the basis of valuation."
  I should like to know how that valuation has been made and how, for example, property has been valued at written-down replacement costs. A further statement

  2219
  by the tribunal is interesting in considering how the capital of the new Corporation has been made up. In paragraph 14 they state:
  "We accepted the contention of thee negotiating Committee that, since the consideration to be given for the fixed assets to be transferred to the Corporation is to be shares in the Corporation, it is necessary to consider, in conjunction with the total valuation of fixed assets, the probable return on the Corporation's capital."
  It seems to me that in arriving at the capital construction of this company they axe not only taking some value of possible fixed assets, but they are also taking into account what a certain amount of capital might be expected to realise in interest from year to year—a rather remarkable way of forming a new company. I should like to know what are to be the shares in the new Corporation which the Government will hold, whether they are to be ordinary shares, preference shares or what? If we had an answer to that question we could form some conclusion whether the Treasury is holding a good class of share. A little further on in this White Paper we are told:
  "This issue of debenture stock shall be made … without underwriting charges or commission."
  I want to pay tribute to the negotiators who have inserted that provision in the report. It is just as well that this debenture capital shall be issued with no commission charges and no underwriting charges. The White Paper also states:
  "The terms and conditions of the issue, including the rate of interest and the price of issue, shall be subject to the approval of the Treasury, provided that the price of issue shall not be more than the estimated market value of the debenture stock at the date of the issue."
  What is that going to be? Is it to be above par, or below? Can we have some indication from the Minister? The assets which are being transferred by the 15 companies to the Sugar Corporation would only have been of scrap value, according to the Greene Report, if the Government had not asked us to give this continued support to the industry. I hope that the assets the Government are going to get in the shares of this new Corporation will realise all that the Government have put into these two companies, a sum of nearly £1,000,000. I hope and believe that the Treasury will
  2220
  sell these shares. I do not believe in the Treasury holding any of the shares in this new Corporation. The Treasury should get out of it as soon as possible, and I hope that they will get out of it to the best possible interest, of the taxpayers.
  7.12 p.m.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I am sure that the Minister would like to get out of it, and I am equally certain that the Treasury would like to get out of it too, and out of the annual remission of about £5,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman clearly explained that the smaller the rate of interest on the guaranteed debentures, the lighter the contingent burden on the Treasury would probably be, or the actual burden as determined by the subsidy that would have to be paid from time to time. We entirely agree with that, but what I did not understand in his reply was this: He said there must be liquid capital in the initial stages, and that it is no use reverting to 1935 for something that has been taken away; it is something that has to be put in that matters at this moment. That is true, but it is a remarkable thing that all these companies distributed their cash bonuses in the same year. It rather seems to hint that they heard something more than a whisper that a Bill on these lines was likely in the near future. I know that the Minister cannot go back to these companies and say, "Why did you distribute £1,360,000 in shares, why did you distribute £1,300,000 as cash bonus?" I know he cannot recover what has been expended, but our point of view is that for years the barons in the sugar industry have been exploiting the Treasury and that even now, when they know there are no assets in any one of these factories, or in all of them apart from the Government subsidies, they still at the last moment take the last penny available to them.
  The right hon. Gentleman truly said that the Bill has to be passed if the industry is to be preserved. Clearly, financial arrangements have to be made to carry on the industry. But whether or not the Treasury should be called upon to grant £1,000,000 of debentures so that they may obtain it at a smaller rate of interest is another thing. Several questions have been put regarding this White Paper and the debt of the Anglo-Scottish group to the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the

  2221
  debt stands at £948,000. An hon. Member sitting on the back benches declared that it is sound business for the Government to introduce and carry through a scheme which will convert a bad debt of £948,000 into a valuable asset. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that, while we are converting that bad debt into a realisable asset, we are doing it out of money provided by the Treasury. We are going to pay ourselves back with our own money. It is not as sound a proposition as the hon. Gentleman seems to imagine. Before we can ever hope to secure the return of that money, we have to say to the factory owners, "Once your Corporation is established, according to the terms laid down in the Order we shall permit the 15 companies to have a capital of £5,000,000 and shall guarantee them an annual interest of 4 per cent., and a further interest on improvement value of anything up to 5½ per cent. for 10 years." It may be that on occasions it may reach as high as 7 per cent. That is all out of money provided by the Treasury and it is clearly a guarantee that turns these dead liabilities into live assets.
  It is a very unpleasant chapter. My right hon. Friend has called it a sticky business. It has been a sticky business from the first, and it is to continue to be a sticky business. A lot of sticky people have been exploiting the nation for a very long time. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to one of my hon. Friends, said that we were not guaranteeing a 4 per cent. return on the £5,000,000. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman unintentionally fell into error at that moment. If he looks at page 11 of the White Paper—and the Treasury will have accepted this Order once the Bill is passed—it says:
  "(1) That the Tribunal will recommend to the Treasury that, for the purposes of Clause 14 (5) (b) of the Bill, a reasonable rate of interest in the circumstances existing at the present time is 4 per cent. per annum and that this should be calculated on the capital, other than the borrowed working capital, employed with the approval of the Sugar Commission."
  On page 12 it says:
  "The amount of the capital so employed will, in the first instance, be £5,000,000."
  So that there is a definite guarantee of the Treasury of 4 per cent. on £5,000,000 per annum. If the right hon.
  2222
  Gentleman can inform the House that I have misrepresented that paragraph I will readily sit down while he does so. In page 14 the provision is made that:
  "If in any year, by reason of exceptional circumstances beyond its control, the Corporation should require to draw on its reserves in order to pay a dividend of 4 per cent. on its capital, the Corporation will propose to the Sugar Commission that, if the Commission should think fit in the light of all the circumstances prevailing, they should recommend the Government to make provision in the rate of assistance for the following year or years, towards replacing the amount withdrawn for this purpose."
  That is, after the Government have decided such payments that shall be made to the industry to ensure a return of 4 per cent. if for any reason beyond the control of the Corporation in any year there is not sufficient to pay the average uniform of 4 per cent., they can come back to the Treasury, and the Commission have the power to recommend that in a future year or years the Treasury can slightly increase their contribution to ensure the 4 per cent. On top of that 4 per cent. there is the additional promise that where economies are effected, the Corporation can secure up to 1½ per cent. interest in excess of the 4 per cent. per annum, making an almost gilt-edged guarantee of 5i per cent. for 10 years. That is as I read the Order. The House must remember that the Order came into operation yesterday. The Minister has sanctioned the Order and the Treasury has approved of it, and, therefore, the rates of interest referred to are definite and specific, and I return to where I originally started.
  The Anglo-Scottish Beet Company have not liquidated their liability to the State because their business was an unprofitable one, and apart from the Treasury subsidy, they had not an asset at all. The way they have been able to qualify for the shares which have been allotted to them in the Corporation is not because of the quantity of sugar beet that they have refined, but because of the imported raw sugar that they have refined against the general scheme as adopted, approved and worked by other representatives of the beet sugar factory group. We are transforming a dead liability into a live asset, but we are simply paying ourselves with our own money. It is one of those very unhappy chapters in our legislative history, which, I hope, will not be repeated for a long time.
  7.22 p.m.
  Mr. ELLIOT: Perhaps it will be courteous if I now reply to the various questions which have been put to me. The subject is very wide and the discussion has covered the whole finance of the scheme. I do not wish to go outside even the very wide discussion which we have had, except to say that it is impossible to consider the scheme without considering the fact that the purpose of the scheme, if accomplished, is not merely to preserve the companies but to preserve the growing of sugar beet in this country and the employment of 400,000 acres and scores of thousands of workers. It was estimated that some 40,000 people were employed in one way or another among the agricultural population of this country owing to the growing of sugar beet. Its influence, as every practical agriculturist knows, extends far beyond the people concerned with growing sugar beet in this country.
  The asset which the State possesses as a result of these proposals is the industry of agriculture, and that is a thing which the House should not forget when discussing these points of finance. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) asked the specific question as to how land should be valued and written down for replacement value. It is clear that what the White Paper has in mind are the assets as a whole, of which the factories constitute by far the greatest proportion, and the price of the land naturally should not be written down at replacement value. The hon. Member asked whether the Government were holding ordinary or debenture shares. The Government are not holding shares at all. They are holding a lien on the shares which the Anglo - Scottish group is getting as a result of the amalgamation
  in this Corporation. The cash will be realised as soon as possible. The hon. Member asked what was the estimated market value referred to in page 11 of the White Paper:
  "The terms and conditions of the issue, … shall be subject to, the approval of the Treasury, provided that the price of issue shall be not more than the estimated market value of the debenture stock at the date of issue."
  That is, the estimated market value of the stock of this quality, with the guarantee that the price will not be above that figure. These were the specific points that were raised, but I think that the general argument of the hon. Member for Don Valley would take me into the realms of a Second Reading Debate. I repeat that the purpose of this proposal is to maintain the factories and the processing of sugar beet in this country and thereby maintaining the sugar beet acreage. I know that there is a division of opinion in the House. It has been decided by the House on Second Reading, and I hope that it will be decided again on the Third Reading that that shall be so. I cannot go into arguments for or against, as I should be out of order, but I do not apologise in any way for the decision the House has taken. I used my utmost endeavours to persuade the House to come to that decision, and I shall, on the Third Reading, use my utmost endeavours to persuade it to come to that decision again. It would be a bad thing if we scrapped £5,000,000 of food-producing machinery in this country to-day, and would be still worse if we scrapped 400,000 acres which are producing sugar beet for the beet sugar factories.
  Question put, "That the words 'one million' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 124.

  Division No. 135.]

  AYES.

  [7.28 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Albery, I. J.

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

  Cobb, Sir C. S.

  Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Colfox, Major W. P.

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

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Apsley, Lord

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

  Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

  Craddock, Sir R. H.

  Assheton, R.

  Bull, B. B.

  Crooke, J. S.

  Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)

  Butt, Sir A.

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Crossley, A. C.

  Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Crowder, J. F. E.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Baxter, A. Beverley

  Cary, R. A.

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

  Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

  Belt, Sir A. L.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

  Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

  De Chair, S S.

  Jackson, Sir H.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  De la Bère, R.

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)

  Ramsden, Sir E.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Danville, Alfred

  Kirkpatrick, W. M.

  Rayner, Major R. H.

  Donner, P. W.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Drewe, C.

  Latham, Sir P.

  Remer, J. R.

  Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

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

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

  Leckie, J. A.

  Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

  Dugdale, Major T. L.

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Rowlands, G.

  Dunglass, Lord

  Levy, T.

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

  Dunne, P. R. R.

  Liddall, W. S.

  Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

  Eastwood, J. F.

  Lindsay, K. M.

  Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

  Eckersley, P. T.

  Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

  Salt, E. W.

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V.

  Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Scott, Lord William

  Ellis, Sir G.

  Lumley, Capt. L. R.

  Selley, H. R.

  Elliston, G. S.

  Mac Andrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.

  Shakespeare, G. H.

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Entwistle, C. F.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

  Errington, E.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

  Shepperson, Sir E. W.

  Erskine Hill, A. G.

  MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

  Everard, W. L.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Fildes, Sir H.

  McEwen, Capt. H. J. F.

  Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crowe)

  Findlay, Sir E.

  McKie, J. H.

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)

  Fleming, E. L.

  Maclay, Hon. J. P.

  Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

  Spens, W. P.

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)

  Furness, S. N.

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

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Gibson, C. G.

  Markham, S. F.

  Storey, S.

  Gledhill, G.

  Maxwell, S. A.

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Gluckstein, L. H.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Goldie, N. B.

  Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Morgan, R. H.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Grimston, R. V.

  Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

  Touche, G. C.

  Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  Tree, A. R. L. F.

  Gunston, Capt. D. W.

  Munro, P.

  Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C

  Guy, J. C. M.

  Nall, Sir J.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

  Hamilton, Sir G. C.

  Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H.

  Wakefield, W. W.

  Hanbury, Sir C.

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

  Wallace, Captain Euan

  Hannah, I. C.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

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

  Harbord, A.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.

  Warrender, Sir V.

  Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Wayland, Sir W. A.

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Patrick, C. M.

  Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

  Holmes, J. S.

  Penny, Sir G.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

  Patherick, M.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hopkinson, A.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Pilkington, R.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Howltt, Dr. A. B.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Wise, A. R.

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

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

  Radford, E. A.

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Hunter, T.

  Raikes, H. V. A. M.

  Hurd, Sir P. A.

  Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.ߞ

  Sir James Blindell and Mr. Cross.

  NOES.

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

  Dalton, H.

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Adamson, W. M.

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Holdsworth, H.

  Ammon, C. G.

  Day, H.

  Holland, A.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Dobbie, W.

  Hollins, A.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  Hopkin, D.

  Barnes, A. J.

  Ede, J. C.

  Jagger, J.

  Barr, J.

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Batey, J.

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Bellenger, F.

  Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Benson, G.

  Foot, D. M.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Bevan, A.

  Frankel, D.

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Broad, F. A.

  Gardner, B. W.

  Lathan, G.

  Bromfield, W.

  Garro-Jones, G. M.

  Lawson, J. J.

  Buchanan, G.

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Leach, W.

  Burke, W. A.

  Gibblns, J.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Cape, T.

  Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  McGovern, J.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

  MacLaren, A.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Maclean, N.

  Compton, J.

  Griffiths, J. (Lianelly)

  Mander, G. le M.

  Cove, W. G.

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Marklew, E.

  Daggar, G.

  Hardie, G. D.

  Marshall, F.

  2226

  2227

  Mathers, G.

  Rowson, G.

  Thurtle, E.

  Maxton, J.

  Sanders, W. S.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Milner, Major J.

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Viant, S. P.

  Montague, F.

  Sexton, T. M.

  Walkden, A. G.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)

  Shinwell, E.

  Walker, J.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Short, A.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Muff, G.

  Simpson, F. B.

  Watson, W. McL.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)

  Welsh, J. C.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Westwood, J.

  Parker, H. J. H.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Potts, J.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Williams T. (Don Valley)

  Price, M. P.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Wilson. C. H. (Attercliffe)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Stephen, C.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Quibell, J. D.

  Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Ritson, J.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Thorne, W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.

  CLAUSE 8.—(Sugar Refining Agreement.)
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 9, line 21, to leave out from "effect" to the end of the Sub-section.
  The offending words are:
  "notwithstanding any rule of law relating to agreements in restraint of trade."
  If hon. Members desire to see the real effect of this Amendment they should look at the Third Schedule. There they will find power given to the Corporation, along with the refiners, to enter into all kinds of agreements for the purpose of buying raw sugar for refining purposes and for the allocation and purchase of quotas. Our objection to the words which we propose to leave out is that the refiners and the Corporation, which is financed by the Treasury, will be entitled to enter into agreements to determine the quantity of raw sugar which the factories shall refine and what quantity of raw sugar the refiners shall import. The power granted to this monopoly is one that we do not find in connection with any other undertaking in any part of the country. It has been our policy to oppose any monopoly which is in business exclusively for the purpose of private profit. All sorts of dangers are run by the consuming public where bodies have statutory power to enter into agreement which suit their peculiar financial interests. In this case it is perhaps more extraordinary than in any other, for sugar is something of universal use and unless the last word in guarantees for the consumer are provided it ill becomes Parliament to hand over such tremendous powers to profit-making interests.
  Reference has been made to the profits made by Tate and Lyle, who last year made their maximum profit and handed back to their shareholders £1,360,000 worth of shares, free of charge. Whether
  2228
  they are refining or dealing with sugar beet they seem to be making either side of their business very profitable. This close combine and this absolute monopoly to import raw sugar or to agree to take from the factories raw sugar for refining purposes has placed them in a position that they have not been in before. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that in existing circumstances the factories have to allow the sugar refiners to refine only a proportion of raw sugar produced from the factories and that it was convenient and financially discreet to do so, because of the peculiar organisation of the refiners. We think that that ought never to have happened, and that if the Treasury were to put up £50,000,000 to enable this industry to develop and to provide a guaranteed price for the producer and a fairly considerable profit for the factory owners, the factories ought to have been used to their maximum capacity for refining purposes and not, as has been the case, have been used to less than 50 per cent. of their total capacity.
  We now find ourselves in this position that prior to the advent of the beet sugar factories there were approximately 2,200,000 tons of refining capacity in the country. As the result of Treasury encouragement factories have been built north, south, east and west and we have a potential refining capacity in the beet sugar factories of not less than 1,250,000 tons, making a total refining capacity of 3,450,000 tons, while our total consumption of sugar is about 1,900,000 tons. This Clause, coupled with the Third Schedule, sets up power whereby the refiner and the Corporation can agree to buy and sell quotas. To the extent that the refiners take quotas or allocate to the Corporation a smaller refining quota than full capacity, to that extent will the burden

  2229
  fall upon the Treasury. That is something for which the House ought not to stand. If the industry can only be carried on by means of subsidies, then at least, when you have built your factories, you ought not to allow an outside authority, in this case the refiners, to say to the factory owners or the Corporation: "You shall only refine to the extent of 50 per cent. of your capacity next year. We, the old established refiners, want to refine as near to our full capacity as we can." To the extent that that operates to the detriment of the uneconomic side of the activities of the factories the Treasury will have to pay the price.
  The policy of allocating buying and selling quotas of raw sugar for refining is entirely wrong. With regard to giving the refineries and the Corporation power to make arrangements which are going to be mutually satisfactory from their point of view but adverse to the Treasury point of view, the House ought not to give its permission. To pass with our eyes wide open a Measure of this description, which deliberately permits a profit-making monopoly to carry on despite the ordinary rules with regard to restraint of trade, is something to which the House ought not to consent. For these reasons and the great fear that this combine will be able to exploit the consuming public, I move the Amendment
  7.44 p.m.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. T. M. Cooper): I cannot but think that the hon. Member has traversed in his argument a much wider field than is covered by the Amendment. The purpose of Clause 8 unquestionably is to authorise the conclusion of an agreement between the Corporation on the one hand and the sugar refiners on the other to deal with the subjects set out in the Third Schedule. The substance of that agreement will require the approval in the first place of the Minister, in the second place the approval of the Commission and the Treasury and, finally, its terms will require to be laid before Parliament. Therefore, the substance of the agreement is subject to a cumulative series of checks and safeguards. The hon. Member objected to an agreement being entered into under which the Corporation would carry on business without regard to the rules of law relating to restraint of trade. There, if I may say so without offence,
  2230
  a slight fallacy entered into his argument. The words which he proposes to delete have no bearing on the future operations of the Corporation. They are relevant solely to the initial agreement and the reason for their insertion is merely to provide a protection—I am bound to say a protection which from some points of view hardly seems necessary—against the risk of that initial agreement being made the subject of attack by some party to the agreement on the ground that the agreement was a violation of the, rule of common law against agreements made in restraint of trade. All contracts in restraint of trade are not illegal.
  Mr. E. DUNN: On a point of Order. May I call attention to the fact that there are considerably fewer than 40 Members in the House?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that a Division was taken only a few minutes ago, which showed that more than 40 Members were in attendance.
  Mr. BELLENGER: May we have some guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to the period of time which must elapse before a Count can be called in such circumstances?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is at my discretion.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I was about to point out that all contracts which restrict freedom of trade are not, on that account, illegal. If I am asked what is the determining factor in deciding whether a contract which restrains trade is or is not illegal, I have to say that the law on that subject is developing and that it depends in each case on the view which the court takes of the reasonableness of the restriction, from the point of view of the public on the one hand and of the contracting parties on the other. From that standpoint, it was considered desirable that any possible objection to the conclusion of this initial agreement, arising from a challenge in the courts as to its alleged invalidity on the ground that it was unreasonably in restraint of trade, should be met by this provision at the outset. I should point out to the hon. Member that the deletion of the words would not have the result of preventing the conclusion of the agreement or avoiding any of the difficulties which he had in view. Its only effect would be to create a slight risk, and no more than

  2231
  a slight risk, of a challenge being directed against the agreement in its initial stage.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: But the Lord Advocate will agree that the inclusion of these words in Subsection (1) will deny the individual the right to challenge any agreement which is entered into under this Clause.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I entirely agree but I very much doubt, in so far as I can forecast what the terms of the agreement will be, whether any such agreement would be illegally in restraint of trade. I think it very doubtful whether an attack on that ground, if made, would succeed but, I agree that the insertion of these words would rule out such attacks. Is not that however the very purpose which Parliament desires to secure by this Clause and the Third Schedule? An agreement between the Corporation and the refiners, or, perhaps I should say an agreement between the sugar beet refiners and the ordinary port refiners, relating to the division of the market and providing for reasonable cooperation between them, is really an essential part of the reorganisation of the industry. An agreement of that kind has been in operation in the past to the manifest advantage both of the port refiners and the sugar beet refiners. A binding, precise agreement of the kind which Parliament is authorising by this Clause would have to run the gauntlet of securing the approval of the Minister and eventually of Parliament and if it is the purpose of Parliament that such an agreement should be entered into, why make any provision at all to render even possible the risk of Parliament's intention being defeated, possibly by an individual with a comparatively small interest.
  This Clause and the Third Schedule and the provision as to the agreement, represent an integral part of the whole reorganisation scheme. The sole purpose of the words which it is sought to delete is not to set aside the common law of the land in relation to restraint of trade but merely to provide that if and in. so far as this particular agreement might be exposed to the risk of challenge in this respect, that challenge shall not be available. I repeat that I very much doubt whether such a challenge would in any
  2232
  circumstances succeed and I ask the House not to accept the Amendment.
  7.53 p.m.
  Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: The Lord Advocate referred to agreements which have operated in the past. Has he found that any of those agreements have been challenged in the courts on the ground that they violated the doctrine with regard to restraint of trade? I imagine they have not been so challenged. In that case is it not obvious that the Government at least contemplate that the agreements to be made in the future under this Measure will strike new ground and go beyond what has been done in the past? If so, that is something for the House to consider. These agreements, it would appear, will be different from anything which we have previously had in our experience. If this Clause is doing something new it is for the House to consider whether individuals, even if they have only a small interest, as the Lord Advocate said should be deprived of the protection of the rules of law which generally govern these matters.
  I cannot help thinking that the Government contemplate something here beyond anything which has happened in the past. Otherwise, one is at a loss to know why these words should have been inserted. If the danger is so remote as the Lord Advocate suggests, one wonders why it should be guarded against in this way. I suggest that the individual should have the protection which he has enjoyed in the past, unless some stronger reason than any suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman can be advanced. If it is true that the whole idea of the Bill is to set up a monopoly which, of its nature, can only be based upon agreements which transgress the ordinary rules by which individuals have been protected in the past, that may be a very natural thing, but let the House in that case take action with its eyes open. Let us say that we are going far beyond anything that has heretofore been known, and that we are going to deprive people of the ordinary protection which has been available up to now. I do not think the Lord Advocate has been very clear on this point. He has tried to whittle away the significance of this Clause to such a point as to make it appear to be almost

  2233
  unnecessary. I would like him to explain more clearly why the Clause was ever inserted.
  7.56 p.m.
  Mr. C. S. TAYLOR: I associate myself with the words of the last speaker. Personally, I have never liked this Bill. I think that, in the words of certain Members of the Opposition, it is worse Socialism than they themselves would venture to introduce. The Government are once again in this Bill trying to get outside the law or to get round the law, and to avoid the courts, by withholding from individuals rights which they ought to have. This is not the only case in which the ordinary operation of the law is being avoided in these matters, and I wish to enter my protest against it. I shall await with eagerness any further explanation which is forthcoming from the Government.
  7.57 p.m.
  Mr. BELLENGER: I think the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) has chanced upon a revolution which is taking place in commercial transactions in this country, and of which this Bill represents only a small part. If the 13111 passes and the new Corporation is set up and if we include these words, we make sure that a common law right which has existed for many years cannot be made use of in this respect by any individuals or corporations, because if the use of that common law right were permitted, it would cut across the principles of the Bill. I wish to pay a tribute to the courtesy of the Lord Advocate in giving us legal explanations on difficult points during the Committee stage, and to the lucidity of those explanations I understand that the common law on this point, which apparently has prevailed for many years, is not Statute law but case law, built up on the cases which have been before the courts. Hitherto the subject has been free to set up his trade anywhere he likes, and to sell his goods, as long as he did not break the law. Moreover, any two or more subjects have been free to make contracts, one with the other, as long as they did not break the law.
  Here, in this Clause, we are creating a precedent which will not end with the sugar industry, but will spread throughout industry in this country. Other industries will, inevitably, be taken over
  2234
  as the sugar beet industry is being taken over here. I suggest that the Lord Advocate knows that this principle of restraining individuals or corporations from trading as they have always been able to do in the past, once introduced, is bound to spread. It is well to understand the significance of this phrase which means a change in our industry just as revolutionary as the change which took place when the Government altered the fiscal policy of this country and adopted Protection instead of Free Trade. It is well that not only those inside the House but those outside should understand what is happening. I understand that this form of words has never previously been embodied in an Act of Parliament. The Government are making doubly sure that when this Corporation is set up, there will be no possible chance of litigation by the subject. In that respect we are interfering with the rights of the individual subjects of this country, and it is as well that Members and right hon. Members on the Tory benches should understand what is happening under their very noses.
  I think the Government cannot do anything else than to include this provision in the Bill, but the basis of the Bill is wrong. We ought not by this Clause to restrict trade; we should increase trade. If anyone says it is the purpose of Socialism to do the same sort of thing and that we would have to do it if we were placed in similar circumstances, I say, "No." Here you are restricting trade because you are going to grant a monopoly to a Corporation which is not a State Corporation but a Corporation composed of capitalists, and you are giving this monopoly to such a Corporation and protecting them with a brick wall all round, so that they cannot be proceeded against by any individual or corporation outside that wall. This is indeed a new technique with industry. It is not going to be Socialism, and it is not going to be Capitalism. As I suggested upstairs, it is neither flesh, fish, nor fowl, but it is very good red herring. I do not think that, as this Bill is composed, we can do anything but admit that it is necessary to protect this Corporation—because incidentally the Government will be shareholders in it—from any litigation that may arise under the common law of this country, but it is as well that we should know where we are going. Where the

  2235
  end will be, I do not know, but at any rate we have a new technique at last.
  Mr. CASSELLS: In view of what the last speaker said and of the statement made by the learned Lord Advocate, I wish to ask this question: Can you legalise by Statute a contract which is pacta illicita at common law?
  8.3 p.m.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I should like to answer the points put to me, and I think the complete answer to certain of the arguments which have been raised is to be found in the fact, which perhaps I did not make sufficiently clear earlier, because I assumed hon. Members would have it in mind, that the benefit of the doctrine of restraint of trade can only be taken by the contracting parties. There is, therefore, no question of the concluding words of this Clause depriving the public at large or small traders or anything of that kind of a right which they possess. The only persons who could invoke the doctrine of restraint of trade would either be people like Messrs. Tate and Lyle, on the one hand, or the Corporation on the other, and, frankly, I doubt very much whether they require any protection. If any right is being taken away here, it is being taken away from the refiners on the one side or the Corporation on the other, and no right, whether of Statute or of the common law that is enjoyed by the common people, is being interfered with at all. That will go some way to removing the apprehensions of some hon. Members who have spoken. In answer to the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith), who inquired whether similar challenges had been raised in the past, I would say that they have not, so far as I am aware. On the other hand, the fact that they have not yet been raised is no guarantee that they may not in the future be raised, and it is solely as a wise protection against that risk, and no more, that these words are inserted in the Bill.
  8.5 p.m.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I think we must divide after listening to those answers. It is very conciliatory and nice of the Lord Advocate to reply in that way, but his answer does not meet the real situation at all. It is true, as he says, that prima facie the only people who are at
  2236
  first affected are the different interests within those parties forming the agreement, but those are not ultimately the people who are injured. I cannot understand a Scottish La y Officer giving the answer which he has just given, in view of what he knows to be the facts in regard to this agreement. The agreement is to make statutory in future what has previously been voluntarily agreed upon. This market or this output was carved up in this voluntary agreement as to five nineteenths allocated to sugar manufacture and as to 14 nineteenths allocated to sugar refining.
  Those in the co-operative consumers' movement had a very important connection, and still have, as consuming buyers, with the Scottish refiners in Greenock, but, under the operations even of the voluntary agreement, before many months had gone by the people who were brought within the voluntary agreement found themselves completely unable to supply us with our normal contract requirements as Scottish consumers, with the result that we then had to go to England in order to get the necessary weekly supplies of sugar, and we had to pay extra for the right to get the sugar and extra carriage on top of that, thereby having to charge the consumer of sugar in Scotland far more than he ought otherwise to have been charged. What is now being proposed is to make that a legal agreement under the Bill, or such variations of that apportionment of five nineteenths and 14 nineteenths as may be thought fit, and whereas up to this moment, if we chose, as an organised body of consumers, we could go to court and say, "This is inimical to our interests; we are suffering from c breach of the common law and having our interests damnified by this restraint of trade, "I say that under these words, however quietly and nicely the Lord Advocate may deal with us children over here—he is very suave and uses the velvet glove—and however much he may pipe to us in that way, this Bill will relieve the parties to this agreement of ordinary civil process in regard to restraint of trade. If that is not so, why put these words in?
  I do not want to hold up the House any longer on this matter, because it is obvious that we are not going to get what we want. If by pressing it further we could get a change of attitude, I

  2237
  would go on, but I am certain, from the other types of legislation and statutory Orders which I personally have had to deal with—in regard to merchandise marks, trade marks, Board of Trade approval of trade marks, and so on—that the inclusion of these words is for the purpose of relieving these people from the burden of what would be the likely result of court action, because they are acting in restraint of trade and thereby to the injury of the interests of the general public. We must, therefore, insist on our Amendment by going into the Division Lobby in support of it.
  8.12 p.m.
  Mr. STEPHEN: I was wondering whether the learned Lord Advocate really gave us the law correctly on this subject, and I would like to put it to him whether the customer of the company has not an interest in. this matter and might not take an action into court. My recollection is that there was a case in connection with the tobacco combine. The combine restricted many of their customers from selling at a certain rate, and one of the retailers, supplied by a wholesaler, if I recollect aright took a case into court as constituting a restraint of trade. In that particular case I think the decision went against the retailer, and the court decided that the tobacco combine was
  entitled to take the action that it had taken, but the point is that, while the decision went against the retailer, there was the right of action. I am putting it to the Lord Advocate whether he is convinced that he has stated the law correctly on this matter, and whether, while it may be true that the person who has that right of action may not have very much chance of being successful, in the way in which the courts have been establishing restraint of trade in more recent times, it is not the case that there really is a right of action in the individual
  Mr. CASSELLS: I asked the Lord Advocate a particular question, and so far it has remained unanswered. I ask him, with respect, to answer the question now on the assumption that the contract referred to is in restraint of trade.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I can only speak again by leave of the House, but the answer to the hon. Member's question is that a Statute can, of course, override any objection arising at common law.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 198; Noes, 119.

  Division No. 136.]

  AYES.

  [8.15 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

  Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

  Gibson, C. G.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Gledhill, G.

  Albery, I. J.

  Craddock, Sir R. H.

  Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

  Allen, Lt.-Col. sir W. J. (Armagh)

  Crooke, J. S.

  Goldie, N. B.

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

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  Anitruther-Gray, W. J.

  Cross, R. H.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Crossley, A. C.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Assheton, R.

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)

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

  Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C-mb'rw'll, N.W.)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

  Gunston, Capt. D. W.

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

  Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

  Guy, J. C. M.

  Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Hamilton, Sir G. C.

  Baxter, A. Beverley

  Donner, P. W.

  Hannah, I. C.

  Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

  Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

  Harbord, A.

  Beit, Sir A. L.

  Drewe, C.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Birchall, Sir J. D.

  Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Blindell, Sir J.

  Dugdale, Major T. L.

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

  Boulton, W. W.

  Duggan, H. J.

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

  Dunglass, Lord

  Holmes, J. S.

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Eckersley, P. T.

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Hopkinson, A.

  Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Bull, B. B.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

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

  Butt, Sir A.

  Ellis, Sir G.

  Hudson, R. S. (Southpart)

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Errington, E.

  Hunter, T.

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Erskine Hill, A. G.

  Hurd, Sir P. A.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Everard, W. L.

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

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  Fildes, Sir H.

  Jackson, Sir H.

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Findlay, Sir E.

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)

  Cobb, Sir C. S.

  Fleming, E. L.

  Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

  Colfox, Major W. P.

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Kirkpatrick, W. M.

  Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

  Fremantle, Sir P, E.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Furness, S. N.

  Latham, Sir P.

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

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

  Leckie, J. A.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.

  Shepperson, Sir E. W.

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Levy, T.

  Penny, Sir G.

  Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

  Lewis, O.

  Petherick, M.

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)

  Liddall, W. S.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

  Lleweilln, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

  Pilkington, R.

  Spens, W. P.

  Lloyd, G. W.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)

  Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V.

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Loftus, P. C.

  Radford, E. A.

  Srauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.

  Ralkes, H. V. A. M.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

  Ramsden, Sir E.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Rankin, R.

  Tltchfield, Marquess of

  McKie, J. H.

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Touche, G. C.

  Maclay, Hon. J. p.

  Rayner, Major R. H.

  Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Wakefleld, W. W.

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

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

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

  Markham, S. F.

  Reiner, J. R.

  Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Warrender, Sir V.

  Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

  Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

  Wedderburn. H. J. S.

  Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Rowlands, G.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Mltcheson, Sir G. G.

  Ruoglea-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Morgan, R. H.

  Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

  Wise, A. R.

  Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)

  Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

  Salt, E. W.

  Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

  Sandys, E. D.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Mulrhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  Scott, Lord William

  Mr. James Stuart and Captain

  Nall, Sir J.

  Selley, H. R.

  Waterhouse.

  Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H.

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  NOES.

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Adamson, W. M.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Potts, J.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

  Price, M. P.

  Ammon, C. G.

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  Quibell. J. D.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Ritson, J.

  Barnes, A. J.

  Hardie, G. D.

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Barr, J.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Rowson, G.

  Batey, J.

  Holdsworth, H.

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Bellenger, F.

  Holland, A.

  Sexton, T. M.

  Benson, G

  Hollins, A.

  Shinwell, E.

  Bevan, A.

  Hopkin, D.

  Short, A.

  Broad, F. A.

  Jagger, J.

  Simpson, F. B.

  Bromfield, W.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Burke, W. A.

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

  Cape, T.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Cassells, T.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Stephen, C.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lathan, G.

  Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

  Lawson, J. J.

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Leach, W.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Compton, J.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Thorne, W.

  Cove, W. G.

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Thurtle, E.

  Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

  McGhee, H. G.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Daggar, G.

  McGovern, J.

  Viant, S. P.

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  MacLaren, A.

  Walkden, A. G.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Maclean, N.

  Walker, J.

  Day, H.

  MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

  Watson, W. McL.

  Dobble, W.

  Mander, G. le M.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  Marklew, E.

  Westwood, J.

  Ede, J. C.

  Marshal, F.

  Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

  Mathers, G.

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Maxton, J.

  Williams. T. (Don Valley)

  Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

  Milner. Major J.

  Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

  Foot, D. M.

  Montague, F.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Frankel, D.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)

  Woods, G. S. (Finabury)

  Gardner, B. W.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Garro-Jones, G. M.

  Muff. G.

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Naylor, T. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Gibbins, J.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.

  Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

  Parker. H. J. H.

  8.24 p.m.
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I beg to move, in page 9, line 23, to leave out from the beginning, to "no," in line 24, and to insert:
  2240
  "After the expiration of three months from the date of the passing of this Act."
  This is a drafting Amendment. We wanted to get the Bill through before the end of March so that my right hon. Friend

  2241
  could consent to these agreements, but our expectations have not been fulfilled, and that is the reason why the Amendment is proposed.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I do not intend to oppose the Amendment, but can the Minister tell us whether the settlement of the trade facilities loan to the Anglo-Scottish Sugar Corporation will also be settled within three months? Are you also going to require this side of the operation to be done within three months?
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: This refers to Sub-section (2) of Clause 8.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: That does not answer my point. You are laying down three months in this case. Are you going to *lay down three months in the other?
  Mr. ELLIOT: We had a very long discussion on that point, and clearly it will be settled in full, but I do not think that can be done within three months.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 9.—(Schemes as to Sugar Refining Agreements.)
  8.26 p.m.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, in page 9, line 36, to leave out "whether parties to the agreement or not."
  This Clause provides for schemes under which, among other things, there will be assessments of contributions to be made by registered refiners. The extraordinary thing is that in regard to this industry which is apparently to be closely regulated and controlled in future, words are included in this Clause which will make subject to the charge people who are not parties to the agreement at all. I think we ought to have some guidance from the Government as to what is the real purpose of the insertion of the words, "whether parties to the agreement or not." Do they apply to people who are making different classes of sugar which may not be on sale to the general public to-day as white sugar production, or are they intended to apply to new entrants into the industry who may perhaps not be able to begin sugar production on their own initiative unless they are able to buy out existing interests? If they are to apply in that way, I can understand them. But supposing any section of the trade or any members of the public desire to go into the production of sugar of this
  2242
  kind in future, and are willing to do so at their own risk and without any help at all from the subsidy, are they to be subjected to the charge? I would like to have some information as to the people who are to be made subject to the charge, whether they are parties to the agreement or not.
  8.28 p.m.
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The persons who are to be subjected to the charge are the registered refiners. I am not quite clear as to what object the right hon. Gentleman has in mind in moving this Amendment. Even if the words were omitted, I doubt whether that would affect the purpose of the Clause. The main recommendation of these words is that they add to the clarity of the Clause. Even if the words "whether parties to the agreement or not" were left out, there would still remain the words "assessment of contributions to be made by all registered refiners."
  I thought the right hon. Gentleman's object might be to confine the liability to contributions solely to those refiners who are parties to the agreement, but I hope that is not so for if it were, it would be most unfair. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the contributions imposed by the Bill upon refiners are in return for certain advantages which the refiners get, and it would not be fair if there were certain refiners not parties to the agreement who would share in the advantages conferred by the Bill without having any liability to make contributions. The sole object of the words referred to in the Amendment is to clarify the position, and if the right hon. Gentleman had any other object it would not be achieved by the deletion of those words. I cannot believe he wishes to produce a situation in which there would be certain registered refiners who would enjoy whatever benefits are given without incurring any of the disadvantages and liabilities imposed by the Bill in the way of contributions.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: Do I understand that what the Parliamentary Secretary is submitting to me is that this Clause is necessary in this form in order to secure the implementing of the arrangement contained in the White Paper of last July, that the refining section of the industry should pay 1s. 4½d. per cwt. upon 720,000 tons of notional quota over the year?
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Under this Bill they get what is called a differential excise benefit and a limitation of the Corporation's output of white sugar to 500,000 tons. In return they make certain contributions under the refining arrangements. That is the transaction from both sides. It would be very unfair if certain refiners not parties to the agreement escaped the liabilities but enjoyed the advantages which I have enumerated.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 11.—(Conditions for Receipt of Assistance.)
  8.31 p.m.
  Mr. C. S. TAYLOR: I beg to move, in page 11, line 14, at the end, to insert:
  "(d) that no chemist or other technical expert other than a British subject has been employed in a wage-earning capacity for a longer period than is considered by the Minister necessary for the training of a British subject to carry on this work."
  I do not think this Clause needs very much explanation, as it is a very simple one; but I would like to warn hon. Members opposite that there are a great many unemployed people in this country, and that if they do not support this Amendment I rather tremble for them when they go back to their constituencies and face the angry British subjects who have been kept out of employment by aliens and refugees coming to this country. I would like to appeal to the Minister to meet me, and those associated with me on this Amendment, by agreeing to include in the Bill something which will deal with this matter.
  8.33 p.m.
  Mr. BOULTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I hope hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree to the Amendment, and I hope the Minister will find no difficulty in accepting it. In this Clause protection has been given to British machinery and plant, but no protection has been given to British labour or to the technical supervisory staff which is very important in connection with this industry. No doubt we owed a good deal to alien knowledge in the early stages of the establishment of this industry, but I am assured that to-day aliens are holding a great many of the higher positions in the beet sugar factories. I am also assured that very little encouragement is being given to British chemists and technologists.
  2244
  Although courses have been started in some of the universities, and particularly at the Royal Technical College in Glasgow, the authorities there assure me that they cannot get the students to undertake the courses because they know there is no encouragement for them to enter and gradually to rise to the higher positions in the management of these companies. That seems to me a very unhealthy position, because we believe this industry to be a great national asset and that it will grow into an important industry step by step. It will be of great importance to us in time of war and we should consider whether it is a healthy thing for the higher positions in it to be held by aliens to the extent that they are. The Amendment is drawn in wide terms and will in no way penalise the industry.
  8.36 p.m.
  Mr. ELLIOT: I am sure that the object of the Amendment has the sympathy of the whole House. It is that we should, as far as possible, train our people to work in these factories. As recently as 19270–28 there were 221 alien people in the higher ranks of the industry, but that number has been brought down to 31 to—day. We should not exaggerate the position. There are now only 31 people of alien birth in the whole of this industry as against 9,100 of British origin.
  Mr. C. S. TAYLOR: I would like to know the percentage of alien technical experts to British technical experts engaged in the industry.
  Mr. ELLIOT: There are, for instance, 61 British chemists and no alien, and 465 foremen engineers, etc., and eight aliens. I do not think we should exaggerate the position when the number of aliens has been brought down from 221 to 31, and when, in the case of chemists, for instance, there are 61 British and no aliens employed at all. The House ought to remember, furthermore, that 28 out of the 31 have permission from the Ministry of Labour to remain here unconditionally and are subject to no restrictions in regard to their employment. If they were turned out of these factories they would still be able to apply for employment in other places. All that would happen if they were turned out is that skilled men would be going about displacing British subjects in some other jobs. There is also the possibility that they might become naturalised, and I do

  2245
  not think a. man who is naturalised under compulsion is likely to be a good citizen in time of war. When such a small number is concerned we should not go chasing people by Statute.
  Mr. C. S. TAYLOR: This Amendment leaves it to the discretion of the Minister.
  Mr. ELLIOT: Yes, but it puts a pretty strong compulsion upon him, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that within a short time of that provision becoming a Statute the Minister would be chased with questions asking why, so and so had not been replaced by a, British subject. That is not the atmosphere in which I want the Corporation to start. I want it to be as strong in technical efficiency as we can have it, and we should do our utmost to see that British subjects get posts because of their technical quality and chemical skill and not because we have drawn a rigid line by Statute.
  Mr. QUIBELL: How is Mr. Van Rossum to be described?
  Mr. ELLIOT: The whole purpose of this Bill is that Mr. Van Rossum should disappear altogether.
  Mr. QUIBELL: I am delighted.
  Mr. ELLIOT: I am glad to observe the robust nationalism of the hon. Gentleman. In launching this Corporation we want the best people in order to make it efficient, and I do not think we should try and seek to get efficiency by drawing a rigid line by Statute as to who should be employed. I think that the powers under the Aliens Order are sufficient to ensure that no further foreigners are brought into the country for employment in this industry. A permit from the Ministry of Labour has to be obtained for a foreigner to get leave to land for employment purposes, and foreigners in the country are still subject to authority in regard to employment and have to obtain permission from the Home Office, which would in the normal practice consult the Ministry of Labour. In regard to this industry the Ministry would require convincing evidence of the need of a foreigner's services before permission would be given, and the Ministry would certainly consult with the Ministry of Agriculture. I think that in the absence of strong evidence I should have the greatest hesitation in allowing any fresh persons to come over. Seeing that there
  2246
  are only 31 persons concerned, of whom 28 have unlimited permission to reside in the country, the effective result of the Amendment is that it is limited to three persons only. I would therefore ask my hon. Friend whether he would see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
  Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many of this 31 are employed in a wage-earning capacity as against a salary capacity, because the Amendment only deals with wage-earners?
  Mr. ELLIOT: I always admire the intellectual ingenuity of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I think that my hon. Friend in moving the Amendment had in view those who were in receipt of emoluments in general, and that he did not intend to differentiate too closely between the "salariat" and the proletariat.
  Mr. C. S. TAYLOR: In view of the Minister's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  8.36 p.m.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: We should have a word of answer from the Minister on this. He talks about what he calls the robust nationalism of my hon. Friends on this side, but he will observe that this Amendment has been moved from his own benches. While we have never ceased to object, and will not cease to object, to the extent to which the public has been exploited under a thoroughly bad scheme for 12 years in such a way that foreign investors have made large profits out of the exploitation of the British taxpayer, yet we feel that this narrow bar against foreign technicians is absurd from the British point of view.—[Interruption.] In view of the playful remarks addressed to my side of the House I want to make it plain that this Amendment came from hon. Members supporting the Government. It is true that they would like to withdraw it, but they ought to have been the last people to move such an Amendment, seeing that the interests for which they stand are exploring every foreign country for opportunities for commercial development and seeking to have British technicians—surveyors, engineers, and chemists—and British advisers of all sorts employed there. It is extraordinary that they, from that side of the House,

  2247
  should object to these few people who happen to be aliens being engaged in this industry.
  Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: And then ask them to go to Eastbourne for their holidays.
  8.47 p.m.
  Mr. MacLAREN: I wish to join in the protest against the suggestion that we on these benches have taken a narrow view on this matter. The Amendment has been drawn in such a way as to fire a shell at the technicians—the chemists and the engineers—in this industry. After all, they do something for whatever they get out of the industry, whether they are foreigners or not. What I cannot understand it why hon. Members opposite have been passive all these years when it was so well known to those of us who have looked into this industry that there were great foreign names connected with it in the initial stages. Those people could not by any stretch of the imagination be called technicians or salary drawers—Dr. Axel, Van Rosen, Dr. Schmidt and Van Loon. All those gentlemen came to this country and induced innocent John Bull to go in for sugar beet cultivation. An hon. Friend reminds me that Lord Snowden encouraged it. He afterwards reproached us on this side for our prodigality, but it was he who foisted this scheme on the country. There has never been any attempt to draw up a Clause to keep those gentlemen out of the industry, and I see no need for any Amendment to keep out only foreign parasites, because in my view there is no difference between Dutch or other parasites and those born in England. They are all the same sort of parasites.
  If hon. Members opposite are going to show themselves ultra patriotic I hope they will be patriotic enough to make the net narrower and finer, not allowing in those who are mere parasites while attempting to keep out working men, who will travel to any country to look for a job. The Minister has assured us that he will see to it that in the future no foreigner will get in if he can avoid it. I wish to know whether the Irish are to be regarded as foreigners. As I come of Irish parentage, although I speak with a Scottish accent and represent an English constituency, I want to be sure
  2248
  that my forefathers and their children are not to be debarred as Irishmen, from coming into this industry. I hope Irishmen will be regarded as British, even in his Department, when they apply for jobs as technicians in the sugar industry.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 14.—(Calculation of effective rates of assist lace.)
  8.52 p.m.
  Mr. KELLY: I beg to move, in page 14, line 2, after "interest" to insert "not exceeding four per cent. subject to tax."
  By this Amendment I am asking that instead of the Corporation being allowed to earn unlimited interest it shall be limited to four per cent. That will be an adequate return, and they will be well remunerated for. anything they undertake under this particular Measure. To-day, people consider they are doing well if they get a return of three per cent. from a safe investment, and as this scheme is to have the backing of the Government it may be regarded as a gilt-edged investment.
  8.54 p.m.
  Mr. QUIBELL: I beg to second the Amendment.
  This is a Bill which is intended, in the main, to benefit agriculture, according to the White Paper, and if that be so I do not understand why the Minister should not accept this Amendment. If the Corporation can maintain an interest of four per cent. it will be a gilt-edged security, and not at all a bad investment. The Minister is full of good will towards agriculture and I want him to show that good will in a practical fashion by accepting this Amendment. It will be one way of helping agriculture, because up to the present the financier has gained the most out of this great ramp. The White Paper says that the primary purpose for a subsidy is to help agriculture. The parties who you are protecting are chiefly the investigating public, the people who own the shares in the beet sugar factories. The Minister shakes his head, but the wiseacres who have had their money up to now in some of these factories have milked the cow pretty well. This is supposed to be a co-partnership, but it has been a cow partnership. The public funds have been at the feeding end but the financiers have had the milking end of it. They have been crosswise instead of lengthwise.

  2249
  I suggest that the Minister accept the Amendment limiting the amount of interest that these people will have in the future, and giving to the growers of sugar beet a better price. My right hon. Friend who has sat on these benches for hours to-day has been endeavouring to protect the interests of the consumers, while the Minister has been very zealous in protecting the interests of the financiers, but I would remind him that there are more hon. Members on his side than on ours who represent agriculture and who desire to improve the Bill in the interests of agriculture. If financiers had not benefited while agriculture was famishing, as has been the case in the past, and there had been a better and more just diffusion of the sacrifices that the nation has made in order to establish this industry, the Minister would have found far more support on this side for putting the industry into a better position, as I believe this Bill will do. I hope that the Minister will magnanimously say that he accepts the Amendment.
  8.57 p.m.
  Mr. BARNES: The issue here is apparently between a maximum of 4 per cent. and a maximum of 7 per cent. I do not think this Amendment is unreasonable if we bear in mind one or two points. The earning capacity of the Corporation is determined by these facts: first, the State gives a subsidy to home-grown sugar, then we give a differential duty to the refiners, then we proceed, in this Corporation, to give them a monopoly in sugar production, and subsequently, the operations of this scheme enable both port refiners and the inland beet sugar refiners to divide the market between them. Prior to the scheme coming into operation, the companies to be transferred were permitted to distribute their reserves to their shareholders; under this scheme the Treasury will stand guarantee for £1,000,000 debentures, of which £750,000 are distributed to the transferred companies. In those conditions it is very reasonable that the earning capacity of the shares should be limited to 4 per cent.
  8.59 p.m.
  Mr. ELLIOT: We should all agree with hon. Members opposite if it were not for the criticism which they have levelled at the same time that the scheme
  2250
  did not provide sufficiently for efficiency. My only purpose, apart from saying that I am unable to accept the Amendment, is to call attention to the stress which hon. and right hon. Members opposite have laid so repeatedly upon the necessity for efficiency in the industry. We have devised a scheme whereby efficiency may be secured by means of the division between the Corporation and the Treasury, that is to say the State, of any additional sums earned. That division is on terms which is very favourable to the State. If, by reason of the operation of the incentive scheme, the company earns more than 4 per cent. dividend, suppose it goes as high as 5 per cent. or 5½ per cent., the Corporation would get £300,000 of that and the Treasury would get 21,600,000 over ten years, which on the whole is not a bad rake-off for the community. It amounts to 68 per cent.
  The division by which the community takes 68 per cent. of any possible improvement of the position of the Corporation and leave the Corporation the remainder, may not seem to hold out any undue incentive to the Corporation, yet it is desirable to hold out such incentive in order to increase their efficiency. As hon. Members opposite have said, it is necessary on general grounds that that efficiency be increased, in the interests of the continuance of the industry in the future, so that it may work down the cost of its processes. It is for the benefit of all concerned to adopt this proposal for the benefit of the agriculturists themselves. We have met the general position of hon. Members opposite by limiting the rate of interest to 4 per cent. I hope that I have explained that if we do not accept a fixed and rigid limit of 4 per cent., it is because if more than 4 per cent. be earned the Treasury stand to gain enormously on those increased earnings. That means more money for the Treasury and more efficiency for the industry. I hope hon. Members will, therefore, not press their Amendment.
  Mr. QUIBELL: The right hon. Gentleman has divided it nicely between the Treasury and the rentiers, but where is there anything for the growers?
  Mr. ELLIOT: Surely the growers stand to gain by anything that makes for the increased efficiency of the industry.

  2251
  Moreover, very little attention has been paid to the growers by hon. Members opposite, who have voted for the rejection of the Bill and the complete extinction of the growers as such. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It comes a little hard from those who voted against the Financial Resolution, against the Second Reading and, so far as I know, are going to vote against the Third Reading, to say that we show insufficient tenderness for the growers.
  Mr. EDE: Saying it twice does not make it true.
  Mr. ELLIOT: For hon. Members opposite to say that they show any interest whatsoever in the growers is to state something which is patently absurd. They desire that the extinction of the industry should be complete. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I beg hon. Members' pardon, but they backed up the Greene Committee's report that the industry should be shut down and the men thrown on the dole, and that there should be no compensation.
  Mr. PRICE: The right hon. Gentleman should read the Brighton Conference resolution.
  Mr. ELLIOT: I have done so. Hon. Members appear to be going back on what they have just been saying. May I ask for a fair answer to a fair question? Are they now in favour of the beet sugar industry going on? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes !"] Good. Then we are all of one mind.
  Mr. JAGGER: Not on these lines.
  Mr. ELLIOT: If there is apparently some confusion in the House there is no danger of the confusion which existed last night, and we know exactly where we are. We are going to vote solidly for the continuance of the beet sugar industry and for the Bill. I ask hon. Members whether the incentive scheme is not necessary for the efficiency of the industry, and if that be so, whether they find it necessary to press an Amendment which would cut out the incentive to efficiency by which alone the industry in the long run could really be justified?
  9.4 p.m.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman never lacks ingenuity, argument, excuses or words to justify any
  2252
  point which he has in mind, but when he tells us that what are called the incentive proposals are likely to result in savings to the State, I should like to put one or two questions to him. For instance, under the terms of the Order which the right hon. Gentleman has approved, he has undertaken to allow to be employed, at the same salaries of which they are now in receipt, all the directors who were in existence previously. On page 13 of the White Paper there is this paragraph:
  "Directors' fees on the scale applicable to the year for which the rate is being fixed shall be included …"
  Mr. ELLIOT: Only such directors as are required.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Such directors of the 15 companies as will be required are to be re-employed at the same salaries which they presently receive. What will these directors be paid for? Merely to waste their time, or in the expectation that they will procure the maximum efficiency for this Corporation? If the right hon. Gentleman were to regard a 40 per cent. increase in the wages of every worker in the country as desirable for the promotion of the maximum of efficiency, we should agree with him, but if only directors are to be bribed by a 40 per cent. increase in the income of their companies for the purpose of procuring efficiency, it does not say much for the right hon. Gentleman's confidence in the directors who are to run this Corporation. It is true that, if £1,900.000 were saved by the increased efficiency, the State would benefit in a larger proportion than the companies, but what we are concerned about is that, out of the moneys provided by the Treasury, you first of all make the industry profitable, then you guarantee 4 per cent. interest on £5,000,000, and then you say that that rate of interest may be increased to 7 per cent. If I am wrong, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will correct me.
  Mr. ELLIOT: I can only speak again by the leave of the House, but the hon. Member himself knocked the bottom out of his argument by quoting the proviso on page 14, which states that, if the dividend of the Corporation falls below 4 per cent., the Corporation will propose to the Sugar Commission that, if the Commission think fit, they should recommend the Government to make provision towards replacing the amount necessary

  2253
  to enable a dividend of 4 per cent. to be paid. Nobody can say that that is a guarantee, or, if it is a guarantee, it is a very shaky kind of guarantee.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House exactly what paragraph 3 on pages 11 and 12 means?
  Mr. ELLIOT: There is no difficulty about that. If the industry is being reasonably and efficiently run, 4 per cent. is a reasonable standard rate for the purposes of calculation, but if it falls below 4 per cent., as it may easily do, a whole series of hypothetical conditions have to be fulfilled before it can be made up even to 4 per cent., not to mention going above 4 per cent.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us where it is provided that there shall be reasonable efficiency before they get 4 per cent.?
  Mr. ELLIOT: In the Clauses of the Bill.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I am referring to the Order which the right hon. Gentleman has approved, and which the Treasury also has approved. Perhaps we had better return to these words and see exactly what they mean, because I do not think it is fair that Members of the House should be kept in ignorance.
  Mr. ELLIOT: Of course it is not, but, since the hon. Gentleman challenges me, I would point out that all these are arrangements referred to in Clause 3, which has been passed by the House. Sub-section (3) of Clause 3 reads as follows:
  "No arrangements or scheme shall be approved or confirmed under this Section unless the arrangements or scheme make such provision as appears to the Minister and the Treasury to be expedient for securing that the affairs of the Corporation will be conducted with due regard to the public interest and to the efficient manufacture in Great Britain of sugar from homegrown beet and to the efficient marketing of such sugar."
  All these arrangements are to be read subject to that over-riding Clause in the Statute.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Then what is the reason for the incentive proposals, with the extra 1½ per cent.? If it is demanded in the Bill and in the White Paper that the Corporation shall be run with due
  2254
  regard to reasonable efficiency, and in the best interests of the industry, of national finance, and so on, what is the reason for this extra 1½ per cent.?
  Mr. ELLIOT: To use a familiar agricultural metaphor, if I ride a donkey to the market, I can very reasonably say that the donkey is proceeding in a reasonable way if I am using the reins and the whip as far as I can, but if I want to be more speedy, and take a carrot and tie it in front of the donkey, the donkey will run a great deal faster than it otherwise would.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: On a point of Order. Is it right, in these proceedings on Report, that the Minister should speak four times on one Amendment?
  Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I am afraid we are getting rather slack. I think it is better that hon. Members should make their speeches and leave the Minister to make his reply. It is not as though we were in Committee, when the Minister can speak more than once.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not want to make it difficult for the Minister when he has no further right of reply, but I still remain unconvinced that the guarantee will not be insisted upon by the Corporation, and they can always quote paragraph 3 of the White Paper, which is headed "Return on Capital," should there be any doubt about their 4 per cent. It is true that I quoted paragraph 6 on page 14, which says:
  "The following further provisions relate to the Corporation's earnings,"
  but they would only apply in exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the Corporation which made it difficult to pay 4 per cent. As far as we can expect, on a reasonable interpretation of paragraph 3 and paragraph 6, there will be a definite guarantee of 4 per cent. on the £5,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman, before he guarantees this 4 per cent. on £5,000,000, insists on a reasonable measure of efficiency on the part of the Corporation, and he undertakes to pay the directors' salaries on the same basis as hitherto. Clearly, if the Corporation is affecting such economies as one might expect, it ought to start making money immediately, but the right hon. Gentleman produces a 1½ per cent. carrot to dangle before the donkey, as he puts it, the net result

  2255
  being that they will look forward for the next ten years, not only to 4 per cent., but to a further 1½ per cent., making a total of 5½ per cent. In the latter part of the reference to income and dividends on page 14 of the White Paper, these very significant words appear:
  "Save in exceptional circumstances, and subject to the prior approval of the Sugar commission and the Government, the rate of dividend shall not exceed 7 per cent. per annum."
  The short point, therefore, is this. The sugar companies in the past have done themselves extremely well at the expense of the Treasury and they are not entitled to too much generosity now. By this Bill the right hon. Gentleman is going to keep the factories in operation, he is going to give them almost a permanent life, he is turning what otherwise would be a mere shadow into a real live marketable asset and he is going to confer upon them, possibly perpetually, 5½ per cent. interest. Since this is a Government subsidised industry it is too much.
  If you are going to pay your directors a salary consistent with the onerous duties that they perform, if they perform them, we ought to expect that those directors will produce a maximum of efficiency regardless of what dividend the owners of the Corporation obtain. It is not so much the shareholders in the Corporation who matter, it is the efficiency or otherwise of the directors who are going to run the show. You do not say either in the Bill or in the White Paper that, if
  the directors put in the maximum time and produce a maximum of efficiency, you will double their salaries. You do not say to any of the technicians, "If you will really put your heart into this Corporation, effect economies wherever they can be effected and run the show as cheaply as possible consistent with reasonable wages and salaries for the workpeople and technicians we will increase your wage or salary at the end of a week, a month or a year." All you say is that the shareholders, who play no part at all in the running of the Corporation shall be able to get another 40 per cent. increase on their 4 per cent. dividend. I think the right hon. Gentleman is a bit too generous, to put it no higher than that. It is unnecessary to make this addition. If he had said to those who are going to do the job, "If you do your level best, if at the end of a year or two we find you have produced such economies as will reduce the demand for Treasury funds, we will increase your wage or salary," perhaps he would have found unanimous support on these benches. I think the Amendment is perfectly legitimate. The money is going to the wrong people, to those who have taken advantage of their opportunities in the past, and I do not think we ought to give more Treasury money to those who have not been worthy of it in the past.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 114; Noes, 198.

  Division No. 137.]

  AYES.

  [9.20 p.m.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Jagger, J.

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

  Day, H.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Adamson, W. M.

  Dobble, W.

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

  Dunn, E. (Rather Valley)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Ammon, C. G.

  Ede, J. C.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Kirby, B. V.

  Barnes, A. J.

  Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

  Lawson, J. J.

  Barr, J.

  Foot, D. M.

  Leach, W.

  Batey, J.

  Gallacher, W.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Bellenger, F.

  Gardner, B. W.

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Benson, G.

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Bevan, A.

  Gibbins, J.

  MacLaren, A.

  Broad, F. A.

  Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

  Maclean, N.

  Bromfield, W.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  MacNeill, Weir, L.

  Brooke, W.

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

  Mander, G. le M.

  Cape, T.

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Marklew, E.

  Cassells, T.

  Griffiths, J. (Lianelly)

  Marshall, F.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Groves, T. E.

  Maxton, J

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Montague, F.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

  Hardie, G. D.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Compton, J.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Muff, G.

  Cove, W. G.

  Holdsworth, H.

  Naylor, T E.

  Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

  Holland, A.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Daggar, G.

  Hollins, A.

  Parker, H. J. H.

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Hopkin, D.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Potts, J.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Westwood, J.

  Price, M. P.

  Stephen, C.

  Wilkinson, Ellen

  Pritt, D. N.

  Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

  Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)

  Quibell, J. D.

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Ritson, J.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  Rowson, G.

  Thurtle, E.

  Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Sexton, T. M.

  Viant, S. P.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Shinwell, E.

  Walkden, A. G.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Short, A.

  Walker, J.

  Simpson, F. B.

  Watson, W. McL.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Welsh, J. C.

  Mr. Mathers and Mr. Whiteley.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

  Furncss, S. N.

  Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Gibson, C. G.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Albery, I. J.

  Gledhlll, G.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

  Gluckstein, L. H.

  Penny, Sir G.

  Amery, Bt. Hon. L. C. M. S.

  Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

  Petherick, M.

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Goldie, N. B.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Apsley, Lord

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  Pilkington, R.

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Assheton, R.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Radford, E. A.

  Baldwin, Ht. Hon. Stanley

  Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)

  Ralkes, H. V. A. M.

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

  Gunston, Capt. D. W.

  Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

  Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

  Guy, J. C. M.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Baxter, A. Bcverley

  Hamilton, Sir G. C.

  Ramsden, Sir E.

  Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

  Hannah, I. C.

  Rankin, R.

  Beit, Sir A. L.

  Harbord, A.

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Birchall, Sir J. D.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Rayner, Major R. H.

  Blindell, Sir J.

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Boulton, W. W.

  Hepburn, p. G. T. Buchan-

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Remer, J. R.

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Holmes, J. S.

  Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

  Hopkinson, A.

  Rowlands, G.

  Bull, B. B.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

  Butt, Sir A.

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

  Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

  Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Hunter, T.

  Salmon, Sir I.

  Carver, Major W. H.

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

  Salt, E. W.

  Cary, R. A.

  Jackson, Sir H.

  Sandys, E. D.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

  Scott, Lord William

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

  Selley, H. R.

  Colfox, Major W. P.

  Kirkpatrick, W. M.

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

  Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Latham, Sir P.

  Shepperson, Sir E. W.

  Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

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

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Leckie, J. A.

  Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

  Craddock, Sir R. H.

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)

  Crooke, J. S.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

  Spens, W. P.

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Levy, T.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)

  Cross, R. H.

  Lewis, O.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Crossley, A. C.

  Liddall, W. S.

  Srauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

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

  Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

  Loftus, P. C.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Donner, P. W.

  McCorquodale, M. S

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

  Mac Donald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Drewe, C.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

  Touche, G. C.

  Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

  Macdonald, Capt-P. (Isle of Wight)

  Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

  Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

  McEwen, Capt. H. J. F.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

  Dugdale, Major T. L.

  Maclay, Hon. J. P.

  Wakefleld, W. W.

  Duggan, H. J.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  Duncan, J. A. L.

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

  Wallace, Captain Euan

  Dunglass, Lord

  Markham, S. F.

  Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

  Eckersley, P. T.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Warrender, Sir V.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

  Wedderburn, H. J. S.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

  Ellis, Sir G.

  Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Errington, E.

  Morgan, R. H.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Erskine Hill, A. G.

  Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

  Wise, A. R.

  Everard, W. L.

  Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Findlay, Sir E.

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  Fleming, E. L.

  Munro, P.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

  Nall, Sir J.

  Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward

  and Commander Southby.

  CLAUSE 16.—(Allowances in respect of sugar manufactured during the period between 31st August, 1935, and 1st September, 1936.)
  9.27 p.m.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 15, line 24, at the end, to insert:
  "Provided that no part of such allowances shall be paid in respect of any company which in the year nineteen hundred and thirty-four or nineteen hundred and thirty-five distributed cash reserves to their shareholders."
  Sub-section (1, b) enables the Treasury to provide to the transferor companies allowances not exceeding in the aggregate £315,000 in respect of interest on capital. This is a perfectly legitimate Amendment, and unless the Minister can satisfy the House that he is already under an obligation to make this payment, and that there is no Ministerial discretion about it, every Member on this side of the House will vote in favour of the Amendment. Practically all the beet sugar companies for the past 10 years have made fairly large profits, with the exception of the Anglo-Scottish and perhaps one other. In 1935 no less than £740,000 was paid in cash bonuses by the various beet sugar companies, and it seems a little odd that immediately on the morrow of the payment of those very large cash bonuses the Minister should take power to grant a further £315,000 to these companies. In view of the fact that on the passing of this Bill they will have a permanent right to draw anywhere between four to seven per cent. interest on £5,000,000 of capital, largely because of the intervention of the Treasury, we think that the Minister ought to accept this Amendment and teach a lesson to those directors who have exploited the nation in the past and who, knowing that some such Measure as this would be on the stocks shortly, took advantage of the opportunity of paying these cash bonuses to their shareholders.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. ELLIOT: I am very interested in this Amendment, but I think that on consideration the hon. Gentleman will agree that he is being altogether too generous. The purpose of this Amendment is to provide that the whole of this relief should be concentrated on Lord Weir. That is a very comic idea.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not going to mislead the House like that. The Subsection reads "allowances not exceeding in the aggregate £315,000." It does not follow that if this Amendment were passed the right hon. Gentleman would necessarily be obliged to pay to Lord Weir the whole of that sum.
  Mr. ELLIOT: In view of the reflections which have been passed on the Government and the accusations of ramps and all the rest of it which have gone on even during the course of this Debate, it shows a touching faith on the part of the Opposition for them to suggest that if their Amendment were carried I should thereupon exercise a discretion, when they have not been willing up to now to allow me any such discretion. I am not misleading the House at all. The purpose of this Amendment is to out out certain factories which have been more efficiently managed in the past, and to concentrate all the relief on the factories which may have been less efficiently managed. It is all to go to the Anglo-Scottish. I am sure that the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) will be only too pleased. But it is a little hard on some of the other companies. Chiefly on account of the inconsistency of the arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite I ask the House not to accept the Amendment.
  9.33 p.m.
  Mr. KELLY: It is very ingenious on the part of the Minister to suggest that this amount of money is intended to be handed over to the particular people he has just mentioned. He certainly would not be acting justly to the Government if he paid that money over to the individual whose name he has mentioned.
  Mr. ELLIOT: That is what hon. Gentlemen intend me to do by statutory injunction.
  Mr. KELLY: But the Statute does not suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he must pay incompetent people any money from the State. If it does, the sooner the power is taken from him the better. People who are incompetent have certainly had rewards
  Mr. ELLIOT: The Amendment is enjoining me to subsidise only those who have not conducted their business with efficiency in the past.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The Amendment does nothing of the kind.
  Mr. KELLY: The Amendment does not do what the Minister has suggested. It is suggesting to him that people who anticipated that there might be something coming from this Government took great care that during last year and the year before they distributed bonuses and are now looking for more to be distributed to them. The Amendment says that no part of this allowance shall be paid to those who distributed cash reserves to their shareholders during last year or the year before.
  Mr. ELLIOT: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it also means that this must be paid to people who did not distribute cash reserves?
  Mr. KELLY: If they were competent and were deserving, but the people mentioned by the Minister are certainly not deserving and are not entitled to this money. The Minister would be deserving of censure if he paid any portion of this £315,000 to the people whom he has just mentioned.
  Mr. ELLIOT rose—
  Mr. EDE: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Will you say whether the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) is interrupting the Minister, or whether the Minister is interrupting the hon. Member?
  Mr. KELLY: I have no desire to interrupt the Minister at any time, but he has made every endeavour to instruct me in the way that he thinks I ought to go. If those people who distributed this money think that if they had not distributed it among themselves, there would appear to be less justification for the subsidy, they certainly are not entitled to receive and share money which comes from the pockets of the taxpayers.
  9.27 p.m.
  Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: Is it not the case that the reserves were distributed by factories prior to the year 1935, and that this interest is from the year 1935–36, and was part of a bargain entered into between the companies and the Government to continue the sugar beet industry for that year?
  9.28 p.m.
  Mr. OLIVER: I was a little intrigued by what the Minister had to say with respect to the distribution of this money. Am I to understand from his statement that companies which in the past have paid very substantial dividends and made large distributions of shares, will be entitled to participate in this sum of money as a reward for their efficiency, and that those companies which have not been in that favourable position will be denied assistance? I should like the Minister to clear up that point. It is an amazing situation that, unless the Amendment is carried, we shall be in the position that the companies who, in no sense of the term, are in need of financial assistance from the public purse, will be in the happy position of being in receipt of money that they do not require. On the other hand, the companies which have not been able to make the undertaking a paying proposition will be included in the same category as the more wealthy organisations.
  There is a very large measure of justice, if I understood the Minister aright, in the proposition submitted by my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment, that those companies which have distributed any shares shall be excluded from participating in public money, which should be distributed very largely upon the same principle as that of the Government distributing public money to men who are unemployed. They do not give money to those whose income exceeds a certain figure. It is unreasonable that, when we are dealing with sugar beet factories and companies, they should be in a different position from the unfortunate men who have to draw public money through the medium of the public assistance committees in this country. I should like to hear the Minister make a clearer statement on this particular point than that which he has already made.
  9.40 p.m.
  Mr. BROAD: The Minister has not given at any stage of this Bill any explanation or justification on the ground of the need for this largesse to be distributed to these particular people. He has tried to get away from doing it again to-night in an airy sort of way, and, no doubt feeling that he had made a mess of things in his speech, he continually interrupted my right hon. Friend. This

  2263
  sum of £315,000, as far as I can gather from him, is a reward for the efficiency of the people who run these companies. I should like to know where the efficiency comes in. They would not have had anything like the tremendous profits they have had and the enormous amount of reserves, which they have been able to share among themselves, if they had not been efficient in getting generous treatment from a very inefficient Government. Those profits were not legitimate profits and neither were those reserves a legitimate surplus from profits which they thought wise to distribute. They were entirely due to the provision made by the Government, which was one of the most unclean pages, I think of Tory finance in this country.
  We could understand a company or a series of companies which, relying upon largesse from a Government and afraid that it might come to an end, made some provision in reserves for a distribution of profits on their shares when the subsidy no longer existed or was to come to an end, but the gentlemen were wise in their generation from their own point of view. They distributed all available funds and then said that they had no surplus or reserves to enable them to distribute the usual dividends to their shareholders, and now a generous Government have come along and said that they will give them £315,000 to share among themselves. This is the final stage in a disgraceful chapter in the management of industry in this country by means of Government subsidies. I hope that the House will rise to its responsibility to the taxpayer and the general public of the country in this matter, and will say that they are not going to give an additional penny, let alone £315,000 to a few favoured people who are not in need of it.
  9.44 p.m.
  Mr. BARNES: Before we go to a Division, it would be an advantage if either the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary would clear up the discrepancy in the statement of the Minister. I understood him to state that if the Amendment were carried he would still have to disburse this amount of £315,000 and, therefore, larger sums would go to those companies that were not covered by this Amendment. I do not know whether I got the implication of the speech of the
  2264
  Minister correctly, hut this is what he appeared to be telling Members of the House. If one examines the wording of the Clause there is a very significant difference in the language employed. After stating that there should be distributed certain moneys by Parliament in paragraph (a) referring to the Corporation, it states definitely that the allowance must be £240,000, but when you come to paragraph (b), which we are discussing in this Amendment, it does not enforce the obligation upon the Minister to distribute that sum. It says that the transferor companies' allowance is not to exceed in the aggregate £315,000. Therefore, it appears that if this Amendment were carried the State would be saved the amount of money affected by the Amendment. The Minister of Agriculture conveyed the impression that if the Amendment were carried he would have to distribute larger sums to a limited number of companies. We ought to have an explanation whether that is so or not.
  Mr. ELLIOT: I can only speak again by leave of the House. I did not say that it would compel me, but I said that it would enable me. The argument from the other side of the House was that if I were able to do such a thing I should do it. It enjoined me to distribute money, whether it was extra money or not. I said that it would enable me to distribute a large sum, and that it enjoined me to distribute it only to companies that had no reserves.
  Mr. BARNES: As a Scotsman you would not do that.
  Mr. ELLIOT: Has the hon. Member never heard of our motto?:
  "Keeping our ain fish guts for our ain sea maws."
  The Amendment would enjoin me not to pay any money to certain companies, but by implication it would enable me to pay money to certain other companies, and those other companies are the companies of which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have repeatedly complained. They have drawn the Amendment in error, because it does not carry out the purpose which they have so repeatedly put before the House.
  Mr. LEACH: We as ant the right hon. Gentleman to say whether this Amend-

  2265
  ment would enable him to save for the taxpayers the sum named, in regard to certain firms which nobody claims are in need of this money.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 118; Noes, 207.

  Division No. 138.]

  AYES.

  [9.50 p.m.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

  Potts, J.

  Adamson, W. M.

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Price, M. P.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

  Griffiths, J. (Lianelly)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Ammon, C. G.

  Groves, T. E.

  Quibell, J. D.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Hardle, G. D.

  Ritson, J.

  Barnes, A. J.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Heiens)

  Barr, J.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Rowson, G.

  Batey, J.

  Holdsworth, H.

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Bellenger, F.

  Holland, A.

  Sexton, T. M.

  Benson, G.

  Hollins, A.

  Shinwell, E.

  Bevan, A.

  Hopkin, D.

  Short, A.

  Broad, F. A.

  Jagger, J.

  Simpson, F. B.

  Bromfield, W.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Burke, W. A.

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Cape, T.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Stephen, C.

  Cassells, T.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Compton, J.

  Lawson, J. J.

  Thurtle, E.

  Cove, W. G.

  Leach, W.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

  Leslie, J. R.

  Viant, S. P.

  Dagger, G.

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Walkden, A. G.

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Walker, J.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  McGovern, J.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Day, H.

  McLaren, A.

  Watson, W. McL.

  Dobble, W.

  Maclean, N.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  MacNeill, Weir, L.

  Westwood, J.

  Ede, J. C.

  Mander, G. le M.

  Whiteley, W.

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

  Marklew, E.

  Wilkinson, Ellen

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Marshal, F.

  Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)

  Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

  Maxton, J.

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Foot, D. M.

  Montague, F.

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  Gallacher, W.

  Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)

  Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

  Gardner, B. W.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Garro-Jones, G. M.

  Muff, G.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Gibbins, J.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

  Parker, H. J. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Mr. Charleton and Mr. Mathers.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

  Chapman, A. (Ruthergten)

  Errington, E.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Erskine Hill, A. G.

  Albery, I. J.

  Colfox, Major W. P.

  Everard, W. L.

  Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Fildes, Sir H.

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

  Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

  Findlay, Sir E.

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Fleming, E. L.

  Apsley, Lord

  Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Furness, S. N.

  Assheton, R.

  Craddock, Sir R. H.

  Ganzonl, Sir J.

  Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)

  Crooke, J. S.

  Gibson, C. G.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Gledhill, G.

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

  Cross, R. H.

  Gluckstein, L. H.

  Balfour, Capt. H. H.(Isle of Thanet)

  Crossley, A. C.

  Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

  Baxter, A. Beverley

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Goldie, N. B.

  Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

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

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  Beit, Sir A. L.

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Birchall, Sir J. D.

  Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

  Grimston, B. V.

  Blindell, Sir J.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Boulton, W. W.

  Donner, P. W.

  Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. vansittart

  Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

  Gunston, Capt. D. W.

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

  Drewe, C.

  Guy, J. C. M.

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

  Hamilton, Sir G. C.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

  Hanbury, Sir C.

  Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

  Dugdale, Major T. L.

  Hannah, I. C.

  Bull, B. B.

  Duggan, H. J.

  Harbord, A.

  Butt, Sir A.

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Dunglass, Lord

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Dunne, P. R. R.

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Eckersley, P. T.

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Cary, R. A.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)

  Castlereagh, viscount

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Holmes, J. S.

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb'fn)

  Ellis, Sir G.

  Hopkinson, A.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Morgan, R. H.

  Selley, H. R.

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

  Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Fortar)

  Hunter, T.

  Munro, P. M.

  Shepperson, Sir E. W.

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

  Nall, Sir J.

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Jackson, Sir H.

  Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H.

  Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)

  Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Spens, W. P.

  Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

  Petherick, M.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)

  Kirkpatrick, W. M.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (File, E.)

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Pilkinton, R.

  Stourton, Hon. J. J.

  Latham, Sir P.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Srauss, H. G. (Norwich)

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

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Leckie, J. A.

  Radford, E. A.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Raikes, H. V. A. M.

  Suetar, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

  Levy, T.

  Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Lewis, O.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Liddall, W. S.

  Ramsden, Sir E.

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Llewellin, Lieut-Col. J. J.

  Rankln, R.

  Touche, G. C.

  Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V.

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Rayner, Major R. H.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

  MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Wakefield, W. W.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Reid, W. Alian (Derby)

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)

  Remer, J. R.

  Wallace, Captain Euan

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Ward, Lieut-Col. Sir A. L. (Hill)

  MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

  Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Warrender, Sir V.

  McEwen, Capt. H. J. F.

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  McKie, J. H.

  Rowlands, G.

  Wedderburn, H. J. S.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

  Ruggles-Brlse, Colonel Sir E. A.

  Wickham, Lt-Col. E. T. R.

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

  Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Markham, S. F

  Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Salmon, Sir I.

  Wise, A. R.

  Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

  Salt, E. W.

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

  Sandys, E. D.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mitcheson, sir G. G.

  Scott, Lord William

  Sir George Penny and Commander

  Southby.

  CLAUSE 19.—(Schemes as to licensing of registered refiners.)
  9.57 p.m.
  Mr. ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 18, line 29, to leave out "the Commission with the approval of."
  This Amendment and the Amendment which follows it on the Paper, are intended to meet points raised by the Opposition during the Committee stage. They put first the case that the licensing authority should not be appointed by the Commission and in the first Amendment, which I am now moving, we provide that the licensing authority shall consist of persons appointed by the Minister. In the following Amendment we take steps to see that the persons appointed to the licensing authority shall not be in any way connected with the business of manufacturing or refining sugar. I hope that these Amendments will meet the points raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Mr. BROAD: These Amendments are really a paraphrase of the wording suggested by us in Committee when the Minister was good enough to say that he would endeavour to meet our point and we have no reason to find fault with the wording now proposed.
  Amendment agreed to.
  2268
  Further Amendment made: In page 18, line 34, at the end, insert:

  "(a) for securing that no person shall be appointed to be a member of the licensing authority unless the Minister, after consultation with the Commission, is satisfied that he has no such interest in any undertaking carrying on the business of manufacturing or refining sugar as to affect him in the exercise of his functions as such a member;

  (b) for the expenses of the licensing authority (including any fees, salaries, or allowances payable to the members thereof) being defrayed as part of the expenses of the Commission under the scheme."—[Mr. Elliot.]

  CLAUSE 21.—(Provisions as to the making, approval, and revocation., of licensing schemes.)
  10.1 p.m.
  Mr. BARNES: I beg to move, in page 22, line 36, after "inquiry," to insert:
  "(ii) the report of the person who held the inquiry shall be published."
  The Minister will recollect that this subject was debated at some length in the Committee. The licensing schemes with which the Clause deals relate to very important matters such as the establishment of licensing, the operation of levies, production quotas, and, in connection with the framing of schemes, the question of inefficient and uneconomic

  2269
  output from refineries, and also the marketing of sugar. It excludes from entering into refining many large concerns which might have an economic output if they entered into manufacturing. In this Clause, dealing with such a range of important matters, the Minister has inserted a provision for a public inquiry and it appears to be inconsistent with the purpose of that inquiry that the report of the person who holds it should remain a secret document. If a public inquiry is to be held, our contention is that the person who conducts the inquiry should accept the responsibility of publishing the report together with the evidence upon which he arrives at his conclusions.
  In Committee the Minister sought protection on this point behind one reason only, namely, that it might be to his interest and to the public interest that the person holding the inquiry should have the opportunity of reporting to the Minister in secret. If the Minister desires secret reports on these matters, he ought to adopt a different method. We desire to establish the principle that a public inquiry ought to be public all the way through. We hold that it is inconsistent with the purpose of such an inquiry that the person who must ultimately accept the responsibility of coming to certain conclusions on the evidence, should have the protection of secrecy in making his report to the Minister. It means that aggrieved persons will be confronted with a decision without any knowledge of the facts and evidence upon which it is based and in the interests of public administration we ask that our Amendment should be accepted.
  Mr. QUIBELL: I beg to second the Amendment.
  10.4 p.m.
  Mr. FOOT: I support this Amendment which raises the question of first-class importance. Under a number of statutes Ministers are required or are entitled to hold public inquiries. A Minister sends one of his inspectors or a representative of his Department to hold an inquiry. That is a procedure with which we are familiar but there is a widespread feeling that it is not a very satisfactory procedure because the person who hears the evidence is not the person who arrives at the decision. The inspector or representative of the Department may spend
  2270
  many days in hearing witnesses. He sends in his report but the decision is taken by some official of the Department who may not act on the evidence. His decision may be contrary to the weight of evidence and indeed contrary to the tenor of the inspector's report. Nobody is able to tell, and even if that is not so, it is inevitable that in a large number of cases where you have this secrecy preserved there should be a certain amount of suspicion on the part of the people affected. They are not sure, at any rate, and have no means of knowing, that substantial justice has been done.
  This is not a new subject, because it has been raised here on a good many occasions, and I have raised it myself several times. The Lord Chief Justice had something to say on this question of inspectors' reports. In his book "The New Despotism," he has a passage which comes in his chapter on "Administrative lawlessness," and I would like to quote from it. He says:
  "It is sometimes enacted that, before the Minister comes to a decision, he shall hold a public inquiry, at which interested parties are entitled to adduce evidence and be heard. But that provision is no seal safeguard, because the person who has the power of deciding is in no way bound by the report or the recommendations of the person who holds the inquiry, and may entirely ignore the evidence which the inquiry brought to light. He can, and in practice, sometimes does, give a decision wholly inconsistent with the report, the recommendations, and the evidence, which are not published or disclosed to interested individuals. In any case, as the official who decides has not seen or heard the witnesses, he is as a rule quite incapable of estimating the value of their evidence. So far, therefore, as restraining the arbitrary power of the deciding official is concerned, the requirement of a public inquiry is in practice nugatory and it cannot be of much value in enabling him to form a just conclusion. It seems absurd that one official should hold a public inquiry into the merits of a proposal and that another official should be entitled, disregarding the report of the first, to give a decision on the merits."
  That is a very clear and emphatic statement of opinion from an authority which ought to be held in respect by this House and by Members of the Government. I do not say that the provision for publication of an inspector's report goes all the way to meet the difficulties set out in the quotation which I have read, but at any rate it goes some part of the way, because the person aggrieved is able to judge how far the decision taken by the

  2271
  Department is in accordance with the report on the inquiry.
  It will also be in the recollection of this House that this matter was fully considered by the Committee on Ministers' Powers, and I would like to give on other important quotation from the unanimous recommendation of that committee. It was a very strong committee, on which all political parties were represented, and in the main their recommendations were unanimous. They heard a great number of witnesses, and I admit there was a certain conflict of evidence on this question of the publication of reports, but at the end of their report they said:
  "To these various arguments for and against publication we have given prolonged consideration, and on balance have come to the conclusion that publication is right. By that we do not mean that the expense of printing a long report should in every case be incurred; but that in all cases the report of the inspector should be made available to the parties concerned and to the Press, and in important cases should be officially published by the Department responsible for the inquiry."
  There again you have a perfectly clear recommendation. I have frequently put questions to the Prime Minister asking him how far the Government accepted the recommendations of that Committee, and I have never had a very clear answer. He has always told me that the Government are bearing the recommendations of that Committee in mind for putting into their legislation as occasion arises. Now here is a perfectly clear case where those recommendations have been ignored. I was not on the Committee upstairs, but I was rather staggered to hear the account given by my hon. Friend above the Gangway of what was said there by the Minister, because if that account is correct, and if the Minister did indeed defend secrecy in this matter as being essential or highly desirable, it means that the Minister is taking the responsibility of throwing over altogether the relevant part of the report of the Committee on Ministers' Powers. If that is so, let us know it clearly, and let us hear that the Government do reject that recommendation.
  Mr. ELLIOT: Why not read what was said in the Committee instead of depending on hearsay?
  Mr. FOOT: I have only just heard the statement of my hon. Friend, but if the
  2272
  Minister has been misquoted, no doubt he will tell us. If he does accept the recommendations of the Committee on Ministers' Powers, then he must also accept this Amendment. This is an issue which we have frequently had before this House. We have never had any particular satisfaction from the Government on it, but I hope they will make their attitude clear on this Amendment, so that we shall know where we stand in this matter, not only on this Bill, but on future occasions.
  10.12 p.m.
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The difficulty in the way of accepting this Amendment, or Amendments of this nature, is that it is of a peremptory and mandatory kind, and the effect would be to require that the report of an officer who held an inquiry had to be published in any case and in all cases. It might well happen, and it often does happen, that an officer conducting an inquiry of this kind is an officer of a Government Department, and the practice of Government Departments in the past has been, and to-day is, generally speaking, not to publish the reports of officers holding inquiries, but such reports can be published and are published if the Minister thinks it proper to do so. If he so thinks, there is nothing on earth to prevent him from so doing, but it is a very different thing when it is provided by Statute, as is suggested here, that a report shall be published and that there shall be no discretion with the Minister to decide whether it is or is not in the public interest to publish the report.
  I think the House should bear in mind that the report of an officer of a Department holding an inquiry as proposed here is a preliminary stage, only one of many stages, which would lead up to the Minister's decision whether or not to modify a licensing scheme in consequence of the objections made to it. The report is only one factor in enabling the Minister to give his ultimate decision, which is an executive act. Therefore, a report of this kind is quite different from reports made by inspectors holding inquiries, for instance, into accidents in factories or into railway accidents, where the inquiry culminates in the report, which is an end in itself. In cases of that sort an inquiry is not a preliminary matter, as in this case, to enable a Minister to come to a decision, but it is with

  2273
  the specific object of finding out certain facts.
  Mr. FOOT: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the inquiry foreshadowed here is precisely the sort of inquiry that is dealt with by the Committee on Ministers' powers, and will he say whether or not the Government accept that Committee's recommendations on the subject?
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I was coming to the hon. Member's point in due course. I must remind the House that the officers conducting these inquiries are officers of a Government Department, who are expected to give the Minister confidential advice as to the form his decision shall take, and if such advice was made public I suggest that it would be necessary to make public all the minutes in departmental files written by the various officers concerned. A state of affairs like that would undermine the confidential relations which exist between Ministers and officers of the Department. If the reports have to be published as a matter of course, it would defeat the intentions of Parliament by giving the duty of making an executive decision not to the Minister who is responsible to Parliament but to the official who produces the report. When the hon. Member claims in aid of his argument the Donoughmore report I would point out that the general conclusion of that committee was in regard to the publication of reports leading up to judicial or quasi-judicial decisions by Ministers. In this case the Minister is not acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity. He is considering questions of policy, whether or not he will submit the scheme under consideration with or without modifications to Parliament for confirmation by an affirmative Resolution. The Donoughmore Committee is not relevant to the procedure under discussion and, therefore, I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
  10.17 p.m.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I am no more moved by the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary than I was by the reference to the situation in Committee, and in fairness to the hon. Member for South East Ham (Mr. Barnes) I ought to say at once that it is quite impossible to state that he has misrepresented the
  2274
  Minister's attitude in Committee. Let me quote a few words to show how completely justified my hon. Friend was. This is what the Minister said:
  "Honestly, it is not that at all. I am very anxious that we should not delay. The point is that I have had Commissioners inquiring and making reports, who have said, Look here, if you are not going to publish my report, I will give you a good stinking report and tell you exactly What I think.' That is just bluntly the fact and there are conditions obviously when a man wants to let himself go on paper, but he says, If all this is going to be broadcast for the whole world to hear, I cannot do it.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee D), 19th March, 1936; col. 366.]
  It is not reasonable to say that my hon. Friend misrepresented the Minister when he said that he was defending secrecy. That was his object in making use of those words. He wanted to preserve to himself the right to keep secret these reports. I am going to go much further than that. I know perfectly well from the history of the various inquiries in which the Ministry has been concerned during the last four year that they do not want to have a statutory compulsion put upon them by this House to publish these reports in the public interest.
  Let us take the history of this industry into which we are inquiring and examining, in connection with this Bill to-night. I suggest that one of the most scandalous things with regard to it is the way in which the Ministry of Agriculture have for the last four years handled the various conversations, wire-pullings, consultations and the like, and the way in which they have mishandled the results of inquiries. During the course of the discussion of the Bill in Standing Committee I said, and I repeat again, that in its present structure the Bill is a great improvement on what it was when it was under contemplation a couple of years ago. Then it was not so much in the form of a Bill as in the form of a marketing scheme.
  I remember the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was very anxious about the public interest and the drain upon the. Exchequer, asking the House to believe him, in March, 1932—four years ago—that there would be at an early date a public inquiry into the whole question whether the subsidy to this industry should be continued. That inquiry was postponed for over two years, and those

  2275
  two years were spent in continuous logrolling, lobbying, conferences and wire-pulling. Then there was the production of a so-called marketing scheme, under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931. In fact it was not an agricultural scheme at all. Twenty-two companies—11 manufacturing and 11 refining—were concerned, and it was sought to set up exactly the same type of monopolistic control of the industry as is set up in this Bill, but with the very grave disadvantage that the funds for it were to be raised by a levy—although that was not stated in the scheme—of 2s. 4d. per cwt.—
  Mr. ELLIOT: What has that to do with the recommendation that the report should be published?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I am glad the Minister said that; I am not going to let him off on that point. A levy of 2s. 4d. per cwt. was to be put on all sugar. That 2s. 4d. was to be used for the private profit of the limited combine of 22 companies, without anybody else having the right to come in, and with no independent sugar commission as we were able finally to force the Government to create in this Bill for the purpose of dealing with licences. What happened? When the draft scheme was produced, the Minister correctly followed the procedure under the Act of 1931. A public inquiry into the business was duly authorised. That inquiry was held, not, as seemed to be suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary, by some special member of the staff of the Ministry, but by a specially appointed judicial person, a King's Counsel, who sat for seven or eight days in public. There was legal representation of the promoters of the scheme, legal representation of some of the opponents of the scheme and layman representation of some of the other opponents of the scheme. I happened to be one of the laymen.
  I feel that the exposures in that public inquiry were a strong factor in bringing about a change in the attitude of the Government in this matter, and I am sure that the publicity in the Press at the time had something to do with it. In that inquiry there were witnesses on behalf of the promoters of the scheme who refused to answer questions in the
  2276
  witness-box as to what was the nature of the negotiations between them and the Minister and his Department with regard to the future of the scheme. Obviously the information for which we asked in the public inquiry could not finally be withheld from the Commission, and I do not suppose the Commissioner would have continued his consideration of the evidence unless he could also have been furnished with evidence from the Minister's Department. Then, at the end of four months, after the conclusion of the inquiry, the whole of the stuff for which we were trying to probe appeared in another form by way of an advertisement in the London "Times" published by the promoters of the scheme. From that moment to this, although that was a public inquiry held by a judicial and properly qualified person, we have never had a word printed in public of the result. That is a scandal.
  Mr. ELLIOT: Why?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: Because we are entitled in the interests of the public who were affected by that scheme, and in the interests of the parties who were objectors to the scheme, especially in view of the enormous drain on the public purse that had taken place, to know what was the final report to the Minister of that Commission after the public inquiry.
  Mr. ELLIOT: Has the right hon. Gentleman read his own Agricultural Marketing Act?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: Surely the Minister of Agriculture is not going to suggest that all the events that arose out of past Statutes are to remain unchanged or that practices thereunder are not by experience to be improved? If we are going to have gibes about what happened under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931, I would point out that the Minister has not hesitated to change it when he liked, and he has changed it very often by making it worse. We are asking in this case for the procedure with regard to public inquiries, so far as they relate to the industry under this Bill, to be improved.
  We have had further examples of how vitally necessary it is if Members of the House really regard themselves as the protectors of their constituencies, to impose this compulsion by Statute. We have had a controversy with regard to

  2277
  the price that should be paid by the distributors and consumers of milk. The Minister's colleague who deals with agriculture in Scotland ordered a public inquiry under Section 9 of the Marketing Act. The inquiry was duly held in Scotland. It sat for days and involved great legal expense to distributors and consumers in establishing their case against the high contract prices fixed by the Marketing Board. The report was duly made to the Minister, and we were informed in one bald sentence of the findings of the inquiry, which was that the contract prices fixed for the year were prejudicial to the distributors and were not in the public interest. The next thing we heard was in answer, not to an oral question, but to a written question, that the Secretary of State for Scotland simply did not propose to adopt the findings of the impartial tribunal presided over by a Scottish lawyer which came to that result. Therefore, for the rest of the milk year the consumers in Scotland are to go on paying what in the view of the tribunal are unnecessarily high prices for milk. It is essential that the report of every public inquiry of this kind should be published and be made available to the House and to the public. We are entitled to ask for it in the interests of the whole of the community.
  I want to bring the question down to this actual legislation providing for a public inquiry into grievances of applicants for these licences. As my hon. Friend the Member for South East Ham has pointed out, the body to be set up will be one to grant licences. Let us not forget that this is not a licence to do this or that in the way of production or distribution in a Socialist community in which whatever is done is for the ultimate benefit of the whole of the community. [Interruption.] Not at all. The hon. Member who interrupts knows perfectly well what is going on, that there is a restriction on the right to produce but there is a right to distribute profits up to 7 per cent., according to the White Paper—and even higher with the consent of the Treasury. It is plain that in connection with applications for licences grievances may arise. The Minister has recognised it. As I have already acknowledged, in many cases he has improved the machinery of control, and so he provides for a public inquiry into these grievances but while doing that he will
  2278
  not accept the suggestion that its findings ought to be published.
  The Minister is running a grave risk if he persists in that attitude, which will bring his whole administration of this scheme into disrepute. I am sure that he does not want that to happen. Let him recall what happened in this House on 20th December under the Bacon Board, which deals with another monopoly, or partial monopoly, under a marketing scheme. There we find a development board granting licences. Certain applications for licences are turned down, and an hon. Member stands up in this House to make a protest. I agree that the Minister was quite right in saying that from the way in which that protest was made it practically accused people in connection with the business of sitting first as judges on the tribunal and then of going down into the well of the court and asking for licences such as they had been refusing when they were sitting on the bench of the tribunal. There ought to have been a procedure for a public inquiry in such a case as that. If there are to be charges of corruption and log rolling in these marketing schemes, there ought to be a provision that when such an inquiry is held there shall be full publicity to the Minister, the House and the public at large.
  If the Minister is prepared to so far as to take power to order a public inquiry where he finds it necessary—and if it is a public inquiry it is open to the Press to report what is going on—it is only logical and reasonable that at the end of that inquiry the report of the judicial person who presents its findings should also be made available to the public. There can be only one reason for not adopting that course, and that is that the Minister wants to hide from the public the real reasons for what the Parliamentary Secretary calls "the ultimate executive action of the Minister." If the ultimate action of the Minister is justified, he ought to be prepared to stand at that Box and justify it on the basis of the published report in the hands of the Members of the House. He does not desire that, however, but wants to be able to stand up and justify it with the Members of the House having no idea of what the findings are. That is unreasonable; it is not in accordance with the traditions of the House nor it is in the

  2279
  public interest. I shall be very sorry if the Minister is not prepared so to improve the present practice as to provide this element of justice at a time when we are setting up a close monopoly.
  Mr. ELLIOT: I must say that it is most extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman should make a speech so far from the point as that which he has made to the House.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: That is a reflection on the Chair.
  Mr. ELLIOT: It is not a reflection on the Chair to say that the right hon. Gentleman has such an appetite for the subject that we have under discussion, and that he is generally so acute, that I am alarmed to find that his speech has led him so far from his subject.
  Mr. EDE: He has caught it from the Minister.
  Mr. ELLIOT: Then the sooner we finish our deliberations the better. Most of the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman would be properly directed to Clause 19, and have really nothing to do with Clause 21. He talked of the necessity of seeing that, when licences were applied for, grievances were properly ventilated in the light of day. It is Clause 19 which covers all that, in regard to the licensing scheme, and the procedure under the licensing scheme about which the right hen. Gentleman was so eloquent. Clause 21 deals with the procedure which has to be followed by the Department and the industry. The operation of the licensing scheme, upon which the elaborate procedure is laid down in Clause 19, has caused a great deal of heat, but nobody could have seen from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks that what was being discussed was a report upon the question whether the scheme should be laid before Parliament, a scheme which has afterwards to be voted upon by the industry and may not come into force. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree, on reflection, that his remarks were not to the point which was under discussion.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: This Clause deals with the inquiries connected with the schemes, but the schemes are licensing schemes, and I was giving illustrations
  2280
  of instances in which, in my view, the reports of public inquiries ought to have been published. It is true that the subject-matter being inquired into would not be exactly analogous to what is in this Clause, but I am arguing that all those instances are sound reasons why the Minister should be compelled to publish reports arising out of what are public inquiries.
  Mr. ELLIOT: Now we are at one upon this, that the cases quoted were not exactly analogous to the Amendment under discussion. The essential point is whether there should or should not be a discretion with the Minister when he is considering a report, upon which proposals will be made for a scheme which will afterwards be laid before both Houses of Parliament and go before the industry. The decision on that report is one of the steps in that procedure, and is something quite other than the cases which the right hon. Gentleman was pleading as being cases where a judicial or semi-judicial decision was about to be taken by the Minister as the result of an inquiry. All that the Minister decides as the result of the report is whether or not the scheme is to be laid before Parliament. It is more properly an executive than a judicial act. There is nothing judicial or quasi-judicial about deciding whether these schemes should be laid before Parliament.
  Mr. FOOT: Surely it is a quasi-judicial decision, which is being taken after the hearing of parties concerned. After the evidence has been heard in a public inquiry, the Minister has to decide what is best to be done. That is, I understand, the definition of a quasi-judicial decision, and is entirely different from a purely administrative decision. A purely administrative decision is the sort of decision that a Government Department makes when it decides to place an order for stores for a certain purpose, but when a decision has to be taken by a Minister after evidence has been heard and after the parties have been heard, that, surely, is a quasi-judicial decision.
  Mr. ELLIOT: Under Sub-section (1, f) of Clause 21, the Minister does not do anything on this report. If he is satisfied, all that happens is that he may lay before Parliament a draft scheme, and I am sure the hon. Member will

  2281
  agree that, given such conditions, his argument is not germane to the discussion. The essence of a judicial decision is that something should be done. One is reminded of the controversy between the divine and the judge, in which the divine said to the judge, "You are an inferior person to me. You can say, 'You shall hang,' but I can say 'You be damned.'" "Yes," retorted the judge, "but, when I say a man shall hang, he is hanged." The essence of a judicial decision is that something should be done, but here it is simply that the Minister is to act as one who is considering before a scheme is finally laid before Parliament. In such circumstances, a report made to the Minister may influence him in his decision, but—
  Mr. FOOT: If the decision be that action shall be taken by Parliament, Parliament must have the evidence before it. If the decision is to be taken by the Minister subject to the approval of Parliament, or is to be taken by Parliament, it cannot be taken by Parliament if Parliament has not the evidence before it.
  Mr. ELLIOT: The evidence is before Parliament, but what the hon. Member is asking for is a report by an officer on that evidence, and I think that in the circumstances it is reasonable that discretion as to the publication of such a report should be left to the Minister The point is one that has been argued repeatedly here and elsewhere. I doubt if we can take the matter further by argument, and perhaps it may now be possible for the House to come to a decision.
  10.43 p.m.
  Mr. EDE: I hope it will not be considered unduly obtrusive for a backbench Member to speak after three front-bench Members in succession. In a few minutes, or hours, we are going to discuss an Order that is submitted by another Department. It includes 90 Clauses, and some of us would have liked to speak on it, either about Scotland or about raspberries; but, if it is opposed, the Government Whips will be put on to carry it through the House, and the Minister by that act will have accepted responsibility for the scheme, which this House will be expected to ratify, because the Treasurer of the Household will see to it that last night's unfortunate episode is not repeated.
  2282
  These inquiries are public and they are the matter of some very contradictory statements not merely with regard to the facts but, as I understand, upon occasion with regard to the desires of the people who may be on one side or the other and their relative cupidity. We may rest assured that such matter as is published in the general Press will be that which is the most highly spiced. It might be suggested in the course of cross-examination of a witness that he was guilty of certain very undesirable desires in his wish to get this scheme made or rejected. Surely, when that has been done and the judicial person who holds the inquiry has reached his decision, the person whose character has been so attacked should be able to point to the decision of the appropriate person on it. I was not at all impressed by anything I heard from either of the Ministers who spoke, and I hope the House will insist upon proper publicity being given. The Minister certainly assumes responsibility for the decision.
  10.46 p.m.
  Mr. HARDIE: What we are discussing is something which could not continue to exist but for the public guarantee, and yet the whole subject has been so conducted as to create general suspicion. There is nothing that has been done in recent years in regard to this subject but has been merged in absolute suspicion. The Parliamentary Secretary was pleading for Star Chamber methods and nothing else. It will be a fatal blot if the House at any time consents to privacy or secrecy in a matter like this. Wherever we are dealing with public money, everything connected with the expenditure ought to be put in front of the public, and the best way to do that is to do it in this House. The Parliamentary Secretary says these were simply preliminary inquiries, but the inquiry does not go any further. It remains there. In one inquiry that took place in regard to this industry, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) was fighting for the rights of the consumer, a legal representative opposite said he could make any speech he liked but in the end he would get his own way. If that statement meant anything at all, it meant that private arrangements and Star Chamber methods had been used

  2283
  in order to inform those who were fighting against the consumer that, no matter what was said on behalf of the consumer, they already had some private agreement with the Minister. There is no other deduction that could be made. If these things had come properly before the House, we might have been able to prevent a whole lot of what is having to be done now in the way of public money being handed out.
  The argument has been used, by the Parliamentary Secretary that you get more by holding a secret inquiry. That cuts both ways, because damage can be done secretly that could not possibly be done at a public inquiry. The House should realise that a sum of £48,000,000 is involved, out of which £11,000,000 has been given in profits, and yet we are being told that it is necessary in order to carry on this so-called business that we must once more give Star Chamber powers to the Minister. We will not remain
  main silent while public money is being used as it has been in Scotland. We have been told that a great industry was being established, that something was being done for agriculture. We see the result to-day, we see that the expenditure of this public money—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the Amendment on the Paper.
  Mr. HARDIE: That money has gone in private profits instead of helping industry. If there had been an open and public inquiry, at which witnesses were not led away and intimidated, but where a chance was given to straight and honest methods, what this House is discussing to-night would not have happened, and I hope that the House now will try to remedy this position.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 124; Noes, 218.

  Division No. 139.]

  AYES.

  [10.55 p.m.

  Acland, Fit. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

  Gibbins, J.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

  Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

  Potts, J.

  Adamson, W. M.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Price, M. P.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Ammon, C. G.

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Quibell, J. D.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Griffiths, J. (Lianelly)

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Groves, T. E.

  Ritson, J.

  Barnes, A. J.

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Barr, J.

  Hardie, G. D.

  Rowson, G.

  Batey, J.

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Bellenger, F.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Sexton, T. M.

  Benson, G.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Short, A.

  Bevan, A.

  Holdsworth, H.

  Simpson, F. B.

  Broad, F. A.

  Holland, A.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Bromfield, W.

  Hollins, A.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Brooke, W.

  Hopkin, D.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Buchanan, G.

  Jagger, J.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Burke, W. A.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Stephen, C.

  Cape, T.

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

  Cassells, T.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

  Chater, D.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Thurtle, E.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Compton, J.

  Lathan, G.

  Viant, S. P.

  Cove, W. G.

  Lawson, J. J.

  Walkden, A. G.

  Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

  Leach, W.

  Walker, J.

  Daggar, G.

  Leonard, W.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Leslie, J. R.

  Watson, W. McL.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Welsh, J. C.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Westwood, J.

  Day, H.

  McLaren, A.

  White, H, Graham

  Dobbie, W.

  Maclean, N.

  Whiteley, W.

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

  Wilkinson, Ellen

  Ede, J. C.

  Marklew, E.

  Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Marshall, F.

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

  Maxton, J.

  Williams, T (Don Valley)

  Foot, D. M.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y. S.)

  Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

  Frankel, D.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Windsor, W (Hull, C.)

  Gallacher, W.

  Muff, G.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Gardner, B. W.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Garro-Jones, G. M.

  Oliver, G. H.

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Parker, H. J. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Mr. Charleton and Mr. Mathers.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

  Fraser, Capt. Sir I.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Albery, I. J.

  Furness, S. N.

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Penny, Sir G.

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

  Ganzonl, Sir J.

  Petherick, M.

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Gledhill, G.

  Plckthorn, K. W. M.

  Apsley, Lord

  Gluckstein, L. H.

  Pilkington, R.

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Assheton, R.

  Goldie, N. B.

  Pownall, Sir A. Assheton

  Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)

  Goodman, Col. A. W.

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  Radford, E. A.

  Balfour, Capt. H. H.(Isle of Thanet)

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Raikes, H. V. A. M.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

  Baxter, A. Beverley

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

  Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Ramsden, Sir E.

  Beit, Sir A. L.

  Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)

  Rankin, R.

  Birchall, Sir J. D.

  Gunston, Capt. D. W.

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmln)

  Eoulton, W. W.

  Guy, J. C. M.

  Rayner, Major R. H.

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Hanbury, Sir C.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

  Hannah, I. C.

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

  Renter, J. R.

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Harbord, A.

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

  Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

  Harvey, G.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Bull, B. B.

  Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Butt, Sir A.

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

  Rowlands, G.

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)

  Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Holmes, J. S.

  Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

  Cary, R. A.

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

  Salmon, Sir I.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hopkinson, A.

  Salt, E. W.

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Sandys, E. D.

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

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

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

  Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

  Scott, Lord William

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  Hunter, T.

  Selley, H. R.

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

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

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Colfox, Major W. P.

  Jackson, Sir H.

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'W'gt'n)

  Shepperson, Sir E. W.

  Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

  Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

  Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

  Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Latham, Sir P.

  Spens, W. P.

  Craddock, Sir R. H.

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

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

  Crooke, J. S.

  Leckle, J. A.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'T)

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Cross, R. H.

  Levy, T.

  Stourton, Hon. J. J.

  Crowder, J. F. E.

  Lewis, O.

  Srauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Liddall, W. S.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

  Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

  Lloyd, G. W.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

  De la Bère, R.

  Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Donner, P. W.

  MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

  Dorman Smith, Major R. H.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Drewe, C.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)

  Touche, G. C.

  Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

  Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

  Duckworth, W. R, (Moss Side)

  MacDonald. Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

  Dugdale, Major T. L.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Wakefield, W. W.

  Duggan, H. J.

  McEwen, Capt. H. J. F.

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  McKle, J. H.

  Wallace, Captain Euan

  Dunglass, Lord

  Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

  Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

  Dunne, P. R. R.

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

  Warrender, Sir V.

  Eckersley, P. T.

  Markham, S, F.

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Wedderburn, H. J. S.

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

  Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Ellis, Sir G.

  Milts, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

  Elliston, G. S.

  Mltcheson, Sir G. G.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Errington, E.

  Morgan, R. H.

  Wise, A. R.

  Erskine Hill, A. G.

  Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Everard, W. L.

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  Fildes, Sir H.

  Munro, P. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Findlay, Sir E.

  Nail, Sir J.

  Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert

  Fleming, E. L.

  Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H.

  Ward and Sir James Blindell.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 23.—(Annual Report.)
  Mr. ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 28, line 21, after "Corporation," to insert
  "(including a balance sheet and a profit and loss account)."
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  We have made very good progress with the large number of Amendments on the Order Paper, and an arrangement has been suggested, through the usual

  2287
  channels, that we might complete the Report stage and the Third Reading at a reasonable hour next Tuesday. If that meets with the approval of the House, I shall be glad to see the Debate adjourned now so that we might proceed with the other business which the Government desire to get, and go home at a reasonable hour.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): I respond willingly to the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman. Provided it is understood in all quarters that the remaining stages of the Bill, that is, the conclusion of the Report stage and the Third Reading are completed on Tuesday by about dinner time, the Government are prepared to accept the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

  AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACTS.
  11.5 p.m.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I beg to move,
  "That the Scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, entitled the Scottish Raspberry Marketing Scheme, 1936, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 11th day of March, 1936, be approved."
  I do not think the House will have any difficulty in coming to an early decision on the scheme for dealing with this rare and refreshing fruit, The Scottish Raspberry Marketing Scheme was presented to the House on 11th March and so has been in possession of hon. Members for some time. It may not be necessary therefore to go into much detail but there are a few points which I would like to put before the House. The Scottish Raspberry Marketing Scheme, 1932, was approved by the House on 21st March, 1933, but failed to obtain the requisite majority at the initial poll of registered producers held in July, 1933. The causes which brought about that failure were that the commodity was subject to violent fluctuations in price, that there were better prices in 1932 and 1933 and that there was a good deal of opposition on the part of the manufacturing interests. All this affected
  2288
  the views of those who took part in the poll. To give one or two instances of the fluctuation of price and to show what now constitutes, in my opinion, the real need for and importance of the scheme, I may mention that in 1931 the price was only £15 per ton; in 1932, it rose to £34 per ton; in 1933 it was £30 per ton, and in 1934 it fell to £12 per ton. In 1935, forward contracts were made at about £20 per ton in January and £14 per ton in the spring. Afterwards the price rose to £20 a ton and during the harvesting period dropped to £10 a ton. The House will thus see the kind of movements which have taken place in price.
  According to the estimate presented to the commissioner and generally agreed upon, the cost of production is in the neighbourhood of £22 per ton. It will be appreciated that a characteristic of the wholesale market has been violent price fluctuation and these conditions, namely, the unsatisfactory price situation and the fact that the market has reached saturation point owing to increased acreage, in the opinion of expert growers call for regulation by a marketing scheme. The proposal to promote a scheme was intimated to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland but in view of the fact that the previous scheme had been turned down and acting on the principle of "once bitten, twice shy," my right hon. Friend directed that a canvass of producers should be made before the scheme was promoted. That is not a statutory safeguard, but a Ministerial safeguard. On this occasion, remarkable unanimity is shown not only among the raspberry growers but also among the manufacturers concerned and the scheme was accordingly promoted. During the statutory period of six weeks in which objections can be lodged only three objections were remitted for inquiry by a commissioner appointed for the purpose under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931. Certain of these objections related to the principle of all schemes formulated under the Marketing Act and I do not think the House will wish me to enter into a general discussion of that principle. There were, however, other objections relating to definite points which it was possible to meet by modification and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) will forgive me if I say that his invasion of Scotland on this occasion was rather more successful than such

  2289
  invasions have been on other occasions. He succeeded in getting some modifications which I think, in his view, will help in making the scheme workable. For example, the exemption limit was reduced from one acre to half an acre. It was shown that by intensive culture so much as three and four tons of raspberries could be produced on three-quarters or seven-eighths of an acre, which is very greatly in excess of the normal amount that could be produced, and as it would be detrimental to the scheme if a considerable number of producers of several tons each were left outside, the limit was therefore changed from one acre to half an acre. They made provision for quantitative regulation of sales for jam manufacture in order to prevent the board from being burdened with an unsaleable surplus, and from incurring expense in getting rid of it.
  The scheme as promoted differs from the scheme as modified in the following ways: It is now applicable to Scotland North of the Forth and Clyde Canal. The growers in that area are chiefly interested in selling their produce for manufacture rather than for the fresh fruit market, while those growers in the South, in Lanarkshire and other parts, are interested much more in selling their fruit to the large local markets and elsewhere as fresh fruit. They wished to be omitted from the scheme, and the scheme, which deals, not with fresh fruit, but with that intended for manufacture, is therefore made to apply to the Northern area of Scotland, above the Forth and Clyde Canal. The exemptions are of producers growing not more than half an acre, manufacturers who grow for their own use and not for sale, and manufacturers making for their own requirements, not for sale outside. The sale of raspberries in packages not exceeding 24 lbs. in weight for retail trade or domestic use is also exempted.
  I have mentioned some of the salient points in this scheme, but, as in other schemes, the board will have power to help the industry in other ways. They will have power to give loans to producers on the security of the crops. They will have power to help by information and, I hope, by research and education and assistance in co-operation in their work. The scheme is in accordance with the Marketing Act passed by this House, and the Secretary of State has satisfied
  2290
  himself that the persons submitting the scheme are duly representative in accordance with the terms of the Act. We believe that the scheme may be expected to conduce to the more efficient production and marketing of raspberries in Scotland. The scheme has already received an affirmative Resolution in another place, and I submit this Motion confidently, in the belief that it will be accepted as a step forward in the organisation of marketing in Scotland. I hope that the House will give assent to it now, in order that it may if approved at the poll, be brought into operation in time to regulate the marketing of the 1936 crop.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. HARDIE: The Under-Secretary has told us what is proposed to be done for the producers and manufacturers but has not said anything about one essential matter—the condition of berry pickers, who have been fighting for improved conditions for some time. If the Government want to put forward a scheme which will go through this House with accord they should have done something for these people. The Government are ready to advance loans to those engaged in the industry, and I want to know whether there is to be any consideration of the conditions and wages of the workers. Figures have been given showing the fluctuations in prices, but if the scheme is successful I understand that prices are going to be fixed. In that case it will be quite easy to base wages on prices fixed by the scheme. The condition of these berry pickers has not been a credit to Scotland and I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us that it is intended to improve their wages and conditions.
  11.17 p.m.
  Captain W. T. SHAW: I should like to know whether those growers who grow raspberries for their own manufacture will be entitled to vote in the ballot. In all these schemes the inducement held out for producers to vote is that they may receive protection. There is a duty of 4s. 6d. per cwt. on raspberry pulp, but if the market should change we might find the duty swept away overnight. We want confidence in this industry. We must have an assurance that the duty will not be swept away in a night. I cannot conceive any such thing occurring in say the iron and steel industry, yet in this important

  2291
  industry we may wake up one morning and find that the duty which the producers expected has been swept away. I hope we shall have an assurance on this point.
  11.19 p.m.
  Mr. FOOT: We on these benches are opposed to this scheme. In the scheme it is said:
  "a registered producer shall not sell, either within the area of the scheme or elsewhere, any raspberries otherwise than to or through the agency of the board."
  A little later it says:
  "Provided that if in any year the board estimate that the production of raspberries will exceed the total market requirements, they may determine the quantity of raspberries which may be sold by any registered producer to or through the agency of the board."
  It is laid down first that the registered producer may not sell except to the board, and then that the board may determine the amount he may sell. There you have in a few lines the whole vicious principle, as we regard it, of the quantitative limitation of output, which, of course, follows from the 1933 Act. That limitation of output prevents, in the first place, the established grower from expanding his business, and, secondly, it prevents the newcomer from entering the industry at all. We on these benches oppose Orders and legislation of this sort because we believe that such measures go a long way towards the destruction of private enterprise.
  Although it is true that the board must make their determination for the year, there is nothing to prevent them, as I read it, from making the determination year by year, and each year fixing a definite quantity that each producer may be allowed to sell to the board, which, in fact, will be the amount that each producer can profitably be allowed to produce. The Under-Secretary stated that the objections to the scheme put forward by some producers were general ones which might be put forward to all marketing schemes. We share those general objections, and we on these benches will oppose this and any other scheme in which the Government propose to use the powers they took under the 1933 Act.
  11.22 p.m.
  Mr. DUNCAN: I hesitate as a Member representing an English constituency to intervene in this Debate, and I do so only because I am a Scotsman who lives in a raspberry area. I welcome this scheme heartily—more than I did the last one. Unlike the hon. Gentleman the Junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), who apparently intends to oppose it, I think the section to which he referred is one which ought to be retained in the scheme. If there is one thing which is more clear than anything else in the history of the raspberry industry, it is its chaotic state. Naturally, we understand that the hon. Member and his friends stand by the old chaotic Free Trade principles, but I think the House as a whole has given up those long ago.
  Although the fact has not been mentioned, one of the real initial objections to the old scheme was that there were far too many lawyers on the old Board, and I am delighted to see that there are more producers on the new Board. There are, however, one or two questions I would like to ask my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary. The first concerns section 48, which deals with manufacturers who are exempted from registration under the scheme. I agree that they should be so exempted if they are not going to sell any of their produce, but I think it will be very difficult for the Board to determine the market requirements if manufacturers are not to be required to tell the Board, either officially or unofficially, their own marketing requirements. It is very difficult to estimate the raspberry crop even two months ahead. For instance, it was estimated last June that there would be a large crop, but owing to the drought, which lasted for six or seven weeks on end, the crop when it came to be marketed was a small one.
  That gives some idea of the extraordinary difficulty of estimating the quantity of the crop. Section 48, which will allow manufacturers to ignore the scheme and give no information to anybody of their requirements will make it difficult to estimate the general market requirements. I have a good deal of sympathy with the proviso to section 61 which says that no more than 5 per cent. of the gross amount received should be deducted from the sale of raspberries for the general expenses of the administration of the

  2293
  scheme. There is, however, a point to which I should like to draw attention. In the case of a crop which is so difficult to estimate, it may be necessary to carry over a crop by a process of pulping from one year to another. Pulped raspberries, unlike potatoes, will keep. Therefore, I suggest that 5 per cent., while in some ways a valuable protection to the producers, may be a very small amount to enable the Board to finance the carrying over of the pulp which they are empowered to store under section 74. There is no provision for the financing of it. I agree that under section 64 they are allowed to get loans and advances from the bank, but even so, I think there may be some danger that there will not be provision for the financing of the carry-over of the crop. A small percentage reduction is allowed to ensure, as far as possible, market requirements being met from year to year, and to ensure as little as possible being carried over from year to year, but in a crop like raspberries it is impossible to estimate it. There are one or two other minor points which I would have liked to raise, but at this late hour I will not trouble the House with them. I only wish again to welcome the scheme and hope it will be a great success, because without it the raspberry industry in Scotland can never be successful.
  11.28 p.m.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: In many ways I welcome this debate for in 1931, when we discussed the previous raspberry Order which was introduced by the Secretary of State for Scotland, I had the pleasure along with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), of being the only opponent of the Order. I welcome tonight the support of the Liberal party—somewhat reduced in numbers, but to that extent improved in knowledge. The hon. Member for Spring-burn (Mr. Hardie) rightly put the point that this Order had done nothing to deal with the labour conditions of those concerned in this industry. May I remind him that when I took that point in 1931, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Graham) pledged his party to support the Government against me. He said that with high prices wages would rise. If and when prices were stabilised, he said, they would have an infinitely stronger case to demand improved conditions for
  2294
  the industry; and they were not prepared to vote against the proposal of the Government. The Under - Secretary stated that the Secretary of State for Scotland had gone round, not officially, to find out how the growers would react to the new scheme, because he did not want it defeated a second time. One criticism I have to make is that when he was taking soundings he should have found out something about the conditions of the workers. We are proposing to give the raspberry growers an endowment, because the scheme will give them stabilised prices, and to that extent it will benefit them. In plain language it will raise the value of the raspberry crop.
  Why, therefore, did the Secretary of State, when making his inquiries, take not a single step to look into the home conditions and the remuneration of the workers? He went round to see whether he could get support of the scheme, but left out one of the most important items in the survey. Nothing has been so black as the record of the raspberry growers in Scotland. I remember that in pre-war days the school teachers of Glasgow, in their holidays, led the poorer section of the community in a struggle for decent wages. Up to quite recent times there had been constant disputes and friction arising from the attempts of the raspberry growers to take advantage of conditions in the labour market. After all, the working people have a labour market, just as the raspberry growers have a commodity market, but the raspberry growers have not been ready to give the working people the advantages which they seek for themselves. There is no guaranteed price for the working people in their labour market.
  This Government have a record of handing out millions of pounds to the rich while denying money to the comparatively poor. For their rich friends the Government has marketing schemes and stabilised prices, but for the working people, the more needy section of the community, there is not one guarantee. In going round the Secretary of State never paid the slightest attention to the working folk. The junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) said this scheme was an attack on free competition. In fact it is the worst form of Capitalism and the worst form of what may be called Social-

  2295
  ism. It gives a guarantee to the capitalist; it saves him from the rigours of the free, competitive market. It is a scheme which this House ought to reject. The common decencies ought not to be denied to decent folk. I suppose the growers and manufacturers have their difficulties, but these are nothing like the difficulties of the working people; yet those people are to get a guaranteed market and their money is to be increased. The working people have not even a trade union to defend them.
  An hon. Member stated that the Committee had been improved because some lawyers had been dropped from it, but there is not one representative on it of those who work in the industry—not one. Nor is there anybody asked to go on it who has knowledge of the everyday working conditions. The committee are packed by the Government and by their friends. This is an outrageous measure. I welcome my hon. Friends of the Opposition in this, because after three or four years they have taken up this question and will divide against it. It is another challenge to the Government. If ever there was a rich man's Government with little concern for the poor, it is this Government.
  11.37 p.m.
  Captain RAMSAY: We are beingasked to authorise the setting up of a new marketing board. It is only right that the attention of hon. Members should be drawn to the position of marketing boards in general, and of this board in particular. I commiserate with the hon. Gentleman that he was not able to bring forward this Order a week ago, when the skies were beautifully clear and the marketing boards were satisfied with their position. Now the situation is very different. The agricultural community in Scotland, no less than the agricultural industry in England, will view the setting up of any fresh marketing board with suspicion because, within the last few clays, one of the most important of His Majesty's marketing boards has been complaining that the Government has not only been for months flagrantly ignoring their advice, but have acted in the teeth of that advice. Overnight, duties on which the industry relied, and still relies, for the successful operation of this scheme, have been removed without even a proper hearing being given to the industry. We are asked to set up a marketing board. but constituencies all
  2296
  over the country will rightly ask us: "Why should we submit ourselves to the rigours and restrictions which such marketing schemes will put upon us, if, after they are established and growers are able to make a reasonable profit, we wake up one morning to find that some Measure has been passed which will endanger the whole situation?"
  I appeal to the Under Secretary of State for Scotland to assure us that, having got his vote, arid having set up the proposed board, he will take the advice of the board, and not ignore it and allow things to be done over their heads that they consider detrimental to the operation of the scheme. Unless he can do so, we had better far vote against the scheme which, the moment it begins to work, will be vitiated by the very people who have set it up.
  11.40 p.m.
  Mr. GARRO-JONES: [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh," and "Hear, hear."] I can assure the hon. Members who make those very unmannerly noises that they will not have the least influence on me, as to the length of time I consider it necessary, in the interests of my constituency, to state their case from my place in this House.
  If it had any effect at all, it would be to make me speak at greater length than I otherwise should. I think that, like the last speaker, the House will commiserate with the Minister of Agriculture. We remember that these schemes started, with tremendous momentum, force and enthusiasm, with milk, and proceeded in turn to pigs, potatoes and herrings. Finally, we have descended to raspberries. What is to be the next subject? I can picture the right hon. Gentleman going to the Cabinet and saying that, though it might be impossible to find a scheme that would please everyone, and difficult to find a scheme that would please anyone, he must have a marketing scheme for something. Why he has chosen to impose this scheme on Scotland I am at loss to understand. It has all the difficulties of every other marketing scheme; it is inspired by the same motive that has inspired 90 per cent. of the Government's legislation in the last two or three years. They are trying to repair, prop up and bolster up the system of so-called private enterprise and capitalism, without admitting that

  2297
  it has broken down. Instead of taking in the whole industry, they take in a mere part of it. As with the milk scheme, they take in the producers but leave out the middlemen, who take far more out of the industry. The same may be said of this scheme as was said of the milk scheme in 1934. In 1934 there were farmers who could have sold out their farms, lock, stock and barrel, and invested the proceeds in any one of the leading milk distributing concerns, could have had a year's holiday, and could have come back to find their capital doubled, without their having done a stroke of work in that year, but by continuing to carry out their duty to the community, so far from making profits, an enormous proportion of them lost money—
  Mr. ELLIOT: That must have been due to the bad Act of yours.
  Mr. GARRO-JONES: If the right hon. Gentleman has any observations to make, I shall be happy to give way. I understood that that kind of interruption was only proper to back-benchers. I have no wish to state the case against marketing schemes in general, but I am satisfied that this continued attempt to bolster up so-called private enterprise is doomed to failure, and sooner or later you will be compelled to give the State that complete control of these industries without which they will never be restored to prosperity.
  11.44 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I hope the House will now be able to come to a decision on this matter, but perhaps I may be allowed to answer one or two points. The hon. Member for Spring-burn (Mr. Hardie) and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) asked why the scheme did not contain conditions relating to the persons employed in the industry, but they will know that the Marketing Acts do not cover such matters, and it would not be competent within the framework of the scheme to provide for regulations of that type.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State, before he gave the producers the scheme, could have got from them guarantees as to wages and conditions.
  Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: That is rather a different point. Two hon. and gallant Members—the hon. and gallant
  2298
  Member for Peebles and Southern (Captain Ramsay) and the hon. and gallant Member for Forfar (Captain Shaw)—raised the point as to what degree of protection would be accorded to this industry. That is a matter which the House has decided to leave in the hands of the Import Duties Advisory Committee set up to advise the Government on the rate of duty that should be applied. The Advisory Committee is charged with the duty of weighing up all the circumstances, and it will be competent for the board to make representations to them as regards the rate of duty which in their view is required. Beyond that I cannot go. I have been asked to give a guarantee that in no circumstances will the rate be varied in a downward direction. I cannot give that guarantee, as it would be contrary to the machinery set up.
  It is certain that the raspberry industry will be in a better and sounder position to make their desires known through the Board, than it is in its present disorganised condition. An industry which is suffering from the present fluctuations of price cannot hope to provide decent conditions for the workers, when the price which has stood in the neighbourhood of £22 a ton, has come down to as low a figure as £10 a ton. I should think that that fact would appeal to hon. Members in all quarters of the House, even the junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) and convince them that there is something wrong which requires to be put right. The junior Member for Dundee made a point as to the prevention of new producers. In section 71 (b) he will find a proviso which deals with the difficulty. It is not the intention of the Government to stifle private or individual enterprise but rather to assist an industry which gives a great deal of employment in Scotland so to organise itself and to get an organised market that it will become established on a sound basis.
  11.49 p.m.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: Before we go to a Division, it is incumbent upon me to make it perfectly plain that the Labour party is not against reasonable, sound co-ordination and marketing arrangements. We consider that such co-ordination is advisable. We believe that stupidity in marketing ought to be eliminated. But we hold very strongly

  2299
  that this scheme is Completely partial, cuts out large sections of the Scottish crop itself, takes no account of the fact that we have been discussing for years a a scheme for the whole of England and Scotland, and that no attention has been paid to labour Conditions in the industry. There is no co-ordination between England and Scotland. Therefore on these grounds and because we believe that these marketing schemes will not work satisfactorily until they represent all sections of the workers, producers and consumers, we feel that we must go into the Lobby and make our protest against this scheme. I admit that in reply to representations I made at a public inquiry in Scotland certain concessions have been made, and it is only fair to the Under-Secretary to state our position.
  11.52 p.m.
  Captain RAMSAY: May I ask a question?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has exhausted his rights.
  Captain RAMSAY: But may I ask a question? The Under-Secretary did not quite understand what I said. Will he give us an assurance that in the teeth of advice for the board the duties will not be removed? My hon. and gallant
  Friend assured us that he could not say whether the duties would be put down or not. What we want to know is whether he will obstruct duties being put down in the teeth of the advice of the board which he is now getting up.
  Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I cannot give that assurance. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that representations made by the board will carry weight.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: Is it in order to discuss Import Duties on this scheme? What is being said about potatoes can be completely controverted.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I thought myself that the Debate was getting rather wide. I think that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to ask whether or not the board will be in a position to make representations and what weight will be given to them. We cannot go into the matter of what is the proper function of the Import Duties Advisory Committee.
  Sir P. HANNON: Surely some continuity of policy must be maintained?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That question does not arise.
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 168; Noes, 77.

  Division No. 140.]

  AYES.

  [11.55 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

  Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Albery, I. J.

  Crooke, J. S.

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)

  Crowder, J. F. E.

  Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

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

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Gunston, Capt. D. W.

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

  Guy, J. C. M.

  Apsley, Lord

  Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

  Hanbury, Sir C.

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  De la Bère, R.

  Hannah, I. C.

  Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)

  Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

  Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

  Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

  Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

  Harbord A.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Dugdale, Major T. L.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Baxter, A. Beverley

  Duggan, H. J.

  Harvey, G.

  Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  Hellgers Captain F. F. A.

  Belt, Sir A. L.

  Dunglass, Lord

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

  Blinded, Sir J.

  Dunne, P. R. R.

  Herbert Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Boulton, W. W.

  Eckersley, P. T.

  Holmes, J. S.

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Elliston, G. S.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Errington, E.

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

  Brass, Sir W.

  Erskine Hill, A. G.

  Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Everard, W. L.

  Hunter, T.

  Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

  Fildes, Sir H.

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

  Bull, B. B.

  Findlay, Sir E.

  James, Wing-Commander A. W.

  Butt, Sir A.

  Fleming, E. L.

  Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Fraser, Capt. Sir I.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

  Latham, Sir P.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Furness, S. N.

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

  Cary, R. A.

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Leckie, J. A.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Gledhill, G.

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  Gluckstein, L. H.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Goldie, N. B.

  Levy, T.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Goodman, Col. A. W.

  Liddall, W. S.

  Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

  Lloyd, G. W.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

  Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V.

  Pilkington, R.

  Stourton, Hon. J. J.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Lumley, Capt. L. R.

  Pownall, Sir A. Assheton

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

  Radford, E. A.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  McEwen, Capt. H. J. F.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

  McKie, J. H.

  Rankin, R.

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Tree, A. R. L. F.

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

  Rayner, Major R. H.

  Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

  Markham, S. F.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Wakefield, W. W.

  Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

  Robinson, J, R. (Blackpool)

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

  Ropner, Colonel L.

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

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

  Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

  Rowlands, G.

  Warrender, Sir V.

  Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  Salmon, Sir I.

  Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

  Munro, P. M.

  Salt, E. W.

  Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

  Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H.

  Scott, Lord William

  Wise, A. R.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

  Penny, Sir G.

  Shepperson, Sir E. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Petherick, M.

  Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

  Mr. James Stuart and Mr. Cross.

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

  Glbbins, J.

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

  Adamson, W. M.

  Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

  Ritson, J.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Ammon, C. G.

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

  Rowson, G.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Griffiths, J. (Lianelly)

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Barnes, A. J.

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Sexton, T. M.

  Barr, J.

  Hardie, G. D.

  Simpson, F. B.

  Benson, G.

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Bevan, A.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Broad, F. A.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Bromfield, W.

  Holdsworth, H.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Buchanan, G.

  Hollins, A.

  Stephen, C.

  Casselis, T.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

  Compton, J.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

  Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

  Kirby, B. V.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Daggar, G.

  Lathan, G.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Leach, W.

  Watson, W. McL.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Welsh, J. C.

  Dobbie, W.

  MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

  Westwood, J.

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  Marklew, E.

  White, H. Graham

  Ede, J. C.

  Marshall, F.

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Maxton, J.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

  Messer, F.

  Foot, D. M.

  Milner, Major J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Frankel, D.

  Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

  Garro-Jones, G. M.

  Potts, J.

  Resolved,
  "That the Scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, entitled the Scottish Raspberry Marketing Scheme, 1936, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 11th day of March, 1936, be approved."
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Five Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.

BILLS REPORTED.

  GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY (No. 1) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the- Table, and to be printed.
  Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

  UCKFIELD WATER BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

  NORTH WALES ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
  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,—

  British Shipping (Continuance of Subsidy) Bill,

  Brighton Marine Palace and Pier Bill,

  Warkworth Harbour Bill,

  South Essex Waterworks Bill, without Amendment.

  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to incorporate and confer powers on the Tring Gas Company." [Tring Gas Bill [Lords.]

  PUBLIC SEWERS (CONTRIBUTIONS BY FRONTAGERS).
  That they have come to the following Resolution, namely: That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to consider the provisions of Sections 62 and 64 of the Romford Urban District Council Act, 1931, with respect to contributions by frontagers to the expenses of the construction of public sewers, and to make recommendations as to the circumstances in which, and the conditions upon which, similar provisions should be allowed in future Bills.
  TRING GAS BILL [Lords].
  Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bill.
  NORTHCOTTS SCHOOL, WALTHAMSTOW.
  NORTHCOTTS SCHOOL, WALTHAMSTOW.
TRANSPORT.
  ROYAL AUTOMOBILE CLUB RALLY.
  ROYAL AUTOMOBILE CLUB RALLY.
  ROADS LAY-OUT (MINISTRY'S CIRCULAR.)
  ROADS LAY-OUT (MINISTRY'S CIRCULAR.)
NATIONAL FINANCE.
  INCOME TAX (DEPENDANTS ALLOWANCE).
  INCOME TAX (DEPENDANTS ALLOWANCE).
  MOTOR VEHICLE AND PETROL DUTIES.
  MOTOR VEHICLE AND PETROL DUTIES.
  FRANCE (BRITISH WAR PAYMENTS).
  FRANCE (BRITISH WAR PAYMENTS).
  NORTHERN IRELAND FRONTIER (SMUGGLING).
  NORTHERN IRELAND FRONTIER (SMUGGLING).
  IMPORTATION OF PLUMAGE ACT.
  IMPORTATION OF PLUMAGE ACT.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
AGRICULTURE.
  POTATOES.
  POTATOES.
  MILK MARKETING BOARD.
  MILK MARKETING BOARD.
  EGGS.
  EGGS.
  WHEAT.
  WHEAT.
  SOUTH YORK; HIRE CANAL (POLLUTION).
  SOUTH YORK; HIRE CANAL (POLLUTION).
  FOODS (NEWSPAPER WRAPPERS).
  FOODS (NEWSPAPER WRAPPERS).
  RATES LEVIES (HOME COUNTIES).
  RATES LEVIES (HOME COUNTIES).
  WIRELESS BROADCASTS (SEASIDE RESORTS).
  WIRELESS BROADCASTS (SEASIDE RESORTS).
  SIAM.
  SIAM.
  ANGLO-EGYPTIAN CONVERSATIONS.
  ANGLO-EGYPTIAN CONVERSATIONS.
  ITALY (BRITISH SUBJECTS' EXPULSION).
  ITALY (BRITISH SUBJECTS' EXPULSION).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  TYNESIDE AND LIVERPOOL (SHIPBUILDING).
  TYNESIDE AND LIVERPOOL (SHIPBUILDING).
  RE-ARMAMENT CONTRACTS (MEN OVER FORTY).
  RE-ARMAMENT CONTRACTS (MEN OVER FORTY).
  FERNDALE, PORTH, TONYPANDY AND TREORCHY.
  FERNDALE, PORTH, TONYPANDY AND TREORCHY.
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.
  MINERS' CLAIM (BEAMISH COLLIERY).
  MINERS' CLAIM (BEAMISH COLLIERY).
  INSURED PERSONS (STATISTICS).
  INSURED PERSONS (STATISTICS).
  DOMESTIC SERVICE.
  DOMESTIC SERVICE.
  INDIA (TRADE AGREEMENT).
  INDIA (TRADE AGREEMENT).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  FINLAND AND RUSSIA.
  FINLAND AND RUSSIA.
  FOREIGN SHIPPING.
  FOREIGN SHIPPING.
  COLONIES (PREFERENTIAL TARIFFS).
  COLONIES (PREFERENTIAL TARIFFS).
DEFENCE
  FOOD SUPPLIES.
  FOOD SUPPLIES.
  GRANARIES (ANIMAL FEEDING-STUFFS).
  GRANARIES (ANIMAL FEEDING-STUFFS).
  ANTI-GAS EXPERIMENTS.
  ANTI-GAS EXPERIMENTS.
SCOTLAND.
  MILK PRODUCTION.
  MILK PRODUCTION.
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.
  ARMY ORDNANCE DEPOT, STIRLING.
  ARMY ORDNANCE DEPOT, STIRLING.
  PALESTINE AND TRANSJORDAN.
  PALESTINE AND TRANSJORDAN.
  SOMALILAND (DEATH SENTENCES).
  SOMALILAND (DEATH SENTENCES).
  EAST AFRICA (SISAL INDUSTRY).
  EAST AFRICA (SISAL INDUSTRY).
  LADY HOUSTON (PAMPHLET DISTRIBUTION).
  LADY HOUSTON (PAMPHLET DISTRIBUTION).
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (STAFF PENSIONS).
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (STAFF PENSIONS).
  ALBERTA, CANADA (SOCIAL CREDIT SCHEME).
  ALBERTA, CANADA (SOCIAL CREDIT SCHEME).
  GOLD COAST (MANGANESE).
  GOLD COAST (MANGANESE).

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl of Hardwick.—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

TRING GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BRIGHTON MARINE PALACE AND PIER BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
WARKWORTH HARBOUR BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
SOUTH ESSEX WATERWORKS BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.

DRAFT UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (REDUCTION IN THE WEEKLY RATES OF CONTRIBUTIONS) ORDER, 1936.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee, be approved. I do not know whether noble Lords opposite want me to say anything on this subject now, or whether they would prefer that I should speak after they have spoken.
LORD MARLEY: Perhaps it would save the time of the House if the noble Lord spoke afterwards.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: Then I beg formally to move.
Moved, That the Draft Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday the 25th of March last, be approved.—(Lord Hutchison of Montrose.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I want to point out to the House exactly what

411
this means from our point of view, and then the Minister will no doubt counteract what I have to say and point out how wrong I am. The Unemployment Insurance Fund has accumulated an annual excess of income of £6,500,000 and one of the reasons for that annual excess of income is that unemployment has been reduced, for which we are all very thankful; but the other reason is that the benefits paid out of this Fund to the unemployed are far too low. Your Lordships will remember that when we were discussing the case of agricultural workers a few days ago, I quoted a speech from the Minister in another place, in which he pointed out that so low were the benefits paid by the Fund that a large number of beneficiaries had to seek public assistance to supplement those benefits in order that they might live at all. We on these Benches therefore strongly resent that this surplus of £6,500,000 should be used to reduce the payments by the Government, the employers, and the workers, rather than be used to give the additional benefits which are necessary in order that those who become unemployed may live at all.
For this reason we say that the advice given by the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee should not in fact be approved by your Lordships' House. We say that, as a duty to the unemployed, who are unemployed through no fault of their own, we should send this question back to the Statutory Committee with the intimation that we do not approve this recommendation, but that we desire instead that this surplus should be used to give extra benefits to those for whom the Fund was established, and who are not getting enough out of the Fund to live. It is a fact that this penny reduction makes almost no difference to industry. The Statutory Committee say there will be relief to industry. It has been calculated that in the construction of a cargo vessel costing £90,000 this reduction of a penny in the weekly rates of contributions, which we are asked to approve this afternoon, makes a difference to the builders of that vessel of only £43. It is simply throwing away this surplus without any real benefit to industry when the £6,500,000 might be used to give a real living to the unemployed people by a slight increase in benefits.
412
In the same way the reduction of the contributions by a penny amounts in the whole of the cotton industry to £60,000, and the total value of the production of the cotton industry every year is £132,000,000. What is the good of offering £60,000 to an industry the value of whose product is £132,000,000? It is simply a drop in the bucket, it is of no real value, whereas if the money were given to the unemployed for whom this very Fund was established, it would make it possible for these unfortunate people to live. We feel very strongly that your Lordships would not desire to inflict an injustice on those for whom the Fund exists, and we therefore urge that the House should not accept the recommendations of this Statutory Committee, but should return them for reconsideration and report in the opposite direction.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: My Lords, the reason I asked the noble Lord if he would like to make his remarks first was that I did not want to put up dollies and then knock them down. I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for putting his point of view, with which, I may say, the Government have every sympathy. We appreciate that the noble Lord feels very strongly on this subject, but it should be remembered that the scheme we are dealing with is an insurance scheme. It has not really anything to do with what I may call the means of subsistence of the individual who receives the benefit. This insurance scheme is based on the contributions paid. It should be remembered that out of the seven members of the Statutory Committee who examined this question five took the view that the Government are now taking. They said, and I think properly, that the rates which are now existent were the rates which were established by the National Economy Act and which have never been reduced, whereas in many cases where special measures were taken to meet the crisis of 1931—the cuts and other things—the position has been restored while these contributions have remained the same. Therefore the Committee consider it is only fair to industry as a whole that the first surplus that has come along and which, as the noble Lord rightly says, amounts to £6,500,000 per annum, ought to be used for the reduction of contributions.

413
It is undoubtedly true that these rates, along with other rates, of course, are a very sensible weight on industry. His Majesty's Government have been doing everything they can to foster and push along industry in order to revive employment in this country, and, if I may say so, they are doing it with a certain amount of success. There is also this point—and I am sure noble Lords opposite will not think I am trying to make political points in any way—that if we increase the amount of benefit, when we come upon a less favourable period in industry it is much more difficult to reduce the benefit than it is to put up the contribution. I think that will be admitted, and I have no doubt it was one of the reasons that induced the Committee to take the view they have taken. Another point which I think is valid is that the statutory provision for unemployment under this scheme is substantially higher than that for sickness; that is, on the health side. In many cases it does approach the wage value. Immediately you try to raise the benefit too high, you have a tendency to compete with wages.
Be that as it may, the Government are undoubtedly guided very largely by what the Statutory Committee recommended, and they feel it would be very difficult indeed to go against the decision of the Committee. They feel it would be better for the country as a
Resolved in the affirmative and Motion agreed to accordingly.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
whole, and for industry, if the proposed reduction took place. It is a matter of opinion. When you have surpluses to handle it is always the case that various people want the money distributed in different ways. I would remind noble Lords opposite that if, as we hope, employment becomes very much better and we get a further surplus, their position will be very much stronger next year than it is now; but at present the Government take the view that this is the right appropriation to make in the case of this surplus. Therefore I recommend noble Lords to accept this Order.
LORD MARLSY: My Lords, if I may speak again by leave of the House, the-only point I want to make is that no mention is made of a rise in the cost of living. If the cost of living rises, the benefit naturally becomes of less value. Secondly, there is no mention in the Report, as far as I can see, of any approach to the level of wages. Further, it would be quite possible to spend the surplus without raising the benefit, by giving an extra week of benefit. I regret very much what the Minister has said. I am afraid we shall have to put the House to the trouble of a Division.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 7.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Archbishop.

Munster, E.

Clwyd, L.

Onslow, E.

Dickinson, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Eltisley, L.

Camden, M.

Bertie of Thame, V.

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

Salisbury, M.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Gainford, L.

Goschen, V.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Airlie, E.

Hereford, V.

Maugham, L.

De La Warr, E.

Mersey, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Monsell, V.

Phillimore, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Rennell, L.

Mansfield, E.

Carrington, L.

Stanmore, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Exmouth, V.

Faringdon, L.

Snell, L.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Arnold, L.

Sanderson, L.

VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, this Bill represents a further stage in the task of consolidating and bringing up-to-date the Statutes for whose administration the Ministry of Health are responsible. The Bill is based on the work of a Departmental Committee appointed in

415
1929 by Mr. Greenwood when he was Minister of Health, under the Chairmanship of the late Lord Chelmsford, to consider and report upon the consolidation of the law of local government and public health in England and Wales. Your Lordships will recollect that the first result of the labours of this Committee was the Local Government Bill which was introduced in 1933, on behalf of the Government, by the noble Viscount, Lord Sankey, and reached the Statute Book in the same Session as the Local Government Act, 1933. After the death of Lord Chelmsford the Committee continued its work under the Chairmanship of Lord Addington, to whom we are much indebted, and proceeded to consider the second part of their task—namely, the law of public health. The possibility of producing a single Bill dealing with the whole of the law on this subject was considered by the Committee, but they came to the conclusion that such a Bill would run to the quite unmanageable length of about 1,000 clauses and that the balance of advantage lay in the preparation of a series of Bills of moderate length, not exceeding 350 clauses each.
The present Bill represents the first of this series and deals with provisions of a strictly public health character, relating principally to sanitary matters and to the prevention and treatment of disease. Other and later Bills will deal with such topics as streets, open spaces, markets, food and so forth. If your Lordships will look at the Bill you will see that its range of topics cover local administration (including the combination and division of districts and the constitution of port health authorities); sanitation and buildings (including sewage disposal and building by-laws); nuisances and offensive trades; water supply; prevention, notification and treatment of disease; hospitals, nursing homes, and so forth; notification of births, maternity and child welfare and child life protection; baths, washhouses and bathing places; common lodging houses; canal boats; and other miscellaneous topics, together with a General Part dealing with matters common to the various subjects, such as the giving of notices, powers of entry, appeals, regulations, and so forth.
In the main, the clauses of the Bill are a re-enactment of the great Public Health Act of 1875, and of amending Acts passed
416
in 1878, 1885, 1890, 1907, 1921 and 1925; but in addition a number of Acts, such as the Notification of Births Acts of 1907 and 1915, and the Maternity and Child Welfare Act, 1918, which deal with public health matters but do not technically form part of the public health code, have been re-enacted. The Bill does not deal with London, whose public health administration is founded on separate Statutes except as regards a few matters in which the London County Council have asked for the Bill to be applied to their area. The fact that the Bill repeals in whole or in part some 30 to 40 Acts of Parliament, and substitutes 334 clauses for something like 600 sections in the existing legislation, is a measure of the simplification which it achieves.
The terms of reference of the Departmental Committee required them to consider what Amendments of the existing law are desirable for facilitating consolidation and securing simplicity, uniformity and conciseness. The Bill, therefore, like the Local Government Bill of 1933, combines consolidation with the limited amount of amendment which the Committee found necessary to secure the objects to which their terms of reference refer. I have no intention of wearying your Lordships with the details of these Amendments, or the reasons which led the Committee to recommend them. A full statement of these is to be found in the Committee's Report. I will only say at the present stage that the opportunity has been taken to clear up a number of points on which the law has been notoriously obscure and unsatisfactory, the chief of these being, perhaps, the question of the vesting of sewers and the relation between sewers and combined drains. Many of your Lordships will be aware that the law on this matter is notoriously inexact and has for long been the subject of adverse comment from the judicial bench. It was recently described by an eminent member of the Court of Appeal as a "disgrace to English legislation." Another and important clarification which the Bill seeks to effect relates to the right of appeal against orders, requirements and other decisions of local authorities. Under the existing law appeals lie in some cases to Quarter Sessions and in others to the Minister of Health; but the language of the Acts is

417
ambiguous and the extent of the jurisdiction of each tribunal has for long been a matter of debate.
As I have already indicated, the present Bill, like the Local Government Bill of 1933, combines consolidation with a limited amount of amendment. The Departmental Committee explain in their Report the reasons which led them to adopt this course in preference to drafting an Amending Bill, to be followed by a Bill consolidating the law as amended. Put quite briefly, they found the existing law to be in a state of great confusion, mainly for the reason that the Public Health Acts, including the Act of 1875 itself, are largely founded on the clauses selected from local legislation. As a consequence, the individual Statutes—and still less the series of Acts as a whole—do not show the impress of a single draftsman. In these circumstances an Amending Bill assimilating the language of each of the hundreds of sections comprised in these Acts would have been a long, complicated and unintelligible measure, and accordingly the Committee, working on the lines which proved successful in the Local Government Bill, have produced a single measure of consolidation and amendment and have called attention in their Report, which runs into 134 pages, to all the more important proposals for amendment that they have made.
It is plainly necessary that a Bill of this size and importance should be subjected to a close scrutiny by Parliament, and as it is not a purely consolidating measure a reference to the Joint Consolidation Committee would be inappropriate. The Government accordingly propose to adopt the course taken with the Local Government Bill of 1933 and to invite the two Houses to appoint a Joint Select Committee to undertake a detailed examination of the clauses. It is hoped that the Committee may be in a position to begin its work shortly after the Easter Recess and that it may thus be possible for the Bill to reach the Statute Book in the present Session. The Bill is a non-Party measure and has been welcomed by the associations of local authorities (who are represented on the Departmental Committee) and by the principal bodies concerned with its subject matter, as a most desirable and necessary step towards rendering the law of public
418
health intelligible and accessible. Valuable as it will be, if it reaches the Statute Book, to those concerned in public health administration, I am convinced that it will be of not less value to private persons who, whether as property owners or otherwise, come into contact with the public health administration. The obscurity and prolixity of the existing public health law has for long been a legitimate grievance to those persons and their advisers.
In commending the Bill to your Lordships' House I think it is necessary to state exactly what is the aim of the Bill. It does not seek to lay down a perfect public health code. To do so would necessarily involve some matters of acute controversy. It seeks rather to gather together for the first time in orderly and intelligible shape, the whole of the law relating to the matters with which it deals and thereby to provide a firm foundation and starting point for any necessary future legislation. Hitherto the complexity of the existing Statute law has been an effective obstacle to constructive criticism through the sheer difficulty of obtaining a clear picture of the subject matter. This Bill, combined with the later measures dealing with other aspects of public health to which the Departmental Committee will next turn their attention, should provide for the first time adequate material for a review of the whole law of public health. But to attempt to engraft on the present Bill extensive amendments of the law, however desirable in themselves, would be foreign to the purpose of the Bill and might well destroy its chance of reaching the Statute Book. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Gage.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not want to detain your Lordships for more than a moment or two, but I think it ought to be remarked in your Lordships' House how far this method of legislation departs from the usual precedents. No doubt there is a precedent for it, which my noble friend has recited, but it is an extremely doubtful practice, as the older members of your Lordships' House will recognise, to combine consolidation and amendment in the same Bill. Here is a Bill of a very large number of clauses which, as my noble friend has most frankly explained, involves in the

419
main consolidation but in a large degree also amendment.
Where you are dealing with consolidation purely by itself the matter is referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, and your Lordships are not called upon to investigate closely the resulting provisions. You are quite satisfied that your Committee will see that there is no change in the law and that all that is involved is consolidation of the law. As soon as the Committee have considered it and reported to the House the Bill passes through as a completely uncontroversial matter. Where a Bill is purely an Amending Bill, those of your Lordships who are interested in the subject look into the matter closely and see how far you approve of the proposed Amendments. But when the two are thrown together it is a most bewildering process. You do not know upon any particular clause in the Bill whether you are dealing with consolidation or amendment. The result is to throw a far heavier burden upon those noble Lords who desire to do their duty by watching any changes in legislation than otherwise would be the case. From the point of view of the Departments also it is inconvenient, because once the House starts upon scrutinising the provisions of the Bill, noble Lords will probably scrutinise not merely Amendments of the law but old matter which has been on the Statute Book for years and is only the subject of consolidation. Immense confusion results.
I am not going to oppose this Bill—I have no doubt it is an important matter that ought to go through—but I do suggest to the Government, and particularly, if I may, to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, that this procedure ought to be very carefully watched and that this combination of consolidation and amendment ought not to be allowed to grow up in your Lordships' House. If my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will assure me that the matter will be very carefully scrutinised I shall not say more, but I must say that I regret very much the creeping in of this new practice. The old practice was well established—first amendment and then consolidation; two quite separate Bills. That is the old practice, and the right practice, and I venture to hope that it will continue.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will permit me to say a word or two as I have had some experience of Bills of this kind, especially the Bill of 1933. As your Lordships know, local government in this country has grown up in quite a different manner from that in which it has been established in countries abroad. I do not know whether any of your Lordships present to-day have read Local Government in Many Lands prepared unofficially by the Ministry of Health on reports which were received from foreign countries and from the Dominions. If any of your Lordships did so, I am sure you were struck by that circumstance: how our local government is a matter of growth. If your Lordships wish to go further into the matter, the works by the noble Lord, Lord Passfield—who I am sorry to see is not in his place this afternoon—are the most illuminating which have been published in any language.
With regard to the growth of public health legislation in this country, the first general legislation was the Public Health Act, 1848; but, as your Lordships are well aware, for many years before 1848 local authorities—towns only they were in those days—introduced Private Bills dealing with matters connected with health, such as the removal of nuisances, the provision of sewers, and kindred activities. This is an important point: the Public Health Act, 1848, was an adoptive Act. It gave powers to urban areas to set up authorities to deal with questions of the health of their areas and their inhabitants, and bestowed upon all those authorities powers similar to those granted to special authorities by Private Act of Parliament. It was in this year that the General Board of Health, which was the precursor of the Local Government Board, now the Ministry of Health, was established. Gradually, new powers adopted under the Act of 1848 came into general operation, and ultimately the whole country became organised for health purposes. The General Public Health Act, not adoptive-in all its provisions, was introduced in 1875, and that has been the backbone of our public health law. But it has, of course, been amended by many subsequent Acts.
That has been the evolution of our public health institutions: first of all by

421
experiment, by Local and Private Acts, then by an adoptive Act, and lastly by means of general legislation. And we are, I think, going by this Bill to take the evolution a step farther. Of course the practice still goes on of local authorities bringing in Private Bills and trying new experiments whereby considerable changes in the general law affecting public health are instituted, because other authorities follow them. The clauses in a Bill become standard clauses and are followed by other municipalities, county councils and so forth. The effect of this is that the progressive, the larger local authorities go ahead regularly and amend the law as is required, but the general public health laws must to a certain extent lag behind the Private Acts of the more progressive, larger, more powerful and richer local authorities. That must be the case unless steps are taken from time to time to bring the general law up to the highest modern local standard.
Perhaps I might illustrate to your Lordships how the general law, by this means of experiment and by the adoption of clauses in Private Acts, operates. Only two or three days ago it came to my notice that there were a considerable number of clauses, which varied in their drafting, regarding charges for the supply of refrigerators and small instruments of that kind. I therefore asked the Ministry of Health to go through all the clauses and see what seemed to be the best private clauses which had been put forward. I hope that that draft will be accepted and that it will become the standard clause. Doubtless if it works properly it will be in due course brought into some subsequent Public Health Act. Even to-day I have on the Table a Motion on a kindred matter dealing with the unsavoury subject of sewers, and that is exactly the same thing. We suggest having a Joint Committee of both Houses to settle the vexed question of charges for general sewers and, if we can by general agreement settle that matter, the settlement will no doubt in due course be adopted into the general legislation. I have on more than one occasion, since I had the honour of being Chairman of the Royal Commission on Local Government about fourteen years ago, ventured to impress upon your Lordships very respectfully the desirability of bringing these matters of general
422
legislation on public health up to the highest modern standard by the introduction of regular Bills, periodic Bills if possible, for that purpose. Your Lordships will remember that the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Private Bill procedure, which sat in 1930, recommended that a Public Bill dealing with local government and public health questions should be introduced every five years.
I should like to see something of the nature of a Standing Committee in continuous Session—I do not mean to say sitting every day, but regularly constituted—to scrutinise and examine all these public health clauses, new clauses which may appear in Private Bills, and to go into them carefully and thoroughly. Such a Committee might consist of representatives of the various Departments concerned who report on Private Bills, together with representatives of the Department which I represent in your Lordships' House and the similar Department in another place. It is only an idea. The constitution of such a Committee would, of course, have to be more carefully gone into, but I feel that some sort of authority of that kind for examining this type of clause and seeing that it comes forward regularly when public health legislation is brought forward, would be of advantage and save a considerable amount of trouble to Parliament and local authorities and to all those who are concerned with the administration of public health and local government. I should like, if I may, to commend the suggestion to my noble friend opposite and to ask him if he and his colleagues would be so kind as to give it their consideration.
As my noble friend has said, this Bill is one of a series, the first of which was the Local Government Act, 1933, which dealt with the constitution and function of local authorities. This Bill, as the noble Viscount has pointed out to your Lordships, is not a periodic Bill such as I have suggested might in future be brought forward to deal with public health; it is a Bill which is designed to clarify and to lay down the principles of the general legislation on public health as now generally accepted throughout the country. The noble Viscount has told us that this Bill will be followed by other Bills dealing with kindred subjects. It was thought possible that they might all

423
have been included in one Bill, but, as he told us, that would be a Bill of over 1,000 clauses, which would be rather more than the Government could properly ask your Lordships to accept in one effort.
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has said a word to your Lordships on the undesirability of combining consolidation with amendment. I happened to be Chairman of the Joint Committee of both Houses which sat upon the 1933 Bill, and, although I have not perused this Bill very carefully, I gathered from what the noble Viscount has said and what I have seen myself, that this Bill is very much on the lines of the Act of 1933; that is to say, that it is mainly consolidation. It is not intended to revolutionise the public health law. Obviously, however, there are certain desirable points—perhaps minor points, but still points which obviously require amendment; and at least it was proved last time, in 1933, that a procedure of mainly consolidation plus a certain amount of necessary amendment is one which might commend itself to your Lordships. I quite agree with the noble Marquess that it is very desirable indeed to watch this procedure and not to allow consolidation and amendment to be mixed up indiscriminately; but when it is mainly consolidation, with necessary Amendments for bringing the law up to date, this procedure is one which might not unfavourably recommend itself to your Lordships.
I understand from the noble Viscount that it is proposed that the same procedure should be adopted this year of a Joint Committee. Indeed he has a Motion on the Paper for such a course, proposing that a Joint Committee of both Houses should be set up, not for the purpose of doing again what Lord Addington's Committee has done so adequately and so well, but in order to scrutinise the Bill from a Parliamentary point of view and to recommend such Amendments and offer such criticisms as may seem desirable to them. I may point out that the method pursued by the witnesses before the Joint Committee of 1933 was to point out clearly to the Committee what was an amendment of the existing law and what was consolidation, and I think the Committee scrutinised rather carefully from the point of view which my noble friend Lord Salisbury
424
has raised—the desirability of not going further than was absolutely necessary in amendment to obtain consolidation as far as they possibly could.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I be allowed to ask one question? Is there any precedent except the precedent which the noble Earl has quoted of 1933 for the union of consolidation and amendment?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Speaking offhand, I do not think there is, and I think that at the time the matter was rather carefully considered. I am speaking now without notice but my recollection is that the 1933 Bill was a Bill of something over 300 clauses, and if you had gone through the procedure, which in ordinary cases I think is the right procedure, of consolidating and then amending—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: You amend first and then consolidate the law as amended.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think it would be difficult, because a lot of these clauses are in Private Acts and have not appeared in Public Acts. I think you have to take the law as it is and then amend it. It is difficult to discuss a rather intricate procedure without having carefully studied it beforehand. There is one point which perhaps I might be allowed to touch upon, and that is the fear which I understand has been expressed in some quarters, that legislation of this kind might interfere with the rights of property owners. I do not think that that is likely to prove correct. When you have a large number of Private Acts of Parliament, which govern public health in different districts, it must follow that the general body of public health law is to a degree obscure. If you have a different law in Birmingham from that existing in Liverpool, it is bound to be puzzling to those who happen to live, say, in Manchester, and who visit first one town and then the other. I cannot but think that the promotion of consolidating and amending legislation is just as much in the interests of property owners and their advisers as it is in the interests of those who have to administer public health law, and of the public themselves. When this Bill becomes law all persons will know exactly where they are, and I cannot think that that will have an undesirable effect upon the interests of property owners.

425
I do not think I have anything much to add about the scope of the Bill. I have already mentioned that the first of these Public Health Acts, the Act of 1848, was an adoptive Act, and there were a great many adoptive clauses in the Amending Act of 1875. I think that public health administration has been so much developed in this country that there is a tendency to make these adoptive clauses part of the general law of the country, and that is the principle followed in regard to the majority of the provisions recommended by Lord Addington's Committee and put into the Bill. Another question is the vesting of sewers in local authorities. This has been a vexed question for a long time and I think we should be grateful to the noble Lord and his Committee for putting forward a constructive proposal. I do not think that it alters very much the existing law but consolidates and amends it in such a way as seems necessary. I am glad to see that the Bill deals with the unsatisfactory state of affairs as regards building by-laws. Fortunately this matter had already been examined by a Departmental Committee, and Lord Addington's Committee had the advantage of having their recommendations before them.
I do not want to detain your Lordships any longer, but I do think I may very respectfully venture to say to my noble friend Lord Salisbury, that I think this procedure is a workable procedure, although I entirely agree that it should be utilised with very great caution and without any attempt to over-ride the rights and duties of this House itself or of individual members of this House. I hope that some consideration may be given to the idea of a Standing Committee to keep a careful eye upon local legislation as suggested in Private Acts, and perhaps the matters might be considered periodically for the purpose of Amending Acts. I hope your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this Bill and, if your Lordships do, I think that local government and public health interests will benefit thereby.
LORD ADDINGTON: My Lords, having spent about two and a half years assisting to draw up this Bill, may I make one or two observations upon it. In the first place I wish to express very great appreciation of the services
426
rendered to us by the draftsman and official members of the Ministry of Health, and of the great energy and ability with which they supplied us with drafts and the materials which we had to consider. I listened with great interest to the observations of Lord Salisbury. Our principal aim was the consolidation of existing Acts, but with a view to that consolidation, we were asked to consider what Amendments of the existing law were desirable for securing simplicity, uniformity and conciseness. We tried very hard not to go beyond that in suggesting Amendments, but we found that the law stretched over so many Acts of Parliament, in such a variety of terms, that pure consolidation was impracticable. We have, however, done our best to limit Amendments to those which were necessary for consolidation, clarity and conciseness, and where we have amended the law we have put down very clearly in our Report covering the Bill what new Amendments we have thought necessary to introduce.
An instance of consolidation to which I might refer is Part VIII, which concerns baths and washhouses. We have replaced in thirteen clauses what formerly was the subject matter of sixty-eight different sections, spread over many different Acts. As has been said already, perhaps the most important alteration we have made is with regard to drains and sewers. This part of the law was most unsatisfactory and, as the noble Viscount has told you, it has called forth severe strictures and comments from His Majesty's Judges. Many of these Acts were adoptive, particularly some of the earlier Acts, and we have felt it desirable now to make many of these provisions the general law, particularly after the re-adjustment of boundaries and areas under the Act of 1929, which made the distinction between urban and rural areas very much less. We have further introduced certain provisions from Local Acts where these had become acceptable owing to changes in circumstances, so as to save any local authority desiring these facilities the expense of obtaining a Local Act. We have further fried to keep the balance as far as possible between public and private interests, and particularly has it been our endeavour to see that the private person is in no less favourable a

427
position under the Bill than he was formerly. We hope that he will find that we have made the position more precise and intelligible, and we have endeavoured to give him more effective remedies against any arbitrary action taken by any local authority.
The Committee are very well aware that the Bill as drafted is not perhaps in perfect form and that there are very many matters connected with local government and with public health that are very far from satisfactory. But we have felt—I hope the noble Marquess will agree—that it was not our business to make a perfect law or to produce Amendments many of which are extremely controversial, and if we had tried to introduce them into the Bill there would have been little chance of getting it through Parliament at an early date. We hope that the House will accept the Bill, as we have drafted it, mainly as a foundation on which further Amendments can be made.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the National Federation of Property Owners wishes this Bill to be amended in certain respects, and would like to know what the procedure is. Can the Federation be represented before the Joint Select Committee, or will Amendments only be possible when the Bill is re-committed to a Committee of this House? I should be much obliged to the noble Viscount if he would tell me when the re-commitment stage will be likely to take place.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I had not proposed to address your Lordships on this Bill and I hope I may be forgiven if I say that it is a Bill that I do not know a very great deal about, but I have had a direct appeal made to me by my noble friend Lord Salisbury and, like any other of your Lordships, I am naturally anxious to answer any appeal which he addresses to the House. My noble friend has pointed out that this Bill proceeds by what he regards as normally an inconvenient method, that is to say, by attempting to consolidate and amend the law in one measure, and he would prefer first an Amending Bill, and then after that a Consolidation Bill. I have not had the opportunity to look into the precedents. I accept at once, of course, what my noble friend says, that the most usual
428
way of dealing with Amendments and consolidation is to do it by two separate methods, of which the amending measure comes first.
My recollection is that some seven or eight years ago, when we were considering the question of amending the law of public companies, I had occasion to look into the matter and, speaking only from recollection and therefore not binding myself, I think the conclusion which I then reached was that there were precedents for all three ways of dealing with the matter. That is to say, there were precedents for what the noble Marquess quite correctly says is the most usual way, first an Amending Bill and then a Consolidation Bill. I think there was also some precedent for first a Consolidation Bill so that Parliament might know exactly what the law was, and then an Amending Bill to make any alteration which they thought necessary; while there were also precedents for combining the two processes in one measure. But I cannot pledge myself to that being so, because I have not had any opportunity of refreshing my memory of what occurred rather a long time ago. But I entirely agree with the noble Marquess when he says that it is right that the House should watch carefully any procedure of combining the two because, as he says, there might be a risk that members of your Lordships' House would be left in some doubt as to what was consolidation and what was amendment, and might even overlook Amendments under the impression that they were merely consolidation.
In the case of this particular Bill, as I think my noble friend will appreciate, the question as to the most convenient method of procedure was specifically considered by the Committee, which was so very successfully presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. In the Report of that Committee your Lordships will find that they actually discuss this very point and set out the reasons which led them to the conclusion that in this particular case it was more convenient to proceed by one Bill. Among other reasons they said that an Amending Bill would contain so large a mass of detailed Amendments that it would be little shorter and far less intelligible than the draft Amendment and Consolidation Bill which they had produced. And, to give your Lordships only one instance

429
which they themselves cite in their Report the earlier Acts were themselves very largely consolidated, and embodied a number of somewhat inconsistent provisions on matters of detail in a number of earlier Acts of Parliament. In such a matter, for example, as the power of entry which is given in certain cases there are, as they point out, something like eight different methods of exercising that power provided in various sections of the Acts which they were seeking to consolidate. There was no difference in principle with regard to them, but differences in detail, and if you tried in the Consolidation Bill to bring the whole eight in you made a very confused medley. If, on the other hand, you merely tried to amend, with all these different powers scattered over different sections of the Act, it became a very complicated matter to express clearly or simply.
Therefore they came to the conclusion that in this case only it was convenient to adopt the method which they have recommended, and your Lordships will appreciate that the particular danger to which my noble friend, quite rightly, if he will allow me to say so, called attention—the danger of some matter being overlooked—is very much minimised, if not entirely removed, because the Committee in their Report set out the explanation with regard to each clause, as to whether it is consolidation or amendment, and, if it be amendment, the reasons why the Amendment is sought for. So that anyone who took any interest in the matter and desired to acquaint himself with the provisions of the law and the reasons why the Bill took the particular form which it has taken, had only to look to the Notes on Clauses and the Appendix to the Report, which is printed and of course available to everybody, to find there every clause of the Bill examined and criticised and explained. That, I think, goes a long way at any rate to meet that particular criticism.
Then my noble friend Lord Bertie asked what procedure is to be adopted. I think I am right in saying that when this Bill goes, as it is proposed it shall go, to a Joint Select Committee, that Committee will normally and naturally desire to hear evidence from persons who are interested in the matter, and if any
430
people who wish to give such evidence will communicate with the Secretary of the Committee they will then get the particulars as to when they are to appear and when the meetings are to take place.
As to the suggestions of my noble friend the Chairman of Committees, I have only to say that in a matter of this kind the Government and the Ministry would naturally pay the greatest attention to any suggestion which he put forward. While I cannot give him an answer as to how far his suggestions can be adopted, I can assure him that they will be most carefully considered, and that they will receive the attention which the weight of his authority demands. I hope that that explanation may have gone some way to relieve any anxieties which exist in this particular case, and that in the circumstances your Lordships will think it right to give this Bill a Second Reading, and then to send it to a Joint Select Committee. I hope that anyone who is in any way perturbed as to any proposals in the Bill will foe good enough to acquaint himself with the reasons which justify, or would seem to the Committee to justify, the inclusion of these provisions, looking at the interim Report in which the matter is carefully and fully considered. I would only add once more how very much we are indebted, in this most complicated and intricate question of public health legislation, to the efforts of the Committee over which Lord Addington presided with so much distinction.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Motion standing in my name—namely, that it is desirable that this Bill be referred to a Joint Committee.
Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith and to desire their concurrence.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (AGRICULTURE) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hutchison of Montrose.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Employment in agriculture to be insurable employment.
1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act employment in agriculture shall be insurable employment for the purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935 (hereinafter referred to as "the principal Act ") so, however, that Part II of the First Schedule to that Act (which contains the general list of excepted employments) shall have effect as if there were included therein the employments specified in the First Schedule to this Act.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE moved an Amendment to make subsection (1) read as follows:
" Subject to the provisions of this Act every employment in agriculture that is an employment specified in Part I of the First Schedule to the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935 (hereinafter referred to as ' the principal Act '), shall be an insurable employment for the purposes of that Act unless it is an excepted employment, and Part II of the said Schedule (which contains the general list of excepted employments) shall have effect as if paragraph 1 were omitted therefrom and as if there were included therein the employments specified in the First Schedule to this Act."
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment. It is put down to make perfectly clear that the Bill does, in fact, in law carry out what the original drafting intended.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, leave out from (" Act ") to (" as ") in line 12, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Hutchison of Montrose.)
LORD ELTISLEY: May I ask a question in regard to the position of the drainage worker? I understand there has been some difficulty in regard to legislation in the past as to the position of the drainage worker, and I would like to have it quite clearly stated that drainage workers will either be insurable persons under the Act of 1935 or that they will be classified as agricultural labourers under this Bill.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: I can assure my noble friend that drainage workers on land do come within the scope of this Bill.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I think this is probably the appropriate clause on which to inquire whether the type of labourer known as "garden labourer," not gardener, is or is not included in the scope of the Bill. I would have raised the point on the clause relating to private gardeners, but I understand there is a contention that these men are not, properly speaking, gardeners.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: My attention has been drawn to the noble Lord's point. It is difficult to give an absolutely straightforward answer to the question. If these labourers working in private gardens are also engaged in agricultural pursuits part of their time, it would be possible, under the Minister's direction, to bring them within the scope of the Bill, but if they are working as labourers in a private garden all the time, then they come under the definition of "gardeners."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: The next Amendment is purely consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 8, leave out (" under any contract of service or apprenticeship ") and insert (" an employment specified in Part I of the First Schedule to the principal Act ").—(Lord Hutchison of Montrose.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Rates of benefit in respect of agricultural contributions.
(2) Sections thirty-eight and thirty-nine of the principal Act (which relate to increase of benefit in respect of adult dependants) shall, in their application to agricultural benefit, be subject to the following modifications, that is to say—

(a) subsection (1) of the said Section thirty-eight shall have effect as if for the words "nine shillings" in both places where those words occur there were therein substituted the words "seven shillings ":

(b) the said Section thirty-nine shall have effect as if at the end thereof there were inserted the following subsection:—

" (4) Where the weekly rate of agricultural benefit increased under the last two foregoing sections would exceed thirty shillings the rate of benefit payable to the agricultural contributor shall be reduced by an amount equal to the excess."
LORD MAELEY LORD MAELEY moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), to omit the words "reduced by an amount equal to the excess" and insert "thirty shillings or an amount equal to his normal weekly wage reduced by two shillings, whichever is the greater. "The noble Lord said: The Amendment I have put down was discussed on Second Reading, and the Minister seemed very sympathetic. I shall very briefly explain its purpose. The idea is that when an agricultural labourer is earning considerably more than the normal minimum wage, which averages 32s., it is rather hard on him, when he becomes unemployed, that he should be tied down to receive the maximum allowance under this Bill, which is based on the minimum wage of the mass of the agricultural labourers. The point is that the minimum wage, being about; 32s., the maximum amount such a man may receive is 30s. It is not fair that the better paid agricultural labourers who may become unemployed should be compelled to receive only this maxim am benefit of 30s., because it is a much greater hardship to them suddenly to find their income reduced by 25 per cent. or so as compared with the mass of agricultural workers who only find themselves reduced by a couple of shillings. Therefore it seems not quite fair they should be tied down to the maximum in the Bill which is based on the minimum wage. The Amendment does not apply to the whole of the agricultural labourers. I suggest there might be what may be called an escalator maximum, which would give to agricultural workers unemployment benefit which is in each case 2s. below their normal wage. That is the meaning of the Amendment.
The only other point I want to raise is this: Will this be a drain on the finances of the Fund which is being established by this Bill? I have not the information which is available to the Ministry, of course, but as far as I can work it out there are about 700,000 agricultural workers, of whom 500,000 are married, so right away we knock off all the unmarried. As far as I can make out there are only about 20 per cent. of the remainder who earn more than the minimum, and their average is about 35s. That represents only 100,000 workers. All these workers are naturally the very best workers. They are workers whom employers dare not risk standing off. It
434
may be confidently reckoned that not more than 10 per cent. of this 100,000 will ever be unemployed. As they are, in any case, likely to be unemployed or stood off for only three months in the year on the average, it really becomes a question of 10 per cent. for one quarter of the year, which is 2½ per cent. for the year, and that brings within the scope of this Amendment only 2,500 workers. When you consider that of these 2,500 the Amendment will only apply to those who have four children, the position is simple. Those with three children are already covered under the Bill, because workers with three children will receive the maximum of 30s. It will not give more than 33s. on the average, and in practice it will only apply to men with four children. Assuming that 10 per cent. have four children, the cost of the scheme would be under £2,000 a year—about £1,800. That amount is so small, and yet the fairness of the proposal is so obvious, that I very much hope that at this eleventh hour the Minister will be able to accept this little Amendment, and that I shall have the support of many of your Lordships in putting it forward.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 18, leave out from (" be ") to the end of line 19, and insert (" thirty shillings or an amount equal to his normal weekly wage reduced by two shillings, whichever is the greater ").—(Lord Marley.)
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: The noble Lord, with his very persuasive tongue, has made a good case, but his financial deductions do not quite coincide with the information that has been put at my disposal. The facts are these. The difficulties of applying the scheme, which is an ingenious one, are numerous. First of all, it would involve two different types of payment in return for the same contribution. The second thing is the difficulty of finding out exactly the normal wage which the insured persons would be drawing. The third is that it would be breaking the rules of a purely equal form of insurance. You would be giving a privilege to one type of worker as against another, and I am informed that at the present moment it is impossible to estimate with accuracy what this will cost. The noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, pointed out during the debate on the Second Reading that the financial provisions of this Bill are drawn on

435
a narrow margin of safety, and the risk which would be run in adopting a proposal such as that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Marley, is, I am advised, too great to be run. Perhaps I might remind the noble Lord that the Statutory Committee will inevitably examine this case in due course, certainly within two years of the commencement of the Act, and if they find that an alteration of the kind advocated by Lord Marley could be introduced, they will be at liberty to recommend its adoption to the Minister, who could bring before Parliament an alteration by Order. I take the view of my
Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, after Clause 5, to insert the following new clause:
Claims for benefit and payment of benefit through Post Office.
" 6.—(1) As soon as may be after the passing of this Act the Minister shall confer with the Postmaster-General and with his concurrence make regulations under the principal Act providing for the payment of agricultural benefit through the Post Office and for enabling claimants for such benefit to make their claims through the Post Office of the locality in which they reside.
(2) Section fifty of the principal Act (which relates to regulations for payment of and claims for benefit through the Post Office) shall not apply to agricultural benefit."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to substitute for the labour exchange the Post Office for the
436
right honourable friend the Minister, with whom I have discussed it. He tells me that he is not prepared to accept the scheme at present, but that it will be examined by the Statutory Committee in due course. I therefore regret very much that I cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 6.

CONTENTS.

Hailsham, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Gainford, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Glenravel, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Goschen, V.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Camden, M.

Hereford, V.

Lamington, L.

Salisbury, M.

Mersey, V.

Maugham, L.

Monsell, V.

Newton, L.

Airlie, E.

Ridley, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Phillimore, L.

Mansfield, E.

Addington, L.

Redesdale, L.

Midleton, E.

Carrington, L.

Rennell, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Clwyd, L.

Stanmore, L.

Munster, E.

Eltisley, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Onslow, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Teynham, L.

Radnor, E.

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

Wolverton, L.

Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Arnold, L.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.) [Teller.]

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Faringdon, L.

Sanderson, L.

Snell, L.

use of agricultural labourers when claiming or receiving benefit. There are many reasons why the agricultural labourer should be allowed to use an office which is sure to be in his village and within easy reach of his cottage. In the first place, there is the very simple reason that it is a hardship for an agricultural labourer to be asked to walk five or six or even ten miles twice a week, or perhaps oftener, to the local labour exchange and back again. He is not a man who habitually uses even a bicycle. Generally he has not got one. It would be hardly fair to expect him to pay an omnibus fare, even if there were an omnibus available. He will have to occupy time which he might spend in his garden and wear out boot leather in constant attendance at the labour exchange.
A further point arises. If he goes into the town he is travelling away from his sphere of employment. He will not find agricultural employment in the town. Another point is that he will be handled

437
no doubt by a most admirable and adequate staff at the labour exchange, but a staff that is not accustomed to dealing with agricultural labour and that cannot be expected to understand all the different branches of agricultural labour. Imagine, for instance, a man who had been second cowman in a certified milk herd. He would have had a very special training as regards cleanliness and the milking and handling of cattle. The particular market for his services would be a similar herd. Do you think that the ordinary labour exchange official would appreciate the fine points that that man had to offer?
Then there is this very serious point. Suppose he goes to the labour exchange, a lusty agricultural labourer. The labour exchange manager possibly will look at him and say: "You are a man who can use a pick and shovel; very well then, take a job under the Corporation at picking up the road." It would be admirable in a certain sense if he gets a job, but two things would happen in such a case. First, he would take the place of a townsman who might be applying for that job; and secondly, he would be taken out of agriculture and any possible substitute by a townsman for his services is quite out of the question, because the townsman who formerly perhaps dug up drains would be quite useless on the farm. The cowman's skill would be irreplaceably lost. Then there is the difficulty that the employer of agricultural labour is not to be found at the labour exchange and usually is not in contact with the labour exchange. Very few farmers are on the telephone even, whereas the town business man is certain to be on the telephone. Whereas in the town an employer can run down to the labour exchange and interview a man, it is a journey which a farmer would be very unlikely to be able to take.
Then the agricultural labourer would lose all the advantage of his neighbourly relations in the village. He is probably one of a dozen, possibly twenty, agricultural labourers in the village. They will all know each other and mostly they will be known to the adjoining farmers. How convenient it would be if the farmer should want a man for him to step down to the Post Office and find him registered there, and only have to go a mile or two to the man's cottage or
438
to send for the man so that he could see him at once. Apart from that, we should find a kind of village patriotism coming into play. The people in the village will all help a man they know to be unemployed to get into a job.
The last point I have to make is this. Supposing we are told by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that numerous sub-offices in agricultural districts would be erected, I would like to point out that that of course would involve very great expense. I do not know if the noble Lord would be prepared to give figures to show what the expense would be, but it would involve renting buildings or erecting new ones and setting up separate staffs, which could be employed only on that particular job, and at certain times of the year would probably have nothing to do whatever. Altogether there seems to be every argument for substituting the Post Office. I would like to explain that there already exists in the General Act a section which makes the use of the Post Office permissive. That is Section 50. The only reason why my Amendment has been drafted as a new clause is that it seems simpler to proceed in that way rather than by reference to the section of the principal Act and an amendment of that section.
It may be asked why, if there is a permissive clause in the Act already, I seek to make this mandatory, especially when the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has already said that he and the Minister are most sympathetic to this point of view and will, under the regulations, treat the agricultural labourer with every sympathy. I do not doubt that that is their intention. The Parliamentary Secretary in another place said:
" He [the Minister] will certainly bear all these questions fully and sympathetically in mind in devising machinery and regulations for the payment of agricultural benefit in these cases."
That sympathy is of course valuable. Presumably it existed when the Act of 1935 was passed and this permissive section was inserted. But what do you find? The Parliamentary Secretary later went on to say:
" The actual section in the principal Act to which the honourable and gallant member refers is Section 50, but in point of fact that section is not operative. It has never been operated."
If the noble Lord in charge of the Bill says, as I hope he will not say, that this

439
matter should be left to be dealt with in regulations by the Minister, I am bound to point out to him that that trust resulted in the permissive section in the 1935 Act being neither operative nor operated. I therefore trust that this very small Amendment, which goes in no way contrary to the principles of the Bill and which will cause no extra expense but will indeed, I believe, save a good deal, will be accepted by the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 34, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Phillimore.)
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTEOSE: The noble Lord who moved the Amendment knows that I hold his Amendment, as he has said, in the greatest sympathy, and I hope he will not believe that this is an ordinary reply when we say we will look into this question very closely and with great sympathy. It is much more than that. I have discussed this for hours, not only with the Minister but also with his staff, in trying to get a solution of this difficulty, and in trying to get a solution I have discovered various facts. The first fact is that, if you bring in this system of dealing with the payment of claims for benefit through the Post Office, you will produce a system which is not in keeping with what the Ministry thinks is the best way of dealing with insurance benefits as a whole; but they believe that in cases where the applicants are sufficiently far distant from the various centres of payment, it might well be that the Post Office should be used for that purpose. At the present moment, in industrial insurance, the Post Office is used to a considerable extent in the actual payment of benefit.
In many of the country districts there are small country towns into which the agricultural worker is in the habit of coming at least once a week and often twice a week by omnibus, and it will be far and away the easiest method if, in dealing with unemployment in a particular area, the claims are handled by an office in the centre town into which the workers are in the habit of coming. The Minister assures me that he has every intention of handling this agricultural insurance system by means of rural people in rural surroundings. There are many people coming under this Bill who are employed by public authorities and
440
others, and who no doubt are closely collected round ordinary towns where there are already labour offices. But the pure agricultural worker, the Minister assures me, will undoubtedly be dealt with not only by opening fresh offices in areas where they are required, but also by visiting officers, who will not only visit the centres into which the ordinary farm servant comes, but will actually visit farms where there is a sufficient number of people to warrant a visit. These visiting officers will undoubtedly go round and visit the farms.
There are two distinct types of farm service to be dealt with in the Amendment which the noble Lord has put down. The Minister takes the view that six miles is the maximum that any individual ought to have to walk, or to go by omnibus or bicycle, into a centre in order to get his necessary benefit. That is the maximum distance, and for anything beyond that he will provide facilities whereby claimants will not have to go more than that distance. That is one of the promises which he lays down. Further, there is this difficulty. In many of the remote districts the Post Offices are run by women, sometimes by the daughter of a small shopkeeper; and the Minister doubts whether such persons would be suitable and able to assist the claimants in filling up the necessary forms or to deal with claims for insurance. That is the Minister's view. The actual payment through the Post Office is a much more simple thing.
I may point out that Section 50 of the principal Act, into which this Bill is bringing agriculture, lays down that the Minister may, with the consent of the Postmaster-General, make the necessary arrangements not only for the payment of claims but also for the establishment of claims through the Post Office. The reason why this method has not been used in the past in industrial insurance is that the distances in industrial insurance do not exist, at least to any great extent. Here you have a new departure in agricultural insurance. Under the powers given by the Act of 1935 the Minister can, if he knows of the desire and need, carry out such an arrangement. I hope that the noble Lord will not press to bring the method in as a general one but will rely on what I am saying now. The Minister promises, with the experience of the Bill, within one

441
year personally to examine this question and, if there are causes for complaint whereby these people in the remoter districts are not able to get the necessary attention from the claimant's point of view, he will undertake to look into the matter and deal with it. Either he or his successor will undoubtedly "cash" that promise and do everything that he can to carry it out. You must have experience. This is a new Bill; we are dealing with a situation which we know, but we do not know the numbers that will be affected in the far-distant and scattered areas remote from the various centres. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will not press me, but will accept an assurance from the Minister that he will deal with the situation after his experience of one year.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I regret that I cannot find the reply of the noble Lord anything other than highly unsatisfactory, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Phillimore will insist upon taking his Amendment to a. Division. The noble Lord's answers, I am sure, do not come from his own kind heart. I see trailing all over them the slimy foot of officialdom and of Government Departments who are afraid that the importance of their particular little section may be minimised and the Post Office may have to take over a certain portion of what was formerly the responsibility of some other Department. Seriously, I cannot see that any case has been made out against this proposal, and I really do not think it can be seriously contended that rural Post Offices, which already have to handle a vast amount of form work in connection with old age pensions, are unable to deal with the filling up of claims for unemployment benefit. The noble Lord speaks airily of farm workers going into the towns twice a week in motor omnibuses; but do omnibuses ply for charity, and is it likely that a farm worker is able to expend a few pence, or it may well be a few shillings, per week on running into the towns? I think that such a contention is unfair to the farm worker.
Lord Phillimore has spoken about farm workers living in villages. That may be true in England, but in Scotland a farm servant who is unemployed may find accommodation in an isolated cottage, or group of cottages, and I submit that the refusal to accept this Amendment is going
442
to do a great deal of harm to the rural worker. The noble Lord has also spoken about this being an experiment, and it is necessary to see how it works. That is another variant of the old maxim "Try it on the dog," and the dog, for the purpose of this Act, is going to be the agricultural labourer. I suggest that he is worthy of being treated with a great deal more consideration than is now being handed out to him. Otherwise, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, will take his Amendment to a Division.
LORD GAINFORD: I should like to say, from this side of the House, that we are rather impressed with the arguments of Lord Phillimore. Certainly, in my district, it would be quite impossible to expect agricultural labourers to pay one shilling for transport, or to walk eight or nine miles into a town. They have got Post Offices within a mile and a quarter, but in most cases they would have to go some eight or nine miles to a town to reach a labour exchange. The farm labourer has got plenty of walking to do in following the plough, without our expecting him to hire a bicycle or walk that distance into the town, and he would much sooner go to the village Post Office than go to the exchange, at great expense and loss of time. I think that this is a case in which the Government should try the system of utilising the Post Offices. Having served as Postmaster-General, I know what these rural Post Offices are, up and down the country, and I see no reason to doubt their ability to deal with such a matter. I am sure they are quite capable of dealing with the requirements under this Bill. I press the Government to accept this Amendment, and at any rate to give it a trial. Otherwise I think the noble Lord will be justified in going to a Division.
LORD ELTISLEY: I hope we have not heard the last word about this matter. The Amendment says "the Minister shall confer with the Postmaster-General and with his concurrence make regulations." I think it is worded in very generous terms. If, for any reason, it is found impracticable, or highly undesirable, then no action would be taken. A loop-hole has been purposely left in the drafting of the Amendment, and so, if it is found to be unworkable, it will simply die. I would like to point out that even not very far from here, where we are at work, there

443
are large areas where there are very few towns. In my own county there is only one town with more than ten thousand inhabitants, and it is a 2s. fare from many parts of the county. In view of the great experience which small Post Offices in rural areas now have acquired in the payment of old age pension claims, and in the filling up of claim forms of every kind, I cannot conceive that there would be any real working difficulty in the Amendment now submitted. I do not know how the distance of six miles has been arrived at. It is generally said that a man does a good day's work if he walks twelve miles behind a plough. Is it arrived at by taking half of that figure? I hope the Government will take a generous view of this matter. After all, it is to the interest of the man that he should receive his pay in the area in which he resides, and I hope the Government will see their way to reconsider the statement which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchison, has just made.
LORD MARLEY: The Minister's reply to this Amendment has raised a number of points which I think must be explained a little more carefully. As I understood him, the six miles limit was limited to the distance which the man had to walk, and that if an omnibus is available he has got to use it.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: May I correct that? The declaration is that under existing regulations no one can be required to travel more than six miles.
LORD MARLEY: As the crow flies?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Three miles each way?
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: Six miles each way.
LORD MARLEY: That makes it up to twelve miles in all, which may be a very heavy strain, and I think it reinforces the argument of Lord Phillimore that the man should have the power to use the Post Office where it may be necessary. I am not quite certain whether this Amendment is permissive or mandatory. It uses the words "for enabling." Does it mean that they must go to the Post Office or does it merely give a choice where there is no labour exchange in a district? Perhaps I may get an answer when Lord Phillimore replies. Also, I
444
think it is a pity that this little discussion has, I am sure quite unwittingly, been made the vehicle for a little attack upon public servants. I am quite sure that those in charge of Post Offices are capable of doing this work, and I do not think the Postmaster-General would agree that they are not capable, even in the villages. I think Lord Mansfield was a little bit unfair when he spoke about the slimy foot of officialdom because, after all, postmistresses are officials. The noble Earl's observation is capable of an application which I am sure was not meant, and it was a pity to bring it in. I hope the Minister will make the matter clear. Suddenly we learn that there are to be officials to visit the farms. That means that a man may have to go to the farm where he has been working to draw his benefit in certain circumstances.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: No. The point of the visiting officials is that in any area where there is the farm or cottage where the man happens to be who is out of employment, the visiting officers of the Ministry can go round to make arrangements for assisting claimants to fill up their forms and establish their claims.
LORD MARLEY: I am very much obliged. That means that these payments can be made by post without the worker having to go either to a Post Office or an employment exchange.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: Certainly.
LORD MARLEY: That of course at once does away with the difficulty of the alleged incompetence of post-mistresses and enables the Post Office to be used.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: The difficulty in the case of some postmistresses is not in the payment of the claim, it is in answering questions in dealing with the claimant who is trying to establish a claim.
LORD MARLEY: That brings me to this point, that the duty of an employment exchange is in fact principally to find employment and not to administer benefit, and it is quite clear that a Post Office may not be as good at finding employment as would be an employment exchange. But in the villages it may be possible to secure that there are arrangements made, either by notices in the

445
Post Office or by postal means, for bringing agricultural workers into touch with other farmers or employers. If this Amendment, in fact, is permissive I still hope that the Ministry will accept it, because if not we on these Benches certainly shall support Lord Phillimore if it comes to a Division.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I am sorry that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill did not deal with the question of bringing agricultural people into contact with urban. It is not desirable to offer urban employment to agricultural people for a good many reasons. One main reason is that we have not got too many skilled agricultural people in the country, and if you take them to exchanges in the towns in order to get their benefits, even if they are only six miles away, it will reduce the number of people on the soil. Agriculture is a very skilled employment, and a lad who is going to go into it must start as a lad. If he does not take up agricultural employment early in life he will probably go into some other trade altogether and be lost. It is most important, that we should not mix up urban and rural employment.
I would say one word on the question of Post Office employees; and, by the way, the noble Lord did not say that the Minister had consulted the Postmaster-General at all. I lather gather from all absence of reference to the Postmaster-General that the Post Office has not been consulted as to whether they could carry out this work. But from my own experience of rural post offices, the men and the ladies in charge of the Post Office counter very often know a great deal more about these things than I do myself. They are extraordinarily well informed as to how to fill up forms, and some of them, I think, would be quite qualified to attend to inquiriers in the local offices of inspectors of taxes. I think it is rather unfair to suggest that Post Office employees are incompetent to advise a man or woman how to fill up a form for unemployment benefit. I do not think any suggestion was made that they were incompetent to pay over the appropriate sum due. It is suggested that the Minister will go into the whole question of rural payments within a year after the Act comes into operation. But all the damage may be done in that one year. You may have a whole lot of
446
people taken from agriculture into urban employment, and the agricultural industry would be worse off than ever. If you are going to be fair to agriculture, do it now. Do not wait until it is too late and you have got an urbanised agricultural community, becoming more and more favourable to town conditions, thus robbing agriculture of those who have been brought up and trained to it.
The visiting officer is a most interesting suggestion, but the noble Lord in charge of the Bill did not tell us whether the cost of all these visiting officers will come out of the workers' and employers' Fund, and therefore reduce the balance and certainly do away with any possibility of either reducing the contributions or increasing the benefits. You cannot visit distant places in the country with civil servants without a great deal of extra cost. I know from sad experience that civil servants do not believe in visiting distant places except in fairly good company, and you cannot get that for nothing. I am sorry that my fellow-countryman who is in charge of the Bill was unable to persuade another countryman of his, who represents a very urbanised area, to have a little more sympathy for the country, and I think that we who know agriculture perhaps better than many members in another place should really tell the Government that we know what we are talking about and vote accordingly.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): Although I was not able to be present during the earlier discussion of this Amendment, being obliged to be elsewhere, I have endeavourd to inform myself of the situation, and I would like to say one word before your Lordships proceed to express your opinion on this Amendment. I am not sure, from what I have been able to hear of the debate, whether there might not still be some slight misunderstanding in the minds of some noble Lords as to the precise position. I need hardly say that in my personal capacity, as one interested in those whom this Bill will affect in a most remote and scattered agricultural district, I am not at all insensible to any of the arguments that have been adduced in favour of this Amendment, and I think it is most certainly true that in a great many cases the method of administration that the Amendment contemplates will most probably be found to be one that is not only

447
the most convenient, but in a great many cases the only possible one by which the interests of those drawing benefit can properly be served.
The noble Lord opposite asked my noble friend whether the Amendment was in his judgment permissive or mandatory, and it is on that point that I am not sure that there may not be some slight misunderstanding. As I understand the position, under the clause of the main Act, Clause 50—to which no doubt much reference has been made, though I was not present to hear—all this proceeding that is desired under the Amendment is permissively possible. That is quite clear. What this Amendment does is to make that permissive procedure provided under the main Act mandatory. The effect of this Amendment as drawn would be to impose the obligation upon the two Ministers, acting concurrently, to use this method on all occasions within the limits that the Amendment covers. I am not sure that that might not be going further than was wise, and the suggestion I would wish to make to your Lordships, with all respect and all the reserve that must come from not having had the advantage of hearing the whole debate, is this. I have no doubt that my noble friend, after having heard the debate, will take steps to see that the arguments that have been put before your Lordships are laid before my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour and receive his full consideration. On the other hand, your Lordships, or those who are at present disposed to take a different view to that of my noble friend, might not be unwilling to give some fuller consideration to the arguments he no doubt adduced.
Therefore, unless your Lordships think it unreasonable, I would suggest that this Amendment might perhaps be withdrawn on the understanding that the matter was perfectly free for debate again on the Report stage, my noble friend between whiles undertaking to convey the sense of the debate, as I understand it to have been, to my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour, and noble Lords, on the other hand, undertaking to consider the arguments adduced by my noble friend. It is impossible for him at this stage, or for me, to give any undertaking that my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour would be able to meet, to the
448
full at least, the wishes of those who have moved this Amendment, but it might not be unreasonable to assume that with a little fuller consideration we would not be proceeding, on misunderstanding, to do what we might not wish to do.
LORD MARLEY: As I understand, the Report stage is to be taken on Monday. Monday is a dies non as far as this House is concerned. Only this business will be taken, and therefore very few members may be present, and there may be disadvantage from the point of view of the House in such a procedure.
LORD GAINFORD: May I suggest that there is a certain amount of latitude already in this Amendment, because the Minister has to confer with the Postmaster-General and, with his concurrence, make regulations? It is a question of what these regulations will be as to whether the agricultural labourer is going to be properly treated under this Bill in regard to the distance he may have to walk in connection with his benefit. I suggest that the better plan would be for us to pass the Amendment in its present form by general consent and with, I hope, the acquiescence of the Government—and if the Government really desire that this should be amended in any particular later, they would have the opportunity of amending it—rather than that we should withdraw it and run the risk of not looking after the interest of the agricultural labourer.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: The noble Viscount was quite right in pointing out that the argument of the Government was that Section 50 was in the principal Act and therefore should be used, but the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, as I understood his argument as to the first part of the Amendment, was that the Departmental point of view was that the Post Offices were entirely unsuitable for this purpose. He then proceeded to ask us to trust him to make use of the permissive powers in Section 50 as it exists to-day. Having told us that Post Offices, from the point of view of the Department, are not suitable, he can hardly expect us to trust him to make use of the permissive powers. Therefore I still feel we want something rather more mandatory than Section 50.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: I perhaps did not make myself sufficiently clear. What I did say was that in many places the people in charge of the Post Office were not suitable. I quite agree that this system of applying at the Post Office might be used in very many cases. Here you have it permissive in the Act, and you have the promise from the Minister that within a year, when he sees the experience of the working of the Act, he will go forward under Section 50 of the principal Act, in consultation with the Postmaster-General, and see how far he can institute offices where they are really required in far distant areas. What I do object to is that you are going to make it absolute that the Minister has got to do this. The Minister tells me he does not think that would be a good thing. Therefore I hope noble Lords will accede to what my noble friend the Leader of the House has suggested, and allow me to convey to my right honourable friend the great volume of opinion expressed this afternoon, and try to convince him and bring him round to the noble Lord's point of view. I cannot promise more than that.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I hope the noble Lord will not withdraw his Amendment, because in this sort of case it is always better to get the principle embodied in the Bill. That makes the officials get busy.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I must admit that at the outset of this debate I was swayed by the argument of my noble friend Lord Phillimore, but on receiving that undertaking from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, I must admit I am somewhat inclined to favour waiting for a year. We must remember that practically all legislation in these days is new and touches new ground. We have got to look at it from the point of view of something experimental; but what we do want to ensure is that we can gradually, I hope, educate, if I may say so deferentially, Ministers and officials to take advantage of lessons which are learned from this legislation. Therefore I find myself bound in this case not to support the noble Lord.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I point out to the noble Earl that in that year you are going to create a great vested interest? You are going to have these
450
visiting officials, and I was amazed to hear the Paymaster-General say that within six miles of every agricultural centre there is going to be a new labour exchange.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: A new arrangement made so that they would not have to walk more than six miles.
LORD STRABOLGI: If you are not going to use the Post Offices, and yet you are going to have such an arrangement made, I shudder to think what the result will be. The noble Lord and I both love the highlands of Scotland, and I cannot think what the Society for the Preservation of Rural England are going to say before we are through with this scheme. The great argument adduced by the noble Earl is that after one year the matter will be reconsidered. But after a year these people will have dug themselves in, and it will be very difficult to dig them out.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I think it is only right that I should say that full notice was given to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that this point would be raised and pressed, so that he has already, I think I may say, had a fair opportunity of consulting the Minister and the officials of the Department. With regard to this experimental year, I do not think it is necessary for me to labour the point very much, but I wonder if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has done a simple calculation of what he is going to ask the agricultural labourer to do. An insured person is going to be asked, if he goes twice a week to the labour exchange, six miles there and six miles back, to walk at the rate of 1,248 miles per year. I may point out, and it is perhaps interesting, that a labourer living in the middle of Dartmoor would have to walk 3,536 miles during the year to get to the nearest labour exchange. This matter is not so easily brushed aside as might be imagined.
I think by far and away the most important point raised, if I may say so, was that brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Marley, who asked: Is this Amendment mandatory or is it not? It is, of course, mandatory on the Minister, subject always to the concurrence of the Postmaster-General, as the noble Lord,

451
Lord Gainford, quite properly pointed out, but it is only mandatory on the Minister to provide for the payment of agricultural benefit through the Post Office and provide for enabling claimants for such benefit to make their claims. In other words, it is permissive to the claimant to use the Post Office, I presume, or, if there is an alternative place to which he can go, to use that. That meets the point made by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, who said there were a number of agricultural labourers who live within easy reach of labour exchanges or live on the edge of towns in which there
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved to insert the following new clause:
Special arrangements with associations.
6. Sections seventy and seventy-one of the principal Act (which relate to the conditions of making special arrangements with the associations specified in Section sixty-eight of that Act and to provisions where such special arrangements are in force) shall, in their application to agricultural benefit be subject to the following modifications, that is to say—

(a) subsection (i) of the said Section seventy shall have effect as if—

(i) for the words "three shillings," "two shillings and sixpence," "one shilling and sixpence," and "one shilling and threepence," in sub-paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of paragraph (a) thereof, there were substituted, respectively, the words "one shilling and sixpence," "one shilling and threepence," "ninepence," and "eightpence "; and

(ii) for the words "seventy-five shillings," "sixty shillings," "thirty-seven shillings and sixpence," and "thirty shillings," in sub-paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of paragraph (b)

is a labour exchange. I do not think I need dwell upon the other points which have been raised in the debate. I regret that, having given this notice, I cannot withdraw my Amendment, and I apologise to the noble Viscount who leads the House for putting him to the trouble of considering such a very small point when I know the great labour he has had to undertake lately.
On Question, Whether the proposed new clause shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 9.

CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Exmouth, V.

Gainford, L.

Camden, M.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Salisbury, M.

Goschen, V.

Lamington, L.

Hereford, V.

Marley, L.

Mansfield, E.

Mersey, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Midleton, E.

Phillimore, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Addington, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Onslow, E.

Bayford, L.

Redesdale, L.

Peel, E.

Carrington, L.

Sanderson, L.

Radnor, E.

Davies, L.

Stanmore, L.

Eltisley, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.]

Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Hailsham, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Airlie, E.

Monsell, V.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Halifax, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Munster, E.

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

Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

thereof, there were substituted the words "thirty-seven shillings and sixpence," "thirty shillings," "eighteen shillings and ninepence," and "fifteen shillings ";
(b) the said Section seventy-one shall have effect so that the Minister may, with the consent of the Treasury and subject to such conditions and otherwise as the Minister may prescribe, pay to any association, with which a special arrangement is in force, by way of contribution towards the administration expenses of the association in connection with the arrangement, such sum in respect of each year during which the special arrangement is in force as shall, in the opinion of the Minister, be equivalent to the amount of the administration expenses (other than the expenses of any Government department attributable to the exercise of any functions performed in connection with the insurance of employed persons against unemployment in manner provided by this Act) which would, if the said special arrangement had not been in force, have fallen to be borne in respect of that year out of the contributions paid under this Act by employers and employed persons and out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of the persons who were during that year members of the said association.
The noble Lord said: I do not know whether there is any hope of my getting the right and the left on my side on this Amendment. I should very much like to press on the Minister from the start that neither of my Amendments is in any way hostile to the principle of the Bill, nor does it involve any extra expense. That holds true of this Amendment, which is rather difficult to explain but is in its object quite simple. Its object is to allow the administration of unemployed benefit in agriculture to be by means of approved societies or trades unions, as is the case in respect of national health insurance. In case your Lordships think this is a new and startling departure, I would point out that this very thing is provided for in this Bill, because the Bill incorporates within itself the Act of 1935 and that Act, by Sections 68, 69, 70 and 71, makes provision for this sort of administration. All I have done by way of amendment of the particular section in the Act of 1935 is to make conditions easier for setting up these approved societies and to provide that their fair share of the money, which will in any case be spent on administration, is handed to them to administer themselves.
Those figures which look so alarming on the Paper can really be ignored except for the first figure, which is exactly half the figure in Section 50 of the Act of 1935. It is half because the contribution that the agricultural labourer is asked to make, and can afford to make, is half what it is in the industrial scheme. There is no difficulty in the Government accepting this proposal. They are including in their Bill the same principle which I am advocating, but they are merely making its application more difficult. They have not considered that these conditions, in order to be fair to the agricultural labourer, must be adapted to his needs and capacity. It is not difficult, in the case of a society formed of men earning 50s. to 60s. a week, for that society to undertake in the case of one of their members being unemployed to pay an extra cash benefit of 3s., but in the case of the agricultural labourer on a much lower standard of wages that would be prohibitive and the section could not be used. I hope I have made myself clear on that point.
The advantages of using this section in the case of the agricultural labourer are overwhelming, and they are of the same
454
nature as the advantages we were discussing under the previous clause. It will enable the agricultural labourer to have the scheme administered in lodges composed of people of his own sort, people engaged in his own trade and living in his own locality. The choice lies between his being allowed to administer the scheme or having it administered purely from the labour exchange. There is only one way out and that is to have a clause which enables him to set up his own scheme. All the arguments as to locality, neighbourliness, efficiency and economy apply with equal strength to this Amendment as they did to the last. I cannot conceive that the Government can have any real reason for opposing this Amendment except that they did not happen to think of this particular matter. If they are going to reject this Amendment they ought to be able to show that it is fair to make this scheme permissive and at the same time to put in its way obstacles which the agricultural labourer cannot possibly surmount.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 34, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Phillimore.)
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: The noble Lord rightly said that this is a somewhat intricate and difficult question. He rightly pointed out that Sections 70 and 71 of the principal Act deal with the proposals which he wishes to amend. The reasons why I regret that I am not in a position to accept the Amendment are these. The Act demands that if an association is going to handle benefit it will undertake to pay some benefit from its own funds as well as the benefit under the insurance scheme. I notice that the noble Lord halves the minimum benefit which the association will have to pay under the agricultural scheme. Under the industrial scheme the benefit is 17s. but under this scheme the agricultural labourer will receive 14s. It seems to me therefore very drastic to cut down the minimum of 3s. under the industrial scheme to 1s. 6d. under the agricultural scheme. The Blanesburgh Committee in their Report particularly stress the point that great care must be taken to safeguard the arrangements by which associations are permitted to administer State benefits. I venture to think that if we did accept this Amendment the associations

455
dealing with benefits under the industrial scheme would immediately ask for a reduction of the minimum benefit which they have to pay. They might ask for a reduction from 3s. to, say, 1s. 9d.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Would it matter much if they did?
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: If the benefit under the agricultural scheme is 14s. as compared with 17s. under the industrial scheme and we accepted this Amendment to reduce to 1s. 6d. the benefit which the association shall pay, surely it is only reasonable to suppose that the associations on the industrial side would immediately say that 3s. was too high in their case. As a matter of fact, so far as my information goes there are at the moment no societies which are paying any benefit at all to agricultural workers. It means that you would have to start to construct that type of association. They do not in fact exist now.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Because the conditions are too onerous.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: If such associations did exist, they would be able to handle the benefit in the ordinary way. Why the noble Lord should want to reduce the minimum benefit to 1s. 6d. it is difficult to understand. In any case before you did that you would have to be very careful indeed that the financial arrangements were such that the funds were sufficiently secured. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment, because it is not one that can be accepted.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Before we dispose of this matter I should like to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill: Does he want, or does he not want, approved associations to function?
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: I do.
LORD PHILLIMORE: He does want that. Then he would want the industrial ones to function, and they do function.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: They do function.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Quite so. Does he appreciate that the argument which he used with regard to the Agricultural
456
Workers' Union is directly contrary to the objection which he is putting forward to my Amendment? He told us as a fact, and in that he repeated what the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Labour said in the Standing Committee in the other place, that the Agricultural Workers' Union had never paid that additional benefit. Is that right?
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: He said that his information was that as a matter of fact no union or society at present paid benefit in the agricultural societies.
LORD PHILLIMORE: That refers to the Agricultural Workers' Union, does it not, or those that include agricultural labour? Why do they not pay? Because, of course, the societies, which are poor societies dealing with agricultural labourers, cannot afford to pay, and the noble Lord intends that they never shall be able to afford to pay. That is why he resists my coming down on the amount of the condition. In other words, although the industrial labourer, with his higher scale of wages, is to have the advantages held forth by Sections 70 and 71, they are never to be granted to the agricultural labourer. Why? Why do our Front Bench make themselves responsible for this proposal? After all, what is the point of the condition? The only point is that there should be a raison d'être for these societies and reasonable conditions under which they should work. Of course the noble Lord is quite right in saying that Lord Blanesburgh said that we should be most particular about the finances of a society, and that no society should be allowed to be started of which the finances were not in order. But why make that impossible?
And the noble Lord said: Is it fair that in the one case you should insist on a lower contribution as a condition of these societies being founded? Of course it is fair. Is it fair that you should only ask the agricultural labourer to pay 4½d. when you ask the industrial worker to pay 9d.? The only reason why you do it is that the agricultural labourer cannot pay 9d., and you know it. Well, he cannot pay 3s., and you ought to know it. I cannot understand how the noble Lord can say that he wishes these associations to be formed,

457
and at the same time insist on maintaining conditions which make their formation impossible. I am sorry, but I must press my Amendment, unless the noble Lord can see his way to meet me on the point.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: I do not see how I can meet the noble Lord on the point. The point is that these associations can be run under the Act as laid down, and the argument I have adduced to show why I could not agree to reducing the benefit paid by the association to 1s. 6d. was that I should immediately receive the demand from the
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 6 [Reckoning of agricultural contributions]:
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: The four Amendments to this clause are drafting.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Then with the permission of the Committee I will put them en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 37, after (" year ") insert (" agricultural ")
Page 4, line 40, after (" days ") insert (" agricultural ")
Page 4, line 42, after (" days ") insert (" agricultural ")
Page 5, line 1, after (" no ") insert (" agricultural ").—(Lord Hutchison of Montrose.)
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Regulations as to yearly and half-yearly hirings]:
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: The Amendments to this clause also are drafting Amendments.
industrial side to reduce the minimum of 3s.
LORD PHILLIMORE: What harm would that do? Suppose these conditions were lowered on the industrial side, what specific harm would be caused? I do not think the noble Lord really understands, if I may venture to say so, the point of these societies.
On Question, Whether the said new clause shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 13.

CONTENTS.

Mansfield, E.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Marley, L.

Midleton, E.

Hereford, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Mersey, V.

Phillimore, L.

Peel, E.

Rennell, L.

Radnor, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.]

Sanderson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

Lamington, L.

Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Hailsham, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Munster, E.

Bayford, L.

Onslow, E.

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

Halifax, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Airlie, E.

Goschen, V.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Monsell, V.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Amendments moved—
Page 8, line 21, at end insert:
(" (3) In calculating the amount of any repayment to be made in accordance with the regulations made for the purposes of this section, fractions of a penny shall be disregarded.")
line 23, leave out (" under ") and insert (" for the purposes of ").—(Lord Hutchison of Montrose.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Power to provide for insurance of private gardeners.
13.—(1) As soon as may be after the passing of this Act the Minister shall refer to the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee the question whether it is desirable and practicable to include employment as a private gardener among insurable employments, and the Committee, after giving such notice as they consider sufficient of their intention to inquire into that question, and after taking into consideration any representations submitted to them by persons appearing to them to represent persons employed in that employment and the employers of such persons, shall make a report to the Minister thereon.
(2) The minister shall lay the report of the Committee before Parliament and if,

459
after considering the report, the Minister is of opinion that it is desirable to amend this Act for the purpose of including any class of employment as a private gardener among insurable employments as employment in agriculture he may, with the consent of the Treasury, lay before Parliament the draft of an Order making such amendments of this Act for that purpose as he thinks fit.
(3) If each House resolves that the draft, of an Order laid before it under this section be approved, the Minister shall make an Order in the terms of the draft to take effect on such date as may be specified in the Order, and as from that date the provisions of this Act shall have effect subject to the provisions of the Order.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in subsection (1), after the words "private gardener," to insert "gamekeeper, game watcher, fish keeper, fish watcher, deer stalker, or deer watcher." The noble Duke said: I do not, for one moment, suggest that the wording of my Amendment is not rather ample, and that the various types of workmen mentioned in it might not have been included in one word, or a couple of words, at least, but I have no intention of pushing this Amendment to a Division, because I know pretty well what the answer of the Government will be, and I know that the matter has already been discussed in another place. I wish, however, to impress upon the Government the necessity, if possible, of bringing this very deserving class within the ambit of the Bill. The principal object of the Bill is to extend the Unemployment Insurance Act to include agriculture, which includes horticulture and forestry.
I shall be told that as gamekeepers do not come within the Preamble of the Bill therefore it is ultra vires to include them, and that the noble Lord is therefore quite unable to assist me. As a matter of fact, all you have to do is to declare that gamekeepers are employed on the land and then they come under the heading of agriculture and its many branches. Also, in subsection (2) of Clause 1, the Minister may modify the provisions of the principal Act as he may think proper. You are bringing in private gardeners, and I do not see why gamekeepers and the like should not also be included. On this point the Minister of Labour, in Committee in another place, said:
" As I understand it, a gamekeeper is not an agriculturist or a horticulturist, or a forester, and therefore he is outside the scope of the Bill."
I maintain that he is an agriculturist, and of great value to agriculture. He also stated later on, in winding up, that he must bear in mind in future the claims put up on behalf of the gamekeeper. I know that the Minister has not got prejudices, that he can look in a broad-minded way at most cases, and that he is a man of wide sympathies. Therefore I hope I may ask him to be really as good as he has undertaken to be.
A rather strange document has, however, come into my hands. It says nothing about the law, but it tells us that the intention is to treat as pariahs among the unemployed those who minister to the sporting needs of the employer, that is, those engaged in occupations which may come under the heading of what I may call "field sports." The document was sent from the Ministry of Labour on January 23 to the secretary of the Gamekeepers' Association. It said, amongst other things:
" In reply, I am to say that the Minister is advised that, broadly speaking, it may be said that persons employed as gamekeepers, warreners, kennelmen and fish keepers are outside the scope of the Bill as at present drafted where the real or substantial purpose of the employment is to minister to the sporting needs and wants of the employer or his guests. On the other hand, fish keepers and kennelmen employed for purposes other than the above are regarded as falling within the general provisions of the present Unemployment Insurance Act, and not within the provisions of the Bill; while gamekeepers and warreners employed in the breeding, rearing or care of the stock and the land that is devoted to that purpose, and for a purpose other than the above-named sporting needs and wants, are regarded as employed in agriculture, and accordingly within the scope of the Bill."
Personally, when a distinction of that sort is made, I will not say it is made for political purposes, but one would have thought it had been made in Bedlam, and not in one of the great Departments of the State.
Is it not rather rough to visit the supposed sins of a certain class of sportsmen on one of the finest sections, morally and physically, of men in this country? Is it not rather petty on the part of a Government that rejoices in—I will not say rejoices, but has a "National" prefix, to carry out a distinction of this sort? It seems to me strange that men in analagous occupations, suffering no hardship at all, should be allowed to have the benefit of this Act, while men doing

461
practically the same work, and much harder work, should not get that benefit. I will give your Lordships a case in point. Take an industry which is growing up in Scotland—the silver fox industry. The men employed in that have a not very difficult job, and not very hard work, but they are all entitled to unemployment benefit, and I do not suppose there is any unemployment in the industry. Their job is to rear the silver fox pelts for putting round the necks of probably the most well-to-do ladies in this country. On the other hand, the wretched gamekeeper or deer stalker is out in very inclement weather, to kill hinds, the meat of which is sold to these silver fox farmers. It seems to me rather unfair to make a difference. Farther, the business of these keepers is to kill off surplus hinds. You cannot have it both ways: you cannot keep grumbing from some of the Benches in this House about deer forests and depredations while at the same time you will not do anything to help the men who have to try to prevent those depredations and who are performing a very useful part in agriculture.
Take the case of rabbits. I remember a debate here about traps and everybody getting frightfully excited about the necessity of keeping down rabbits. Rabbits are probably the greatest enemy of agriculture that we have got in the North; yet the man who keeps them clown is treated as an enemy of the National Government and is not to be assisted. If you do without your keepers you will also do without a good many of your crops. The keepers have also to keep down vermin, and are not used for game purposes alone. Gamekeepers on the estate that I know best are really there to keep down the vermin which is inimical to farming as well as to commercial forestry. If you did not keep down stoats and weasels and so forth you would find it would be almost impossible to keep poultry, in Scotland at all events, and of late years almost every field that is not under crops is occupied in some form or other with poultry.
I would like the noble Lord to tell me what in his opinion comes under the heading of sport. For instance, I suppose he would say that cricket is not a sport because the keepers of a cricket pitch are receiving money. And what about golf and football—are they sports? Then
462
why should the keepers of those grounds come under this Bill, and not the keepers to whom I have referred? Then take the man in the shooting school. Why is he covered by insurance, while if the person he teaches goes out of the school and takes him on as a keeper doing much harder work, he is disqualified from insurance? You would probably find also that most of those who make their living by poaching are often classed as unemployed and are able to add a little to their rather precarious incomes; while the keeper, who has to be out day and night to try to maintain the law against the poachers, and probably gets his head hammered, receives no reward—he is not insured. It does not seem to be quite fair. There is no finer stock in Britain than the keepers and deer stalkers of Scotland. I heard a celebrated politician before the War say what wonderful people they were. In the War, as I think the noble Lord will admit, there was no class that did better than the gamekeepers and stalkers. All that I am asking is that my proposal may receive the same sympathetic examination as is proposed in the case of gardeners. There is no reason at all why the Preamble should not be altered, provided that the Government are prepared to class these men as agriculturists. They live on and by the land; why should they not be brought in?
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 10, after (" gardener ") insert (" gamekeeper, game watcher, fish keeper, fish watcher, deer stalker, or deer watcher).—(The Duke of Atholl.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I should like to reinforce the plea made by the noble Duke and to urge the Minister to request the Government to give it their most earnest consideration. A great many large estates have been broken up in the last few years and many gamekeepers have found it impossible to get work in their own trade, and equally impossible in any other. It is perfectly true, as I know from personal experience, that in a great many cases the gamekeeper's work consists, not so much of preserving game, but, sometimes to the extent of at least 80 per cent., of keeping down rabbits and other vermin. This class has not been very fairly treated in the past, and it is only right that its interests should be looked after a little more in future.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTBOSE: I appreciate to the full the very fine qualities of the gamekeepers and stalkers referred to in this Amendment. They are the salt of the earth, as I well know, but unfortunately, as I am advised, they cannot really be classed under this Bill as agriculturists, for the simple reason that it has been decided in the High Court that they are employed in domestic service. As the noble Duke well knows, this particular Amendment was put down in another place and after discussion it was ruled out of order. I can assure my noble friend, however, that I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Minister to his remarks. I can only say that this particular Amendment is not within the scope of the Bill or the Title of the Bill, and therefore I am not in a position to accept it.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Is it not a fact that private gardeners come within its scope although they are described as domestic servants?
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: I understand that the gardeners are not so described, provided their case has been examined by the Statutory Committee. But I will convey to my right honourable friend what the noble Duke says with regard to gamekeepers and others, and see whether they can be brought into the same category.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: The noble Lord has told me of what he is advised and I am going to withdraw the Amendment, though I would remind him that even a High Court Judge may make a mistake. When we have a state of things which is working to the detriment of a certain class of people, surely something ought to be done by a Government which has more physical power, if I may so put it, than any Government we have ever had.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: On the point of order taken by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchison, I speak with diffidence because I have not looked up the precedents, but surely the fact that these particular classes of men do not come within the Title of the Bill is not final. Surely there have been cases, I think in another place, and certainly in this, where comparable Amendments were admitted into a Bill and the Title was afterwards changed. I do not wish to go into the merits of the
464
Amendment, but I should have thought it was quite possible for your Lordships to include a class of this sort and then change the Title. There again, I speak with diffidence, but if that were done I doubt whether Mr. Speaker would necessarily hold that such an Amendment must be rejected. It is a matter of looking into precedents, but perhaps before the next stage the point might be considered.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: Far be it from me to cross swords with a man of such experience of these matters as the noble Lord, but there is one thing I might point out. If this Amendment were accepted, and a new class of persons were brought into the Bill, it might upset the financial side. That might be one of the reasons why it was ruled out of order in another place.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to leave out Clause 13. The noble Viscount said: I put down this Amendment for the purpose of pointing out that, such is the state of unemployment among gardeners, if they are included the Fund will become bankrupt. I do not know what evidence is going to be offered to the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee, but I suggest they should call for evidence from the advertisement departments of the gardening papers and the great daily newspapers, the officials of which would doubtless inform them that, when an advertisement is inserted in their papers under a box number, literally hundreds of applications arrive. I know that from my own personal experience, because about six months ago I advertised for a head gardener, and I think I got very nearly 300 applications.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 13.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: No doubt the finance of the Bill will have to be considered when the Statutory Committee examine as to whether or not it is desirable and practicable to bring these gardeners into the scheme. I have no doubt that matter will be closely examined. There is one point I might mention in this connection, and that is that during the six months from May to November there will, in fact, be something like £800,000 subscribed by the people who pay contributions, and, after

465
allowing £100,000 for expenses, £700,000 will be carried forward as against benefit. Therefore there will be a large block of money which will tend to keep the scheme solvent.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I certainly do not press my Amendment because I would not like to risk inflicting another defeat on a fallen foe. I think the noble Lord has answered satisfactorily, and I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Interpretation]:
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: My Amendment to this clause is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 16, leave out lines 16 to 23.—(Lord Hutchison of Montrose.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
First, Second, Third, and Fourth Schedules agreed to.
Fifth Schedule [Consequential and minor Amendments of principal Act]:
LOUD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: These are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 17, leave out lines 14 and l5 and insert (" not to be an excepted employment ")
Page 17, line 29, in the second column leave out lines 29 to 34 and insert (" At the end thereof there shall be inserted the following subsection:
' (5) the following persons shall not be insured under this Act in respect of employment in agriculture, that is to say—

' (a) persons not domiciled in the United Kingdom who are ordinarily resident outside the United Kingdom;

' (b) persons who are, to such extent and in such circumstances as may be prescribed, ordinarily dependent for their livelihood on occupations in agriculture that are not insurable employment;

and if any question arises as to whether any person is by virtue of this subsection not insured in respect of employment in agriculture, the question shall be decided by the Minister subject to the provisions of Section eighty-four of this Act.' ")—(Lord Hutchison of Montrose.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

BRITISH SHIPPING (CONTINUANCE OF SUBSIDY) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

PUBLIC SEWERS (CONTRIBUTIONS BY FRONTAGERS).
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, at this late hour of the evening I will not inflict on your Lordships any long explanation of the Motion that stands in my name. The short history of this is that in 1931 a Private Bill was brought in by the Romford Urban District Council dealing with the question of contributions by frontagers to public sewers. Since then various other Bills have been passed, notably one in regard to Wigan and another in regard to Rugby, and there are several in this Session not yet passed. There has been some doubt as to the best method of dealing with this somewhat complicated question, and, after a considerable amount of discussion with the same Department as my own in another place, we came to the conclusion that the best method would be to refer the question to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament who would go into the whole question and devise the best and fairest means of settling what is a rather complicated and difficult matter. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to consider the provisions of Sections 62 and 64 of the Romford Urban District Council Act, 1931, with respect to contributions by frontagers to the expenses of the construction of public sewers, and to make recommendations as to the circumstances in which, and the conditions upon which, similar provisions should be allowed in future Bills.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to desire their concurrence.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, before the House adjourns, could the noble Viscount give us any information about the proposed course of business for next week?
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. On Monday it is proposed to take the Report stage of the Unemployment Insurance (Agriculture) Bill. On Tuesday there will be the Third Reading of that Bill, and several Orders under the Government of India Act. On Wednesday, as the noble Lord knows, there is a Motion on the Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Snell, and on Thursday there will be a Royal Commission, the Second Reading
468
of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, and, I hope, the Adjournment.
LORD MARLEY: Will Thursday's business be taken in the morning?
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: Yes, I think, for general convenience, that will be so.
LORD MARLEY: I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount.
House adjourned at half-past seven o'clock.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
FISHGUARD AND GOODWICK URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
ILFRACOMBE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, namely:

M. Bath (Chairman),

E. Hardwicke,

L. Boyle (E. Cork and Orrery),

L. Shute (V. Barrington),

L. Basing:

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on
470
Tuesday, the 5th of May next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL. [H.L.]
DOVER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, namely:

E. Effingham,

V. Mersey (Chairman),

L. Abinger,

L. Forteviot,

L. Doverdale:

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday, the 5th of May next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.